Point of Information: Organized Trait doesn't cut City Maintenance Upkeep by 50%

[fornost]

Why would your opponent tech to axes or swords and then not build any? I think in general assuming your opponent is an idiot is most likely a bad strategy.

The point i was trying to get at was that if you were being choked and had bronzeworking and a higher tech rate than your opponents, Your lead in tech would be useless.

At most I'll need two fresh axes to take that one out, either way one of my axemen will have 5 exp after this exchange and getting Shock will henceforth give that one a great advantage.

You're also assuming that you have had the time to build those 2 axemen when your opponent only had the time to build one? Or that your opponents would be spread out? If i was your opponent, i would at least take a forested/hilly approach to your city to see what you have instead of jumping right in. And if you're defending your resources, then thats another axemen. Thats 3 to my 2, plus i'm assuming you have some other defensive units in your city, something that would not be possible that early in the game.

 

[fornost]

And all of that is only possible if you know exactly what the other player is going to do...which is not plausible. In theory, your ideas sound alot better than they would actually hold up in a game.

 

[Oggums]

He's building those axes with all that bonus production he got out of his cottaged flood plains.

 

[BlackMage]

Solution to the Financial versus Organized debate?

Play as Washington. Fin/Org.

 

[Seven05]

It's funny really, like the damn battery powerd bunny, it just keeps going, and going.

I play with random Civs and have come to the conclusion that no one trait is better than another. I used to think Creative was worthless until I got "stuck" with Fredrick. Suddenly I realized I didn't need to build any useless cultural buildings when I first founded a city and if I didn't get an early religion spread into my lands it didn't really bother me. Other than that my overall strategy didn't change, if anything it was enhanced by being able to skip things like theatres until I needed them for the happiness bonuses. Spiritual was another trait I used to avoid until I had the chance to play a game where I had no anarchy at all and could switch civics for any reason I wanted. There's something nice about being able to switch to Vassalage or Theocracy every few turns just before your production cities spit out a new unit or two and then switch back while you're working on buildings. Financial isn't bad, neither is organized, but I honestly can't say thet either (or even both in the case of Washington) has had as severe of an impact on the game as some people would lead you to believe. Just because you're not financial doesn't mean you won't make any money off of cottages and not being organized doesn't mean you can't exapand with impunity.

Maybe I need to stop being so flexible and adaptive so I can get myself into the mindset that one trait is better than another, maybe that will help me with my addiction since the game would obviously get pretty boring afterwards.

 

[naterator]

organized shines when state property is introduced. if you've pushed your borders far enough, you'll learn new techs at an alarming rate once the maintainance costs from distance dissapear.

 

[Smirk]

After reading this, I don't think words will ever get the point across to you. You need to experience what really happens in a game against a competant player. You will not be "overjoyed."

Yeah so this mystical competant player can somehow magic up more units than a person that is solvent and has more cities that were laid out faster?


Its not an advantage unless you can produce more units and cities than your opponent. I am not saying to cottage spam for a high tech rate as that only works versus the AI and novices. I am saying that you can support an otherwise normal early MP game plan and step up the pace a bit if you can skillfully place cottages to offset the maintenance costs.

Getting a second and third city out as quickly as you can chop is in general tripling your growth and production. If each of those cities 'sacrifice' some food by using a cottage and then can support a few more cities that sacrifice is recouped. Not to mention the increased production. Additionally, the original cities could sacrifice hammers instead and not limit growth but achieve the same effect.

An additional bonus is that the more cities you place the more forests you have access to and the higher yield you'll get from them, if otherwise you would go well outside your boundary to chop.



I'm not saying this is the end all strategy, what I am saying is its an effective use for financial civs and not reproducible with any other. Other civs naturally bring other things to the table but thats all another topic.

 

[Oggums]

Yeah so this mystical competant player can somehow magic up more units than a person that is solvent and has more cities that were laid out faster?

Nope. He just uses his units properly.

You seem to think every pillager is an idiot, sending them one at a time to sit on your open grasslands.

 

[fornost]

Financial isn't bad, neither is organized, but I honestly can't say thet either (or even both in the case of Washington) has had as severe of an impact on the game as some people would lead you to believe. Just because you're not financial doesn't mean you won't make any money off of cottages and not being organized doesn't mean you can't exapand with impunity.

Thats exactly what i was trying to do. Show that there is no ultimate trait and no underpowered trait in this game. I was just trying to let people know that financial is not the ultimate trait, and organized is not below par with any of the others, so that people would not just overlook organized leaders as having a weakness, and run to the financial leaders every time.

Maybe I need to stop being so flexible and adaptive so I can get myself into the mindset that one trait is better than another, maybe that will help me with my addiction since the game would obviously get pretty boring afterwards.

Me personally favouring the organized trait (not saying that it's better, just saying that i like it better) isn't being unadaptive. Its just saying that I like to play the type of game while adapting to the organized trait better than i do adapting to a financial or creative leader. I obviously still play plenty with both of these traits, as mixing it up now and again is good, but having a favourite style of game doesnt make the game any less exciting as i can say from experience.

 

[Oggums]

It's only the Financial-fanatics who believe there's only one best trait for everything.

We Organized folk also recognize the strong points of Financial, as well other traits.

I always play random leaders, myself.