Protective Trait-- Underrated?

[blitzkrieg1980]

creative is an awesome trait... you basically don't have to build monuments... that is huge early game.

That's all it's good for. Other traits are much better IMO. Every trait can be argued for, however I think CRE is one that returns the least.

 

[Tephros]

That's all it's good for. Other traits are much better IMO. Every trait can be argued for, however I think CRE is one that returns the least.

Creative also doubles production of libraries, theatres and colloseums. Like walls, libraries are cheap, but unlike walls are very useful to have in most cities throughout the game.

Due to theaters, libraries, and the free 2 culture, creative has a significant advantage in keeping/taking control of a tile when a tile has the culture of multiple nations. Quicker cultural production also helps eliminate the "we want to join our motherland" BS.

Theaters and colloseums give small happiness boosts, but are also nice for avoiding war weariness with the cultural slider. My limit to using that is 20% (time to end the war if I need to go above that). The 20% gives +2 happiness on its own, +2 from theater, and +1 from colloseum. I seem to get the sports league quest really often and usually have dye as well.

 

[madscientist]

Now it's Creative Bashing! Well I think it's down there with protective and Imperialistic but definitely has many advantages

1) Free border pops which is very big in the beginning and somewhat later on for captured cities (rather than building a theater, monument, or using an artist under caste).

2) Creative absolutely excels at blocking off very large regions of land from the AI during the critical early expnasion. This is why Cathy is particularly deadly at early exansion.

3) Creative are particularly useful as an SE game (pericles in particular). Cheap libraries means you cna run 2 scientists per city pretty damend fast, and the faster you pump out a GS the better your early techrate!.

4) Fast collesiums and theaters means your entire empire has an enormous source of happiness by adjusting the culture slider to 20% during wars. You can also ignore or delay HR by hitting drama and construction first. In fatc you can ignore every single religious tech until you actually need to get fuedalism.

EDIT: finish post

The main problem with Creative is that it is fairly useless later in the game. However, this happens to other traits such as going for a spacerace win as an agressive or protective leader, Being peaceful as Imperialistic, Or late game war-mongering with Philosphical (do you really need those late game GPs to smash opponents).

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I see. When CRE leader emphasizes their trait via buildings and the such, it really shines on through.

I personally, enjoy seeing the best merits of a trait immediately (or almost immediately). For example, organized requires no buildings to emphasize how awesome it is. It is exaggerated by it's cheap building (courthouse), but it is a powerful trait even without the cheap courthouse. Or charismatic which gives in all cities allowing them to grow larger earlier. You may have to build units to see the other half of the trait shine through, but everyone needs to build units... even peacemongers.

3) Creative are particularly useful as an SE game (pericles in particular). Cheap libraries means you cna run 2 scientists per city pretty damend fast, and the faster you pump out a GS the better your early techrate!.

Cheaper is better, but honestly, it's not all that much faster. I usually end up chopping/whipping the library in new commerce cities anyway. The discount is welcome, but it's not going to give some gigantic edge (like cheap courthouses which are an expensive building in the first place).

And I'm not CRE bashing. I just said that I don't find it particularly useful as compared to the rest of the traits. It's right there with EXP IMO. Cheap workers? Eh, I whip/chop 'em anyway. Health isn't my limiting factor in the early game when population caps are like a sucker punch to the nads.

And you don't like IMP? Cheap workers of EXP are laughable when compared to cheap settlers (which are innately much more expensive). And double GG points? How is that not a nice trait.

But then again, traits are always a matter of personal taste.

What's your favorite trait combo, MadScientist?

 

[madscientist]

I see. When CRE leader emphasizes their trait via buildings and the such, it really shines on through.

I personally, enjoy seeing the best merits of a trait immediately (or almost immediately). For example, organized requires no buildings to emphasize how awesome it is. It is exaggerated by it's cheap building (courthouse), but it is a powerful trait even without the cheap courthouse. Or charismatic which gives in all cities allowing them to grow larger earlier. You may have to build units to see the other half of the trait shine through, but everyone needs to build units... even peacemongers.



Cheaper is better, but honestly, it's not all that much faster. I usually end up chopping/whipping the library in new commerce cities anyway. The discount is welcome, but it's not going to give some gigantic edge (like cheap courthouses which are an expensive building in the first place).

And I'm not CRE bashing. I just said that I don't find it particularly useful as compared to the rest of the traits. It's right there with EXP IMO. Cheap workers? Eh, I whip/chop 'em anyway. Health isn't my limiting factor in the early game when population caps are like a sucker punch to the nads.

And you don't like IMP? Cheap workers of EXP are laughable when compared to cheap settlers (which are innately much more expensive). And double GG points? How is that not a nice trait.

But then again, traits are always a matter of personal taste.

What's your favorite trait combo, MadScientist?

I actually like Imperialistic (heck I like all the traits and have fun with them). But Imperialistic is a weaker trait, down there with protective and maybe creative depending on my mood.

Expansive I have always found a strong second trait to almost every trait. The extra health means nothing early on, but post Assembly line in BTS is makes ALOT of difference. And the fast buildings get you more than health, graneries increase population growth and is needed if your using the whip extensively. HArbors offer great commerce output to trade routes, thus they offer a financial benefit. Fast worker production I agree is soso unless you happen to have a 3 hammer forrested hill to work of settle on a plains hill, then I can build a worker in 24 turns in a new city rather than 30 turns (Marathon speed).

So I still rank the traits as follows

ORG
FIN
AGG
PHIL
IND
SPI
CHAR
EXP
CRE
IMP
PRO

However they are all strong in their own right!

EDIT: OOps added a few missed trait to the ranking!

 

[Bandobras Took]

This doesn't work for me, at least on the levels I play. The AI DoW mechanics regarding power work binary, which means you have to be over their decleration threshold for power to matter, for the warmongers this can be considerable more than their power.
In the first stage of the game where my power is low compared to the AI, the walls won't help me.

Obviously it depends on the opponents. But Protective has a hammer-efficient means of bumping their power graph without having to pay troop maintenance.

My main point, if there is one, is that traits (and civs) in civ are not equally strong/versatile, the logic consequence is that there are stronger and weaker traits and pro is one of the later. This is not a bad thing, can be a good handicap for the human player.

While my main point, if there is one, is that players in civ are not equally strong/versatile with each trait, and the logical consequence of this is that they perceive certain traits to be stronger or weaker. This is not a bad thing, but it is certainly a handicap of a given player.

Of the earliest military techs: archery, bronze working, and animal husbandry - archery is the most useless to research yourself . . . BW and AH do critical things for your economy. Archery, while cheaper, does nothing for your economy, is out of the way, and cannot cost-effectively deal with barbarian pillagers.

This is an example of what I mean. Here is a person who always has Bronze conveniently nearby in every game and can't use Protective Archery units effectively against Barbarian pillagers. Neither of those is a particular flaw of Protective (I've often used Protective Archery units effectively against Barbarian pillagers), yet he still thinks Protective is weak because of this.

It's about opportunity cost. If we're comparing protective to aggressive, then yes, actually. Aggressive will make it so you have barracks earlier, and can build shock axes immediately. This means fewer lost to other axes, immediate and effective stack defense once you start attacking, and more units early in the game when it's most critical. For mounted pillagers it also makes it so that getting formation spears costs half as much exp.

This is another one. While Aggressive can easily get shock axes, there's no way to build them as quickly as Archery units. Assuming you actually have Bronze nearby.

How can walls be leveraged in a game-changing way? They increase your power rating but do nothing for your economy. That's not the case for free civic changes where you're making the most out of each civic you have access to.

Again, he's obviously never had a game where getting a wall quickly meant the difference between winning and losing. I've had games like that, (one notable one where Shaka was across a 7-tile desert from my capitol). He perceives Protective as weak because he's never been attacked by a much stronger power early in the game because he always has Bronze nearby.

Giving up the liberalism race and the free great merchant is a big cost for keeping castles a little longer.

Obviously, he's never had a use for 3-movement roads. Or Pikemen, for that matter. Or an extra trade route in each city. But is this really a weakness of Protective? He's frankly admitted that he always goes for Liberalism and Corporation first, which is at least an admission that he has absolutely no experience whatsoever with whether heading for Engineering early opens up any particular military advantages, let alone whether it opens up any effective combination for a Protective leader.

The weakness (so to speak) isn't the trait; it's the player. If you can call it a weakness at all. Some people run a certain playstyle better than others, but I've never made the mistake of calling a certain trait weak just because I can't use it well.

 

[Belisar]

While my main point, if there is one, is that players in civ are not equally strong/versatile with each trait, and the logical consequence of this is that they perceive certain traits to be stronger or weaker. This is not a bad thing, but it is certainly a handicap of a given player.

And here we certainly disagree. While it is very true that some traits are easier to leverage than others (fin vs. spi would be a perfect example for easy vs. complex) some traits are obviously stronger than others, simple because they boost more important things.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

fin vs. spi would be a perfect example for easy vs. complex

Spiritual is easy for me to leverage. No anarchy and cheap temples? oh yeah

 

[Bandobras Took]

And here we certainly disagree. While it is very true that some traits are easier to leverage than others (fin vs. spi would be a perfect example for easy vs. complex) some traits are obviously stronger than others, simple because they boost more important things.

And yet it's obvious that players disagree over the important things. That is why I mentioned players who are not as versatile with a given trait -- they perceive the exact same things as being important regardless of the trait, map, etc.

 

[Binky123]

Protective is by far, the worst trait, IMO. It's a defensive trait, and CIV IV is all about the offense. Although it's annoying when the computers all have it and I'm warmongering.


I'll agree that there are a few, very specific situations where protective can be useful, but it is just far worse in most situations compared to other traits.

 

[madscientist]

I think sometimes the conflict here has to do with terminaology. Saying Protective is the WORST trait has a negative meaning and says noone likes using it.

Myself I love using protective leaders, as I do all leaders. For this reason I consider Protecitce the "Weakest" trait, not the Worst.

 

[Belisar]

And yet it's obvious that players disagree over the important things. That is why I mentioned players who are not as versatile with a given trait -- they perceive the exact same things as being important regardless of the trait, map, etc.

Create a poll for high level players only and ask a simple 2-answers question, like "do you consider protective beeing a strong or weak trait?"
The fact that a good player can make more from a given situation than a not-so-good player, what does this have to do with the strength of a trait?

And this is not protective-bashing, another misunderstanding, liking or not liking a trait is not identical with seeing it strong or weak.
I'm quite into Imp myself just because it's a fun trait, toying around with a lot of GGs, but I generally consider it 2nd tier, and I bet I'm not alone.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

And this is not protective-bashing, another misunderstanding, liking or not liking a trait is not identical with seeing it strong or weak.

But you wanted to create a polled thread asking high level players whether they thought PRO is strong or weak. Not a poll that says "do you like it?" Saying it's weaker is an opinion.

I wouldn't call it bashing, though.

PRO is better for a lower skill player that plays on the same difficulty as a high level player. The CG and Drill promotions will come in very handy

 

[Skallagrimson]

For me:

STRONG--
Fin (obviously)
Imp (cheap settlers for REX, faster GGs for war)
Cha (happy from monuments, faster promos for units)
Exp (cheap workers, and you always need a LOT of workers)
Org (I tend to run high cost civics in large empires)

MEH--
Cre (REX and border culture wars go better, but still...)
Ind (wonder economies nerf at higher levels)
Spi (always envy it when I don't have it, but feel cheated with it when I do)
Agg (1 promo = two whacks over a barb warrior's head, not a huge bonus)
Pro (useful only on a slim minority of my units)

 

[UncleJJ]

Now it's Creative Bashing! Well I think it's down there with protective and Imperialistic but definitely has many advantages

Anyone that thinks Creative is weak and Protective is weak should give Gilgamesh a try on a Continents map. Those two traits work together really well for him. He plays very differently from other leaders and can Rex aggressively to grab resources and protect them against jealous neighbours. It is classic Passive-Aggressive using culture to project his power.

I am almost disappointed if I get copper with Gilgamesh as that means his excellent UU is available. But if you don't get it then it's no great problem the archers can take the strain. I like to attempt the Oracle-Feudalism slingshot with Gilgamesh (on emperor) and that can give some incredible longbows. That line of research opens up Monarchy and with Vassalage means Gilgamesh can some incredible garrison troops, like CG3 archers On marathon you can whip 2 archers for 1 pop so happiness and defence is solved together.

Then there is the cheap library that reinforces the 2 free culture in areas where there is a cultural problem and at the same time can provide a boost to research and scientist slots. It only costs 2 forests (instead of 5) or a 2 pop whip (with a big overflow).

If you have marble and don't want to try the Oracle-Feudalism, then just research Aethetics and Literature and build the Parthenon and Great Library (probably in separate cities) for a SE type game. Or with ivory just plough through Mathematics and Construction for cats and huffalumps. Or with all those cities and Ziggurats everywhere Alphabet for early spies and try stealing a few cheap techs you missed and an espionage style game. All these many options shelter behind the synergy of the Creative (aggressive cultural push) and Protective (impenetrable defence) trait combo. No other leader is quite as good at that early stage and the rest of the game can be built on the advantage gained.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Point taken on the REX, but sooner or later you have to go on an offensive war. Even with Shaka around you can't rely on defense forever.

 

[UncleJJ]

So I still rank the traits as follows

ORG
FIN
AGG
PHIL
IND
SPI
CHAR
EXP
CRE
IMP
PRO

However they are all strong in their own right!

EDIT: OOps added a few missed trait to the ranking!

Does this ranking really mean much? I don't think it does.

What is important is the combination of traits and how the leader matches the map and game speed. The relative value changes depending on playstyle. It matters hugely whether you like a simple low input game with cottages and cruise to a Spaceship victory or want to emphasise food with a warmonger with masses of micromanagement (whipping and drafting).

Taking your list one would imagine that Lizzy with Financial and Philosophical would be much better than Gilgamesh with Creative and Protective, yet anyone who has played on a continents map knows that is unlikely to be true. Lizzy is quite good on sea heavy maps but she generally underperforms your ranking anywhere else.

Difficulty level makes a huge difference to how valuable a trait is Organised might be strong on Diety but it is a wasted trait for a new player on Settler.

Ranking the leaders, with their UB, UU and starting techs and considering how they do on a particular map type, makes sense, but only when you consider the difficulty and game speed as well.

 

[Tephros]

While my main point, if there is one, is that players in civ are not equally strong/versatile with each trait, and the logical consequence of this is that they perceive certain traits to be stronger or weaker. This is not a bad thing, but it is certainly a handicap of a given player.

Originally Posted by Tephros
Of the earliest military techs: archery, bronze working, and animal husbandry - archery is the most useless to research yourself . . . BW and AH do critical things for your economy. Archery, while cheaper, does nothing for your economy, is out of the way, and cannot cost-effectively deal with barbarian pillagers.

This is an example of what I mean. Here is a person who always has Bronze conveniently nearby in every game and can't use Protective Archery units effectively against Barbarian pillagers. Neither of those is a particular flaw of Protective (I've often used Protective Archery units effectively against Barbarian pillagers), yet he still thinks Protective is weak because of this.

It's just a simple fact - at least on immortal. Your archers cannot defend your flat land outside of cities in a cost-effective way. An archer, fortified on flat land, is not going to be able to reliably defeat axes and swords even at a 1:1 ratio, (though on immortal the barbarians come in pairs or trios, in which case you need mobile defense, which archers are the worst of all at). A single axeman fortified can handle any single unit coming as the barbarians don't use chariots.

And no I don't have "bronze" conveniently nearby all of the time - though that would make chopping the great wall a lot more attractive than building archers. Then try for iron.

It's about opportunity cost. If we're comparing protective to aggressive, then yes, actually. Aggressive will make it so you have barracks earlier, and can build shock axes immediately. This means fewer lost to other axes, immediate and effective stack defense once you start attacking, and more units early in the game when it's most critical. For mounted pillagers it also makes it so that getting formation spears costs half as much exp.

This is another one. While Aggressive can easily get shock axes, there's no way to build them as quickly as Archery units. Assuming you actually have Bronze nearby.

It's copper. And lacking copper is a situation in which I'd actually build an archer. Otherwise not so much. I normally have copper or iron nearby, except on archipelago.

How can walls be leveraged in a game-changing way? They increase your power rating but do nothing for your economy. That's not the case for free civic changes where you're making the most out of each civic you have access to.

Again, he's obviously never had a game where getting a wall quickly meant the difference between winning and losing. I've had games like that, (one notable one where Shaka was across a 7-tile desert from my capitol). He perceives Protective as weak because he's never been attacked by a much stronger power early in the game because he always has Bronze nearby.

That doesn't make sense. If it's a "matter of life and death" you pop rush it and it's one turn either way.

Giving up the liberalism race and the free great merchant is a big cost for keeping castles a little longer.

Obviously, he's never had a use for 3-movement roads. Or Pikemen, for that matter. Or an extra trade route in each city. But is this really a weakness of Protective? He's frankly admitted that he always goes for Liberalism and Corporation first, which is at least an admission that he has absolutely no experience whatsoever with whether heading for Engineering early opens up any particular military advantages, let alone whether it opens up any effective combination for a Protective leader.

I don't see how consistently winning the liberalism race has anything to do with going for engineering early or not. I didn't say I bypassed engineering for liberalism - you just assumed that. I think I always have engineering before liberalism. And I know that engineering is essential once the enemy has longbows or knights. And it's not an extra trade route in each city unless you build a castle in every city. Econ + corporation, however, is two extra trade routes in all cities, granted the civic switch.

A typical order would be: Civil Service, Engineering, Paper traded or stolen, Education, Liberalism, Guilds, Banking, Economics, and Corporation if I don't have the GLH. Though every game is different, that would be the most common sequence. What are you doing? Putting off econ till democracy, further on? I think castles are the only building on the tech screen where I can see it enabled and crossed out on the same screen in the science advisor. Do I build them? Yeah. Do I build them everywhere? No. And econ + corporation are going to be superior unless you're doing EE.

The weakness (so to speak) isn't the trait; it's the player. If you can call it a weakness at all. Some people run a certain playstyle better than others, but I've never made the mistake of calling a certain trait weak just because I can't use it well.

I'm sure there are situations in which any trait or aspect of the game, even protective, can outdo others. But in most situations, it is the weakest. Not worthless, just overall the weakest.

I'm sure I can improve, but unless you're a deity-level player you have no place being all condescending. And even if you were a deity-level player it'd still be rude.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Don't condensend me man

 

[_invy_]

Strange; I find that PRO becomes a lot better on Deity.

Making a competitor waste their production bonuses in a mass suicide against your defenses simply isn't worth the trouble on lower levels; on Deity I don't mind softening up my opponents that way.
If I can't solve the situation with diplomacy, I'd rather remain at war than have my opponent build up in peace to the point they can overwhelm me.

Warmongering diplomacy can create opportunities to take cities for cheap (AIs still rarely get the right mix of siege and cleanup troops... meaning their assaults often stall at a point where you can swoop in and take the prize, even with obsolete units). You usually don't get such help for defence though.
This is another high-level peculiarity - on lower levels my allies are useless and I'd rather do things myself.

In comparison with other military traits: Deity is more likely to see little (planned) war before the Renaissance because it might well be too costly or risky to be practical. PRO is a good insurance on the way to Rifles and a credible boost to your offense once you're there.

I still don't like it, but I mind it far less than I do on lower levels.

I gotta agree with that, higher the level PRO gots more use. You will probably get attacked and its very sweet to let AI suicides on your walls and uber defenders.. then you can gather your stack and counterattack.
Don't tell me Immortal and Diety AIs won't reach next to your walls , especially early-mid game.