Protective Trait-- Underrated?

[Airefuego]

Edit: d'oh double post

 

[Belisar]

What I would really like to see, is a game walkthrough from someone who thinks the trait is weak, using it in what they believe is the best way to use it.

Post one from a ramdom start, I'm sure someone will then show you a shodow with a strong trait.

How many people who are pooh-pooh'ing PRO have effectively utilised Drill IV troops?

Now we are down to the free drill promotion, luring the player on the weakest of the promotion lines, useless against the AI-beloved mounted to boot.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Post one from a ramdom start, I'm sure someone will then show you a shodow with a strong trait.

Unfortunately I'm far from being one of the best players around here, so even if I picked the best traits I would probably still fall behind.

Besides my point was not that a strong trait can't be played better. I'm just trying to say that most players who dismiss Protective quickly probably do so because they are unaware how to best utilise the trait. These players however are probably perfectly capable, experienced and probably very good at using the more mainstream traits.

Now we are down to the free drill promotion, luring the player on the weakest of the promotion lines, useless against the AI-beloved mounted to boot.

That's ok, Protective leaders still have pikemen to use. If they go for engineering, they might have pikes earlier than most leaders. I really don't agree that mounted units expose a weakness in PRO for that reason. Even someone who loves Drill IV as much as I do, would not be foolish enough to rely on those units and use nothing else - especially for countering mounted units.

 

[Belisar]

Besides my point was not that a strong trait can't be played better. I'm just trying to say that most players who dismiss Protective quickly probably do so because they are unaware how to best utilise the trait. These players however are probably perfectly capable, experienced and probably very good at using the more mainstream traits.

Read your first sentence again.
To me this sounds as if we agree that pro is weak
As for the "know how to play" thing, I know what you mean cause I have the same problem when I talk about spi, many players don't know the strength hidden in this trait.
However, the thing with pro is not that there is nothing to leverage, it's just that most other traits give you more in most cases, so it's all about relativity.

That's ok, Protective leaders still have pikemen to use. If they go for engineering, they might have pikes earlier than most leaders. I really don't agree that mounted units expose a weakness in PRO for that reason. Even someone who loves Drill IV as much as I do, would not be foolish enough to rely on those units and use nothing else - especially for countering mounted units.

How high is the percentage of dedicated anti mounted units in your SoD?

 

[UncleJJ]

I'm glad you asked!

Bandobras Took already gave the simple answer, and he is right.

For an explanation of how much xp you earn from battle, see the first post in this thread.

Basically, the xp earned depends on the relative strenths of the two units, factoring in the health of each unit, and all defensive bonuses, promotions and other situational modifiers.

The one thing however, which does not factor in is first strikes.

Also, attacking is worth twice as much xp as defending. If you ever put two equal strength units on flat ground against each other (with no first stikes), each will have 50% odds of winning the battle, but the attacker would earn 4xp if he wins, while the defender would earn only 2xp if he won.

Consider a unit which can get Drill IV. Let's say a longbow. A longbow starts with 1 free first strike, and when he obtains Drill IV, that gives him another 3 guaranteed first strikes and 3 first strike chances.

It brings him to a total of 4-7 first strikes.

Now let's look at a real example.

Suppose we have a defender unit which has no first strikes and full health. Suppose we have two attackers to choose from; One of the attackers is a unit without first strikes (it might be a CR3 maceman for example), the other has 4-7 first strikes (maybe a drill IV longbow or crossbow).

For the unit with no first strikes, these are the ranges of battle odds which would yield, 3xp, 2xp and 1xp respectively.

3xp (50%,78.21%]
2xp (78.21%, 99.12%]
1xp (99.12%, 100%]

For the unit with 4-7 first strikes, the odds that would yield the same xp are:

3xp (83.64%,96.02%]
2xp (96.02%, 99.96%]
1xp (99.96%, 100%]

(lower than 83.64% odds would yield 4xp or more, if you're daring to fight at odds that low!)

As you can see in this example, the Drill IV unit can fight battles at just under 96% odds and take away 3xp. These battles are fairly reasonable to consider as safe. The maceman on the other hand, would need to fight at oods below 78% to expect to earn 3xp.

Now, when the defending unit is injured, these odds can skew even further, making it even easier for the Drill IV unit to take 3xp. But the way it skews can be a bit hard to predict because it depends on "jump points", which I probably should not discuss here.

Also, it might look like the CR3 unit will take away 2xp fairly regularly. However, the reality often is that the CR3 and other promos can put the unit's strength up so much higher he will only take 1xp. This might be considered acceptable because he is also guaranteed a win. But the Drill IV unit can have a very safe fight at 96% odds and take 3xp. That unit could earn xp three times as fast, opening up new promotions much easier than the CR3 unit does, and earning great general points faster than the CR3 units. Finally, after all that attacking, the Drill IV unit is a great multi-purpose unit! It is still perfect for the job of defending cities if necessary. The CR3 unit on the other hand is not going to be useful when not taking cities. But the really cool thing about the Drill IV unit, is that because this unit now has all those first strikes, when it does now start taking promotions which affects its strength etc., it still enjoys that easy xp earning!

EDIT
One thing you must remember is that Drill is all about Drill IV! The Drill IV promotion is almost worth the same as Drill I, II and III all combined. That is why playing as a non-PRO leader makes using the drill line more difficult - for them it's a lot more difficult to get to Drill IV.

This is a nice argument in favour of drill IV and I very much appreciate the faster experience gain and the consequent increase in GG points. I have learned something today. I already knew that drill had the advantage of gaining experience due it not counting towards the strength of the unit but I thought the effect was slight. You have made it clear that the effect can be substantial in the right circumstances. Furthermore, it is true that Protective leaders can use this benefit better than other leaders.

The problem with having too many drill promoted troops is their weakness to the various horse troops with immunity to first strike. HA, knights and cuirassiers get the ability and flanking 2 gives it to cavalry. Obviously this can be mitigated by mixing in troops with other promotions that can counter mounted such as pikemen and gunpowder troops with combat 2 and formation. So if your opponents have iron and horses it would be unwise to rely too heavily on drill promotions, although they can still be a substantial part of the strategy, maybe 30% of non siege troops in the SoD.

---------

Not really. Drill IV comes at 10xp for PRO leaders, which is very easy to get - that's my point.

I argue that the drill promotion line is pretty much not useful if you are not PRO, since it takes 17xp to get to Drill IV (the target promo which makes the drill line worthwhile). Unfortunately, Drill II and III are not the best promotions in the world either, so it's all about getting to Drill IV asap - a lot easier to do when you are only 5xp away and have Drill III, than being 12xp away and only having Drill II. Do you see what I mean?

There is merit in this argument and easier drill 4 is a major plus point in favour of Protective but don't over state the case for drill. It is only a part of the package of benefits.

Personally, I can fit walls and castles, and even CG promotions into my strategy, but these are not the only things that can be utilised.

Ok for you personally, but for me these are by far and away the most important and universally applicable benefits of Protective. The free CG promotion is best single advantage, in my opinion, and means that many CG3 defenders can be build with only 5 exp. The fact that the bashers can't see how to use these significant military advantages is why they underestimate the trait.

If you don't use forts, and don't need to defend cities, then CG is I agree, useless. But if you can be a bit more creative, and use forts in strategic locations (far more important in MP games IMO), then the CG promotions really shine. CG are sort of better in forts than cities anyway, because the 25% fort bonus cannot be bombarded. You can position forts near the path the enemy stack will take, and possibly cause it to take a much more exposed route, or have an easier time taking it down.

Using forts in the BFC of a border city is a major part of my defensive strategy and has won me several games (including non-Protective ones) by decisively defeating a superior invading force. It is an incredible force multiplier, and a fort on a wooded hill is the strongest defence possible in BtS. Several CG3 defenders make such a fort impregnable. Protective is again the best trait for using this defensive ploy. The fort does not even have to be attacked to be useful, as having a place of safety to heal damaged troops and to launch weakening attacks from is a major advantage.

All I wanted to ask is that people forget the walls and castles for a moment. Obviously they still help the trait, but judging it soley on those benefits, is IMO an unfair way to judge the trait, and most people seem to do that (unless for some strange reason they avoid comment on the drill IV promotion).

I disagree with you. We should not forget that walls and castles are important parts of the game. I would argue; if you play most of your games where "walls are useless" (as several people here have posted) then that is a strong indication that you are playing at too low a difficulty level or you have some contrived conditions that means the AI is never a military threat. The opinions of people who play only a restricted set of circumstances are worth less than those who have a broader range of experiences. Many people who classify Protective as weak or the "worst" trait fall into this category of playing the game their own way. There is of course nothing wrong in doing that, players should play to have fun their own way, but then their opinions aren't worth anything to other players. Protective seems to be a victim of this bias more than most traits.

 

[Joshua368]

Using forts in the BFC of a border city is a major part of my defensive strategy and has won me several games (including non-Protective ones) by decisively defeating a superior invading force. It is an incredible force multiplier, and a fort on a wooded hill is the strongest defence possible in BtS. Several CG3 defenders make such a fort impregnable. Protective is again the best trait for using this defensive ploy. The fort does not even have to be attacked to be useful, as having a place of safety to heal damaged troops and to launch weakening attacks from is a major advantage.

It's a nice idea, but in practice I find there are rarely enough chokepoints in maps for this to work, it's all to easy to just go around the fort and it'd take too many forts to reasonably defend to make a strong border. I suppose it could force the invading stack off of defensive terrain though.

The only map I've seen with a regular ammount of chokepoints like this are highlands with clustered peaks (very interesting map by the way) and some watery ones with thin strips of land... though those can sometimes be avoided with boats.

Now if the suggestion of giving forts zones of control would be implemented, that would be a whole other story.

I disagree with you. We should not forget that walls and castles are important parts of the game. I would argue; if you play most of your games where "walls are useless" (as several people here have posted) then that is a strong indication that you are playing at too low a difficulty level or you have some contrived conditions that means the AI is never a military threat. The opinions of people who play only a restricted set of circumstances are worth less than those who have a broader range of experiences. Many people who classify Protective as weak or the "worst" trait fall into this category of playing the game their own way. There is of course nothing wrong in doing that, players should play to have fun their own way, but then their opinions aren't worth anything to other players. Protective seems to be a victim of this bias more than most traits.

This has to be like the dozenth time I've ever heard this phrase: "If you find yourself never needing walls or castles you must not be playing at your proper skill level." And really... what? I get declared by AIs with larger armies than mine moderately frequently in the earlier portion of the game, and never does having my garrisan units cower behind castle walls seem like a good idea.

First of all I'm assuming the your opponent is fighting somewhat intelligently, that is with a large stack with seige. Sometimes the AI doesn't do this, sometimes it does, but for now let's assume it is. With equal forces with seige, the attacker always wins. Collateral damage is simply too powerful. You don't want to just sit still and let your opponent inflict it upon you, you want to use collateral or flanking to weaken and kill him. If Julius comes at me with a stack of praets and cats, I don't want walls and archers, I want axes and catapults. If I do things right I don't want his units to attack my city at all, walls and castles merely bide time as he'll take longer to bombard down the defenses.

Now maybe I am missing something here. I mean after all I myself have never sat still with a large force of archers behind and castle and sat and waited for my opponent to charge. Maybe I'm missing something. However I believe I have seen this strategy in play many times -- It's what the AI does! I have fought many protective AIs in classical or medieval warfare before, and they hole up behind their cheap castles with their cursed protective longbows. But you know what happens? Trebuchets and macemen, using the power of collateral damage, still mow them down just like anyone else. Enough protective civs have fallen to make me really not want to imitate them in my strategy. Yes they are more annoying than regular civs but they still die in the end.

So why the heck do I want to copy the protective AI? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Now another guy said that protective civs can build counter units to fend off stacks or pillaging armies. Well certainly that is true, duh. But any other civ can as well, they get no bonus from it. Aside from the Drill I for gunpowder, you might as well have any other trait! Sure there is a little added security from surprise or ill-prepared attacks but if you actually try to rely on your actual trait against an opponent with seige it will crumble.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Read your first sentence again.
To me this sounds as if we agree that pro is weak
As for the "know how to play" thing, I know what you mean cause I have the same problem when I talk about spi, many players don't know the strength hidden in this trait.
However, the thing with pro is not that there is nothing to leverage, it's just that most other traits give you more in most cases, so it's all about relativity.

Ok

What I would really like to see, is a game walkthrough from someone who thinks the trait is weak, using it in what they believe is the best way to use it. It seems just about every person that dismisses it as a "defensive" trait show a complete lack of understanding where the trait's strengths are.

Post one from a ramdom start, I'm sure someone will then show you a shodow with a strong trait.

Besides my point was not that a strong trait can't be played better. (I assume that you are reading this to mean I admit it is not a strong trait. However, admitting there are other strong traits, and ones which can possibly be played better does not imply the trait is not strong - that's simple logic) I'm just trying to say that most players who dismiss Protective quickly probably do so because they are unaware how to best utilise the trait. These players however are probably perfectly capable, experienced and probably very good at using the more mainstream traits.

emphasised bit is inserted comment

Perhaps the point is too subtle to notice, but I contend it is not the strongest trait, nor is it the weakest trait. I say it is a strong trait but I do not deny the existence of stronger traits.

Just because I can't personally leverage a trait as much as a good player can leverage the trait he thinks is strong, doesn't mean I think PRO is weak.

How high is the percentage of dedicated anti mounted units in your SoD?

How can you expect me to answer that? Obviously it would depend on how many mounted units I expect or know the enemy to have, the type of terrain they need to use, the tactical stituation etc. However, in most stacks, only a few anti-mounted troops may be needed. Obviously if you know your enemy has 30+ cavalry you'll adjust, and frankly, if you have the espionage points the EE is going to give you, you'll be able to see all their units in their cities.


Thanks for your comments UncleJJ,

I disagree with you. We should not forget that walls and castles are important parts of the game. I would argue; if you play most of your games where "walls are useless" (as several people here have posted) then that is a strong indication that you are playing at too low a difficulty level or you have some contrived conditions that means the AI is never a military threat. The opinions of people who play only a restricted set of circumstances are worth less than those who have a broader range of experiences. Many people who classify Protective as weak or the "worst" trait fall into this category of playing the game their own way. There is of course nothing wrong in doing that, players should play to have fun their own way, but then their opinions aren't worth anything to other players. Protective seems to be a victim of this bias more than most traits.

Note I wanted to make people forget castles and walls for a moment. Studying up on ways to use the EE has convinced me that walls and castles at half price (1/3 price if stone is available) is a huge advantage. In this post, I compared the combined cost of a wall and castle with a library. Then a jail with a university. I believe it shows, in a very simple way, at least hints of how you can make great use of the EP. Remember that esp points are effectively even more valuable than beakers, when you consider the very cheap cost of stealing techs.

 

[Bandobras Took]

First of all I'm assuming

I myself have never

I believe

if you actually try to rely on your actual trait against an opponent with siege it will crumble.

I'm not

I have

I know

It won't.

 

[PieceOfMind]

This has to be like the dozenth time I've ever heard this phrase: "If you find yourself never needing walls or castles you must not be playing at your proper skill level." And really... what? I get declared by AIs with larger armies than mine moderately frequently in the earlier portion of the game, and never does having my garrisan units cower behind castle walls seem like a good idea.

If they are garrison units they are better off behind walls than on the field.

Your shock units, or whatever you call your more general force, on the other hand is the force you should be sending out to take on the enemy.

First of all I'm assuming the your opponent is fighting somewhat intelligently, that is with a large stack with seige. Sometimes the AI doesn't do this, sometimes it does, but for now let's assume it is. With equal forces with seige, the attacker always wins. Collateral damage is simply too powerful. You don't want to just sit still and let your opponent inflict it upon you, you want to use collateral or flanking to weaken and kill him. If Julius comes at me with a stack of praets and cats, I don't want walls and archers, I want axes and catapults. If I do things right I don't want his units to attack my city at all, walls and castles merely bide time as he'll take longer to bombard down the defenses.

Obviously you would not wait for the enemy to attack you. You said yourself that having walls (and possibly a castle) is a way to save time. If you had neither, the bombardment is quick and you actually have less time to react to the attack. Keep in mind a wall costs the same as an archer, or less. It costs half the price of a longbow for a PRO leader (I think that's right).

Now maybe I am missing something here. I mean after all I myself have never sat still with a large force of archers behind and castle and sat and waited for my opponent to charge. Maybe I'm missing something.

If a PRO player did that I would laugh. You can't honestly be suggesting you think that's how a PRO player best uses his trait, are you?

However I believe I have seen this strategy in play many times -- It's what the AI does! I have fought many protective AIs in classical or medieval warfare before, and they hole up behind their cheap castles with their cursed protective longbows. But you know what happens? Trebuchets and macemen, using the power of collateral damage, still mow them down just like anyone else. Enough protective civs have fallen to make me really not want to imitate them in my strategy. Yes they are more annoying than regular civs but they still die in the end.

Like I said in an earlier post, for many the negative perception of the PRO trait stems from the way the AI uses the trait. The AI, even the most aggressive ones are mostly pathetic in mounting any sort of effective offense. Just because for once their units in cities seem hard to kill, you make the quick conclusion that that is the best way to utilise the trait.

I don't think there is any other trait where human players have judged it based on how well the AI uses it. Why everyone assumes PRO AIs are using the trait to the fullest absolutely baffles me every time!

So why the heck do I want to copy the protective AI? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

You're right. It does make no sense. But as I said, when has imitating the AI every been a good plan? You'd never make it past noble if you only ever did that.

Now another guy said that protective civs can build counter units to fend off stacks or pillaging armies. Well certainly that is true, duh. But any other civ can as well, they get no bonus from it. Aside from the Drill I for gunpowder, you might as well have any other trait!

What you say is true but it's hardly appropriate to mock them for making that point. The reason they were making that point was because people had claimed PRO is actually weaker because for some reason PRO leaders couldn't build anti-pillagers. Now you think because you read this counter-argument the PRO player was trying to advertise that as a strength over other traits? Whichever person's post you read, I suggest reading it again, and you'll see they were replying to another person that had made an absurd criticism of PRO.

Sure there is a little added security from surprise or ill-prepared attacks but if you actually try to rely on your actual trait against an opponent with seige it will crumble.

You assume that to rely on the trait you have to sit behind walls. This is the standard, narrow way that many people view PRO. It makes about as much sense as arguing that an AGG leader has to only use combat promotions for city attacking because they start with Combat I. It doesn't make sense!

When you find that PRO players build a lot of siege, deal collateral to your stack then bring in some Drill IV units to rack up the xp killing the survivors, you will realise PRO players can play very aggressively. No PRO player ever got very far by sitting behind walls indefinitely, and No PRO player has ever claimed to have done so.

 

[r_rolo1]

I wonder where ppl got the idea that Pro boosted units can only be used in cities.......

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do find PRO the weakest trait but I don't recall saying it was unusable. I was just pointing out the reasons I don't like it: specifically it's weaker early than late, when I BELIEVE the intention was the other way around.

I don't like longbows or xbows offensively. They're sitting ducks to knights and even horse archers, both of which will also damage your siege. Unfortunately, the reason most people favor CR is that it's available on troops with high base strength in their era...drill IV is not . I must admit limited experience with drill IV longbows, though. Can they hit cities with similar power as maces?

Where I start getting use out of protective is later on. I have waded through my share of enemy empires with drill III/IV guys and siege...this is quite effective with rifles and especially infantry as the AI often promotes its cavalry (and everything) poorly and leaves very little useful resistance. I am also a fan of "coastal city looping" which is basically just taking every AI coastal city from the boat in rapid succession ----> the free CG is nice there.

Instant access to counter promos helps too. One more rare but still used tactic for me is to use musket/cannon. lvl 2 PRO muskets can get cover easily, even if drafted. They can get formation too if you build them rather than draft, but pikes are probably better for that.

One thing I never see people talk about is that the drill line is still available for siege while combat is not. Once in a rare while, I notice a field battle where putting drill on cats (I promote right before attacking typically) gives me > 50% odds where I didn't have them before. This is especially true if followed up by shock in the early game . Axes/swords have some difficulty defeating shock cats, and the only way there is drill.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't like longbows or xbows offensively. They're sitting ducks to knights and even horse archers, both of which will also damage your siege. Unfortunately, the reason most people favor CR is that it's available on troops with high base strength in their era...drill IV is not . I must admit limited experience with drill IV longbows, though. Can they hit cities with similar power as maces?

Longbows and crossbows are probably not technically as powerful as maces. But then they're cheaper than macemen as well (longbow50, xbow60, mace70)
However, they can be just as effective after siege units have done collateral damage. One thing about drill units is that you should never attack while not at full health. For units that have promos effecting strength, it is not as important.

The difference, I guess, is that the drill troops serve a more multi-purpose role because they are defending the stack and can do the attacking. It actually makes it easier to change plan on the way. In any case, as a PRO leader I think it's best to make full use of crossbows instead of maces. If your enemy somehow has a crapload of cover promoted troops you might need maces too, but crossbows do the trick as well, at least after siege. Also, if you can make use of the window before people build maces, the crossbows are strong against the swords and axes roaming around. (xbows at machinery and you need archery... maces need both machinery and the expensive civil service).

But TMIT, I know that since you often use CR troops at a point where most would be likely to use more siege, you might have to be prepared to use a bit more siege.

One thing I never see people talk about is that the drill line is still available for siege while combat is not. Once in a rare while, I notice a field battle where putting drill on cats (I promote right before attacking typically) gives me > 50% odds where I didn't have them before. This is especially true if followed up by shock in the early game . Axes/swords have some difficulty defeating shock cats, and the only way there is drill.

I haven't thought much about Drill on siege units (except MGs... Drill 3 or 4 machine guns are damn good). I'm not sure what you meant by the Drill 1 pushing it over 50% odds. Remember that because catapults are units that withdraw, they don't give you battle victory odds. Because of the way retreat odds are included in the displayed odds, it's more confusing.
It'd help more if you could be more specific about the situation you're referring to though.

Unfortunately, keep in mind PRO doesn't benefit siege (including MGs), so the drill promos there are nothing special for PRO leaders.

 

[Sciguy001]

If you ask me, it is the strongest trait, but it is the least useful. Any other trait is so much better in contribution to your economy and I prefere playing diplomatifcaly to avoid wars not started by me

 

[UncleJJ]

It's a nice idea, but in practice I find there are rarely enough chokepoints in maps for this to work, it's all to easy to just go around the fort and it'd take too many forts to reasonably defend to make a strong border. I suppose it could force the invading stack off of defensive terrain though.

The only map I've seen with a regular ammount of chokepoints like this are highlands with clustered peaks (very interesting map by the way) and some watery ones with thin strips of land... though those can sometimes be avoided with boats.

Now if the suggestion of giving forts zones of control would be implemented, that would be a whole other story.

It works well for me on continents maps and anywhere where there is a common border with a superior enemy force. It takes some skill in choosing where to build the fort but with practice of fighting defensive wars you soon get an eye for the terrain. ZoC are unneccessary as the counter attacking forces, using the fort as a base, provide that function.

This has to be like the dozenth time I've ever heard this phrase: "If you find yourself never needing walls or castles you must not be playing at your proper skill level." And really... what? I get declared by AIs with larger armies than mine moderately frequently in the earlier portion of the game, and never does having my garrisan units cower behind castle walls seem like a good idea.

Has it occurred to you that the argument has been advanced a dozen times because it is true? I have not seen it answered convincingly and you've failed here as well. Your first and most egregious mistake was to assume that I was advocating "cowering behind" walls with archers.

Joshua's fantasy ...

I know that your namesake felled the walls of Jericho in 7 days wiki/Battle_of_Jericho by marching around them and blowing some trumpets. But I would not advise doing that to my cities or you might get a nasty surprise. My defenders don't cower.

I very much believe in an active defence of my cities based on the defensive advantages of walls and a Protective garrison. The walls and garrison plus local reinforcements are intended to delay the SoD long enough for my field army to arrive. My field army then uses the advantages of defending a city on my own territory, like faster healing, defensive bonusses from walls or culture and the faster arrival of reinforcements moving along roads.

My experience of fighting defensive wars means that I value walls, just like I do forts, as the base for my counterattacking forces. The fact that you have not experienced these things tells me a lot about the level of difficulty you like to play at. Again I advance my thesis that if you are not put under a serious military threat then you will underestimate the worth of Protective. The very fact that you can contemptuously meet the invaders in the field and destroy their forces with "axes and catapults" is the evidence I need. What do you do if the AI sends an overwhelming force? Start a new game ...

Being Protective doesn't solve this problem of having militarily powerful neighbours but it does make it more manageable in a military sense due to cheaper structures and better defensive troops. I'm sorry you can't see that but it is obvious to me.

 

[Belisar]

I say it is a strong trait but I do not deny the existence of stronger traits.

That's already something, better than the guy that thinks all traits are equal.
However, if I look at the poll, I can see that you still have to convince some more

How can you expect me to answer that? Obviously it would depend on how many mounted units I expect or know the enemy to have, the type of terrain they need to use, the tactical stituation etc.

I asked cause it's just that, very hard to decide.
Too few and your drill guys are sitting ducks. Too many and your army wastes a lot of it's efficiency.
Now if you have some combat promoted, high base-strength units instead of all those drill guys... much more versatile.

 

[UncleJJ]

Unfortunately, keep in mind PRO doesn't benefit siege (including MGs), so the drill promos there are nothing special for PRO leaders.

Protective MGs can be made uber effective by upgrading grenadiers. It is one of my favourite small advantages of Protective. That gets the free Protective promotions and allows CG3 or Guerilla2 or Woodsman3 promotions before upgrading to MG as well a cheaper Drill4 one with bonus CG1.

 

[Joshua368]

Okay, so when not played like the stupid stupid AIs, the Protective trait is to put it simply Aggressive-lite, same idea (stronger units) but Drill instead of Combat. City Garrisan I and the defensive bonuses of walls and castles don't help too much if you're on the offensive, but Drill IV would certainly be useful. (I know there are dozens of drill vs combat threads out there so I won't go into that, just assume they're equal or whatever)

So horray, stronger units. Aggressive and Protective make up the very bottom on the trait totem pole in my opinion expansion and economy traits are just so much better. Slightly stronger armies and counter attacks has nothing to say... cheap courthouses or no anarchy or even faster settlers, so I'll just side with TMIT on that.

Also if you have stone, walls and castles are really cheap no matter what trait you have... so don't worry I build them (well, walls at least) in threatened border cities where they may come in handy. Without stone/protective they aren't too bad but ehhhh I'm a lot less inclined to build them.

The fact that you have not experienced these things tells me a lot about the level of difficulty you like to play at. Again I advance my thesis that if you are not put under a serious military threat then you will underestimate the worth of Protective. The very fact that you can contemptuously meet the invaders in the field and destroy their forces with "axes and catapults" is the evidence I need. What do you do if the AI sends an overwhelming force? Start a new game ...

I didn't really want to bring it up because I didn't think it was relevant, but I play Immortal difficulty. Not quite Deity material yet, but I'm working on it.

I've lost games to underestimating barbs and being unable to expand (crowded terra maps are a bad idea >_>) but not to an overwhelming force. Diplomacy has a lot of do with it (become friends with the big guys!) but sometimes I have lost a border city and have to fight back whipping and building all the troops I can to fend them off.

One recent time it happened was when I got backstabbed by a pleased Julius early... and now that I think about it that game I was Mao. Protective archers and a wall don't really stand up too well to praets... when you lose an initial battle just build up your forces and fight back. Protective helps I guess but really its the cats that save the day. Go give me a trait that boost seige. (charismatic I guess)

 

[Artichoker]

It's a nice idea, but in practice I find there are rarely enough chokepoints in maps for this to work, it's all to easy to just go around the fort and it'd take too many forts to reasonably defend to make a strong border. I suppose it could force the invading stack off of defensive terrain though.

Chokepoints are helpful, but not necessary.

The misconception you have here is that not all of the forts need to be defended simultaneously. It takes only 3 forts to be actively defended in order to stop an invading stack. If the enemy SOD tries to move around the forts, then the defensive stacks can simply move to the side to defend the adjacent fort.

If the defensive forces can achieve a 3-to-1 kill ratio against the attackers, which is quite easy for defensive units boosted by Protective's extra promotions, then manning the multiple forts with multiple stacks will be cost-efficient.

 

[PieceOfMind]

That's already something, better than the guy that thinks all traits are equal.

Yes, there are a great many people to convince, but it is no big deal in the end. Through this thread, I have learned several things about the PRO trait I did not know before, and I know others have learned things as a result of some of mine and other's posts too, so it's all good!

I asked cause it's just that, very hard to decide.
Too few and your drill guys are sitting ducks. Too many and your army wastes a lot of it's efficiency.
Now if you have some combat promoted, high base-strength units instead of all those drill guys... much more versatile.

So what is your point? Can't PRO leaders build high strength units? You claim high base strength, combat promoted units are more versatile... why? I can guarantee you know the Drill IV units are going to be defending your stack a lot better than combat units, assuming you have the good sense to not run around like a cow on flat ground. The Drill IV units are actually very versatile, especially because after Drill IV they don't take long to reach another promotion, making them incredibly strong in their specialisation that they then choose. Keep in mind too the PRO leader can still build combat units just as well as any other leader, except AGG. If your sole point here is that AGG leaders can get better combat promoted troops then you got me. I'm sure that 1 less combat promotion on my unit is going to turn my stack instatly into a far inferior one.

 

[pi-r8]

So what is your point? Can't PRO leaders build high strength units? You claim high base strength, combat promoted units are more versatile... why? I can guarantee you know the Drill IV units are going to be defending your stack a lot better than combat units, assuming you have the good sense to not run around like a cow on flat ground. The Drill IV units are actually very versatile, especially because after Drill IV they don't take long to reach another promotion, making them incredibly strong in their specialisation that they then choose. Keep in mind too the PRO leader can still build combat units just as well as any other leader, except AGG. If your sole point here is that AGG leaders can get better combat promoted troops then you got me. I'm sure that 1 less combat promotion my unit is going to turn my stack instantly into a far inferior one.

His point is that PRO is a waste of a trait. Drill IV isn't really all that good... usually a combat 3 unit can beat the same unit with Drill IV. And, I guess you're just building lots of longbows and Xbows to take advantage of PRO. But, longbows are quite week unless they're defending a city, and Xbows are very situational. Most of the time, you'll just want more mounted/seige/melee, and every time you build one of your precious Drill IV longbows, you're sacrificing a more useful unit.