So why is Phi/Ind forbidden when...

[NintendoTogepi]

...Industrious/Financial, Philosophical/Financial and Aggressive/Charismatic are allowed? They're just as if not more forbidden, IMO.

I think either Japan or Arabia deserves to get a Philosophical/Industrious leader.

Perhaps Meiji for Japan?

 

[Wodan]

Because it's not so much having traits that compliment each other, as two traits that compound each other in a specific area that the developers didn't want to do.

It's inarguable that a GP farm is necessary to get the most GP in a game. Sure, you can have GP producing cities in parallel in the early game, but soon enough they outstrip each other.

There are two main ways to have a GP farm. A wonder farm and a specialist farm.

Spoiler :

Editorial: Most people don't really like doing a wonder farm because they are against the idea of having mixed types of GP popping up. But, with BtS, it really benefits you to have a mixed bag of GP because they all have strong uses.

Anyway, what happens when you put a wonder farm and a specialist farm together in the same city? Plus you build Parthenon and run Pacifism.

Mad GP popping out like rabbits.

Wodan

 

[EweezE]

If Ind/Phi were available I'd use it almost exclusively. The Dev Team could have found a way to balance it somehow... (i.e. very weak UB/No UU/start with no warrior/scout only settler) I don't think it's happening though man. I already asked about this trait combo. Here's to hoping they give us one more expansion pack though.

 

[Genv [FP]]

Because it would break the game.

 

[Balderstrom]

@EweezE : I hope they focus on CIV 5, and that it takes the game into unknown territory. Off the top of my head:

• Able to zoom into any Tile so that tile takes up the whole screen.
  • Cities that you can see spread across the screen, with citizens going about tasks.
• Some other mechanic aside from the BFC.

CIV IV is great, no doubt. But almost all the threads that discuss CIV V - primarily talk about 4 things.

1. Bring back feature X from CIV 1,2,3.
2. Fix/Change Feature Y in CIV IV
3. More Leaders/CIVs.
4. Better AI / Trade / Diplomacy.

Thats a pretty limited view imho. All of that could fairly easily be done with a mod or expansion pack. I truely hope Firaxis is focused on something far more grand than that.

@ OP: As Geny [FP] says, it would definitely break the game in countless ways.

 

[EweezE]

@EweezE : I hope they focus on CIV 5, and that it takes the game into unknown territory. Off the top of my head:

• Able to zoom into any Tile so that tile takes up the whole screen.
  • Cities that you can see spread across the screen, with citizens going about tasks.
• Some other mechanic aside from the BFC.

CIV IV is great, no doubt. But almost all the threads that discuss CIV V - primarily talk about 4 things.

1. Bring back feature X from CIV 1,2,3.
2. Fix/Change Feature Y in CIV IV
3. More Leaders/CIVs.
4. Better AI / Trade / Diplomacy.

Thats a pretty limited view imho. All of that could fairly easily be done with a mod or expansion pack. I truely hope Firaxis is focused on something far more grand than that.

I see what you're saying and agree. But if they were inclined to do one more expansion pack, surely it wouldn't involve the whole Dev Team. I mean if all they were doing was filling in the Civs with new leaders and adding new Civs. Maybe a few changes that they've all agreed on from their own custom games.. idk what would be in the pack. I just know I'd buy it .


on topic: The closest thing we are going to get to Ind/Phi is playing as a Philosophical leader and hooking up marble/stone.

 

[NintendoTogepi]

Because it would break the game.

How? I don't see it.

I can GE rush Shwedagon Paya and use Pacifism as a Industrious leader at like turn 100, so does that break the game too?

 

[Balderstrom]

@ NT: Other civics compliment each other, or they counter each other and open up options in different directions. The IND/PHI traits specifically compound each other. IND is a highly valued trait, PHI is a highly valued trait. I believe CHA and FIN are highly valued as well. Other traits available tend to be of a more restricted/narrow use/value.

When you mix two highly valued traits together, they make an overwhelming combination that doesn't even come close to others in terms of value and application.

 

[Genv [FP]]

How? I don't see it.

I can GE rush Shwedagon Paya and use Pacifism as a Industrious leader at like turn 100, so does that break the game too?

The Phi trait means that you get your first GP twice as fast. That's the equivalent of building every wonder twice.

 

[Polobo]

How? I don't see it.

I can GE rush Shwedagon Paya and use Pacifism as a Industrious leader at like turn 100, so does that break the game too?

Lets see:

You built the very expensive pyramids and/or teched metal casting and ran an engineer for a while.

You researched Aesthetics.

You are paying double in upkeep for every unit you produce (there abouts).

You burned your first GE on a Wonder and now all subsequent GPeople will take longer to get.

You had to actually have a religion in the city where you are building the wonders; hopefully a neighbor got one 'cause I doubt you did all the above and still managed to found a religion.

OR

You are IND/PHI and can ignore all the above in order to get the same benefit...

 

[PieceOfMind]

If Ind/Phi were available I'd use it almost exclusively. The Dev Team could have found a way to balance it somehow... (i.e. very weak UB/No UU/start with no warrior/scout only settler) I don't think it's happening though man. I already asked about this trait combo. Here's to hoping they give us one more expansion pack though.

I don't find this to be anywhere near a satisfactory solution. I think it is a bad idea to give overpowered trait combos and justify them by giving the civs poor UUs and UBs. Firstly, what would happen when you have unrestricted leaders? Everyone would cherry pick the uber trait comobos with the best UUs and UBs. IMO the traits themselves are all fairly balanced. When I pick civs/leaders these days I typically consider the strengths of each civ (UB, UU and starting techs) far more than their traits.

Secondly, even with no UU and no UB whatsoever the Phi/Ind trait combo is potentially overpowered. (This would be an exception to my believing the traits are all balanced).

Having a civ start with no warrior or scout is a pretty weird suggestion IMO.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

on topic: The closest thing we are going to get to Ind/Phi is playing as a Philosophical leader and hooking up marble/stone.

Or Augustus with Parthenon & forum (even better with marble/stone).

 

[AfterShafter]

What's so great about fin/ind?

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Financial means you get the tech early and industrious means you can build the wonder while everyone else is still researching the prerequisite tech. Its why I hate the Inca so very very much.

 

[NintendoTogepi]

Financial means you get the tech early and industrious means you can build the wonder while everyone else is still researching the prerequisite tech. Its why I hate the Inca so very very much.

Yeah, that, and with the great UU, Inca is WAY overpowered. I'm really, really surprised they let it go by beta testing.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Inca really is overpowered.
They're basically Cre/Fin/Ind.
Fast wonders, great economy, and every city gets +2 culture per turn because of your granaries.

I say make a phi/ind leader, but give him to a civ that has a lame UU and UB.
Like Mongolia.

 

[JujuLautre]

I don't care about overpowering or not. After all, we're playing mostly a SP game, and Civ is all about getting the most of your abilities in the correct situation.

Even if Quechuas rocks more often, I'm sure than Navy Seals are overpowered in other situations

 

[Gumbolt]

I think the Ai with ind/phil would be silly. The AI knows how to make good GP farms and build wonders already. That would make one crazy GP farm. I am guessing the Ai would continually be in a golden age each lasting 12 turns with the right wonder.

I dont see why people would want to play a game if they only played with one civ that they knew would over power the AI every time. Wheres the challenge??

On a multiplayer game these combo would simply be too overpowering for one player.

A good player will learn to adapt his game for any leader.

For me i cant remember last time i played the Roman. I still think it should have been a strength 7 pret. Lets not go back to that debate though.

 

[r_rolo1]

I have some words for Nintendo:

Ind/Phi OCC

 

[The Almighty dF]

I think the Ai with ind/phil would be silly. The AI knows how to make good GP farms and build wonders already. That would make one crazy GP farm. I am guessing the Ai would continually be in a golden age each lasting 12 turns with the right wonder.

I dont see why people would want to play a game if they only played with one civ that they knew would over power the AI every time. Wheres the challenge??

On a multiplayer game these combo would simply be too overpowering for one player.

A good player will learn to adapt his game for any leader.

For me i cant remember last time i played the Roman. I still think it should have been a strength 7 pret. Lets not go back to that debate though.

I only play with certain leaders because I can only play certain strategies.
In fact, I don't play as anyone who isn't either Fin or Phi, really.
I just don't really know how to play as the other leaders right. Which sucks because I'd like to learn to get good at China, Egypt, Rome, and... >.> Napoleon or De Gaulle of France.