So why is Phi/Ind forbidden when...

maybe i miss something but fin/phi is pretty bad combo in my opinion.

Fin means lots of cottage to exploit is fully potential and Phi means a lot of farms.
Even if its 2 very good traits, there is no synergy between them in a standard game.
Anyway i agree that Phi/Ind would be a bit overpowered, but not really more than Agr/Chm or some other combo. It would depends on this Civ UB and UU,
coupled with crappy two of them it would be correct, as the indian i think.

( my 2 cents of course ^^ sry for indian lovers )
 
maybe i miss something but fin/phi is pretty bad combo in my opinion.

Fin means lots of cottage to exploit is fully potential and Phi means a lot of farms.
Even if its 2 very good traits, there is no synergy between them in a standard game.

That could be the case if riverside cottages where the only way to benefit from financial, but there is all those coastal tiles (with Colossus literally all water tiles), riverside windmills, and a lot of other things later in the game.

I also don't use farm-everywhere with Philosophical. They get a lot of GPs and you eventually hit the point where you need too many GP points for those farms to make much of a difference anywhere but in the GP farm city. I find Philosophical perfect for a nice SE/CE hybrid economy.
 
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.

Eh, I didn't say it wasn't a good combo, but it doesn't have the crazy synergy of the other ones. Building wonders fast = good. Add to that more money = good and you have a good combo. But as for them working together? If you're getting the tech early, you likely won't need Industrious to build it. The combo is good, but where fin/org, ind/phil, and agg/cha sort of play off each other and amplify their notable strengths,

Oh, and the Incans rock because of good traits, cheesy UU, good UB... Their trait combo alone doesn't do it. You could have Darius of the Khmer and he'd still rock.
 
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.


The difference between financial and non is that you have to build cottages more early to allow your empire/ economy to grow. Either that or find a holy city early on and drop a great prophet in the city to build the shrine and spread the religion like crazy.

Personally i think there are lots of non financial civs to play. perhaps you should post a game on the forums that you have played to 1ad and get peoples opinion on where perhaps your going wrong. The forum is your oyster in terms of knowledge. You could also read through the walk through of games people post on this forum. The information is out there!!
 
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...

Well, they allowed Agg/Char. IMO Phi/Ind is the same degree of overpowering but in a different area. If I use unrestricted leaders and combine Boudica with Augustus Caesar. Now I have Level 2 units that need 25% less XP to promote and combine it with Iron Working rushed Praetorians. You can win the game before the AD era.

Besides, you can easily edit into the XML a leader that uses Phi/Ind traits. Go to the customization forum.
 
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.

You should try a REX/warmonger game as an Organized leader (eg. Julius Caesar). You can focus on production rather than commerce early on and, provided you get COL early enough, your economy will hold up just fine. You can lay down cottages once the initial land grab is over, and play your normal game from there. Or conquer the world with Praets ;)
 
They're basically Cre/Fin/Ind.
Fast wonders, great economy, and every city gets +2 culture per turn because of your granaries.
Not really -- that's like claiming getting a discount on lighthouses is basically having the organized trait. :p The most important parts of creative are the fast first border pop and the huge amount of early hammers it saves you (no monument, half-price library).
 
Before BTS was released I always believed the 3 combinations that wouldn't be in the Expansion would be Fin/Org, Agg/Cha & Ind/Phil because of obviousl reasons, but in the end it was Prot/Org & Cha/Cre that weren't included in BTS probably because of their negative synergy.

I can see Agg/Cha being included, even with all that military power, you need an economy to pay for those units.

Fin/Org has always been powerful since Vanilla Civ with Washington... you can almost play anyway and that combination will assist you greatly.

I think Ind/Phil is a level above both Agg/Cha & Fin/Org is because of Lightbulbing, Build a wonder, Lightbulb the GP to give you acces to build another wonde that will speed up your next GP to lightbulb another tech that gives you access to another wonder. It's a cycle where you will always be at an advantage... eventually this cycle will slow down but by then you'll be so far ahead, you've already won the game with the exception where some rushes while you're wonder spamming.

btw I heard from somewhere that they tested this combination before Civ 4 Vanila was released and they decided to exclude it from the game because it was overpowered, I dunno who was orignally given this combination though, I can only think fo Gandhi because he was originally Spi/Ind in Vanilla then switched to Spi/Phil in WL but can you imagine Ind/Phil with Fast Workers, that's beyond overpowered lmao.
 
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

Well what about EXp/CHa. AFAIK only washington has it. They definantly compound one another in the form of giant cities in teh end game ( more end game GP ) And the ability to play the game pretty much no matter how horrid your start is.

Yes EXP is situational but CHA is not, not unless you are in an all tundra start area that is heh. ANd together the SItuational... is removed from EXP. This start alows you to build larger faster, as well as make huge GP farms as soon as you research media. Not to mention how this trait combo allows you to over come some of the worst starting positions the game throws at you.. to being able to completly exploit the really awesome starts. IMO this is the leader to take if you want the best garuantee that your game is going to go well.

I admit I never tried a Wonder rush, so maybe that would definantly be better than how well exp and cha work together. Closet thing I do to a gp farm, is a early rush to get 3 great scientist and build their special buildings. And of coarse the end game Great engineer and Great Artist farm. But a gp from 4000 bc to 2050 AD.. can't get myself to do it heh.. is it really all that?
 
Well what about Exp/CHa. AFAIK only washington has it. They definantly compound one another in the form of giant cities in teh end game ( more end game GP ) And the ability to play the game pretty much no matter how horrid your start is.
Having 1 or 2 extra pop per city is a benefit, sure, and that benefit scales with the size of your empire (which Ind/Phi does not), but the benefit is nevertheless additive, not multiplicative.

I admit I never tried a Wonder rush, so maybe that would definantly be better than how well exp and cha work together. Closet thing I do to a gp farm, is a early rush to get 3 great scientist and build their special buildings. And of coarse the end game Great engineer and Great Artist farm. But a gp from 4000 bc to 2050 AD.. can't get myself to do it heh.. is it really all that?
If you're building 3 "GP Farms" then you're building zero GP Farms. A GP Farm, by definition, is only one city.

The way the National Epic works, and the way GPP cost progression scales upward the more GP you generate, only one GP Farm is viable.

Wodan
 
The main difference I see between Agg/Char and Ind/Phi is that Civ has many things that limit fast lateral expansion (city, unit upkeep) and so while it is strong, you won't be able to take over the world, just raze/pilliage. However for a hypothetical Ind/Phi all of the growth is vertical with many wonders (and fast forges) being produced in a few (maybe even one) cities. All these wonders will not only alow for explosive growth (settling Great priests/engineers/Merchants to build faster wonders to make more great priests/engineers), but it also gives extra defense via high culture, AND makes OCC and Culture victories Much,Much easier.

The way the National Epic works, and the way GPP cost progression scales upward the more GP you generate, only one GP Farm is viable.

I believe that someone else has done the number crunching (i think it was a strategy article), and a second GP farm, even producing 1/3rd the GPP of the main one still provides useful benefits. I personally use this method, with the second farm producing pure specialists (no/low pollution) - while the first one is hopelessly polluted from all the wonders.

It is the 3rd GP farm that gets pretty iffy.
 
I believe that someone else has done the number crunching (i think it was a strategy article), and a second GP farm, even producing 1/3rd the GPP of the main one still provides useful benefits.
I don't doubt that it does.

However, that doesn't say anything about the relation of the benefit to the alternative.

e.g., if I have $1000 in a bank account drawing 5% interest, and I take $100 and put it in an account at 3.5%, was it a good decision? From a purely numerical standpoint, no. But what you're saying here is "the 3.5% account provided useful benefits". ;)

Of course, having 2 cities allows you to fine tune each city to producing different types of GP. Nevertheless, you'll still have fewer. And, keep in mind we're talking Ind/Phi here anyway, with a GP Farm which is both a wonder farm and a specialist farm, thus you're not fine tuning anyway and you're playing the "GP lottery". This on the theory that ANY GP you can make use of because BtS really gave very strong benefits for all the different types, and filling in with 5-6 golden ages.

Wodan
 
I don't think Phi/Ind is not in the game because it's overpowered. That would mean, if I'm philosophical and have stone and/or marble near my starting city I am totally overpowered (iirc industrious only gives you +50% wonder building and stone/marble/copper/gold give you +100%).
 
I don't think Phi/Ind is not in the game because it's overpowered. That would mean, if I'm philosophical and have stone and/or marble near my starting city I am totally overpowered (iirc industrious only gives you +50% wonder building and stone/marble/copper/gold give you +100%).
The stone/marble/copper benefit only helps on limited #s of wonders, and different ones at that. i.e./e.g., if stone worked on ALL wonders, you might have a point.

Anyway, it's additive. If you were doing a wonder strategy, it would obviously be a good idea to seek out and establish early cities near the resources.

Wodan
 
If you're building 3 "GP Farms" then you're building zero GP Farms. A GP Farm, by definition, is only one city.

The way the National Epic works, and the way GPP cost progression scales upward the more GP you generate, only one GP Farm is viable.

I'm not sure thats true, I did some preliminary math, and so long as your other "GP Cities" are producing ~1/2 as many GPP as the GP Farm they will still be able to output GP's. I believe it will work even at 1/3rd, there is a cutoff somewhere between 1/4 and 1/10th - that I didn't bother doing a proof for.
 
I'm not sure thats true, I did some preliminary math, and so long as your other "GP Cities" are producing ~1/2 as many GPP as the GP Farm they will still be able to output GP's. I believe it will work even at 1/3rd, there is a cutoff somewhere between 1/4 and 1/10th - that I didn't bother doing a proof for.
It's not a question of whether they "can produce GPs". Yes, in many cases they can. However, to do this you are running at a "lower interest rate" (to refer back to my earlier example).

Perhaps "viable" was the wrong word. Perhaps "optimal", as in "surpassing all others in quality" (from dictionary.com).

Wodan
 
@Wodan:
Your "definition" of GP farm is arguable at best. It presumes that a GP Farm must have the National Epic and thus is limited to one. That is like restricting your definition of a military city to one which has the Heroic Epic, which I think you'd agree is in error.

Your interest rate example assumes the ability to assign infinite number of specialists (as well as a zero-sum situation) which does not apply when dealing with specialists (although it does for Wonders). You also assume zero risk for both the 5% and the 3.5% accounts but usually a difference in rate implies a difference in risk. In the GP farm world this risk is that you will get an undesirable great person next. I am unsure how you get the 5-6 golden ages number, though I presume you are speaking in hyperbole. Even with random great people getting the necessary 4-5 unique great persons is quite difficult; more-so if you are using wonders for a portion of the GPP since there is generally a distinct bent toward the kinds of GP your wonders will be generating.

Sometimes quantity > quality (though in the Phi/Ind example that would probably not be the case generally), especially if you cannot generate a super-high number of great people due to food, civic or priority reasons. I would even go as far as to ignore the National Epic if I were to try and maintain specialist GP farms since there is probably no single farm that I want to produce more GP than the others, especially at the risk of getting a great artist.
 
@Wodan:
Your "definition" of GP farm presumes that a GP Farm must have the National Epic and thus is limited to one. That is like restricting your definition of a military city to one which has the Heroic Epic, which I think you'd agree is in error.
Not quite. You're calling a "GP Farm" the same as any old "specialist city", which is not what I would do, myself. What defines a GP Farm is the National Epic, because that's what leverages the resources and provides the most bonus.

Yes, you can have multiple cities making units. That does not mean that each of those cities is your "Military Academy city" or whatever you want to call it. Plain and simple, if you have a limited number of some mechanics (which you do), namely settled generals and the Heroic Epic, etc, then there's only one city which will provide the most bang for the buck.

You can have a second city make units, but those units will take longer (no HE), and will have less XP (no settled generals).

Your interest rate example assumes the ability to assign infinite number of specialists (as well as a zero-sum situation) which does not apply when dealing with specialists
You can assign more specialists than you can possibly feed, even if every tile in your city is a food resource. In real terms, this is equivalent, so YES it does apply.

You also assume zero risk for both the 5% and the 3.5% accounts but usually a difference in rate implies a difference in risk. In the GP farm world this risk is that you will get an undesirable great person next.
Up above in this thread I clearly said that giving a "mixed bag" of GP was part and parcel of the strategy. Some people call this playing the "GP lottery".

I do maintain that there is no such thing as an "undesirable GP," particularly with this strategy. As long as you don't tie the success of your whole game into getting one and only one type of GP (such as doing a multiple religion Shrine strategy), then this isn't an issue.

I am unsure how you get the 5-6 golden ages number, though I presume you are speaking in hyperbole. Even with random great people getting the necessary 4-5 unique great persons is quite difficult; more-so if you are using wonders for a portion of the GPP since there is generally a distinct bent toward the kinds of GP your wonders will be generating.
You are building as many wonders as possible, and thus you do not have a "bent". You already have a mixed type of wonders. And, you can (and should) change your specialists to bias your GP farm toward the type of GP you want at that particular moment.

I would even go as far as to ignore the National Epic if I were to try and maintain specialist GP farms since there is probably no single farm that I want to produce more GP than the others, especially at the risk of getting a great artist.
So you by choice are running multiple bank accounts at 3.5% interest, and voluntarily saying you choose not to have a 5% bank account. That's your choice; all I'm pointing out is that you could be getting 5% instead of only 3.5%.


Let's look at an example with real numbers. Say you have 3 cities. Each of them is running 4 of a different type of specialist. Plus, each of them has built 3 wonders providing that type of GPP. So, each city is generating 4*3 + 3*2 = 18 GPP/turn.

Say you have made 5 GP so far. City 1 will make a GP at 600, city 2 at 700, and city 3 at 800. Right? If all started at the same point (which isn't going to be true, but will give a basis for comparison), then the following are the # of turns for each city to make a GP:
City 1 = 600/18 = 33 turns
City 2 = 700/18 = 39 turns
City 3 = 800/18 = 44 turns

If you had put all that in the same city plus NE, that city would be making 108 GPP/turn. So, following are when the GP would arrive:
1st GP = 600/108 = 6 turns (6 turns)
2nd GP = 700/108 = 6 turns (12 turns)
3rd GP = 800/108 = 7 turns (19 turns)

And, if it waits until turn 44 (like the first example), it could make 3 additional, for a total of 6 GP. Not only that, but you get the GP much earlier (the first one on turn 6 instead of turn 33), which is huge benefit.

So, it's a matter of choosing between 3 GP where you get to pick the type of GP, versus 6 GP where you get a mixed bag.

In addition, the first example also has diminished specialization... i.e., you have to devote 3 cities to doing this. In the second example, those other 2 cities can be doing whatever you want, rather than running merchants, or engineers or whatever, if that is not ideal for that city. In other words, if the only reason that city would be running merchants would be to generate a Great Merchant, then that's a negative of the first example.

(The above both ignore Philo and Phi bonuses, which would be the same in either case.)
 
In my current game, I planned my "GP Farm" to be my National Park city, it's otherwise is unexceptional aside from having decent Production - only one excess Food tile (4). I would be better off, in pure gross numbers, to put the National Epic in my Capital, or even the recently acquired super-high-food capital I captured.

I'll still wind up with 9 bonus Specialists (9 Forested Tiles): ~48GPP w/ +100%, my other cities will produce ~35GPP and down from there.
 
Let's look at an example with real numbers. Say you have 3 cities. Each of them is running 4 of a different type of specialist. Plus, each of them has built 3 wonders providing that type of GPP. So, each city is generating 4*3 + 3*2 = 18 GPP/turn.

...

If you had put all that in the same city plus NE, that city would be making 108 GPP/turn. So, following are when the GP would arrive:
1st GP = 600/108 = 6 turns (6 turns)
2nd GP = 700/108 = 6 turns (12 turns)
3rd GP = 800/108 = 7 turns (19 turns)

How do I assign city 2 and city 3's citizens to be specialists in city 1? And how do I transfer specialist slots and wonders from city 2 and city 3 to city 1?
 
Back
Top Bottom