Spiritual Trait

[JLH Fans]

Well,as far as I am concerned,this trait is too weak
Just look the other traits,most of them give U an advantage to build 2 buildings 50% chaeper.
So I think spiritual should have build not only temples but monasteryes 50% cheaper in order to be competitive trait.
I am looking forward to your opinions.

 

[drkodos]

I thinks it is a fairly strong trait when used properly. In late game, when production, commerce, and gold levels are high, not going into anarchy on civics change is pivotal.

 

[CivDude86]

Dunno about you but I see 7 religons and 7 cheaper temples. Plus I love switching between peace time and war time civics like that and you can switch religons to gain up +5 in diplo points (from -4 to +1) to help sweaten a deal.

 

[JLH Fans]

I still think that fin/org/phi all far better than spi trait.
Okay...at the late of the game...But if U usually play multiplayer,there are only a very few games which last so long even at continents.

 

[MrCynical]

Well bear in mind that you will often be building multiple temples in a city. You could in theory build up to 7 in a city, though personally I find the average is nearer 2 or 3. The building discount is therefore well up to standard, and extending it to include monasteries (again, possibly up to 7 of them) would be very excessive.

The lack of anarchy is very much a matter of taste, but with civic micromanagement is useful. I wouldn't rank spiritual as a top tier trait, but it's a solid middle of the range trait.

 

[PMabey]

spiritual is far from being the weakest trait. if you want to improve a trait then improve creative or expansive

 

[Pogel]

The real power of spiritual is in being able to change civics with no anarchy. The cheap temples are a bonus on top of that. Every turn of anarchy is a wasted turn for your economy and science and, even if you don't change civics more often than you would as a non-spiritual, that can give a significant benefit on its own.

You can further maximize the trait by switching more often, e.g.

a) switching to vassalage/theocracy when building units and then to OR/Bureaucracy when building infrastructure

b) switching to nationhood to draft a unit (or two) in each city shortly after gaining a key military tech (e.g. Rifling) and then switching back again when its done.

c) switching between serfdom & slavery when developing your infrastructure. Queue up buildings ready for the whip, switch to slavery & whip and then switch back to serfdom for the worker boost. Serfdom is rarely used in a non-spiritual world as it's benefits aren't great enough to warrant the cost of the switch out of slavery, but a spiritualist can exploit it better (especially beneficial with India as it complements the fast worker).

d) Freely switching between mercantilism and free market depending on availablilty of trade (e.g. open borders agreements) - mercantilism can be more profitable in wartime if trade routes get closed off.

Spiritual may not be as strong as financial, and it takes more effort to fully exploit it, but it's a very nice trait if used well.

The cheap temples are nice. I'd rather have cheap temples than cheap theatres & colliseums or walls & castles, for instance. Cheap temples are nice early bonus (obviously depending on an early religion) as they give you both border pops and an extra happy face, allowing you to grow your economy - an extra cottage being worked early on.

 

[acidsatyr]

No, spiritual is stronger than financial in the hands of an experienced player

 

[yavoon]

spiritual is down w/ all the normal traits, spiritual, industrious, philosophical, all about the same.

nowhere the power of financial/organized/charismatic, but whatever.

 

[acidsatyr]

Well, that's personall preference and and individual limitations in understanding the mechanics of the game.
Personally i hold Philo. and Spritual to be much more powerfull (if not the two most powefrull traist in the game together with Aggressive) than both financial and organized and especially charismatic. New traits suck majorly. But, whatever.

 

[yavoon]

Well, that's personall preference and and individual limitations in understanding the mechanics of the game.
Personally i hold Philo. and Spritual to be much more powerfull (if not the two most powefrull traist in the game together with Aggressive) than both financial and organized and especially charismatic. New traits suck majorly. But, whatever.

weren't u the person who didnt like slavery too? being cute w/ a trait does not mean its better than other traits. there are lotsa cute things u can do w/ spiritual, it doesn't end in its being some uber trait.

 

[angeleyes]

I love spiritual cause i play for fun and anarchy is annoying and switching between civics is fun and very strong.

 

[acidsatyr]

weren't u the person who didnt like slavery too? being cute w/ a trait does not mean its better than other traits. there are lotsa cute things u can do w/ spiritual, it doesn't end in its being some uber trait.

I can't recall i ever said i didn't like slavery its one of the best civics in the game and i suggest you read my post again as i only said that it's a matter of personall preference so yes i personally think philo and spiritual are two gretest triats along with aggressive.

 

[yavoon]

I can't recall i ever said i didn't like slavery its one of the best civics in the game and i suggest you read my post again as i only said that it's a matter of personall preference so yes i personally think philo and spiritual are two gretest triats along with aggressive.

perhaps that was someone else(I was refering to another thread). and it is most definitely not a matter of personal preference, strategy games are not a matter of personal preference.

 

[acidsatyr]

So, are you suggesting that, at this point, Civ as a strategy game is predetermened to have certain traits, like financial and charismatic , as the most powerfull, and all other are simply not match for them? Because you said its not a matter of preference.

 

[yavoon]

So, are you suggesting that, at this point, Civ as a strategy game is predetermened to have certain traits, like financial and charismatic , as the most powerfull, and all other are simply not match for them? Because you said its not a matter of preference.

no, there is argument to be had, but it is not a matter of personal preference.

 

[acidsatyr]

But, what is the point of argument in your case, if you believe that there is only one definite answer to the question?

 

[yavoon]

But, what is the point of argument in your case, if you believe that there is only one definite answer to the question?

haha u are confusing my stance. my stance is u can argue, but u have to bring substantiative strategic arguments. and saying things like personal preference is to me a sign that u merely want to hold ur opinion w/o having to back it up. I've run into numerous personal preference ppl on this forum, and they universally lack an understanding of ideas like optimization and critical thinking.

maybe ur different, I dont know. but my guess is if u think a strategy game is not determined by the figuring out of strategies and comparing of efficacy, in favor of ideas like "hey man its all personal preference." then I have my doubts.

 

[acidsatyr]

Ok I see what you meant with that sentence.

I can compare a game of Civ to a game of Chess. In its pure mathematical form, the game of chess, I believe, can be wholly calculated from the first move, even thought computers today lack power to do this. The game of Civ is only different in the sense that you are not given all the information at the beginning.
I don't have an intention to make an essay why I think some traits are better than others (to me, that is), and frankly, to the most experienced players, it don't matter what traits they are given. The game has its own strategic backbone independent of particular's civs traits. And because this is so I believe traits are only a matter of personal preference and not an integral part of the whole win-strategy, if you get my stance.
It's like arguing why some top chess players prefer particular opening over the other, and if one is better over the other. In the right hands any opening is a perfect one.

 

[yavoon]

Ok I see what you meant with that sentence.

I can compare a game of Civ to a game of Chess. In its pure mathematical form, the game of chess, I believe, can be wholly calculated from the first move, even thought computers today lack power to do this. The game of Civ is only different in the sense that you are not given all the information at the beginning.
I don't have an intention to make an essay why I think some traits are better than others (to me, that is), and frankly, to the most experienced players, it don't matter what traits they are given. The game has its own strategic backbone independent of particular's civs traits. And because this is so I believe traits are only a matter of personal preference and not an integral part of the whole win-strategy, if you get my stance.
It's like arguing why some top chess players prefer particular opening over the other, and if one is better over the other. In the right hands any opening is a perfect one.

yah I dont want to hijack the thread, but u basically contradict urself by claiming that chess is mathematically solvable then claiming that any opening is a "perfect one."

u need to reconcile ur actual understanding of concepts.

also u claim that certain traits are "far better" then other traits earlier in the thread, now u claim that traits "make no significant difference." u need to step back and figure out what u do and don't believe.