TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
None of the trait combinations I consider strong is particularly suited to early warfare, so I wouldn't hold that against IND/PHI. If anything, survival considerations point towards the importance of Uniques - Skirmishers will help more than any traits.
Ah, but if that's true it demonstrates more the possibility that IND/PHI fits in as opposed to being too strong.
Given how many trick paths PHI enables when you get a good start, with a discount to Oracle and forges (often Oracled)... possibly. You admittedly don't get the easy sustainability.
Possibly I can accept. I admit the trait combo is very good, I just have serious doubts that it would be materially stronger than other traits consistently.
I don't think IND requries as many concessions in expansion to work well as is commonly believed.
I don't either and consider it underrated in the general sense, but you're looking at a strict set of conditions get oracle ---> GE mids, and hoping AI doesn't beat you to it. Even without that IND can be solid, but I'm not seeing the *overwhelming* strength, I'm just seeing a solid trait combo.
I am not comfortable editing those files yet. I play multiplayer games and need my install to match another and I am not interested in swapping files out or creating a 2nd install simply for this example, of which the answer seemed fairly obvious.
If you don't want to do it that's fine, however you really can't ignore the fact that it doesn't "seem" so obvious after all.
ok. This argument is completely off.
Of course it is. That's because I was copying your argument style and giving a comparably effective example when making that line.
Again, apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
Again, I'm just making another comically irrelevant example that holds equal weight to the one I quoted.
I hope, you will correctly compare apples to apples.
Yes, I'm hoping the other side does this in this argument at some point. Well, Iranon did so but then he's not truly in the "it's OP" camp, but rather in the "obviously it's good" camp which is something else.
In this example, any empire with any leader can chariot rush the AI and capture it's city. Any empire can hook up it's marble and stone and build wonders. The IND leader will do the 1st at the same rate as any other empire, and the 2nd at a faster rate, all other things being equal.
The problem with "examples" like this, is that you don't make an argument. You claim the IND/PHI leader gets the wonders earlier...well that's great. Other civs get courthouses sooner, save 100's of or sooner, or allow more cities captured/expansion without slowing tech too much, during/just after the rush...any of which could end up contributing more than IND/PHI. Actually, IND/PHI is most effective with smaller empires. A successful rush in semi-iso is generally a win regardless, so I'm not sure why you'd even consider it.
I am not suggesting that IND/PHI is the best trait combo ever for all circumstances.
One can win via Immortal rushes, with Praetorians or War Chariots. William V Oranje, Liz and many others do well too. All I am suggesting is that an IND/PHI would be a top tier leader for the area where it is specialized in, which is building wonders and getting GP from those wonders.
Being top tier =/= overpowering. I'm arguing against the trait being overpowered, not against the fact that it would be among the better combos in the game (it would indeed be top tier on deity and solid on immortal...though less useful on lower difficulties). There's a big difference between those two things.
So, the IND/PHI leader has to be on a worse footing like "america, japan, or germany" and not on the same starting point as Gandhi or Liz? It can't be IND/PHI of India or IND/PHI of England? apples to apples my friend, not apples to oranges.
The reason I'm giving it to those civs is because everyone wants to demonstrate the trait combo is "overpowered" to the point that it shouldn't be included in the game. However, if you acknowledge that having crummy uniques would put it on the level of other traits, you acknowledge the overpowered argument is in fact BOGUS. When you combine good traits with amazing UU instead, you get things like Inca. Inca is banned in HoF challenger and gauntlets...there aren't many UU/UB combos you could give PHI/IND that would have more strength than that.
Again, I don't think anyone is saying that IND/PHI is the greatest trait combo and would trump all others in any circumstance.
No, but multiple people are claiming it shouldn't be in the game because it is too strong, especially in past threads but that implication is in this thread too.
You don't really need XML edits of your own, I'm pretty sure mods have been made that add the traits in.
I don't deny it's an excellent trait combo. However, I strongly stand by the claim that it's "overpowered" to be a joke claim, especially because when we try for #'s:
For building wonders; a non-stone/non-marble empire (or 0 bonus) < IND empire (or 50% bonus)< stone&marble (100% bonus) empire < IND empire with stone&marble (150% bonus)
and for generating GP non-PHI < PHI
There still isn't any comparison to what alternative trait combos could do in the same situation.