The most underpowered traits?
- Thread starter player01
- Start date
Bobbtjoe
Emperor
It could be rather useful on always war. Every trait has some stragety it could be used for. IMHO expansive is the worst
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Expansive is consistently useful, game to game, without exception (though sometimes it shines more than others). PRO is not consistently useful game to game, in fact its net contribution is usually minimal...but even PRO is better than nothing. I would trade no other trait for protective most of the time, however.
Weakest for me is Aggressive followed by Protective and Creative.
I don't like military traits. Often enough, the question isn't whether early conquest is feasible without excessive losses, but whether it's economically and diplomatically sound. Maintenance can be a problem, and on high level it's possible that another fast-expanding AI will get more out of an early war than the player. I don't like creating a monster.
For later wars, I'd prefer an economic trait that increases the rewards and gets me the required techs more quickly, or Spiritual to control diplomacy.
I rate PRO a tiny bit above AGG because a) it makes my life a little easier if I have an unfriendly neighbour but not resources b) it's helpful in wearing out an AI in a sitzkrieg c) it has a minor economic application in cheap castles so it's not a total loss if I play peacefully.
CRE I find unimpressive because I don't need no stinking culture. Stonehenge, overlap or slightly modified city placement can eliminate the need. Blocking off an AI works well enough without it. It doesn't give me the same head start the other hammer-saving traits do.
Still, unlike the military traits it's consistently relevant.
I don't like military traits. Often enough, the question isn't whether early conquest is feasible without excessive losses, but whether it's economically and diplomatically sound. Maintenance can be a problem, and on high level it's possible that another fast-expanding AI will get more out of an early war than the player. I don't like creating a monster.
For later wars, I'd prefer an economic trait that increases the rewards and gets me the required techs more quickly, or Spiritual to control diplomacy.
I rate PRO a tiny bit above AGG because a) it makes my life a little easier if I have an unfriendly neighbour but not resources b) it's helpful in wearing out an AI in a sitzkrieg c) it has a minor economic application in cheap castles so it's not a total loss if I play peacefully.
CRE I find unimpressive because I don't need no stinking culture. Stonehenge, overlap or slightly modified city placement can eliminate the need. Blocking off an AI works well enough without it. It doesn't give me the same head start the other hammer-saving traits do.
Still, unlike the military traits it's consistently relevant.
Sportyatuncw06
Warlord
I agree with you about the military traits but on higher levels cre starts to gain usefulness. Not having to build monuments, temples ect to get a border pop allows you to gain resources earlier and build units right away. I never liked it on noble but monarch and above it is quite useful.
Fleme
Obey the Kitty!
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,205
Belittling Exp and right after that Cre? Wow, this forum has really taken a turn for the worse.
Health, or the lack of it is what stops industrialization and vertical growth. Talking early game, I'd rather have a nice size 15 capital working all of it's cottages at 1 AD rather than be stuck with something below 10. Sure, this isn't caused by expansive alone but every little bit helps.
Perhaps even more importantly; the Granary is pretty much the first build and in that the most important one in every city and in those situations hammers are not that plenty so every little bit of boost helps. I'm not saying no to faster workers either.
I can somehow see that people who play below Immortal belittle Cre but when you get to the higher levels landgrab, placing cities where you want instead where you have to and most importantly blocking is so important that you can't waste the time to wait for a monument to be built and borders to pop. And rest assured, you won't be getting Stonehenge either.
What's next, dissing Phi, Fin or Org?
In the big picture, Pro and Imp lose.
Health, or the lack of it is what stops industrialization and vertical growth. Talking early game, I'd rather have a nice size 15 capital working all of it's cottages at 1 AD rather than be stuck with something below 10. Sure, this isn't caused by expansive alone but every little bit helps.
Perhaps even more importantly; the Granary is pretty much the first build and in that the most important one in every city and in those situations hammers are not that plenty so every little bit of boost helps. I'm not saying no to faster workers either.
I can somehow see that people who play below Immortal belittle Cre but when you get to the higher levels landgrab, placing cities where you want instead where you have to and most importantly blocking is so important that you can't waste the time to wait for a monument to be built and borders to pop. And rest assured, you won't be getting Stonehenge either.
What's next, dissing Phi, Fin or Org?
In the big picture, Pro and Imp lose.
@ JFleme: I think it'd reflect more poorly on these forums if people didn't challenge things generally considered to be strong. Or found ways to use things well generally dismissed as weak.
I agree that CRE becomes stronger as the difficulty level increases because the ability to cut a few corners becomes more relevant compared to long-term payoffs. However, I still dislike it on the highest level in the game.
While adjusting placement to not need culture and founding blocking cities you may eventually lose are dirty fixes that may hurt your long-term potential... so is picking CRE as a trait.
I agree that CRE becomes stronger as the difficulty level increases because the ability to cut a few corners becomes more relevant compared to long-term payoffs. However, I still dislike it on the highest level in the game.
While adjusting placement to not need culture and founding blocking cities you may eventually lose are dirty fixes that may hurt your long-term potential... so is picking CRE as a trait.
eireksten
Protective/Organized
Fin is one of the worst traits for me. It lacks in fun
I still haven't won a game I didn't think was fun...
Industrious is pathetic, IMO. I do not usually go for wonders - I might go for perhaps 2 in the whole game depending on circumstance. Even though the 2x forge may be useful on occasion, I would rather accept free Drill I than get a bonus on wonders I seldom produce.
Traits that are considered underpowered are based on the situation. If you go for a cultural victory, IND = FIN in terms of usefulness. Or, if you are warmongering, IMP might be very good for the GGs. But, if you are peacefully expanding, going for a diplo victory, AGG might be one of the worst traits you could have. It depends.
Traits that are considered underpowered are based on the situation. If you go for a cultural victory, IND = FIN in terms of usefulness. Or, if you are warmongering, IMP might be very good for the GGs. But, if you are peacefully expanding, going for a diplo victory, AGG might be one of the worst traits you could have. It depends.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
IND allows a time delayed 50% bonus on converting
into 
(without a resource, this ability generally does not exist for other traits until MUCH later multipliers!), and has the ability to do so from close to game start, if you aren't interested in finishing the wonders.IND also boosts national wonders, which are consistently available, and gold from those can be used as well (build it in multiple cities, finish it in your best/final).
Faster national epic, oxford, heroic epic, etc are important benefits, and you get these from IND consistently.
Cheap forges top it off and are another consistently useful benefit. I'm not going to sell IND as a top trait, but it's objectively not useless and when used correctly is solid.
IND depends heavily on level and playstyle. Up to Immortal it's my favourite trait next to ORG... on Deity I consider it good but not great, in full agreement with TMIT's points.
I suppose many nominations for weak traits will come down to playstyle preferences and being convinced that deviating from those is suboptimal.
I prefer tight city placement with a lot of overlap for resource sharing, as such don't like CRE very much. Other players hate wonders and rate IND low (although I'd say IND can pull its weight even if you build few world wonders).
I suppose many nominations for weak traits will come down to playstyle preferences and being convinced that deviating from those is suboptimal.
I prefer tight city placement with a lot of overlap for resource sharing, as such don't like CRE very much. Other players hate wonders and rate IND low (although I'd say IND can pull its weight even if you build few world wonders).
mariogreymist
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,201
Overall I'd say Agg is the weakest. As has been pointed out, all the traits are useful when properly exploited. Agg and Pro are strong traits for draft armies, to identify a place where they really shine.
As for Exp being weak (yes, that claim is so weak it needs to get pounded on by yet another response): Exp is easily a top tier trait. Workers and granaries are probably the most important building and unit in the game (if you don't count the initial settler). Exp gives a bonus on both. The health bonus is also incredibly helpful, as health caps are commonly exceeded by the end of the classical period for non-Exp leaders.
In fairness, when I played at lower levels, I thought Exp was a wasted trait, as I didn't have the skills to need that extra health when games were still in doubt, or the sense to build enough workers/granaries. Once I learned to build those workers/granaries, I quickly understood why the health bonus was useful.
As for Exp being weak (yes, that claim is so weak it needs to get pounded on by yet another response): Exp is easily a top tier trait. Workers and granaries are probably the most important building and unit in the game (if you don't count the initial settler). Exp gives a bonus on both. The health bonus is also incredibly helpful, as health caps are commonly exceeded by the end of the classical period for non-Exp leaders.
In fairness, when I played at lower levels, I thought Exp was a wasted trait, as I didn't have the skills to need that extra health when games were still in doubt, or the sense to build enough workers/granaries. Once I learned to build those workers/granaries, I quickly understood why the health bonus was useful.
viper_1986_1986
Warlord
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 114
My vote is fin...
It is extra com... but just 1 extra for every land. So yeah it does add up, but not ENOUGH.
I choose spirtual over fin....
The one i like the next least is that one that has happy face from monument... i think its chars?
It is extra com... but just 1 extra for every land. So yeah it does add up, but not ENOUGH.
I choose spirtual over fin....
The one i like the next least is that one that has happy face from monument... i think its chars?
haha viper, hannibal with cha and fin is one of my favourite leaders, despite his uniques kind of sucking.
pro is definitely the one I dislike the most. agg helps much more in the early game for me, with attacking, since not until riflemen (and for that era I often prefer cavalry) does pro do anything for me offensively (and then not very much)
Imp I dont like so much but a recent game with augustus changed my mind, the generals and fast settlers really helped, but generally I find it pretty weak.
agg is also pretty bleh but at least more useful than the above two.
all others I like. pro and agg should get +1 happy from walls and baracks respectively, and imp should get a reduction like org get, but towards distance from city maintenance instead of civics upkeep. or maybe units. Some kind of maintenance discount would balance it and fit in with "imperialistic" in my opinion. Or maybe a bonus from having vassals... just something like that to patch it up a notch.
pro is definitely the one I dislike the most. agg helps much more in the early game for me, with attacking, since not until riflemen (and for that era I often prefer cavalry) does pro do anything for me offensively (and then not very much)
Imp I dont like so much but a recent game with augustus changed my mind, the generals and fast settlers really helped, but generally I find it pretty weak.
agg is also pretty bleh but at least more useful than the above two.
all others I like. pro and agg should get +1 happy from walls and baracks respectively, and imp should get a reduction like org get, but towards distance from city maintenance instead of civics upkeep. or maybe units. Some kind of maintenance discount would balance it and fit in with "imperialistic" in my opinion. Or maybe a bonus from having vassals... just something like that to patch it up a notch.
Fraxander
Chieftain
what about spiritual and org??
Absolute Zero
Settler
What do you mean, not enough? If you cottage spammed all over your empire, you could have 100s of extra commerce.
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
For starters, PRO has to be the most underrated trait ever.
With my defensive nature, and how i can dominate by decimating the opposing "SOD" in multiplayer is breathteaking, and entirely controdicts the cons seen in this forum about its so-called useless advantages known as the utter noobs here.
With my defensive nature, and how i can dominate by decimating the opposing "SOD" in multiplayer is breathteaking, and entirely controdicts the cons seen in this forum about its so-called useless advantages known as the utter noobs here.
rabidveggie
King
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 697
No one has ever won a war by just defending. You want to sit in your city fine by me, I'll just walk around your land and pillage your tiles. Protective is only annoying in computer hands since they just turtle.
Charismatic is kind of bad since monarchy and religions take care of the unhappiness though faster experience is pretty good and really adds up. So I gotta go with the majority and say Imperialistic, unless teamed with organized, Spiritual, since a golden age takes care of big civic changes, and protective as the other bad one.
Charismatic is kind of bad since monarchy and religions take care of the unhappiness though faster experience is pretty good and really adds up. So I gotta go with the majority and say Imperialistic, unless teamed with organized, Spiritual, since a golden age takes care of big civic changes, and protective as the other bad one.
