Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by Hesha, Dec 13, 2019.
Imperialistic has grown on me a bit recently as a trait, but still depends on other factors.
Obviously this post refers to Single Player so I am just being silly and stating this for completeness but... Gallic Warriors controlled by humans are one of the strongest units. Guerrilla II means on average they might as fast as chariots and horse archers. Threaten multiple cities out of nowhere. Except they get terrain defensive bonus when you try to fight them in the field, which makes them even better than Keshiks. And iron working is a more important tech than horseback riding.
I like IMP since it stops me crying when I have a double plains cow start.
I hate to have SPI when the second trait is not strong either. So I remember terrible games with Saladin, Monty and especially Brennus (CHA is rather weak for me, and also very bad starting techs). Isabella can also be very tricky cause of the starting techs (and EXP being a trait that loses very soon of its value), but she has very good UU/UB.
So for me, worst guys are Brennus/Boudica, Saladin, Monty, and also Mao (unless you find a good way to leverage the UU).
If you count all the different factors, I would vote for Arabia or Celtia as worst Civ.
Any leader/civ that starts without Fishing!
You still can learn much about traits, young Tobiyoda
I think Spi is pretty great. But it's not a passive bonus like FIN or IND. It's a bit like PHI in the way that you have to actively play the trait, not just do your usual shtick and expect it to pay off. Using it to regularly change civics is great and makes you incredibly flexible. Then you can swap religions before important trades. I think that makes it one of the better traits.
Especially when you're not super good at the game yet, because I, for instance, often catch myself delaying necessary civic changes waiting for a golden age...
hmmm... SPI is certainly great for a very late game, when turns of Anarchy keep on getting longer and longer and you have to stay flexible in a very tight victory race.
I don't mind playing actively, and I do that all the time. In a forum, we just outline general ideas and convictions, but in reality they go to hell quite often.
But I feel the exact opposite, being SPI is a passive thing for me because you can switch whenever you think it will benefit you. Being not SPI on the other hand requires good planning of civic switches (double switch, golden age...) and that can be done without bigger harm.
Well, I am also ready to learn. What is so great about SPI, a trait, that comes into play only 7-8 times during the whole game? (okay, and the temples). Does it really hurt so much when you are in anarchy 10 turns out of 500? There must be something about it, because Mansa is such a strong AI leader. Hatchy, Gandhi, Isabella are also strong in many games. But except Mansa, all these guys found at least one early religion, and then you can really leverage the SPI trait. The human player on the other hand avoids religion for quite a while & does not build temples before AP. I see that SPI in the hand of an AI can be good.
My impression is, when someone plays a SPI leader on video, he purposely switches in and out all the time just to show what is possible. But is it really needed. I mean, when an AI asks you to adopt civic XY, would you do that even if you don't want that civic? In a normal game, the answer is probably no. Being SPI, you can do that and switch back, but it is very unlikely that the little boost to the relationship will decide the game.
Same for religion. Switching religion just for one trade, well... this is a very theoretical construct that one could belief after too many of Lain's video introductions. In my understanding, a religion has other purposes. Either it benefits you directly (then you adopt the religion that is present in the most relevant cities) or it keeps the crowd resp. a dangerous warmonger happy (then you want to adopt their/his religion. Also, in a GA, you can rethink your decision and adapt to the a new situation. I have really played and seen many games, where staying in the same religion throughout the whole game was perfectly fine and brought all the benefits that you can expect from a religion. And to please someone short-term is also very short-sighted. Maybe in that same turn, the warmonger on your borders drops to cautious and starts plotting on you.
A completely different approach to that: On IMM, it is not unusual to build that wonder for 12T-Golden Ages (Mausallos?) when you have marble and that can replace quite decently SPI trait (of course only partly). You make your first switch in the beginning of a GA, you can use that for quite a while and in the 12th turn you switch again. In at least 5 of my games, this has really boosted a lot. So staying 12T in caste + pacif. in order to produce some GP guys and then switch out again because you got what you need and the civics do not serve you for the moment.
a pleasure to me it is when learn I can
See, that's the point: You will switch civics with SPI that you wouldn't even dream to switch in a "normal" scenario. I agree with you. If SPI only got rid of the anarchy you have in a normal game, it would be a pretty weak trait. But that would be like building the Globe Theatre in a city and then treating that city like every other city. The beauty of the Globe Theatre is, that you can whip the living crap out of your pop and they'll love you for it. So building the Globe Theatre in your city with the most food instead of your unhappiest city, would be a good use of this wonder.
Likewise, the strength of SPI really comes to fruition, if you wantonly use it's benefit. One example is to make short 5 turn switches to a certain civic just to accomplish a small task. Like switching to CS, putting an artist into all your unpopped cities for three turns to have the cultural borders grow to full BFC size. All it costs you is 5 turns of not being able to whip plus you get the small bonus from CS on workshops (not very relevant, but doesn't hurt). Now compare this to building a monument or later a theatre / lib in a city that doesn't need it or will take ages to produce it. And this is just one example. I mean... this basically the effect of CRE added in for free, only better (3 instead of 5 turns)
Another example is to turn your country all militaristic in an instance (Vassalage, Theocracy, Nationhood, etc.) if attacked while unprepared.
A third, tiny effect, is that you can see immediately the economic effect a civic change has, so you know if you improved things or made them worse. For me this is helpful, because I am not so experienced yet.
Another example is you can actually afford to swap to Free Market before going State Property, because it doesn't cost you anything when in other cases it might not be worth the anarchy, because you might gain access to both techs only a couple of turns apart.
Don't forget about swapping religions. The diplomatic freedom that SPI gives you in that regard is immense, especially once you have the Free Religion civic.
1. That thing about Caste and border pops is true and a big relief. Still I would prefer to be CRE right away and get cheap libraries also. Also in some games, CoL is difficult to get. You could also beeline music and solve the problem this way.
2. Being attacked unprepared is always something you want to (and you can) avoid. This is not a good argument for a trait. When going actively to war, there will be a good moment for a switch. Also for the production of GPs. These are long term decisions that do not require a direct switch, but on the other hand very careful planning.
3. Not a good argument neither. Changing civics should not be an experiment ;-) did you know that you can hover the mouse of the new civic to see at least the expected cost?
4. This is in the time frame, where the 2nd GA is possible (in some of my games at least). If not, Free Market will always benefit you vs. the Barbarian civic ( what's his face?) and should be worth 1 T anarchy. I can't remember that Economics and Communism are SO close to each other like 5 turns.
Well, you have to play highlands or rocky climate. And you cannot promote CR. It is still an argument as they are cheaper than HA, the tech is more useful and they have +10% CR instead of -10% for HA.
Another thing. I really argue if there are "passive" and "active" traits as they are called from time to time. For me, the leader traits are by far the most important thing that guide me through the WHOLE game, beginning at turn 1. It is always an active choice to leverage the trait.
So being FIN, I would maybe cottage a riverside-tile earlier and build the mine later. Being EXP could make me think of early pottery if the choice is not clear. Being AGG makes melee rushes more attractive and being PHI is even connected to several questions: How fast do I want to get to WRITING? Where should I build the first library? When is it time for 2 scientists, how fast do I want/need them? Maybe even running an early GA where I can produce more guys for the 2nd one?
And think of all the traits that save you hammers. You may want to dedicate your chops to libraries (CRE), settlers (IMP), etc... to make the most out of the burned forest. It is always thinking and planning, this makes the game so wonderful, I have never played in any passive way.
And it's true, even leveraging SPI is an active choice, but it is normal to keep in mind the possible civics and religious decisions anyway, so being SPI doesn't make me more conscious about that. It is simply more rewarding and not connected to a penalty.
What game lasts 500T? I'd think most games don't last over 250 turns. I think SPI can be really strong in mid-game when you need to "do everything" like spawn GP, whip buildings/units, pop borders asap, get trades from different religious blocks and so on. Non-SPI leaders need to rely on golden ages a lot more.
HA had -10% city attack in Warlords, doesn't have it in BtS.
This is something I never paid attention to. I just remember the 500T mention from editing WB files. Well, for 250T, that changes a bit. Still, I like better to plan my Golden Ages in a predictable manner so that I can indeed RELY on them.
Ah really, so I remembered that from Warlords.
Surely it is also a general kind of thing if someone prefers early or late benefits. I would rather have the early CRE boost. If SPI comes really into play only after Economics or Free Religion, or in the time where Lib race is already decided, well, then it is like a counterpart to the EXP trait (big use in the very early game, but not a must-have). I tend to believe that the point of decision (if you can win or not) comes earlier in an average game. SPI obviously doesn't do much to bring you to that point.
Maybe I am just a fan of early advantages. I have not won many Deity games, but at least two of them with Sury (EXP/CRE). This is a leader who will catapult you right into the game from T1.
My worst possible combinations:
1. Saladin from the Celts.
2. Tokugawa from Greece.
3. Mao the Russian.
Honorable mentions: Charlemagne from Arabia. Montezuma the German
temp civic changes make spi shine.
Staying in caste for the specialist but duck into slavery every now and then to whip.
Switching to Nationhood to do a little drafting then switch back.
Choosing Monotheism when you discover banking and want to spam some banks or if you're wonder whoring.
Switching to Theocracy when ramping up for war.
Switching to Free Religion when you don't care about the other AI's anymore or they have switched to it.
Just to name a few.
I usually don't switch to a religion that early but if I'm spi, why not.
You maximize the strongest civics for when you need them. If the goal is to make use of every turn, spi can help you do that.
Good arguments. I have the feeling that I am mostly in the best civics anyway, according to what I want to achieve in the moment, but of course, SPI makes you incredibly flexible in this regard.
Separate names with a comma.