The Worst Trait

[Dionysius]

What about the new warlords traits?

Imperialistic, Charismatic and Protective.

 

[carl corey]

Oh, where do I start? Possibly with the fact that this has exactly and precisely nothing whatsoever to do with the trait.

I just conquered civs that were in their early stages of developpement, Monty isn't a great pacifist so he mostly had units but his cities were quite small, China was (mostly) in a jungle. I'm beelining for Astronomy, ignoring grocers and banks, to get to trade with the other continent, where 5 AIs full of resources and money wait just for the right person.

So, what would have been the effects of the Organized trait? Cheaper courthouses, so more research money. More research money, faster Astronomy. Faster Astronomy, faster intercontinental trade which means a huge boost in money, health and happiness. Also, faster courthouses means faster Forbidden Palace, which in turn means... you guessed, more research money!

Let's see if the Financial trait would have been better: I have only a few cottages - since my capital is mostly a GP farm, and my other initial cities are all poorly irrigated. The new ones I'm building won't mature for a while. I don't have banks to add to my income, and banks are hard to build anyway.

I did manage to get Astronomy earlier than any AI on my continent, so I did beat them to the trade race. But it still would have been an advantage to have done it sooner, don't you think?

If you have arguments against this, please post them. I see no use in getting into a "yes!/no!" contest with you.

creative is the worst, some ppl need to start voting creative so we can get it to pass expansive!

Have you even bothered to read the thread? People have given good reasons for why Creative is an interesting trait. You think otherwise? Well, give us the reasons!

------------

People, a discussion about this is only possible if we give examples to support what we say. I can say that Financial is the worst trait ever and give no reason. Would you believe me? (If yes, that you have a problem... )

 

[yavoon]

Have you even bothered to read the thread? People have given good reasons for why Creative is an interesting trait. You think otherwise? Well, give us the reasons!

------------

People, a discussion about this is only possible if we give examples to support what we say. I can say that Financial is the worst trait ever and give no reason. Would you believe me? (If yes, that you have a problem... )

so I say creative is the worst trait and u say creative is an interesting trait, and ur asking me if I disagree w/ this new completely tangential statement made up by u in, I guess, disagreement to me?

hrrrm.

 

[carl corey]

I did give reasons for this in an earlier post. What I said is right there before your previous post, where I also gave reasons for Expansive and Organized being interesting. InFlux5 also talked about this earlier in the thread and IIRC others have given their thoughts on the matter too. That's why I said read the thread. Your irony doesn't really work if you're ignoring anything that doesn't suit you.

 

[yavoon]

I did give reasons for this in an earlier post. What I said is right there before your previous post, where I also gave reasons for Expansive and Organized being interesting. InFlux5 also talked about this earlier in the thread and IIRC others have given their thoughts on the matter too. That's why I said read the thread. Your irony doesn't really work if you're ignoring anything that doesn't suit you.

u dont understand, we simply aren't in disagreement. atleast u haven't said anything in reply to me I disagree w/.

it was never my contention that creative was an uninteresting trait.

 

[carl corey]

I see where you're getting at. But my saying that it's interesting means there are situations in which it is better than other traits. Take one in which you have different food resources scattered around. Would you need Expansive that much? Most probably not, since those resources, once hooked up, would let you manage the health just as well. What you'd really want would be to get the most of them in your cities' borders as fast as you can. Which means... creative! For an example to the contrary see what I posted about Expansive: how useful is it to expand your borders if you have nothing interesting in them anyway? So yeah, Expansive > Creative in those conditions. All I'm saying is that it's really hard to give a "worst trait" without a context. I'd much rather focus on what would be more useful in a given situation, or how would you make use of the traits you have, and how will you counter those you don't have.

 

[Calavente]

>> Carl Corey : Your fight is fun...

If I correctly understood yavoon, I agree with him:
if you think every trait is interesting in a way or another, choosing one as worst doesn't means it isn't usefull, it only means it is your last choice, or the less best trait.

for exemple, I think expansive is the worst, but when I have it (random civ) I make use of it and it becomes very usefull in early game and late game (I'm almost never bothered by health in mid-game). In my current game my wonderfully Food/hammer capital (prince) is blocked to lvl 4 due to 5 floodplains.. no health ressource.

But when I can choose, this trait is the one I'd rather not have instead of another more fitted to my strategies.
(the most usefullness of expansive is in desertic high plain maps.. almost no seafood, very few health ressources, some floodplains .. +3 health comes a handy

basically no traits are craps, but some are more usefull for people than others.

 

[carl corey]

Champion of lost causes! That's me. I was mostly annoyed about him giving no reasons for it - and even more so since someone else dismissed something I said without giving any reasons before him. If it weren't for that person I might not have said anything about his post.

 

[Calavente]

I know,
I won't have posted if not for your "fight"
and franckly,even if he seems to be true (if I understood his meaning, I think he is right, but maybe it was not his meaning ). Just giving his opinion so roughly, without explanation was undelicate, and answering in a so twisted way more so, but ... maybe just a little too speed to take the time to explain thing plainly to us no-brainers .. ?

or maybe we really are on a bad day with a low frequency brain.. it is really a possibility for me today.

 

[Pete2006]

If creative/expansive are so bad then why does Cyrus seem to do so well in my games?

 

[Andrei_V]

Once I get to Monarchy and HR for unlimited happiness due to the military presence, I wish I was Expansive sometimes.

 

[yavoon]

I see where you're getting at. But my saying that it's interesting means there are situations in which it is better than other traits. Take one in which you have different food resources scattered around. Would you need Expansive that much? Most probably not, since those resources, once hooked up, would let you manage the health just as well. What you'd really want would be to get the most of them in your cities' borders as fast as you can. Which means... creative! For an example to the contrary see what I posted about Expansive: how useful is it to expand your borders if you have nothing interesting in them anyway? So yeah, Expansive > Creative in those conditions. All I'm saying is that it's really hard to give a "worst trait" without a context. I'd much rather focus on what would be more useful in a given situation, or how would you make use of the traits you have, and how will you counter those you don't have.

just because the relative values of traits jitters up and down a little bit given different circumstances hardly negates the idea of having best and worst traits. u just have to use ur judgment.

 

[Esox]

If creative/expansive are so bad then why does Cyrus seem to do so well in my games?

I usually see him do very well early on, then fade as the game goes on. I think it's the creative trait that lets him grow his borders, plus starting with a scout.
I like to pick him off after his UU has expired, since he usually has some good cities by then.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Creative is pretty awesome for early game. Your borders expand like nobody's business without any real effort on your part. I've never played a Creative leader all the way to late game, but it looks like the Creative trait fizzles out then. +2 culture seems pretty worthless when your cities are developing culture in the double or triple digits per turn. It looks like Expansive gets stronger in late game, while Creative gets weaker.

 

[Ball Lightning]

I think that expansive is the worst trait, because health is not a big issue in the later game, and not even in the earlier stages.

 

[Beamup]

So, what would have been the effects of the Organized trait? Cheaper courthouses, so more research money. More research money, faster Astronomy. Faster Astronomy, faster intercontinental trade which means a huge boost in money, health and happiness. Also, faster courthouses means faster Forbidden Palace, which in turn means... you guessed, more research money!

And that is a meaningful argument for Organized. "Immortals are good" is not.

 

[carl corey]

Hehe, I see what you mean. I was trying to say that any early growing empire would benefit from courthouses - be it conquered with axes, immortals, war chariots, praetorians, jags, etc. Sorry if it came out as "Immortals are good". And yeah, my second post is more meaningful. I had all that in mind, guess I just got lazy.

 

[cabert]

If creative/expansive are so bad then why does Cyrus seem to do so well in my games?

because immortals are good, when a human plays him,
and because he has some good personnality matrix (not agressive enough to stop the trades, agressive enough to grab land, ...) when the AI plays him

 

[Emerald Melios]

I'd say Expansive, but maybe I'm not looking into well enough.

 

[Araqiel]

because immortals are good, when a human plays him,
and because he has some good personnality matrix (not agressive enough to stop the trades, agressive enough to grab land, ...) when the AI plays him

Exactly. The relative strength of the AI is usually the result of their programmed personality as much if not more so than their UU and traits.