Traits - best to worste

[Pe Ell]

It's always fun to see that almost everyone has a different approach to the game and like different traits.

1) Financial
Money rules to world. This trait gives more money. I always feel handicapped without it.
2) Philosophical
Second best tech trait. Really powers up your early game and helps getting those GP's when you need them.
3) Aggressive
My favourite warmongering trait. I feel much stronger and more confident in war when I can rely on stronger offensive troops. And cheap barracks!
4) Organised
Whip courthouses at 4 pop instead of 8! Does miracles for your rexing capabilities.
5) Charismatic
Extra happy and stronger troops over time. What's not to like?
6) Creative
Faster border pops. Win the culture wars over those recources. Flexible city placement. Cheap libraries. Me like.
7) Spiritual
Switch from warmode to teching and peace in an instance. Seventh place for me since I don't switch around so much.
8) Industrious
Seldom build more that one or two wonders in early game. In late game I'm usually so far ahead it wont matter. Cheap forges are neat though.
9) Expansive
Guess it's nice to have cheap granaries and extra health when the industrial age come. Not a trait I play much with.
10) Imperialistic
Meh. I tried this out a few times. The bonuses are just to weak to really make it worthwile. I'd rather have any of the traits
above.
11) Protective
Defensive promotions and cheap castles? I know you can leverage it (read the thread in the strategy section) but as with imp, I'd rather have any other trait.

 

[Hammurbabble]

I just finished a game with Qin (lost), didn't use the protective thread...not even ONCE. It's so useless, that it's not even funny.

You never built a single archery or gunpowder unit? Well, if you didn't then yes, Protective is useless, but it seems to me failing to build archery or gunpowder units is what's useless, really.

There are no best and worst traits unless you are rut-locked into a single strategy. There are better and worse traits for particular strategies, but the better way to put that is that there are better and worse strategies for particular traits. So I think rather than answering the thread question as put, I'll answer a different one, what strategies go with what traits, and I'll put the traits in alpha order.

Aggressive - A warmongering strategy, at least in part, is called for. Use your free promotions/barracks to help win wars with smaller armies or despite a small tech deficit. Go to war early and often. Useless if you want a peaceful win. Totally useless with "Always Peace" and "No Barbarians" on.

Charismatic - A little extra happy cap in the early game, and superior troops throughout with faster promotions; this calls for a military strategy. (Nearly) useless with a peaceful strategy. Not so good if you're whip-happy.

Creative - Pop the borders fast and give you a slight edge in the culture wars. This one's always good, but not always appreciated.

Expansive - Grow your cities bigger and faster. What's not to like? Useless if you're whip-happy.

Financial - Good with a builder strategy and lots of cottages. Useless if you're one of those people who swear by the pure SE.

Imperialistic - Do a peaceful early expansion using cheap settlers; go to war often thereafter and generate lots of great generals to settle in your production cities for superior troops. Only half-useful if you want to do an axe-rush; only half-useful if you play a peaceful game.

Industrious - Build more wonders than you normally would. Probably about twice as many. Useless if you don't build wonders, e.g. if you want to play a pure warmonger game.

Organized - Expand horizontally more and faster than you can without this trait. Useless if you play with a small empire and lots of vertical rather than horizontal expansion.

Philosophical - You want to be a builder, at least in main focus. Lots of wonders and specialists are called for. I'm not a believer in a pure SE even with this trait, but you'll want to lean on the specialists more than without it. Get the Parthenon and run Pacifism a lot to max it out. Useless if you never build wonders or use any specialists, or don't know how to use Great People.

Protective - Good for keeping the barbs off in the early game, slight military advantage early game, and huge military advantage in the post-gunpowder era. Definitely a warmongering trait. Useless if you want a peaceful game. Not as useful as Aggressive if you're addicted to EARLY war.

Spiritual - A very flexible trait that is leveraged by changing civics often, depending on the circumstances. You can go to war under your peacetime civics, then switch to Police State when you get serious WW, then switch back again after making peace; you can run Caste System for the specialists, then switch to Slavery in an emergency to whip out defenders; you can switch religions instantly for diplomatic purposes. Useless if you don't change civics much.

There you go. If you see "useless if" followed by something you do every game, you won't like that trait. But that's hardly the trait's fault.

 

[helemaalnicks]

You never built a single archery or gunpowder unit? Well, if you didn't then yes, Protective is useless, but it seems to me failing to build archery or gunpowder units is what's useless, really.

I build LOADS. My city was full of them at some point. But they never saw any action. Since my builds from the start are: worker-worker-Great wall (for the techs), I rarely see any barbs in my OCC's. Now isn't that strange? . Anyway, since my healthcap keeps me from growing to my happy cap (which is always high enough with early mids), I already came to the conclusion that this is the only thread that's at least a bit useful. I won't be using spiritual that much, since I pretty much tech towards the best civs for OCC (repr./bureacracy/Caste system/State Property/pacifism) from the start, and only change out of the least useful ones sometimes (bureacracy/caste/pacifism) for diplomatic purposes.

 

[Iranon]

I don't really get protective being useless with Qin. His UU, arguably the best in the game anyway, gets full benefits from it... and it's one tech after Metal Casting for the half-price forges.
Sure, that unit would be excellent even without this boost and personally I'd rather have a second economic trait... but I wouldn't go so far as to call PRO useless.

 

[helemaalnicks]

I don't really get protective being useless with Qin. His UU, arguably the best in the game anyway, gets full benefits from it...

I found out that Qin's UU is pretty bad if you don't have iron .

 

[Diamondeye]

I found out that Qin's UU is pretty bad if you don't have iron .

...I guess your use of Agg would have been even worse that game since all units affected by it earlygame, except warrior, reqs a metal...?

 

[Rusten]

Best; creative, philosophical, spiritual

Average (+) (great when supporting one of the former); aggressive, organized
Average; expansive, financial, charismatic
Average (-); imperialistic, industrious

Worst; protective

 

[Jerrymander]

Protective is the worst trait for the human player, but the best trait for the AI. It is a pain to assault an enemy that is protective, especially when they get Longbowmen.

 

[Diamondeye]

Average; expansive, financial, charismatic

How come Financial is only Average? It is widely considered the best trait of all?

Protective is the worst trait for the human player, but the best trait for the AI. It is a pain to assault an enemy that is protective, especially when they get Longbowmen.

1) Pro is not the worst trait for the human player, Ind is.
2) Pro is not the best trait for the AI, Cre is.

Apart from that I agree that Protective longbows are a **** in the ***, but once you get rifles and cannons...

 

[mudphud]

I fail to understand why so many people rate Pro last;

1) Pro is not the worst trait for the human player, Ind is.
2) Pro is not the best trait for the AI, Cre is.

Most of the time human players don't focus on building defensive units or just have units sit in a city while the AI attacks. Crossbows are about the only archery unit I build in general (unless I need some archers for early barb defense).

Sure your city with 10 CG III/drill longbows may be almost invulnerable but if all your tiles get pillaged your economy is seriously damaged. Bring those longbows out into flat territory and see how long they will last. Even if they are drill 4 a horse archer or knight can ignore first strike.

For similar reasons most people don't build a lot of walls or castles maybe in a couple cities but compared to courthouses which are built in essentially every city they aren't that useful. Gunpowder units also get drill I so the trait does have some use but compared to others it is weak for most play styles.

Keep in mind these are just opinions and the best or worst trait for someone depends on how well or poorly they utilize the trait. Ind isn't a favorite trait of mine but cheap forges can be powerful and the bonus to that wonder you want can help as well.

Of course best trait for the AI depends on who he is against. If everyone is peaceful then def is useless but creative or defensive can save an AI for an early rush.

I always like to learn so tell us how you leverage defensive and maybe you can win some people over. Just stating what is or isn't the worst trait doesn't convince anyone.

 

[Hammurbabble]

I build LOADS. My city was full of them at some point. But they never saw any action. Since my builds from the start are: worker-worker-Great wall (for the techs), I rarely see any barbs in my OCC's. Now isn't that strange? . Anyway, since my healthcap keeps me from growing to my happy cap (which is always high enough with early mids), I already came to the conclusion that this is the only thread that's at least a bit useful. I won't be using spiritual that much, since I pretty much tech towards the best civs for OCC (repr./bureacracy/Caste system/State Property/pacifism) from the start, and only change out of the least useful ones sometimes (bureacracy/caste/pacifism) for diplomatic purposes.

What you're saying is that you consistently use a strategy that is non-optimal for leveraging Protective or Spiritual. This completely backs up my point: there is an appropriate strategic approach to using each trait. If you ALWAYS build the Great Wall, then you do not need anything to help you against barbarians; if you never fight an offensive war, then you do not need anything that boosts offensive war-fighting capacity. If you always play a pure SE, you will gain little or nothing from Financial; if you always play a pure CE and avoid specialists and don't build wonders, you will gain little or nothing from Philosophical.

If you always build the Great Wall, though, chances are you never build the Oracle or the Parthenon; if you never fight an offensive war, you will never win a Conquest or Domination victory; and so on. What makes Civ such a great game for replay is that it can be approached so many different ways, and every single leader trait is useful for one way or another of approaching the game. When people state which traits they find the best and the worst, what they're really telling us is the approach they like to take to the game -- that and nothing else.

 

[Rusten]

How come Financial is only Average? It is widely considered the best trait of all?

Widely considered doesn't mean it's true. It's just easier to use that's all. Title said best trait, and best traits aren't the ones who are the easiest to use, but the ones who are the most effective on higher difficulty levels with optimal play. I don't feel like making a long response and hijack the thread, but here's a post from a player that I share a lot of views with.

I am serious. The higher level you go, the weeker financial is.
There no sarkasm here.
I am sorry, I was thinking that my reputation should make people to accept my comments more on face value.

Financial is mostly middle/late game trait.
I allready put all this discussions, but I repeat.
Early in the game financial is mostly useless. On low level one can affort to build early cottagess, but in higher one need production, production, production...

That mean farm and mines, financial no help.
Yearly research come from special resources, capital and warter ties.

That is one set of maps where financial does shine - archipelago. Ability to instantly use warter for +3 commerce or +4 with colosys is powerfull. It is instand no civic town.

Otherwise, for up to may be liberalism one useally has only few ties with more then 1 commerce, so, financial is not mach help.

Or one need to build cottages, and every time I am forced to build cottage early on I am crying, I lost production for very few commerce.

Even building wealth(especially inderect, by loosing wanders build with special resource) is more efficient then early cottages.
There are so many ways in the game to get early commerce/gold from production (directly or inderictly) which beat +1 commerce from ties by far.

When one base game around production ( by whipping, slavery or mines) one has flehibility to produce gold, wanders improving one civ or army to take over somebody else. That is mach more solid and efficient way to play the game. But as useall, it demand a lot of planins, reacting on situation in order to take advantage from flexibility this stile providing. That is not newbie way to play.

Financial is Newbie trait. It is automatic, demand very little micro and easy to use. In addition, if one CAN affort not to have production, like on easy level, cottagess will pay off eventially. Nothing beat fully developed town under rigth civics + financial. Problem is, on higher level one can not affort to invest mach in this very long turm goal.

 

[Iranon]

Personally, I find that Financial has a major early benefit, in supporting rapid expansion practically from the start.
I think an early emphasis on commerce is a hit-or-miss thing though... possibly gamebreaking if you can pull it off (name your slingshot; or simply naked REXing into a decent-sized empire) but it does tend to leave one vulnerable.

 

[Astat]

I fail to understand why so many people rate Pro last;

i agree - and i think it would be important for each poster to also note the average difficulty setting they're playing on.

i am currently on emperor, it's a challenge i only win like every second game.
i have finally conquered my entire island with churchills redcoats now, but one thing is for sure: i wouldn't have made it without those extra 2 promotions for my archers when the habitual emperor onslaught started without me having access to any copper resource...

ignoring the useless walls/castle, it _can_ be a lifesaver in quite some situations.

 

[Arksa]

In order that suits my playstyle and consider the best
1. fin
2. cre
3. phi
4. spi
5. agg
6. exp
7. cha
8. org
9. ind
10. pro
11. imp

 

[Hammurbabble]

Rusten:

The highest difficulty I've played so far is Monarch. I'm going to assume that the "high difficulties" being referred to in the post you quoted are higher than that, because I don't find what the poster said to be even remotely true at Monarch.

With that assumption (and please correct me if I'm mistaken here), I would like to ask something. What I don't understand is exactly why production is THAT much more important at high difficulty than it is in the mid-ranges. (Of course, it's important at all difficulties, but so is commerce.)

For what purpose do you find it necessary to increase production at higher difficulties? What is your overall strategy? Are you trying to aggressively warmonger the whole game, do you go for a peaceful win, or do you fall somewhere in between?

If you are fighting defensively (or not at all via diplomacy) through most of the game, do you find it's necessary to maximize production purely to defend yourself against attack, or is the extra production only necessary when you are fighting an aggressive war?

If the extra production is needed purely for defense, at what difficulty level do you find this becomes the case?

If it's needed for aggressive war:

1) Do you find that a maximum-warmongering strategy is the only way to win at the difficulty level you're talking about? (And if so, again what difficulty is that?)

2) If it's possible to win with limited and selective aggression, is it necessary to maximize production for that purpose, even sacrificing commerce, or is it viable to build up the army over time and use it with strategic effectiveness (recognizing, as everyone knows, that the AI sucks at fighting wars)?

3) Is it possible to overcome production gaps by whipping, drafting, or rush-buying units?

What I'm trying to ascertain here is if this really is a difficulty-specific factor, or if, again, it's a strategy-specific one that becomes more crucial at higher difficulties.

Thanks.

 

[Rusten]

Rusten:

The highest difficulty I've played so far is Monarch. I'm going to assume that the "high difficulties" being referred to in the post you quoted are higher than that, because I don't find what the poster said to be even remotely true at Monarch.

This is for immortal/deity which I and that poster play.

With that assumption (and please correct me if I'm mistaken here), I would like to ask something. What I don't understand is exactly why production is THAT much more important at high difficulty than it is in the mid-ranges. (Of course, it's important at all difficulties, but so is commerce.)

Because the AI has huge bonuses, so the moment you get a window of opportunity you need to grab it as quick as possible (by having production). The steady but slow cottage growth doesn't cut it and you will find yourself behind at all stages of the game which means you have to use other methods.

For what purpose do you find it necessary to increase production at higher difficulties? What is your overall strategy? Are you trying to aggressively warmonger the whole game, do you go for a peaceful win, or do you fall somewhere in between?

first part -> see above.

My strategy varies (I am amongst the aggressive players though), but when I play deity I "always" have to landgrab at least once during the game, even if playing for a peaceful victory type.

If you are fighting defensively (or not at all via diplomacy) through most of the game, do you find it's necessary to maximize production purely to defend yourself against attack, or is the extra production only necessary when you are fighting an aggressive war?

Production is nice for infrastructure, but the key is to be able to adapt at a whim according to the world situation. Cottages ("the financial trait") doesn't allow that as much.

If the extra production is needed purely for defense, at what difficulty level do you find this becomes the case?

Not sure, can't remember the last time I played below immortal so there are others more capable of answering that. You don't need that much to defend really, but the thing is that you need to expand at higher levels to keep up.

If it's needed for aggressive war:

1) Do you find that a maximum-warmongering strategy is the only way to win at the difficulty level you're talking about? (And if so, again what difficulty is that?)

The difficulty is deity and immortal. You don't have to go all out and war the entire game, but I see it as necessary to gain land through war at least once.

2) If it's possible to win with limited and selective aggression, is it necessary to maximize production for that purpose, even sacrificing commerce, or is it viable to build up the army over time and use it with strategic effectiveness (recognizing, as everyone knows, that the AI sucks at fighting wars)?

Building it up over time is the problem on immortal and deity, you simply can't do that. The moment you get a window of opportunity you need to cease it. That's why whipping and drafting is so good on higher levels. Below is a graph of an immortal game I played recently (shadow game of silverbullet's thread in Strat&Tips).

As you can see my army went through the roof over a short period of time and I spent that window of opportunity taking out Hammurabi and Justinian. This was possible due to farms+mines (food is production too with slavery) and lightbulbing techs for immediate gain.

3) Is it possible to overcome production gaps by whipping, drafting, or rush-buying units?

whipping is production too, and with a SE you can draft much more as you can up the cultural slider without losing all of your income.

What I'm trying to ascertain here is if this really is a difficulty-specific factor, or if, again, it's a strategy-specific one that becomes more crucial at higher difficulties.

It's definitely the difficulty that makes this a must. On lower levels you can easily keep up with the AI with cottages alone, but the higher you go the more important it gets to plan ahead and go for a window of opportunity and explode in every way.


Edit: Here's another example, a deity game this time. Spoilered as it's from the ongoing deity succession game. Some of the players might be browsing this thread.

Spoiler :

 

[TheLastOne36]

Industrious is useless on higher levels... you'll never get the wonders anyway.

1) Financial
2) Charismatic
3) Philosophical
4) Organized
5) Expansive
6) Aggressive
7) Industrious
8) Spiritual
9) Impieralistic
10) Protective
11) Creative

Creative/Henge is good for the AI however as they don't settle crappy cities with alot of shared tiles.

 

[AfterShafter]

For me...

1) Organized
2) Financial
3) Protective
4) Spiritual
5) Philosophical
6) Industrious
7) Expansive
8) Charismatic
9) Aggressive
10) Creative
11) Imperialistic

At least, as they appear in game - IE, not as lone traits in a vacuum, but rather as they are paired with UU's, UB's, and other traits.

 

[Jerrymander]

1) Pro is not the worst trait for the human player, Ind is.
2) Pro is not the best trait for the AI, Cre is.

Apart from that I agree that Protective longbows are a **** in the ***, but once you get rifles and cannons...

Well, seeing as how I'm too busy making Swordsmen to build a couple Archers. Also, the best defence, I think, it's a good offence. Not only that, but I always use melee units in my city to attack incoming stacks before they reach my city. Sure, I'll have one or two archers in my cities, but they're really a last ditch effort.
It might be a holdover from CivII days, where I would garrison cities with a pikeman and two knights. Or from even Age of Empires II, when I played Goths all the time.
Agreed, Industrious is pretty weak. Ugh, Qin Shihuang.

Creative I can see as being an excellent one for the AI.