In general, do you find it more useful to use leaders who compensate for your weaknesses (FIN/PRO for me), or ones who emphasize your strengths (CRE/ORG for me)? All the discussion I've seen on the forums about comparing leader traits (I remember one in particular called PRO basically useless) seems to rely on either one particular strategy that they consider "correct" or people actually knowing how to play a variety of strategies well. This is, well, not me. I'm horrible at warfare. I've quit a couple of games recently because I tried to be aggressive and ended up unable to built up a sufficiently large or advanced military, even focusing on producing lots of hammers, and ended up in essentially a medieval cold war that ground my economy to a halt. And even more often, I've been overrun and humiliated by AGG neighbors who resent me for pressing on their borders too hard with my culture. So what I usually do now is play as leaders who can compensate for my incompetence with traits like FIN so I can get more money out of my below-average cottaging or PRO so I don't get overrun too easily. On the other hand, since my typical "role playing" kind of play style tends to make me build culture and keep my overhead costs low anyway, I figure I could just double down with CRE or ORG on what I can do well and try to find ways around my weaknesses instead.