What's the worst trait? (Rate the trait)

[Flak509]

id say expansionist

sure i like to have the scout to start with but i can manage without it just as well too

The only time i was glad to be expansionist was a game with russia and i found 2 cities but ive never liked it much

 

[Nergal]

I agree Scientific is excellent and if you rush Lit its really good with cheap libraries. I think the Russians have to be my fave Civ for Scientific VC, playing with goody huts they get a huge early tech lead, on the lower levels, a free tech every age and their UU is a better Unit than cavalry so the GA is at a tme when you can really benefit from it. Thats something we havent considered, some of the traits can give an early GA through building wonders. Play the English on an Island map build the Lighthouse and you get a GA in despotism.

 

[Gosnork]

I voted for Religious. Sure it cuts anarchy down to 1 turn, but so what? Are those 5 or so turns worth not having cheap barracks and more leaders from Militaristic, or an early tech lead from Expansionist? I don't think so, even if I only get 1 extra tech from expansionist, it would take more than 5 turns to research it. Temples and Cathedrals are worthless, so I wouldn't care if they cost 0 shields, they still cost upkeep.

 

[NickyH]

I really like the expansionist trait. Maybe it's not the most useful, but it surely makes the beginning of the game more fun. I really love to run around popping huts with my scouts. Early contacts are even more important. And since a good start is usually the foundation for a successful game, it could perhaps make up for the absence of a useful trait after the ancient age?

I voted for seafaring. I'm not sure if thats fair, since I've hardly ever played a seafaring civ though. ;D

 

[eldar]

Expansionist is worst. I would say Religious is second-worst. Militaristic third-worst.

Expansionist is only of limited benefit very early on. Once your Scouts have done their thing, you're a 1-trait Civ. Not a particularly good thing to be IMHO.

Religious gives you cheap Temples... and Cathedrals... which I tend to avoid building as I'd rather raise the Lux slider by 10% or go a neighbour for their luxury goods.

Militaristic is slightly better but cheap 'rax that are already cheap aren't that helpful, slightly increased promotion chances are just that, slight, but half-price harbours aren't a disaster especially on the right maps.

I rate Sea-faring on any map because of the extra commerce from founding cities by the sea, and the fact that 3-move curraghs can pick up contacts faster than scouts can on any map type, including pangaeas.

 

[bhinso]

seafaring is worst, the only one of the traits with a negative point (starting on the coast). OK you get a small commerce boost etc but problem with starting on the coast is more than half of your city radius is likely to be sea, meaning less hills and stuff for a productive capital (which you tend to have to rely on thanks to corruption). Also it makes it impossible to ring cities around the capital and enjoy more cities with reduced corruption. Just not a fan of it and I confess if I draw on a seafaring civ I tend to restart :-S. I agree expansionist is pretty bad too. I've heard it said on here that Portugese is the weakest civ and I can understand why!
I don't understand why so many people have voted religious (unless a few thought they were voting for best trait). This is one of the top two for me (with agricultural), the quick changes in government are great. (7/8 turns of anarchy when changing is just stupid, espicially annoying if you are democratic and AI decides to invade/gang up on you making all your cities go into disorder if you have fought a recent war). Also cheap temples and cathedrals rule. NB building sistine chapel + cheap cathedrals =

 

[garyg]

All the traits have a niche. I think the weakest though is Mil.
There are land types and win conditions where I definitely would pick one of the other traits but I can't think of one where I would choose Mil.

 

[Mursi lives]

There are land types and win conditions where I definitely would pick one of the other traits but I can't think of one where I would choose Mil.

Try standard pangea with 80% water.


Another factor whe should take into account is the difficulty level. Seafaring is rather weak at low level and very strong at high level, even in pangea maps: Early contacts and starting with alphabet become more and more important when you increase difficulty.

 

[againsttheflow]

I honestly can't vote. I tend to stay far away from expansionist but I also think it has some great potential if played correctly. It, like all traits, depends a lot on the map type, size, level of play, and intended victory. There's also something to be said for synergy, while seafaring and expansionist are practically polar opposites combos like scientific and religious tend to work out pretty well (especially when one has 100k in mind).

As has been said, some are general, others specific. While it's debateable which is worse/better from a human perspective there's no doubt that the AI are much worse at using the specific ones. Also, religion gives the AI very little benefit on higher levels when they have one turn anarchy anyway.

 

[sercer88]

A year or two ago, I would have picked Militairistic, because I almost never began my own wars!!

Now, I would probably say the most useless for me is Expansionist...because I very very rarely use it (only for special occasions that are rare themselves!)

 

[Gosnork]

This is one of the top two for me (with agricultural), the quick changes in government are great. (7/8 turns of anarchy when changing is just stupid, espicially annoying if you are democratic and AI decides to invade/gang up on you making all your cities go into disorder if you have fought a recent war). Also cheap temples and cathedrals rule. NB building sistine chapel + cheap cathedrals =

Cheap temples and cathedrals just means that you have to start paying upkeep quicker. If you need happiness, go grab some luxes, but building happiness buildings is a total waste 90% of the time. The quick change is great, until you think about what it costs you. Are those 5 or so turns worth what you give up from not having a different trait? I'd rather lose 5 turns than give up a trait.

 

[lucashp]

Okay. Who picked the industrial trait and did not say WHY?

Edit: Ah. I see. Those are good reasons but I feel that they were the best.

 

[Gosnork]

They did explain why, check post #18.

 

[ecuwins]

I lol @ anyone who voted industrial. It appears the consensus is Expansionist and I have to say that I agree. All of the traits have more than one "pro" except Expansionist.

My question is what is the second worst trait? I vote Seafaring on pang, obviously, but definitely not on arch. I guess I would have to say Religious since I hate temples and only switch governments once. But even Religious has its benefits w/ certain strategies.

 

[againsttheflow]

Are you perhaps playing vanilla? Industrial isn't such a far out choice for conquests.

 

[ecuwins]

Are you perhaps playing vanilla? Industrial isn't such a far out choice for conquests.

No, I am not vanilla. I understand that Industrial isn't as good in C3C but is sure as heck isn't the worst trait. Just my opinion

 

[Pyrrhos]

Cheap temples and cathedrals just means that you have to start paying upkeep quicker. If you need happiness, go grab some luxes, but building happiness buildings is a total waste 90% of the time. The quick change is great, until you think about what it costs you. Are those 5 or so turns worth what you give up from not having a different trait? I'd rather lose 5 turns than give up a trait.

If YOU play Conquest/Domination/AW on small-normal maps, place your cities C-X-X-C and think of temples as three spearmen or two swordsmen not built, then you do have a point! However, on large-huge maps with cities C-X-X-X-C or C-X-X-X-X-C and different victory conditions, there are serious reservations.

First, during the first 3000 years or so there won't be more than a couple of luxes within reach. At least one of those will cost you >30 worker turns plus the need to expand a worker as a colony (another 350 or so lost worker turns) and defend it. That translates as a hill and a BG not roaded and mined. This loss in shields and gold is far greater than the gold one pays in upkeep as you only have half a dozen or so temples to pay for!
Later in the game, esp if you play large-huge maps, a lux is cheaper than upkeep for 40-odd temples and cathedrals - but by then with metros you can do with - and afford - both!.

Second, IF you don't build temples, grab nearby luxes and fortify troops, you will have to sacrifice science and gold for lux on the slider - especially if you want to have a shot at building wonders. Now your advice may be fine for AW and Conquest/Domination on the smaller size maps, possibly for higher levels. For Cultural, Wonder, Diplo or Space Race, your advice is advice how to lose such a game.

And I didn't even mention that those turns saved changing government (about 4 the first time, eight the second) equal three techs researched - in effect equalling the free tech at each age for Scientific civs - huge amounts of gold and shields produced. Ooops! I did mention it!

 

[Mursi lives]

It appears the consensus is Expansionist and I have to say that I agree. All of the traits have more than one "pro" except Expansionist.

Only one pro? let's see:
1) Better map knowledge (where is food?, where are luxes?)
2) Earlier contacts (trades! )
3) Better results with huts (something to trade! )
4) Pottery (granaries! ) as starting tech.

If YOU play Conquest/Domination/AW on small-normal maps, place your cities C-X-X-C and think of temples as three spearmen or two swordsmen not built, then you do have a point! However, on large-huge maps with cities C-X-X-X-C or C-X-X-X-X-C and different victory conditions, there are serious reservations.

Why in the world would I waste my core tiles with such a loose placement . Even if I do that to grab territory, I will quickly fill the holes.
Temples/caths vs luxes/markets? they may compare if you use very loose city placement but once again there is no reason for wasting your territory.
However, cheap temples (i.e. pop rush after 11 turns in corrupt cities) are useful. They dont replace luxes but they help to secure those you find at the border of your empire. In big pangeas, exp/rel is really good combo.

And I didn't even mention that those turns saved changing government (about 4 the first time, eight the second) equal three techs researched - in effect equalling the free tech at each age for Scientific civs - huge amounts of gold and shields produced. Ooops! I did mention it!

Once again, tight city placement means 1 early change to republic (religious will save 2-3 turns) and no further change.

 

[Pyrrhos]

fair enough, but just TRY a Culture game on a huge Pangea or Continents with C-X-X-C without temples and cathedrals then.

I'll readily conceed that on normal to small maps, with C-X-X-C and domination/conquest, religious is a poor trait. But with a large to huge map and any other victory condition, Religious is one of the three or four strongest traits.

PS. Why do you think Bamspeedy chose Babylon for his brilliant article in the War Academy if religious is such a sh*te trait?

 

[Simak]

Interesting thread. I didn't vote, being a newbie and not considering my opinion worthy since I don't have good game knowledge to pipe in. But, reading this tread, I figured out that the top 4 seem to be the most voted as worst traits, while the bottom 4 appear to receive more praise. That in and of itself is useful, thanks.