Which is your favorite trait?

[omnimutant]

Being a OCC whore, I have to go with Philosophical.

 

[Jabarto]

That's not quite true--the cheap walls count towards your power rating, so they may help stave off an invasion just by being there.

That's true, I'd forgotten about that.

Now, before any sort of debate starts up, I'm out for a few hours. Have fun

I didn't really plan on this turning into a debate, I just was curious as to your reasoning. But yeah, it's really a matter of preference and I won't press this further.

 

[AfterShafter]

That's true, I'd forgotten about that.



I didn't really plan on this turning into a debate, I just was curious as to your reasoning. But yeah, it's really a matter of preference and I won't press this further.

Heh, it's turned into a debate several times before on this issue. It is, ultimately, a matter of prerence - and I don't fault others for having notably different preferences than myself, since I can see the merit in most other traits. I've just had some people insist that I was "wrong" in my choice, so it often turns into a debate.

You know, I do wonder though, why they left Pro/Org out of the game. I mean, by most peoples' standards, it's pairing a good trait with the worst trait, so it's not like it would have been considered overpowered... Though for me, it would be in the running for my favorite trait combo. Oh well - I hope they do patch in another Civ, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Priah]

Hm, itd be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the difficulty levels people played and what traits they liked.

My three favorite traits, creative, spiritual, philisophical in that order. Im still a little torn between which is truely better, spiritual or philisophical. Creative however, is just amazing. Saving yourself the hammers from building a monument, and then saving the hammers from building a library, means you can get an se up and running very quickly.

If I play Pericles and get plenty of room to expand (no need to rush someone), I've gotten 4+ great scientists prior to 0 ad.

My real problem with philisophical, is the somewhat lack of flexibility. You really need to be running a reasonably large part of your empire in an se to take full advantage, and sometimes an se just isnt appropriate for the terrain you're given. Spiritual on the other hand, if you happen to be running a large specialist population, you can just switch in and out of pacifism at will. Tho I really can't make up my mind between Hatty and Pericles.

 

[AfterShafter]

Hm, itd be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the difficulty levels people played and what traits they liked.

One thing I'm noticing a lot is that a lot of deity players aren't such big fans of financial, and vastly favour SE... I still love Finanaical though - guess it's a sign that I'm not quite at that level yet

I'm working on Immortal (20%'ish win rate) and have Emperor at an 80%+ win rate. Huge/18 civs/big and small/islands mixed in/random climate are my settings.

 

[Wilhelm I]

I usually build a ton of wonders, so I chose Industrious

 

[Roland Johansen]

One thing I'm noticing a lot is that a lot of deity players aren't such big fans of financial, and vastly favour SE... I still love Finanaical though - guess it's a sign that I'm not quite at that level yet

I'm working on Immortal (20%'ish win rate) and have Emperor at an 80%+ win rate. Huge/18 civs/big and small/islands mixed in/random climate are my settings.

There are a few deity level players who are very active on the strategy and tips forum and use an economy largely based on specialists. But it's not true that all deity level players favour the SE. Most deity level players probably use a mixed economy, some a bit more cottages, some a bit more specialists. There are probably very few deity level players who would say they play a pure SE or a pure CE.

I play on deity sometimes and I rate financial as the second best trait. Charismatic is my personal favourite.

 

[Jabarto]

You know, I do wonder though, why they left Pro/Org out of the game. I mean, by most peoples' standards, it's pairing a good trait with the worst trait, so it's not like it would have been considered overpowered... Though for me, it would be in the running for my favorite trait combo. Oh well - I hope they do patch in another Civ, but I won't hold my breath.

It is an odd omission. In fact, part of the reason I chose Darius for modding was because I thought Fin/Org is too strong a combo, and I like the Persian civ a lot, so it was partially a way of redeeming a leader I never otherwise played. I might try it with Mao like you said, though; I love pavillions.

On that note, I think a Cha/Cre leader would be a lot of fun.

 

[AfterShafter]

It is an odd omission. In fact, part of the reason I chose Darius for modding was because I thought Fin/Org is too strong a combo, and I like the Persian civ a lot, so it was partially a way of redeeming a leader I never otherwise played. I might try it with Mao like you said, though; I love pavillions.

On that note, I think a Cha/Cre leader would be a lot of fun.

Aye, pavillions are great... Don't discount those cho-ko nu's though. They're a spectacular special unit when paired with a protective leader. The biggest problem with him is that he doesn't have any economic perks to help your economy along, but people overestimate the need for organized, financial, or philosophical to keep your economy from getting too sluggish - it's just a bit tougher without any of them. A lot of players have a heck of a time weaning off financial leaders.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

One thing I'm noticing a lot is that a lot of deity players aren't such big fans of financial, and vastly favour SE...

This isn't true. A lot of those players argue with proponents of pure CEs, and call pure SEs better, and as such get mistaken for supporters of pure SE, but the only such player I know who actually is a pure SE diehard that hates financial is Obsolete. (Mutineer would make two if he still came here.) The rest of them use hybrids and respect financial, even if some of them don't see it as top tier.

Basically their skill at Civ4 is inversely proportional to their skill at debating and they keep sending the wrong messages all the time, including when it comes to economies.

 

[Firestorm94]

I can't stand anarchy, so I like spiritual

 

[Moon Pine]

Imperalistic...... I'm a warmonger o(∩_&#8745o...... Though many players consider it as a weak trait. The cheaper settlers and GGs could really build up a large empire for me.

Organized for the second place - courthouses and cheaper civics could really cut down the upkeep for a large empire a lot.

Expansive for the third place - making the newly conquered cities grow's a really important thing.



Didn't like the aggresive trait much, though it can let my axeman get shock promotion with 3xp and pickman formation for 5xp. Cheaper barracks could only help in ancient era as the the barracks itself's cheap enough for later era. I alway promote my melees in CR line and Gunpowders in Drill line.

Protective won't help much in early era.......

Financial's too good, and I didn't want a op trait.

 

[Supr49er]

I usually build a ton of wonders, so I chose Industrious

Welcome to the Forums Wilhelm I.

 

[Ricci]

Hm, itd be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the difficulty levels people played and what traits they liked.

It is interesting as certain. Why do we find so much emphasis in the financial trait? Because the vast mayority of civ players are middle level strategists (warlord to monarch/emperor); financial being the most easy, less strategic, trait to use. On the other hand, any player arguing that protective or imperialistic traits are weak should really go up a couple of levels of difficulty. They are certainly underestimating big time their skills in the game, thus having some aspects really easy to deal with (invasions, expansion, wonder building.. etc).

Anyhow, financial is a middle trait in my opinion. Good, strong, especially in the clasical to renaissance era, afterwards it's bonnus becomes marginal (once I made the count and it added 10% to my total comerce.. of course it's nice but not "overpowered" or "awesome" as many claim). In many terrains it's goodness is easily reduced, when you canot build cottages in tundra or ice terrain; compared to SE where all you need are good food resources, and these come along at any latitud (sea food, deer in terrain types where cottages are much difficult).

You should also ask if favourite traits also depend on game speed. All units related traits will be much better considered in slower speeds. Even marathon has a settlers cost of 300 h, not proportional with other units costs; great deal for imperialistic.. is it not?

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

Anyhow, financial is a middle trait in my opinion. Good, strong, especially in the clasical to renaissance era, afterwards it's bonnus becomes marginal (once I made the count and it added 10% to my total comerce.. of course it's nice but not "overpowered" or "awesome" as many claim).

That's like saying praetorians are ok, but not overpowered because they still get destroyed by rifles. The classical to renaissance era is the most important in the game. Teching well in that era can give you an advantage that can last the rest of the game.

 

[Ricci]

That's like saying praetorians are ok, but not overpowered because they still get destroyed by rifles.

Not really, I am still comparing financial with other traits all along the game. Of course imperialistic is much more usable in the ancient age when you are founding cities and grabbing land/resources; organized does nothing in the ancient age (maybe one or another lighthouse.. ) and it begins to have power in the middle ages, truly great in modern times.

The classical to renaissance era is the most important in the game. Teching well in that era can give you an advantage that can last the rest of the game.

I simply don't see this as is.

 

[Sisiutil]

I simply don't see this as is.

Really? I have to agree with BalbanesBeoulve, the game is almost always won or lost in that era. I emerge from it either in a dominant position or scrambling to eke out a victory.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

All units related traits will be much better considered in slower speeds.

On slower speeds, it's easier to win a war with a big army you've been building, since it's harder for your opponent to muster a counter-force. As such, unit boosting traits are less necessary on slower speeds.

 

[PaulusIII]

Charismatic. It helps greatly in raising the happy cap in the early eras, and the military advantage is also useful. All in all, a nice versatile trait which helps with whatever you're doing.

 

[josephstalin]

Financial, very easy to manage.