NintendoTogepi
Noble Pacifist
Deity is ridicolous, the game is clearly not meant to played at that level
Monarch or Emperor seems to be the ideal level for balance.
Which is your least favorite trait?
- Thread starter NintendoTogepi
- Start date
Deity is ridicolous, the game is clearly not meant to played at that level
Monarch or Emperor seems to be the ideal level for balance.
I'm surprised so many people dislike the Protective trait. It sounds like this is usually because of an interpretation that playing with a Protective leader means you like to play defensively, sitting around in your own cities and not being aggressive. ie. being a wuss.
Free city garrison and drill promotion to archery and especially gunpowder units is nothing to scoff at. If you are quick to infantry (or riflemen I guess) then you only need a city (probably your military pump) spitting out 10exp units to be able to get Drill IV Infantry off the bat.
Using Drill IV Infantry makes them especially hard to kill when they have even the most measly of defensive bonuses. Most war-mongering players would pick paths along forests and/or hills to assault an enemy city anyway. If you make it very very difficult to be counter-attacked it will mean your siege units are more likely to be in good health when you reach the city. Then as soon as you've taken the city your riflemen or infantry will be much more likely to be able to defend it with the CG promotion.
With cheap walls, it can mean you can build a city walls at the last minute as an attacking stack is coming for you. If you already have a few good defenders in a city (most people would) then whipping a last minute walls is preferable to whipping another defensive unit.
But I guess it all comes back to what type of game you play. Granted I usually play with Aggressive AI at minimum Prince difficulty, it is sometimes necessary to be able to defend against a strong attacking stack with few units.
And to be honest Protective is still more of a war-mongering trait than Creative is, or Expansive and so on.
A minor point is that using the Drill line of promotions IMO makes it easier to milk combat for more GG points. Often attacking with Drill IV units instead of Combat IV or City Raider III will mean something like 96% odds instead of about 99% odds. 96% is around about the point where you get 2exp from combat instead of 1. Around 90% is where you get 3 I think. This is something I might go check up on though.
Finally, I guess Protective is a trait which increases in utility as difficulty level goes up. I suspect many people play at a difficulty level slightly below where they should be. And how many people actually play with Agg AI? I think I remember Blake saying once that playing without Agg AI is like playing in sandbox mode. And since BtS, Agg AI has departed from the regular AI so much that it's practically a different AI altogether.
Free city garrison and drill promotion to archery and especially gunpowder units is nothing to scoff at. If you are quick to infantry (or riflemen I guess) then you only need a city (probably your military pump) spitting out 10exp units to be able to get Drill IV Infantry off the bat.
Using Drill IV Infantry makes them especially hard to kill when they have even the most measly of defensive bonuses. Most war-mongering players would pick paths along forests and/or hills to assault an enemy city anyway. If you make it very very difficult to be counter-attacked it will mean your siege units are more likely to be in good health when you reach the city. Then as soon as you've taken the city your riflemen or infantry will be much more likely to be able to defend it with the CG promotion.
With cheap walls, it can mean you can build a city walls at the last minute as an attacking stack is coming for you. If you already have a few good defenders in a city (most people would) then whipping a last minute walls is preferable to whipping another defensive unit.
But I guess it all comes back to what type of game you play. Granted I usually play with Aggressive AI at minimum Prince difficulty, it is sometimes necessary to be able to defend against a strong attacking stack with few units.
And to be honest Protective is still more of a war-mongering trait than Creative is, or Expansive and so on.
A minor point is that using the Drill line of promotions IMO makes it easier to milk combat for more GG points. Often attacking with Drill IV units instead of Combat IV or City Raider III will mean something like 96% odds instead of about 99% odds. 96% is around about the point where you get 2exp from combat instead of 1. Around 90% is where you get 3 I think. This is something I might go check up on though.
Finally, I guess Protective is a trait which increases in utility as difficulty level goes up. I suspect many people play at a difficulty level slightly below where they should be. And how many people actually play with Agg AI? I think I remember Blake saying once that playing without Agg AI is like playing in sandbox mode. And since BtS, Agg AI has departed from the regular AI so much that it's practically a different AI altogether.
I guess I should add to my previous post that if you never experience a large assault (Stack of Doom) from an AI on one of your own cities, you are playing at too low a difficulty or without Aggressive AI.
If Protective is useless to you then you'll probably win regardless of what traits you have or even if you have no bonuses from traits.
Just my opinion.
If Protective is useless to you then you'll probably win regardless of what traits you have or even if you have no bonuses from traits.
Just my opinion.
ShadyCharacter
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 24
The single biggest reason why I say protective is so useless for human players is because I'm a firm believer that the best defense is a good offense. I hardly ever wait until the enemy starts to bombard and assault my cities. I try to take them out in advance on my terms. In my opinion drill 1 for gunpowder units is something to sneeze at. I'd rather just bring more siege weapons.
AfterShafter
Deity
Advancing on "my terms" means that I have to have the resources to overpower whatever the enemy has either on relatively even terms in the field, or in whatever defensible terrain there is around my territory. Sometimes it takes a tremendous amount of resources to maintain forces to do what you're talking about, and depending on the game you're playing, keeping those kinds of forces around and updated might be more resources than you really want commit, or can even afford to commit. Piece said it - if you don't see *real* enemy SOD's coming at you ever, chances are you're playing on a lower difficulty than you can manage. There's nothing wrong with this, as the purpose of the game is fun and that's sometimes just the way to go about pursuing this end, but this situation artificially strips protective of its use. It's much like the people who say "Well, industrious sucks because I can get all the wonders without it." Sure, but when you're on a higher difficulty and scrambling for any wonders at all, industrious can make a big difference.
Cities have defensive bonuses - some that can be stripped, some that can't, all of which can be leveraged against an enemy. Protective is the ultimate trait for leveraging these already existing bonuses against an advancing enemy - or cramming them down the enemy's throat in their recently captured cities. If the enemy is attacking you with gumption, there are going to be lots of units, and lots of siege - the core of the whole SoD concept. One of the obvious, but often hard to manage, counters to this is high drill units with an odds advantage - they take very little siege damage, and take very little (if any) damage from enemies attacking them with lower odds. Protective units, in a city, are absolutely ideal for killing hordes of enemy units because A) siege doesn't soften them, B) enemies at an odds disadvantage don't soften them, B) the combination of drill and city garrison means that anything that attacks them without a notable tech advantage will be at an odds disadvantage. Pair these together and... I've come to count on protective longbows surviving 4 to 1 odds on city defense, meaning that I can keep a relatively small military, focus on relatively few military techs, and devote the resources required to "fight on my own terms" to other things. And really, I'm setting my own terms... If an enemy wants to take a city, they have to run the brutal gauntlet I've set for them. The AI doesn't pillage much, and I can usually afford to just sit in my cities and wait for them to dump huge resources into attacking me.
When you have these super-elite defensive units, sea invasions which usually succeed with you using other general-military philosophies often fail because they can't even take out your two or three stock coastal defenders. SoDs need to be better planned than the CPU does, or just be gratuitously big, to hold a candle to a city loaded with protective longbowmen. Attack forces composed of 75% exceptional generalist archery/gunpowder units work very well, even on higher difficulties.
I'm an Immortal player - huge, 15 or so civs, marathon speed. I've never found protective weak - in fact, I consider it the strongest of the straight military techs for its combination of leveraging the best odds situation I'll ever get to its maximum, focusing on the strength of the resource free jack-of-all-trades units, and for the economy of techs I have to get to really take advantage of it. I know it only fits a particular playstyle, and I'm not even suggesting that people who think it's the weakest trait are wrong because it may well be the weakest for the way they choose to play (and that's not a comment on difficulty played so much as style). Just be aware, some people make this trait earn its money even on higher difficulties. Protective is the economists or the peacemonger's military trait, and it is exceptional in this role, and has tremendous strengths to be leveraged against the enemy.
Though, I will say, everyone who says it is weak, keep on doing so... If in the next patch Protective gets a buff, wow, will I ever be on cloud nine - half the guys I play now are protective
Now give me pro/org already Firaxis!!!TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
I can't get my SE economy to work... so i voted philosiphical as it's pissing me off right now.
Well of course, everyone likes to use that saying - even me sometimes. But would you consider more how to apply that philosophy if you border 3 or more civs who are stronger in power than you? Assuming you'd fight one war at a time, would you feel comfortable having a large portion of your army away from your cities, with your empire ready to be "done from behind" if you'll excuse the phrasing.
It has always been the case in Civ games that the best defense is "pretty much" defense. Try playing multiplayer with a person of equal skill and go and attack them - you'll see what I mean. There are many things including road movement, less war weariness, city defense bonuses and unit healing which make it easier to fight inside your own borders. But when you are fighting an inferior opponent, whether that be by military, technology or reasoning capacity (ie. an AI), it is usually quicker to achieve some objective by just going on the offensive.
Ace of Gold
MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY
Expansive. Usually I can trade/capture enoughresources. I usually build workers at high food cities which makes the production bonus to workers not as significant since is only for
same here,
its useless for me
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
I said Imperialistic, though Protective is right up there as well.
Faster settlers is only a slight benefit and I never really find myself short on great generals in times of war.
Protective... is only useful when your city gets attacked. But what do units go for first? Improvements. This trait is pretty much a hunk of crap until they fix it where units get a defensive boost on their own soil, the way it should be.
Imperialistic feels like it needs a true imperialist boost, maybe a slightly cheap courthouse or maybe even no anarchy period when you take over a city?
Faster settlers is only a slight benefit and I never really find myself short on great generals in times of war.
Protective... is only useful when your city gets attacked. But what do units go for first? Improvements. This trait is pretty much a hunk of crap until they fix it where units get a defensive boost on their own soil, the way it should be.
Imperialistic feels like it needs a true imperialist boost, maybe a slightly cheap courthouse or maybe even no anarchy period when you take over a city?
Don't your units ever get attacked outside of your cities?
Drill promotions work everywhere.
Also, maybe it's something different about Agg AI but I find the enemy usually heads straight for cities rather than pillaging stuff.
Pacifist46
King
hardly anyone said Charismatic - why?
It doesn't do a lot really, or am i missing something?
It doesn't do a lot really, or am i missing something?
Desert-Fox
King
I don't have least favorite trait, it depends what kind of game I want to play. Free promotions for archers/gunpowder units and cheaper walls/castles are not that bad for protective. If you play isolated game without land borders then almost free garrison 3 is nice for gunpowder units. It is more a peacemonger trait.
ShadyCharacter
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 24
If your game and strategy comes down to that then you have already f'd up, to put it bluntly. You should recognize your situation long before and take action against one or more of your neighbors before they become a menacing threat. Hence, the best defense is a good offense.
Protective promotes that you sit behind your walls or cities and let the enemy come crashing against you. I find that's usually a bad situation because they go on a pillaging spree. Maybe it's just my playing style, but I see protective as a reactionary trait where as I'm completely proactive. I am at war a lot in my games
which is probably why police state is one of my favorite civics. Come to think of it, the Romans are one of my favorite civs and I play awfully similar to how they built their empire.I've played multiplayer many times and people who play protective and just hole themselves up in their cities are like giving me a green light to pillage their infrastructure and resources. Not a very effective way to win.
Firstly, if you play on a pangaea map where you could border three or four civs, and on a difficulty at least as high as Prince, there is no way you could take on all of those civs early. Of course there are many strategies for dealing with this situation including being crafty in the diplo game but sometimes it is near impossible to avoid getting stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Maybe you play maps crowded with AIs (I know someone who happens to like playing tiny maps with 18 civs) where it is impossible for AIs to gain power, but if the starting locations of civs are far enough apart it is impossible to stop all your neighbours from getting a sizeable empire. A 9 player large pangaea for example will typically place two or three players in a fairly central position.
Don't get me wrong when I support Protective - I'm an aggressive player too. If you bothered to read my first post you'd see my arguments for why Protective is useful to an attacking player, especially moreso than traits like Creative and Expansive.
Would you mind if I asked you what difficulty and map settings you normally play, and whether you use Agg AI? If your game settings are far different to what I'm used to then we might as well be comparing apples with pyschopath blood-thirsty oranges. If Rome is your favourite civ it suggests to me you rely on an overpowered (IMO) strategy like Praetorian rush. Frankly I never play as Rome because I feel it is complete cheese. Several times in multiplayer game lobbies I was tempted to leave because someone was playing as Rome. In most cases it is safe to assume that such a player would be a noob relying on a Praet rush to artificially boost their apprent skill level.
If your interest in Rome is based on other reasons eg. you're Italian or have an interest in Roman history then that's fair enough - I won't slot you in to the stereotype. On the other hand it would be nice of you to drop the stereotype that Protective as a trait implies a passive and inferior play style.
Protective promotes that you sit behind your walls or cities and let the enemy come crashing against you. I find that's usually a bad situation because they go on a pillaging spree. Maybe it's just my playing style, but I see protective as a reactionary trait where as I'm completely proactive. I am at war a lot in my games
There's a reason I said try playing a persion of equal skill.
Sounds like you were playing n00bs.It's a fairly simple fact that people with little experience would get the impression that playing as a protective leader in some way gives them permission to have a smaller standing army and that their walls are somehow better than regular walls.
Anyone who waits to be attacked (especially by a human player) with no effective counter-attack strategy is a n00b no matter how you want to paint the picture.Seeing Protective in the hands of an inexperienced player is not a good way to judge how a good player can exploit the trait. Most other traits tend to help a player out whatever their skill level. Since there are many misconceptions surrounding how Protective is best put to use I'd be assuming that Protective is one of the few traits that actually weaken inexperienced players. In the hands of someone who knows how to use the trait and who plays games where the opponents offer a real challenge, Protective is quite powerful as a trait.
Maybe I'm crossing the line here but I'd almost argue that Protective is a better war-mongering trait than aggressive. Barracks are cheap anyway, and units having access to two free promotions instead of one is a bit convincing.
SinkingDutchman
Chieftain
So, why is creative so great? And in what period of the game?
Desert-Fox
King
In early game when you have no stonehenge you still get the fat cross without culture buildings. So it is an early game trait.
Add to that that creative is twice as fast in popping borders as having Stonehenge - on marathon speed, it means full BFC in 15, rather than 30 turns. As you can't build improvements except roads until the tile is within your borders, this also means earlier access to many resources.
