Whatever happened to the "Quantative Analysis of the Civ traits" thread?

johncmcleod · July 24, 2003, 23:31

I read a great thread called "Quantative Analysis of the Civ Traits" or something like that. It had these really detailed calculations of how much money each trait gained for you. It was a great thread, and I was surprised it wasn't in the Must Read Threads. I decided to search for it but the search doesn't seem to work for me. I typed in the title and it said that the only thing I typed in was civ. If someone could find the thread and post a link either for me or put it on the Must Read Threads (it definitely deserves to be there) that'd be great.

The one odd thing about the thread was where they placed religious. The traits were like this:

1. Industrious
2. Commercial
3. Scientific
4. Militaristic
5. Religious
6. Expansionist

It's weird because a lot of experts say religious is an awesome trait and that it is second best.

Theseus · July 25, 2003, 00:34

John, that was a looong time ago, and I think the reason that it wasn't kept up was that the patches kept changing things (and it was also pretty contentious if I remember).

I'd be happy to see it revisited... perhaps with C3C?

vmxa1 · July 25, 2003, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
The one odd thing about the thread was where they placed religious. The traits were like this:

1. Industrious
2. Commercial
3. Scientific
4. Militaristic
5. Religious
6. Expansionist

It's weird because a lot of experts say religious is an awesome trait and that it is second best.

That was the consenus in the early days, but I doubt it is now. The rankings there are as good as any. Map and style of play and civs will alter things a bit. I mean if you are playing for a culture win, then Rel moves up.

Solomwi · July 25, 2003, 01:11

I think it was that thread that had one of my favorite all time points on 'Poly... the emotional difference between not having other traits (darn, those half price temples sure were nice... oh well) and not having Industrious (I need a road through that mountain in the ancient age and it's going to be done in HOW MANY turns?!?

).

FrustratedPoet · July 25, 2003, 04:26

Industrious is a drug, man. Once you're hooked it's hard to go back.

bongo · July 25, 2003, 06:16

Agreed

All of them are strong if you know how to use them. Part of the fun is how they affect your play-style and strategies.

GhengisFarb™ · July 25, 2003, 06:49

That is the hardest part about choosing your civ in regards to traits, yeah I'll have cheap temples and barracks, but my workers will be slow.........

Arrian · July 25, 2003, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Industrious is a drug, man. Once you're hooked it's hard to go back.

I've been breaking myself of it. I've been playing non-industrious civs lately (England, Zululand, Rome, Babylon).

I STILL maintain the religious is a powerful trait. I will concede the #1 spot to industrious.

Commercial has come up in my estimation, but that's not entirely objective of me. I hate corruption, and really like having large, efficient empires. Thing is, most of the time, commercial doesn't translate to victory, it just beefs up the margin.

I've decided that scientific isn't all that worthwhile in SP, even with the bug fix in the latest patch. This is heavily influenced by my warmonger style.

My current ranking, for play on standard map/continents/70%/8 civs/Monarch:

Industrious
Religious
Militaristic
Commercial
Scientific
Expansionist

I think I'd leave this list this way on Emperor too (my most successful Emp games have been with Egypt and China).

-Arrian

Cort Haus · July 25, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I've decided that scientific isn't all that worthwhile in SP, even with the bug fix in the latest patch. This is heavily influenced by my warmonger style.

Which bug fix?

Agreed, Scientific isn't very helpful for the warrior playstyle but it's handy in a peaceful trading game, and indispensible for OCC.

Arrian · July 25, 2003, 11:37

There was a bug (or maybe not a bug, but something that wasn't working right) that resulted in Sci civs getting a certain free tech 90% of the time (monotheism, nationalism, rocketry). It wasn't supposed to be like that. Sci civs now have an even chance of getting any of the entry level techs.

I'm playing a game as the Babs and I got feudalism when I hit the middle ages. I'll be psyched if I get steam power when I go industrial.

-Arrian

Nor Me · July 25, 2003, 16:28

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=34902

Commercial comes top and is underestimated. Although I still think expansionist is a better trait.

It underestimates the number of useful cities you'll have at the end and overestimates the time the game will take for the settings.

TheArsenal · July 25, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I STILL maintain the religious is a powerful trait. I will concede the #1 spot to industrious.

I've had pretty good luck with it when playing Arabia (also expansionist). IMHO, Arabia is one of the best "militaristic" civs that doesn't outright have that trait. Must be the UU.

That said, Industrious is such a drug that I find myself playing the same civs that have that trait over and over. Mostly China.

vmxa1 · July 25, 2003, 17:23

China has the advantage of the well place UU in addition to the IND trait. The Rider is a very good unit and tends to trigger the GA at a good time. This can not be said for America for instance.
I was disappointed that PTW did not add any Ind civs that grabbed me and so many had EXP trait.

TheArsenal · July 25, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
China has the advantage of the well place UU in addition to the IND trait. The Rider is a very good unit and tends to trigger the GA at a good time. This can not be said for America for instance.
I was disappointed that PTW did not add any Ind civs that grabbed me and so many had EXP trait.

This is the case with the Ansar as well, and the reason I have taken to playing Arabia when not going with the tried and true industrious trait. I don't remember, isn't it a little cheaper to build than Riders? Definitely cheaper than knights. The problem is since they are fast movers, I like to get them way out front in the battle to take cities, and bring the slow movers up to fortify. But with such low defense points (even with retreat), if they get caught out alone or in counter-attacks, they get cut down pretty readily.

Agreed on the number of civs with the Exp trait. I play larger maps, no cultural linking. Nothing is worse than wandering around a map in the first handful of turns and seeing AI scouts everywhere practically bumping into each other.

Theseus · July 25, 2003, 19:10

It's funny how the world turns.

Depending on the game, I am really really back into MIL. I find the cheap harbors and barracks just addictive. Barracks are ridiculous... "Oh, f*ckin' hell, put a barracks there too!!"

Add that to a high survival UU, like Legions or Berzerks, and, just as we all get frustrated with the crap Workers when not IND, I get frustrated if I don;t get all my units up to elite in no time.

vmxa1 · July 25, 2003, 20:36

Theseus I have been missing my Mil trait as well. It seems so much harder to get promotions now and forget leaders.
My current game I killed a stack of 16 units and did not get a single promotion (not to mention 5 elites and no leader, but that seems fine).

Theseus · July 25, 2003, 20:40

vxma1, you tried Scandy yet?

(I feel like a pimp for Berzerks these days

)

vmxa1 · July 26, 2003, 00:57

Only once and that was right after PTW came out. I think I did have them in a preset AU game now that I have my mind sort of engaged. I did like the UU.

Artifex · July 26, 2003, 15:26

I always find it tough what to do with my first GL. An army or the forbidden palace.

asleepathewheel · July 26, 2003, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
I always find it tough what to do with my first GL. An army or the forbidden palace.

I usually go for a tough wonder first, unless I am on the warpath or it is way early in the game. I don't use leaders to build the FP anymore, I just hop the fp down a bit at a time till perfect. A leader would be better used for moving the palace altogether-much steeper price to move that than build the fp.

vmxa1 · July 26, 2003, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
I always find it tough what to do with my first GL. An army or the forbidden palace.

It depends on the game situation. Most of the time I will use it to make an army. I want that first army win and the army can be used to bludgeon a city.
Ocassionally I will be in a position to drop it on a wonder, but that is rare. This is because I tend to only get 1 or 2 early wonders at emperor. One will likely be Colossus and maybe GL. I don;t need a leader for the first and I will hopefully have my leader way before the GL.
In fact in my current game I only got the Colossus and nothing more until Sun Tzu and Leos. Then at Newtons, I got untracked and got all wonders since that point.
FP is an iffy one to me. I often build it from scratch, but in this game I slammed it with a leader as I had one and no other crying need.