Tweet
I've noticed that Catherine (CRE/FIN) does pretty well overall, so creative must have it's strengths. It can't be just financial that gets her that far. Comparing her strength to Liz (PHI/FIN), she comes out ahead in most games I've played. Maybe she gets by on her looks partly? 
I really do think that creative is undervalued. At emperor, you usually only get to build 3 cities before the AI closes in on you, maybe 4 if you're lucky. Usually, the 4th or 5th city come from barb acquisitions, and the rest are all AI built. But with creative, you can avoid the AI building cheesy cities next to you as your cultural borders expand quickly. Early successful development sets the stage for the entire rest of the game. Also, building one square away from key resources, for the non-creative civ means sacrificing optimal city placement usually, often resulting in stunted growth or production. The costs will dog you the whole game.
I played Cyrus to reasonable success, winning by domination at emperor/pangea/normal back when I used to play normal speed. Another game was a stalemate, probably a loss even, to Washington in the modern era, perhaps a loss even. Washington is a good player in general, having financial and organized, two of the most powerful traits in the game, particularly for a large empire to make full use of the organized trait.
Financial is very strong overall, the others depend on style of play or rather adapting style of play to maximize particular traits to their full extent. All traits would seem to have strengths to play to. It's fun to switch to new traits to see how they work, what new styles of play or development paths to take.
I really do think that creative is undervalued. At emperor, you usually only get to build 3 cities before the AI closes in on you, maybe 4 if you're lucky. Usually, the 4th or 5th city come from barb acquisitions, and the rest are all AI built. But with creative, you can avoid the AI building cheesy cities next to you as your cultural borders expand quickly. Early successful development sets the stage for the entire rest of the game. Also, building one square away from key resources, for the non-creative civ means sacrificing optimal city placement usually, often resulting in stunted growth or production. The costs will dog you the whole game.
I played Cyrus to reasonable success, winning by domination at emperor/pangea/normal back when I used to play normal speed. Another game was a stalemate, probably a loss even, to Washington in the modern era, perhaps a loss even. Washington is a good player in general, having financial and organized, two of the most powerful traits in the game, particularly for a large empire to make full use of the organized trait.
Financial is very strong overall, the others depend on style of play or rather adapting style of play to maximize particular traits to their full extent. All traits would seem to have strengths to play to. It's fun to switch to new traits to see how they work, what new styles of play or development paths to take.
Comment