FIN : Most overrated trait

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
He's talking about using Scientists to generate the majority of your science, which give you GSs which you generally settle (or use to generate golden ages in some strategies). This strategy is entirely useless for a FIN based strategy because it requires lots of farming instead of cottaging.

I know.

You can't get scientists until you have Libraries.

In addition, some FIN-based strategies use coast, not cottages.

In addition in addition, using scientists does NOT require "lots of farming". Not only does it not require a "lot", it doesn't even necessarily require ANY, if you have food resources, which you often do.

Wodan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Blake

Or they could invade their neighbor and sack cities for cash. It's a great use of the production vector.

Different traits are better for different styles of play. The Financial trait is definitely not geared well to a "build up as strong an army as possible as early as possible and go on a rampage" style of play. But it is very nice for a style of play that focuses on peaceful expansion in the early stages of the game.

[Blake]

The thing is, an aggressive style of play often tends to be optimal, so a trait which benefits another, non-aggressive style of play, is just going to be not as good...

[Velociryx]

I would agree in general with what Blake's saying.

In the same breath though, I'd say that Civ is still by and large populated by SP gamers, and in the SP universe, optimization for its own sake isn't nearly so important as it is in the MP world, where you can rest assured that all your opponents are playing that way, and will gut you as soon as look at you.

So in the SP arena, away from the "optimize at all costs and never mind if it ignores some (fascinating) aspects of gameplay", you are free to explore as you please, and IN that newfound freedom, it's very easy to uncover styles of play which do not rely on absolute optimization, maximized hammer counts or your dead, etc.

This is not to say that there aren't a population of gamers out there who enjoy optimization for its own sake, and probably get quite a kick out of playing a technically superior game (and I'd guess that Master Blake is probably one of those!), and that's awesome. There's a place, and a need for that kind of mind, so it's absolutely wonderful!

But always keep in your mind that there ARE situations in which the pure optimization approach, in which maximizing hammers isn't the right (or the only) answer, and there is another subset of gamer out there who delights in intentionally choosing the less travelled path....partly just to see what lies down that road, and partly in acknowledgement of that fact that, for those gamers, the journey is more important than the destination.

I like to think that I'm in that category.

-=Vel=-

[Kataphraktoi]

When trying to draw a discussion to a close, it is best to to avoid making a comment that is so obviously wrong. It’s like saying that windmills are optimal improvements for hills – which they are not prior to machinery. Or that watermills are superior to farms: they are inferior to farms before Replaceable Parts and even then, the irrigation benefits of farms could outweigh the production value of windmills.

All of those other improvements are valued city by city.

What is the point of conquering if your new cities just drag you down, i wonder.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Blake
The thing is, an aggressive style of play often tends to be optimal, so a trait which benefits another, non-aggressive style of play, is just going to be not as good...

That depends on how you define good. Civ is a game, which means that the most important thing is for players to have fun. For some players, having fun means using whatever strategy will let them play on the hardest difficulty level possible. But other players enjoy some play styles more than others and prefer to play a kind of game they enjoy even if it means they can't play on quite as hard a difficulty level.

I'm also curious as to what percentage of players are good enough at fighting that they can make a military strategy in the early game more effective than a builder strategy. Personally, if I have a choice between fighting and peaceful expansion, I've never been comfortable with my ability to make wars profitable unless I have a tech lead or a unique unit that provides essentially the equivalent of a tech lead.

[Velociryx]

I think (and Blake, feel absolutely free to correct me if I am mistaken here), that if we sub in the word "efficient" for "good" we arrive at the crux of the point Blake was driving at.

In terms of raw effiency, the tactical-level optimization of hammers is the superior approach, but as Nbarclay points out (and rightly so, I believe), raw efficiency is not, for most folks, an end unto itself, but one of a possible suite of approaches.

Granted, it's the one that's all but required in the vast bulk of MP games, but in the SP arena, there's more freedom and flexibility.

I was asked privately (via e-mail) to provide an example illustrating the point I made earlier re: sometimes hammer effie isn't the right (or in some cases, the only) answer, and to that, I would point to somethink akin to the following:

It's turn one of a new game.

You've started near a green tile with corn (near water), a forested plains hill, and an oasis.

You also start with Mysticism, and have it in your mind to get an early religion.

Here, hammer optimization doesn't get you what you want. Yes, you can work a 3h tile, but you might not get your religion.

Likewise, you can focus on the food tile (corn), and you may get what you're after, but in this case (and even moreso if you are FIN), the oasis is the right answer for what you're trying to do.

No hammers at all. Less food. But still the right play for what you're trying to accomplish, and the game is rife with situations like that.

An aside to help further illustrate what I feel to be a vitally important point here.

Van Gogh was an exquisite painter.

He could paint a technically excellent landscape...photorealistic quality, if he choose to.

But he didn't start making *art* until he got away from that style.

In my mind, this drives close to what I'm getting at by proposing something other than the absolute optimization of play.

Not to say that it's bad, or wrong, because clearly, it's devastatingly effective (one need only peruse Blake's many epic games to know the truth of this statement!)...only to point out that there are other (less efficient, it must be said) approaches that can yield satisfying results.

Another example, if you will permit me to show off my supreme geekdom....

*excerpt taken from "The Bard's Handbook" an AD&D creation*

So what is it that makes bards such fantastic entertainers? Why is a Bard with a 15 proficiency in musical instrument any better than a fighter, priest or wizard with a 15? What makes bards so special? The answer to these questions and other questions are found in this section.

Unlike all other classes, Bards are performers. This is a special trait common to all Bards. There is no die roll bonus associated with this trait, it isn't listed under any kit's special benefits, and it isn't a proficiency.

Being a true performer is so fundamental to the Bard character class that it isn't listed at all. Instead, this fact influences almost every aspect of the character class. It is because of their performing nature that Bards gain special abilities with music, song, poems, juggling, and so on. Being performers is as fundamental to the Bard class as being combatants is to the warrior class. It is the one element common to all the Bard kits, the element that defines the essence of being a Bard.

Back to the example of musical instrument proficiency. It is true that a warrior with a proficiency of 16 in musical instruments is able to play more precisely and more accurately than a Bard with a 15 or less. However, playing music technically correct is only half the picture. Since Bards are performers, they understand numerous hidden aspects relating to music. They are more in tune with their audience and adapt their performances appropriately. Bards are more aware of mood, feeling, tone and the dramatic effects of stretching the music beyond the technicalities of precise playing.

A warrior who is a master musician can play the most complicated piece of music exactly as written, Moreover, every time he plays the piece, it sounds just as it did the last time. But a Bard with only a 15 proficiency can entertain audiences more successfully. Every performance is custom tailored to the occassion and the audience. The Bard takes the liberty of interpreting the song....

In my mind, this passage speaks to the essential differences we are discussing in the fabric of the game, and I would say that the two approaches....the drive toward technical excellence, and the more interpretive expressions to be found in the same instrument are part of the same whole.

One's not better or worse than the other...it's simply a different means of expression.

Or...maybe I've just finally gone off the deep end. I'll let you decide...

-=Vel=-

[Lord Avalon]

[enderw]

Well I agree fin is overrated in general, but it really depends on the map. Try and Islands map with high sea level a Fin generally crushed everything else (although Phi is pretty good. . on these settings elizableth has the best traits but the Dutch dike is by far the best UB). On Pangea traits that let you grab/hold/improve (say agg/cha/crea/exp) can crush fin.

[trev]

While I play philo civs mostly and generate GP's, I never use them to lightbulb tech, but instead mostly aim for engineers and prophets with a few scientists thrown in as well, the reason being I settle them into my capital and make under beauracracy a great hammer/all round city which can both generate gold/science and military units plus wonders. This I realise means I can be a bit slow in some aspects of the game early, but I become very powerful in the later stages of the game with good teching ability, great hammer production in cap for whatever (mostly military in late game with settled GG's sometimes the units rocket out of the cap 1 per turn with up to 30+ experience points on normal speed and even on epic speed sometimes). Running Repesentation, the many GG's also contribute quite a bit of science too.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by wodan11

I know.

You can't get scientists until you have Libraries.

In addition, some FIN-based strategies use coast, not cottages.

In addition in addition, using scientists does NOT require "lots of farming". Not only does it not require a "lot", it doesn't even necessarily require ANY, if you have food resources, which you often do.

Wodan

Farming, fishing or animal husbanding. I rather use them interchangeable in this context. And in the stage of the game we are looking at, I guess most of the cities will have food specials so do not generally need non-special tiles to be farmed. The exception being flood-plains which I believe should generally be farmed early. Unless food is excessive in a city, grassland rivers will also want the farming treatment rather than the cottage for the simple reason that I want some food to support the specialists AND to grow. Just because I want a GS does not excuse my cities from getting infrastructure.

I would also dismiss the general idea that the first GP generated is a Prophet. This is already assuming a specific strategy that involves moving through the religious techs tree and probably acquiring an early religion. Even the Oracle “sling” to Code of Laws is still a very specific strategy. Writing does not need the religious line and offers many benefits. The biggest of these is the ability to generate an early GS without any fuss (for a PHI civ).

Even without a PHI civ, I tend to have a very simple approach to the use of GP. If we only generate GS’s – a strategy also which works for a civ running a small specialist economy while it still has city size limitations – then these can easily be used as follows.

1) GS I goes to found an Academy
2) GS II is used to lightbulb Philosophy

In fact, I guess the only time that I settle GS is when there is little benefit in them lightbulbing or founding another academy. For a PHI civ, I might generate GS too quickly for the necessary research to unlock Philosophy so the other GS will probably settle. By and large, I do not settle GS because lightbulbing anything in excess of 1500 beakers is likely to give me more in the longer term. And usually, this possibility opens up after you have Civil Service. Unless other civs have set up a cosy mutual appreciation (and tech swapping) society, you can easily stay ahead in the race to Liberalism while happily researching down the military/gold branch of the tech tree.

I would, however, sometimes contend the point about the number of tiles that a FIN civ can typically use to generate at least 2 commerce. Prior to the invention of happy faces (Drama, Monarchy or Calendar), you’ll typically be working only specials (or pseudo-specials like flood-plains and oases) in the small number of cities you have so the number of 2 commerce tiles will depend on what type of specials they are. Once you’ve breached the initial happiness wall, you’ll tend to use a lot more standard tiles and with these the FIN civ will use more 2 commerce tiles. I would say that typically, this will be at least 1 in 3 of them.

Responding also to the comment that the generic fishing village is going to be a strong commerce provider, I would argue that this is not as easy as it looks. Merely getting these cities up to speed takes a lot of time because they have neither high food nor high production. When I set them up I tend to let them “borrow” a developed tile from a more advanced city. This will allow early buildings (lighthouse/granary) to be whipped so that the city can begin to grow and start “paying its way”. All this takes a lot of time, it is not as easy as saying size 2 = 7 commerce, size 5 = 19 commerce. Those coastal cities with sea-food specials fall into a different category because they will tend to fall into the group of early core cities that you want to build. However, my original case was based on the fact that civs rarely start with a coastal city and with Fishing. And they never start with Sailing. So setting up these cities diverts significant resources in the early game when they are more crucial for the immediate needs already raised (expansion).

Regarding Vel’s remarks about optimal play vs fun or playing to a particular style, I believe all this is suggesting some sort of self-handicapping. If it’s generally accepted that aggressive play gives better results (faster expansion AND teching) than defensive/peaceful then adopting a style that only plays to the latter will be a form of handicap. So unless there is some sort of role-play idea of choosing a particular style of play, those players who want a “better” game will generally take the food/hammer approach in preference to the commerce heavy one and with therefore adapt there whole game to this.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by trev
While I play philo civs mostly and generate GP's, I never use them to lightbulb tech, but instead mostly aim for engineers and prophets with a few scientists thrown in as well, the reason being I settle them into my capital and make under beauracracy a great hammer/all round city which can both generate gold/science and military units plus wonders. This I realise means I can be a bit slow in some aspects of the game early, but I become very powerful in the later stages of the game with good teching ability, great hammer production in cap for whatever (mostly military in late game with settled GG's sometimes the units rocket out of the cap 1 per turn with up to 30+ experience points on normal speed and even on epic speed sometimes). Running Repesentation, the many GG's also contribute quite a bit of science too.

The thing about bureaucracy is that is does not affect science or gold generated by specialists (or super specialists) so something seems to be inefficient about all this. Hammers are different but the problem I have with settled Prophets or GE is that there is often a better use for them

Prophets - Generate a shrine, settle in Wall Street city, generate a golden age
GE - Rush build a wonder.

For GG's settling these in the capital is also going to be marginal. You want at least one of them in your Heroic Epic city which will be more efficient at producing military units. After that, I would suggest that the third GG would settled in a high production coastal city where the +2 XP give a significant boost to any water units being produced. I don't know how you manage to get 30 XP but if you are doing this, you need something like 5 or 6 GG just to add the 6th promotion. And this promotion is almost always marginal. Better by far to have 12 cities churning out lvl 2 units than one generating lvl 5 units and the other 11 generating lvl 1 units.

Even so, how do you managed that many XP? Even with Theocracy and West Point (you can't run Vassalage and Bureaucracy), you need 11 GG. The best I've managed 5 GG in one game (including the Free GG from Fascism) and here I had the use of the Great Wall for much of the fighting. In total I needed 300 XP for the 4 GG that I generated (actually 450 since it was Epic speed). Your 11 GG (or 10 if you got the free one) would need 1650 XP !!!!

[Thrak]

sounds like a GG farm or two to me!

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Thrak
sounds like a GG farm or two to me!

I'm trying to picture what one of these looks like. Perhaps it is a large area of land around one culturally dominant city and bordering Monty, Napoleon and Shaka.

Hiding behind the great wall, a stack of 100 units sits quietly after the necessary DOW and tears to shreds the armies that cross the border.

Make peace with Monty then declare war on Napoleon.

Rinse and repeat....

[trev]

I mentioned earlier I play Sulamein a lot, which is Imp as well as philo, means double the number of GG's, so your 5 or so a game becomes 10. Also the city has HE as a national wonder, so it makes sense to load it with GG's as well as many settled GE's and GP's. With a bonus 80+ hammers from GE's and GP's combined with bureaucracy and HE and MA, often WP as well, it becomes a war machine on its own, a powerful unit produced every turn, ie a tank with CR3 plus combat 1 and gunpowder bonus cracks open cities even b4 the defences have been bombarded fully down when defended by infantry or similar units. The thing is by producing such powerful units the experience points quickly accumulate from the wins, giving even more GG's.
I have found from experience that war weariness becomes a real pain as wars progress, so often only the capital is producing weapons of high quality which survive many batlles when suitably used, all other cities are building happiness building or anti weariness buildings just about. But by seriously generating and settling GE's, it produces enough units on its own to continue a war. Prior to Riflemen/Cavalry though most units are produced from other cities, as the capital is constructing buildings and wonders as a priority, and generally I aim to be fairly peaceful in that time, however the GG's are still settled there for when crisis demands quick production of powerful units.
During wartime time I will often run theocracy early and Pentagon later, so all units are usually level 2 at worst anyway, memory tells me the best I have had is 33 EP's produced, although it may have been 31, but above 26 by the end of the game is reasonably common.
I know that building HE and WP in my capital is a little unusual, many people preferring Wall Street or Oxford as an alternative, but it works for me having this super military city late in the game. My games until recently have been on Monarch level, although my latest game I have almost won on Emperor and have my cap with units on 25 EP's I think, so nearly to the 26+ for level 5 units, I play pangaea maps which tend to mean more warfare.