Quantitative Analysis of Civ Traits

[vmxa1]

whoops forgot my .02 on leaders/military. I had three as Persia and did not even build the EPIC or I would have had more.

[mharmless]

Also I think building the heroic epic counters most of the militaristic leader advantages (now I admit this doesn't happen every game.)

Heroic Epic definitly stacks with millitaristic, not replaces it. Two games now I've had eight leaders, both were with epic+militant. The most I've gotten as a non militant was four (with epic too), in a game where I was playing like I do as a militant anyway.

I'd argue that Religion is more valuable than military for a couple of reasons. The ability to cheaply build a temple in a conquored cities (which allows you to expand your culture/border to 2 squares) is very helpful. You can also do this with scientific (but generally you need the temple and the libary is kinda of useless).

The single bigest factor I've seen in holding captured cities is population. I whip them down to nothing as fast as I can. Usualy I can get temple + barracks + cathedral without too much difficulty, then I let the town grow back up. The new citizens are all roman, no problems for me anymore. It takes 2 citizens instead of 1 if you aren't religious... GOOD. I want to kill 'em off quickly anyway.

I personaly would rank militant as one of the top abilities, but no ammount of yaking is going to convince anybody else. Try it. Play a militant. I played my first games as greek because they look so good on paper. I played my second batch of games as the french, again because they look good on paper. After that, a serries of randomly assigned civs. I ended up with the romans twice, and they just fit my playstyle so well compared to all those non-militants I tried first that I most often choose to play them now.

[vmxa1]

I think they can all work, except expanist. I do not see what it offers. Maybe someone can expalin it to me, other than a scout to start.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I think they can all work, except expanist. I do not see what it offers. Maybe someone can expalin it to me, other than a scout to start.

Expansionist civilizations also get better stuff from huts, and never anything bad from them. It's a lot more useful on larger maps, I usually play on Huge so Expansionist gives me a great advantage early on. I get at least a couple of techs from huts, usually a military unit or two, and quite often an extra settler. You also get a bit of money in your treasury early on, which gives you a lot more freedom in your budget. You will encounter the other civilizations early and thus be able to start trading for other techs, and you will know where to build your 'border cities' so that you can claim lots of terrain and block AI expansion (I don't see leaving spaces in your empire as a problem, as the cities the AI inevitably builds in them will always end up being yours in the long-run). On a Huge map with Expansionist I almost always have the largest empire as far as land area and I establish a tech lead very early on. A good start can make up for not having any benefit later in the game.

[Grim Legacy]

D'oh been playing too long to think straight. Greek. Greek.

[vmxa1]

I have a huge game going now and I made one warrior and 3-4 hoplites and was able to get to nearly all of the huts first. I say this as I found huts very far from my base (30+ turns to get back) and within 3 turns of their cities, so I am not convinced that the scout is required. I still say it is the weakest link.

[David Weldon]

I've started a thread on inflation so that delayed benefits can be discounted to the beginning of the game. This will help complicate your math quite a bit!

It's not fleshed out yet, but it would be great if anyone that wants to could
contribute or read here.

[JMan]

I agree that it's not enough to say that one Industrious worker is equal to two non-Industrious workers. The same is true for Militaristic military units and the way they were related to non-Militaristic military units - the difference is more than 20% or however it was expressed.

Forget upkeep costs for a moment - they are important, but only under certain governments. The real difference is the time that building two workers would take instead of building one. At minimum, the difference will be at least one city-turn. (You know, city-turn, like man-hour). In that turn, the city could be building something else instead. I believe that economists refer to this as "opportunity cost". It's exactly the same for military units - non-Militaristic civs will have to build more of them to get the same effect.

I suppose you could say that the opportunity costs would cancel out, with Religious civs, for instance, saving opportunity cost on Temples, Cathedrals, etc. However, that seems unsatisfactory to me.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Yay! persians 4 Evr !!

Thanks for all of your hard work and thought ...

~Alex

[B-line]

...this relative worth all depends on the map type you are playing, and the difficulty setting. The game empthasis changes dramatically when you move off the standard world map.

At the hardest settings city moral is extremely important and hard to maintain, and corruption ins the early game can be crippling.

With raging barbarians selected, strong defence is needed very early from large stacks of mounted barbarians.

In a small map, technologies are cheeper, exploration faster and the number of cities you will end up with (hence corruption) greatly reduced.

In an archepelico map, opportunities for military conquest are generally post-poned till sea travell is well established and defence can be scalled down.

With one large contentent, military strength can be very pivatol.


I have found the following holds for small island maps...

Expansionist: next to useless. Great for newbies at low difficulties and big maps, but just doesn't cut it at the harder levels.

Militaristic: Handy for geating leaders early.. Dominating the better World wonders construction early always leads to an easy win, also dominating another player early can be very satisfying (and rewarding) but If you start on your own little island then you will get little benifit from this skill.

Religion: Cheap temples and cathedrals are worth their weight in gold at the higher difficulty settings. Typically a towns production will be greatly curtailed due to too many dicontented citizens. To compensate you will either up luxuries (loosing research), building more warriers to squat in each town...waisting precious time, or turning off production (very painfull)
Of cause I always rush builds temples and Cathedrals as soon as I can do it for just one population point. With this skill I sometimes revert back to depotism so I can rush build for my newer towns. Also as you build these items quickers, your culture grows earlier. I have found this skill to be the best "early game" skill available.

Industrialist: Faster workers sounds great, but in reality, in the early game my one non-industrial worker per town keeps up the towns growth demand, wonce you hit size six and can grow because of the lack of aquiducts then its cheep and fast to pump out a few more. by the time I get round to clearing those cursed jungles I usually have so many workers spare I can stack them up and clear each square in one or two turns. The extra production point for large cities is only valuable in the late game, where it is less valuable. ... Although it can mean the diffenence between building that essential wonder before the other players, or not.

Scientific: cheaper libraries and universities, means you build them fasters, so you the extra research points sooner..this results in a tech rush in the mid game. This can be important for having the technological edge in battle of even for getting sanitation earlier. Also as you build these items quickers, your culture grows earlier. Each free tech, normally save you between 4-6 research turns.

Commerce: I haven't tried this yet, But here is my usual early game situation .. one or two central towns with good production , and all my other town with so much corruption they only produce one shield no matter what territory surrounds them. If commerce allows them to have two shieds, this would double all my production in my outlying towns.

[Fitz]

Re: Double counting & wonders

I think you have to count the affect of the Wonder as well as the shield cost in determining the value of a leader rush. Here's why:

The shield cost is shields used to produce the wonder. If you get it earlier, you can use those shields to build something else instead. Thus, you must count the value of those shields. They are effectively free shields, not shields that would have been payed eventually anyway.

The early affect of the wonder is also not something you would have been getting anyway. If it takes 100 extra turns to build that wonder, you have lost those turns of affect. Once you get the wonder, you have to stop counting this, as the affect will be there anyway (assuming you would have beaten the AI to it). This is part of the value of getting the wonder earlier.

Basically, think of it like this. Assume the Pyramids (ignore incorrect values for it, just think free granaries). I get the wonder right now, as opposed to 100 turns from now (300 shields later). For this price, I get:
1) 300 shields worth of production in that city.
2) 100 turns worth of granary affect (double growth in all 25 cities). Figure out a way to value that pop.

However, you do not include the shield value of a granary, because you would have gotten that anyway when you built the Wonder 100 turns later.

That's not double counting, it's single counting.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Plus, the workers can quickly build a dynamite infrastructure of roads and railroads that make defensive war a breeze. Zzzzappp! You move your unit from one end to the other instantly to defend key tiles. All the while, these roads are contributing to internal resources (shields, food, etc.).

Workers also can be a great assistance in wartime, literally laying down the roads and railroads as your army advances. They can swarm a newly conquered city and build it up to full capacity in just a few turns.

In a recent game, I was ambushed by the Aztecs. They just attacked out of the blue! Using my workers as a sort of collective tool and my extra income, I was able to crank out a force sufficient not only to repel the Aztecs, but to follow them back into their territory and pillage the hell out of everything they had.

Exactly! Similarly, I was swarmed by Aztecs (3rd largest) & Iroquois (his high-tech sidekick), however his 20 Cavalry & the Iroquois 10 Cavalry coming would overpower my 1-2 Infantry I had guarding my southern roaded cities. So I ditched my plans to take coal from the Zulus & I bought coal from the Russians. Non-industrious workers set up rail in 2 turns... my Americans (Industrious) did it during that turn! There is NO "in 1 turn" set up time for Industrious workers! This makes Industrious workers 3x faster in some cases! Very useful for "need right now" railroads. Result, my railroads were set up so fast, my forces (now a majority) quickly repeled the attack, pushed both Iroquois & Aztecs back, & took some of their cities as well... because of a very efficient & fast built railroad. Leaders, cheap religion, & scouts wouldn't have helped. Less corruption & cheap science may have let me discover Steam Power sooner, but that wouldn't have made me buy the coal from the Russians (if they had it) any sooner. Likewise if I was not attacked I could have focused my industrious workers on building railroads around only my main cities & wonders instead. Thus, Industrious isn't "2nd tier" not only for it's "crank power" as Libertarian & others have stated, but because it provides the flexibility & speed for unexpected surprises that the others cannot.

As far as Early Game - guess who is producing settlers the fastest. Enough said.

I have to agree that Expansionist Bonus is the weakest link tho.

[Dimension]

The biggest problem with trying to equate civ traits directly to shields or gold is that it skews things completely in favor of traits that are better in the late game.

For example, compare Religious to Scientific. By straight comparison, you can see that science buildings cost more than religious buildings, therefore Scientific saves you more shields than Religious. The huge problem is that you generally don't have pop-1 cities building 160-shield Research Labs. By the time you're building Universities and Labs, you've got things rolling pretty well, and you're only saving a couple turns, but (especially on higher difficulties), Temples are essential for even the smallest cities. It's common in the early game to be making settlers and have your cities going back down to 1 population. When those pop-1 cities are producing 3 shields and you decide you need to start making Temples to grow your cities and expand your borders, Religious will make the difference between 15-turn Temples and 30-turn Temples.

Then you can compare the secondary ability of Scientific and Religious. A free tech every era isn't actually a big deal, but the "Statue of Liberty" effect is huge. First, as other people have mentioned, you get the benefit of being able to switch governments when you're at war, instead of trying to make peace to accomodate your government. Besides that, though, you actually do get at least a couple "free techs" just because you're making beakers while another faction would be in anarchy, not to mention shield production.

Forced labor makes Religious even better, if that's possible. Rushing a Temple with 1 population instead of 2... well, that's obviously good. Religious buildings are the ones that need rushed the most. Religious civilizations can also do late-game forced labor by switching governments. If you've got a lot of cities with a lot of food, or if you've got conquered cities with angry citizens who are useless anyway, Religious lets you switch governments, use forced labor, then switch back.

So, directly relating traits to gold/shields has made Scientific look better than Religious, but if you relate the traits in terms of turns saved, Religious is much better than Scientific, and Religious also opens up the option of a "dynamic government" playstyle which is in no way practical with a non-Religious faction.

In SMAC/SMAX, Scientific was a great trait because it gave you an extra free tech at the very beginning of the game, and it increased the speed of your research by 20%. In Civ3, Scientific is a pretty lame trait that doesn't speed up your research at all.

While talking in terms of turns is more practical than talking in terms of gold/shields, it is also a fact that speed in the early game is more important than speed in the late game, which skews things even more in favor of Religious (and Industrious, below).

The gold/shield analysis also made Commercial look twice as good as Industrious, but look at it in terms of turns and when the benefit takes place. Faster workers is more of an early-game benefit, while lower corruption is more of a late-game benefit. Your size-6 city bonuses don't take effect till the mid-game, but you can still say that faster building (extra shield) is more of an early-game benefit, and faster research (extra commerce) is more of a late-game benefit. So, for Industrious, faster workers means less workers, which means more population for settlers, which means faster early expansion.

Whenever you're in a tough situation, think about how different things would be if you had saved a few turns by building your temples a little faster, or building your settlers and roads a little earlier. You'll usually see that things would be much easier. The early game is where speed matters, and it's where the most important decisions are made. I think this makes the Egyptians extremely good, especially for my playstyle, and especially on Emperor/Diety. Obviously, there are a few UU's that are easy to exploit and make other factions stronger for certain playstyles... If you want to get some practice in the late-game, the Greeks are certainly the best for playing a defensive science-driven game. Hoplites a so good, I often don't even need to upgrade them until I start making Modern Armor.

I'm not saying the early game is the only determining factor in your success or failure. If you're a good diplomat, you're relying on the development of other civilizations just as much. Completing your early infrastructure isn't going to change how long it takes you to trade for an important tech, unless you're considering the time it takes to complete roads and how that speeds up moving your scouts around. This is the only argument I can really think of that makes Expansionist sound any good.

[vmxa1]

Dimension, I agree with you on the Sci vs Religous, it is an easy call. The Industrious vs Commerical is a tough one to call. You can make the choice come down on the side of the Civ you want for your style. Commercial and Rel if you want India or Egypt or Rel/Ind. One thing that bugs me is that you may have to take a Civ that has a UU that you would rather not have (no editor). I am not saying it is a bad UU, just say I do not want an early golden age so I would rather not have Immortals as they will win a battle right away. I would like it if you you trigger the GA when you want to after you have earned it. Hoplites are the same way, you get a GA before you can even put four cities together, unless you avoid using them. It negates their value if you can not use them.

[Dimension]

I don't really have too much of a problem with Hoplites causing an early GA. The AI usually isn't dumb enough to attack a fortified Hoplite that would easily win. The Greeks actually have a later GA than most good civs, because Religious or Industrious civs have a real problem with wonder-induced GA's.

Colossus = religious / expansionist
HG = industrious
Oracle = religious
Pyramids = industrious / religious
Great Wall = militaristic / industrious

I'm usually working on Pyramids / Colossus / Oracle by the time I've got my fifth or sixth city down. There isn't much chance of any Religious civ saving their GA for later if you're building wonders.

An early GA is another thing that looks like a VERY bad thing in terms shields/gold, but it's not really that bad when you look at it in terms of turns saved. As long as I've got 8 or 9 cities down by the time Colossus / Pyramids triggers my GA, I'm not disappointed.

I agree that Industrious vs. Commercial depends on style. Industrious is for aggressive players and Commercial is for peaceful players... although the faster workers might make more people lean towards Industrious.