[2.1] Civic Trait Elimination

[Enska]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 19
Corporate Dominion 21 (+1)
Cutthroat Politics 6 (-2)
Fanatic Purifiers 11
Inward Perfection 29
Mechanist 32
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 16
Slaver Guilds 19
Syncretic Evolution 15

While not hideously bad, cuthroat politics is the most situational in the list. Something you pick when usefulness of other "good" alternatives is dubitable.

Starbase energy buf is quite sure pick, as energy from star bases is bit too good approach in live version.

 

[Iron Spirit]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 17 (-2)
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 7 (+1)
Fanatic Purifiers 11
Inward Perfection 29
Mechanist 32
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 16
Slaver Guilds 19
Syncretic Evolution 15

I probably wont be able to save Cutthroat Politics at this point but I can at least try. Citizen Service has been terribly overrated thus far IMO and needs to come down.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 17
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 7
Fanatic Purifiers 11
Inward Perfection 29
Mechanist 32
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 17 (+1)
Slaver Guilds 17 (-2)
Syncretic Evolution 15

Parliamentary system because of all that influence gain.

Slaver Guilds because it's very situational and often needs to be paired with Syncretic or optimised with traits to be any good.

 

[Siri]

I'm not so sure of that. The leading player has Rockbreakers (robot version of Mining Guilds) and Rapid Replicator, number two has Inward Perfection and Agrarian Idyll.
If anything population growth has been added to minerals and unity as being among the most desirable civic effects.

Is this about the Dev Clash? If so I don't think one would want to speculate too much based on what happens there because I get the impression that none or almost none of them are power gaming, but rather role playing. I also get the impression that they are of wildly different skill levels so it's hard to look at their respective choices and draw conclusions from that. It's also hard to evaluate what it is they're doing that makes someone pull ahead because we just get a general overview, not the ability to inspect individual planets and see how they're specialised.

Rather than that, I have been looking at the Let's Plays from various Stellaris YouTubers that have been cropping up in the past few days thanks to review copies handed out and I get the impression that minerals matter less in relation to other things than they currently do. I'd have to play myself to really be able to gauge it but I feel hopeful. I don't know that I think Unity has increased in value, but pop growth certainly seems to have and that makes me very excited for Barbaric Despoilers.

 

[fishworshipper]

Is this about the Dev Clash? If so I don't think one would want to speculate too much based on what happens there because I get the impression that none or almost none of them are power gaming, but rather role playing. I also get the impression that they are of wildly different skill levels so it's hard to look at their respective choices and draw conclusions from that. It's also hard to evaluate what it is they're doing that makes someone pull ahead because we just get a general overview, not the ability to inspect individual planets and see how they're specialised.

Rather than that, I have been looking at the Let's Plays from various Stellaris YouTubers that have been cropping up in the past few days thanks to review copies handed out and I get the impression that minerals matter less in relation to other things than they currently do. I'd have to play myself to really be able to gauge it but I feel hopeful. I don't know that I think Unity has increased in value, but pop growth certainly seems to have and that makes me very excited for Barbaric Despoilers.

I agree that minerals likely matter less overall. One big change is that internal development - buildings and mining/research stations - uses minerals, while external development - outposts and fleets - uses alloys. Because the two are created, stored, and used separately and at different, largely independent rates, the value of just one is naturally less than the value of both, which is what Minerals were pre-2.2.

 

[Silens]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 17
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 7
Fanatic Purifiers 11
Inward Perfection 30 (+1)
Mechanist 32
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 13 (-2)

 

[Dracoknight]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 18 (+1)
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 5 (-2)
Fanatic Purifiers 11
Inward Perfection 30
Mechanist 32
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 13

 

[Vynlanesh]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 5
Fanatic Purifiers 11
Inward Perfection 30
Mechanist 30 (-2
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 14 (+1)

 

[Sigma 582]

@Cry_Havok awarded 1 point to Syncretic on the previous page but forgot to actually add it to the score. Fixing it.

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 5
Fanatic Purifiers 11
Inward Perfection 30
Mechanist 28 (-2)
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 16 (+1)

Like it was said before, Syncretic and Bio ascension is strong but tedious and therefore widely disliked. Being disliked is not relevant in the rules of current game while being strong is.

Picking one do downvote is damn hard at this point, all civics are strong choices, but after some hesitation I'm downvoting Mechanist for the following reason. Building robots, buildings for them and energy stations to support both costs minerals which otherwise could be spent on expansion in space. Normally, building robots is not less profitable than building mining stations in space but doesn't overshadow it too much either (unless you only have very crappy systems and very good planetary deposits).

 

[MojoOverflow]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 5
Fanatic Purifiers 9 (-2)
Inward Perfection 30
Mechanist 28
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 17 (+1)

Downvote on purifiers because beeing the enemy of everyone is a big drawback. And having to purge everyone smallers the gains from conquering.

That seems highly questionable for at least one reason, and arguably more. Number one being that if you pick up Syncretic and Slaver Guilds, you aren't getting Mining Guilds, and if you're trying to optimise you really should have Mining Guilds. Another is that yes, you can do specialised planets, but if that's your recourse you're lowering the benefit of the civic and you're probably better off just grabbing Mining Guilds + Slaver Guilds. I'm also not at all convinced that that isn't what you should be doing anyway.

Personally I'd rather have Slaver Guilds for a few reasons. It doesn't split your growth, which isn't a colossal deal, but it is also more than nothing. Slaver Guilds is more flexible in that it can be changed if you would want to for whatever reason (you probably won't, but it's also more than nothing). Syncretic Evolution's bonuses are limited to the special pops, whereas Slaver Guilds will apply to any pop in your empire. If you're purging everything you conquer then this matters less, but if you're purging everything you conquer you're also slowing down your empire's growth which is a fairly significant drawback. If I was going to go for the style that comes with Syncretic Evolution of having two different kinds of pops, I'd rather go with Mechanist because even if the bonuses aren't as big the only drawback that still exists when going this route is that it is also a civic that can never be changed. On top of not having the same drawbacks, it has other solid benefits both in terms of growth and habitability. It doesn't generate AS much minerals per pop, but it is more than offset by the massively increased growth, as is the mineral investment required to get that increased growth

I agree when you say that for an optimal build you should take Mineral Guilds. But i think Syncretic Evolution is way better than slaver guilds, because you can combine your huge Mineral and food income with thrifty and intelligent on your main species to get a nice round up and an empire with bonis in all ressources. And I prefer syncretic also above mechanist, because it opens up the psionic path, which is my prefered way to play. I dont know which of the civics are stronger, because both seem super strong, but I prefer the syncretic playstyle.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 5
Fanatic Purifiers 9
Inward Perfection 31 (+1)
Mechanist 28
Mining Guilds 40
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 15 (-2)

Sometimes I permit filthy xenos to exist for a time while I ascend quickly. I cannot think of a reason to go syncretic when I can enslave my only species when convenient with caste system.

 

[Dr. Chaos]

Agrarian Idyll 11
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 3 (-2)
Fanatic Purifiers 9
Inward Perfection 31
Mechanist 28
Mining Guilds 41 (+1)
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 15

Welcome to the mine-fields m****rf****r!

I dont like mining guilds, because its too boring... but the most useful civic with no restrictions. Minerals for the whole family!

Cutthroat can be good later on, but I have to downvote something.

 

[Sute]{h]

Agrarian Idyll 12 (+1)
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 1 (-2)
Fanatic Purifiers 9
Inward Perfection 31
Mechanist 28
Mining Guilds 41
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 17
Syncretic Evolution 15

 

[GloatingSwine]

I agree when you say that for an optimal build you should take Mineral Guilds. But i think Syncretic Evolution is way better than slaver guilds, because you can combine your huge Mineral and food income with thrifty and intelligent on your main species to get a nice round up and an empire with bonis in all ressources. And I prefer syncretic also above mechanist, because it opens up the psionic path, which is my prefered way to play. I dont know which of the civics are stronger, because both seem super strong, but I prefer the syncretic playstyle.

Intelligent isn't all that useful in the early game because you'll be getting most of your science for the first 50-75 years of the game from sources it doesn't affect.

Same as Thrifty but Thrifty is even worse because of trade hubs.

So specialising your main species for it at the start by going Syncretic just isn't all that useful really. Maybe mod it in later, but by then you've got most of the techs anyway so do you even need it?

If you're going to do anything with your main species with Syncretic then make them Enduring/Talented/Quick Learners.

But you can still do, eg. Strong/Industrious/Quick Learner on everyone, enslave them from the start for the same mineral output/food as Serviles and get the leader levels from traditions and Capacity Boosters that don't fill a limited slot and all the other lifespan increasers that likewise don't use limited slots.

Like it was said before, Syncretic and Bio ascension is strong but tedious and therefore widely disliked. Being disliked is not relevant in the rules of current game while being strong is.

Like it was said before, Syncretic and Bio ascension is strong but tedious and therefore widely disliked. Being disliked is not relevant in the rules of current game while being strong is.

Actually, Syncretic is proportionally less useful for bio ascension than it is for non-bio ascended.

A Syncretic pop can stack Servile, Very Strong, Industrious, Robust for a total of 35%/5%, a non-Syncretic pop can have Strong, Industrious, Robust, Nerve Stapled for 30%/5%.

It's if you don't go in for Bio Ascension that you get the full extra 10% because you can start your serviles as Strong + Industrious for 30% day one where your main pops would start with 20%.

If you somehow had Adaptability you could get Servile, Strong, Industrious, Robust, Nerve Stapled, but the only way to do that is to start Inward Perfection/Syncretic, Bio ascend and swap out IP once you've modded your serviles with the extra point in Adaptability.

Anyhow.

Agrarian Idyll 10 (-2)
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics 1
Fanatic Purifiers 9
Inward Perfection 31
Mechanist 28
Mining Guilds 41
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 18 (+1)
Syncretic Evolution 15

 

[Siri]

I agree when you say that for an optimal build you should take Mineral Guilds. But i think Syncretic Evolution is way better than slaver guilds, because you can combine your huge Mineral and food income with thrifty and intelligent on your main species to get a nice round up and an empire with bonis in all ressources. And I prefer syncretic also above mechanist, because it opens up the psionic path, which is my prefered way to play. I dont know which of the civics are stronger, because both seem super strong, but I prefer the syncretic playstyle.

Intelligent isn't all that useful in the early game because you'll be getting most of your science for the first 50-75 years of the game from sources it doesn't affect. Same as Thrifty but Thrifty is even worse because of trade hubs.

So specialising your main species for it at the start by going Syncretic just isn't all that useful really. Maybe mod it in later, but by then you've got most of the techs anyway so do you even need it? If you're going to do anything with your main species with Syncretic then make them Enduring/Talented/Quick Learners.
But you can still do, eg. Strong/Industrious/Quick Learner on everyone, enslave them from the start for the same mineral output/food as Serviles and get the leader levels from traditions and Capacity Boosters that don't fill a limited slot and all the other lifespan increasers that likewise don't use limited slots.

I too am of the opinion that thrifty is pretty bad because of the overwhelming amount of energy provided by trading hubs. I never find energy to be a problem because of the hubs, even if I am playing as a Mechanist or otherwise go for robots early, despite the higher upkeep. In terms of intelligent I do think it's good, but I will take natural engineers before I take intelligent and natural engineers is much easier to slot in. It's the same amount of research % gained per trait point, but engineering is just more important than the other research areas, of course you can take both and I regularly do unless I don't intend to make robots (whether I start with Mechanist or not).

I am not sold on Syncretic over Slavers because of the drawbacks I mentioned in an earlier post. The growth split which means you'll never get the exact pop distribution you want, the civic lock, and the bonus being specific to one kind of pop rather than any addition ones you conquer. You can get the same amount of minerals by using Slaver Guilds and Industrious on your main pops, as GloatingSwine said. What you miss out on in that case is that you either don't get Thrifty or Intelligent in place of Industrious, but I don't think the gain of either of those two traits outweigh the drawbacks of Syncretic Evolution compared to Slaver Guilds.

I'm not really a fan of Quick Learners, Talented, or Enduring though. I feel the leaders where the experience matters more level up very fast anyway (governors, admirals) and the ones where they don't level very fast (scientists, rulers) the difference in the speed at which they gain levels is so small that you'll probably never be ahead more than a fraction of a level anyway, which doesn't seem like a good investment of a trait point to me. Talented is better, because if nothing else it will be an extra 2% multiplicative bonus to planet output thanks to the governor level, which you will reach fast. Enduring I feel is more of a convenience trait than it is a powerful pick. It feels really bad when leaders die, but I think the actual impact is lower than one might think just because of how quickly the really important one levels. A lot of the time I think you'll end up levelling as many generations of leaders whether you have enduring or not.

If I am going to slot in Industrious, my two other picks is probably going to be Natural Engineers and Charismatic, as unlikely a pick as that might sound. It is extremely dependant upon making use of that extra opinion by constantly arranging as many trade deals as you can because there is significant amount of capital to be had by constantly trading, especially on galaxies with more empires. Without Industrious, I'll get Intelligent instead. All this is really based upon making the strongest picks though, and I usually do some degree of role play rather than power game.

 

[4o1XOHBV6In4]

Is this about the Dev Clash? If so I don't think one would want to speculate too much based on what happens there because I get the impression that none or almost none of them are power gaming, but rather role playing. I also get the impression that they are of wildly different skill levels so it's hard to look at their respective choices and draw conclusions from that. It's also hard to evaluate what it is they're doing that makes someone pull ahead because we just get a general overview, not the ability to inspect individual planets and see how they're specialised.

Rather than that, I have been looking at the Let's Plays from various Stellaris YouTubers that have been cropping up in the past few days thanks to review copies handed out and I get the impression that minerals matter less in relation to other things than they currently do. I'd have to play myself to really be able to gauge it but I feel hopeful. I don't know that I think Unity has increased in value, but pop growth certainly seems to have and that makes me very excited for Barbaric Despoilers.

While I think that's generally reasonable I will say that I've been looking for actually good Stellaris players on YouTube lately and was disappointed. So while maybe better than the devs, I also generally wouldn't trust a generic Stellaris YouTuber and the conclusions they come to. Without going into too much detail about the reasons, I've seen people call their videos GRAND ADMIRAL and they were scaling difficulty runs. And I valuated their deviations from what I consider good strategy a lot higher before I found out.

Eventually I found one player that I felt was legitimately good and they don't commentate (asdf11784, no this is not me). If you found someone worth checking out I'd be interested, though. Especially if they have 2.2 already.

 

[Siri]

While I think that's generally reasonable I will say that I've been looking for actually good Stellaris players on YouTube lately and was disappointed. So while maybe better than the devs, I also generally wouldn't trust a generic Stellaris YouTuber and the conclusions they come to. Without going into too much detail about the reasons, I've seen people call their videos GRAND ADMIRAL and they were scaling difficulty runs. And I valuated their deviations from what I consider good strategy a lot higher before I found out.

Eventually I found one player that I felt was legitimately good and they don't commentate (asdf11784, no this is not me). If you found someone worth checking out I'd be interested, though. Especially if they have 2.2 already.

Yes, sadly this is often true because good players aren't always good entertainers. It's more my own observation after looking at them play however, not based on their commentary. Even so, I would have to play it myself to draw any definite conclusions but it looks like an improvement at least. As far as people to watch, if you want top notch play I'm not sure there really are any but at least Horath Drak plays the game on non-scaling GA, and he happened to play the combination I was the most interested in personally (Gospel of the Masses/Criminal Heritage). He set the end-game year very late but given that the release is in two days I don't think I will follow the LP until that matters anyway because I'll be busy playing myself.

On the topic of asdf11784, I have watched his things too and also had the opportunity to have a discussion with him regarding a few things. I learned quite a lot both from watching him play and his arguments for and against certain things. I was much more into Fanatic Purifiers before then for instance because that's what really opened my eyes to how powerful trading with AIs is if you use it to the extent that it can be. I don't think there's any commentating YouTuber on or particularly near his level, sadly. I think there are things to be learned by watching players that you don't think are super great too because it becomes a game to find out what they are doing wrong, and what the right choices would look like.

I would make videos myself, even if I am not as good as he is I feel I beat out the popular LPers I've seen but I am mute so it would just be another set of videos without commentary and the interest in them is so low that the time investment that comes with recording, video editing, and uploading just doesn't feel worthwhile.

 

[Pootino]

Agrarian Idyll 10
Citizen Service 18
Corporate Dominion 21
Cutthroat Politics -1 (-2) RETIRED
Fanatic Purifiers 9
Inward Perfection 31
Mechanist 29 (+1)
Mining Guilds 41
Parliamentary System 17
Slaver Guilds 18
Syncretic Evolution 15

 

[Sigma 582]

Actually, Syncretic is proportionally less useful for bio ascension than it is for non-bio ascended.

I see what you mean. Took a bit number crunching but I agree that non-Syncretic can benefit from Bio more than Syncretic. Guess I gotta re-evaluate some strategies which looked obvious.

Intelligent isn't all that useful in the early game because you'll be getting most of your science for the first 50-75 years of the game from sources it doesn't affect.

Same as Thrifty but Thrifty is even worse because of trade hubs.

So specialising your main species for it at the start by going Syncretic just isn't all that useful really. Maybe mod it in later, but by then you've got most of the techs anyway so do you even need it?

If you're going to do anything with your main species with Syncretic then make them Enduring/Talented/Quick Learners.

But you can still do, eg. Strong/Industrious/Quick Learner on everyone, enslave them from the start for the same mineral output/food as Serviles and get the leader levels from traditions and Capacity Boosters that don't fill a limited slot and all the other lifespan increasers that likewise don't use limited slots.

If you go Syncretic, the most beneficial starting traits for master race will be Traditional (as almost all unity comes from planets and there are not many % bonuses early game), Quick Learners and either Enduring (if you go for Bio ascension to replace it with Venerable/Robust later on) or Venerable if you don't.
You don't get the same output as enslaved Serviles with non-servile species. Strong/Industrious gives you 20% + slavery, Strong/Industrious/Syncretic gives 30% + slavery.
All in all, Syncretic gives you BOTH better mineral miners and better leaders from the start. By better leaders I mean that they level up faster and have better chances to survive till lifespan-boosting techs/traits thus giving you their bonuses earlier and for longer.

 

[GloatingSwine]

You don't get the same output as enslaved Serviles with non-servile species. Strong/Industrious gives you 20% + slavery, Strong/Industrious/Syncretic gives 30% + slavery.

They're the same until you get a third civic slot. Because Strong/Industrious/Slaver Guilds/Mining Guilds is the same as Strong/Industrious/Servile/Mining Guilds.

It gives you the same mineral miners and slightly better leaders in ways that have a hefty number of ifs attached.