EXP is often considered weak on an opening because we use two hammer plants. If everyone settled for a 1 hammer plant, then EXP gives a 3 turn advantage. plains hill plants drop that to 2 turns, and if players get a 4 yield tile to work on T0, 1 turn. We can quantify that weakness, but the trait is more than that. There is a potential for a 4 happy cap building on a critical Classical era tech, at 75 hammers. There is a combined 125 hammer saving on the Aqueduct and Grocer, buildings that allow Factories to not starve cities down 4 pop; ORG saves 120 hammers on the Factory itself, but EXP can make the savings earlier plus the free health allows you to essentially ignore that problem, and it's a real problem later on.
Is it the best trait in the game? I'd argue that it is a mellow trait that doesn't really break anything, whereas AGG and CHM allow easier commandos, or give you a tactical advantage in warfare. FIN is FIN, on a low quality map you often have nothing to work except cottages. SPI I've already mentioned. But EXP will cover the weakness in other traits better than anything else, and it is that which makes it worthwhile.
Look, in a lot of games, people look at something that is considered special or unique to a civ, or a faction, or a team, and think they need to use that item as much as possible. Civ isn't like that, you need to use the savings on that special item to bolster something that you are lacking. People think that Boudicca is the ultmate warmonger. She isn't. If you pick Boudicca, you actually have to play "Civ City" and spend all of the time and effort managing and growing the economy. And then, if you reach the late game and you have a good enough economy, you win.
EXP balances out those weakness in a leader/civ combo. Shaka doesn't need to focus on the economy so much, because he spends less on workers so he can spend those hammers on military. Old Bismark could focus on getting that early wonder without getting run over 30 turns later by HA. Pacal can get his cottages down faster and more easily, and get them grown sooner. It lets Izzy build an empire so there is more to micromanage, more to wring out of it via civic abuses. EXP covers the weaknesses and lets the other trait be used more, and that is why it is a good trait.
Is it the best trait in the game? I'd argue that it is a mellow trait that doesn't really break anything, whereas AGG and CHM allow easier commandos, or give you a tactical advantage in warfare. FIN is FIN, on a low quality map you often have nothing to work except cottages. SPI I've already mentioned. But EXP will cover the weakness in other traits better than anything else, and it is that which makes it worthwhile.
Look, in a lot of games, people look at something that is considered special or unique to a civ, or a faction, or a team, and think they need to use that item as much as possible. Civ isn't like that, you need to use the savings on that special item to bolster something that you are lacking. People think that Boudicca is the ultmate warmonger. She isn't. If you pick Boudicca, you actually have to play "Civ City" and spend all of the time and effort managing and growing the economy. And then, if you reach the late game and you have a good enough economy, you win.
EXP balances out those weakness in a leader/civ combo. Shaka doesn't need to focus on the economy so much, because he spends less on workers so he can spend those hammers on military. Old Bismark could focus on getting that early wonder without getting run over 30 turns later by HA. Pacal can get his cottages down faster and more easily, and get them grown sooner. It lets Izzy build an empire so there is more to micromanage, more to wring out of it via civic abuses. EXP covers the weaknesses and lets the other trait be used more, and that is why it is a good trait.