Are civ traits balanced?

[alexman]

OK, after playing this game for a few months I have come to the conclusion that the civ traits are surprisingly well balanced.

When the game came out, many people were complaining that the Militaristic and Expansionist traits were weak compared to the others. But after players slowly started realizing the potential of Great leaders (the single most powerful element of the game), and after Aeson's revolutionary (at the time) tactic of resource denial using scouts, these two traits are now considered among the best.

Religious is probably a little more powerful than the other traits, but not by much.

The Commercial trait is another story!! This trait is so much worse than the others, I would never pick a commercial civ unless it had a really great UU (i.e. Rome, and maybe Greece)

Why is this trait so weak? Well, first consider its benefits. You get one extra trade for cities above size 12 (not size 6 like the manual says). Big deal! That's probably a 2% to 5% increase in commerce for a city above that size, depending on the amount of commerce the city is already producing. You also get the "optimal" number of cities for corruption increased by one. ONE! This is barely noticeable (maybe 2% increase in income for a city in the middle of the pack) on small maps, and next to useless on large ones.

Don't get me wrong. These benefits are not bad to have. They are just not nearly as good as the increased probablility of having a Great leader to build your FP, or half-price temples and one-turn anarchy.

Part of the problem is that the commercial trait is partly meant to combat corruption. Since the release of the game, Firaxis has provided ways to reduce corruption, which diminished the value of being commercial. So even if the trait was balanced when the game was released, now it is not.

Here are some suggestions of how to bring the commercial trait up to par with the rest:

• Increase the optimal-number-of-cities bonus to a percentage instead of a fixed value of one. Courhouses increase that number by 25% (in addition to reducing the corruption due to distance). The commercial civ trait could increase number of optimal cities by, say, 10%. That would result in no change (1) for tiny maps, but increase to 3 or 4 for huge maps.
  
• Change it so the center-square bonus commerce occurs for cities above size 6, not above size 12.
  
• Give commercial civs cheaper marketplaces. (Not half price though. This would make them too strong). If not marketplaces, then perhaps harbors and banks? Anyway, since all civs (except expansionist) get cheaper buildings, why not commercial civs too? By the way, I would also decrease the cost of granaries for expansionists.

What do you guys think? Do you agree that commercial is the worst trait in the game?

[alexman]

P.S. I meant to post this in the general forum. Oops...

[Theseus]

Yes, commercial is just about worthless.

How about automatic discounts on trades with AI civs... maybe 20%?

[dunk]

I think they're fine the way they are.

Also, it doesn't matter too much if they're balanced or not. Being unbalanced is actually better because it's a new challenge to play as a different civ. It's like an additional difficulty setting. Since Commercial is almost useless, and Expansionist is limited on smaller maps, play the English for a challenge. Or, play a peaceful game as the Romans. If one civ has a trait combination that makes it slightly more powerful than another, then it's good for beginner players or when you decide to play a harder difficulty.

[Arrian]

I totally agree on commercial. It's garbage. The other traits, though, are well-done, and each can be very useful depending on the map size/settings and playstyle.

-Arrian

[Jawa Jocky]

Also, Wall Street could be changed a bit. Easier for Com. civs to build, or different limits than other civs have.

[MiloMilo]

I thought the commercial bonus is +1 for size 1-6, +2 for size 7-12, and +3 for size 13+?? Maybe I have had the wrong impression...
Also, when corruption was high commercial was good. Decreasing corruption for 1.21f made the game more enjoyable but the commercial trait weaker.

[AIL]

Since I always play random I don't really care... But commercial seems worst to me too...

[alexman]

Originally posted by Theseus
How about automatic discounts on trades with AI civs... maybe 20%?

I'm not sure that would work in MP, but it sounds like fun, not to mention realistic.

Originally posted by dunk999
Being unbalanced is actually better because it's a new challenge to play as a different civ. It's like an additional difficulty setting.

I see your point. However, if a civ trait doesn't make any difference in gameplay, what's the point? Isn't it like having the civ-specific abilities turned off? I personally prefer to have cool abilities that make the civs unique, and play at a higher difficulty level.

Originally posted by MiloMilo
I thought the commercial bonus is +1 for size 1-6, +2 for size 7-12, and +3 for size 13+?? Maybe I have had the wrong impression...

I'm pretty sure the commercial bonus is +1 for size 13+. In addition to that, size 7-12 get +1, and size 13+ get +2 for ALL civs.

[Harovan]

Commercial can make your life slightly easier corruption-wise, especially on larger maps. I once participated in a French succession game on a huge map and was surprised, how productive cities were even at locations, where they would be down to one shield, one gold without being commercial. But I agree with the general line, that it's the worst trait. It could be made a bit more powerful, if it gave cheaper marketplaces and banks .But NOT half price, that would be too powerful... maybe about 2/3.

PS (edit): btw you forgot the industrious trait... not that I would vote for it, but for the sake of a complete list.

[MiloMilo]

That's a good idea Ralph... it would make them more comparable to scientific and religious civs.

[MiloMilo]

Wait:
Why isn't industrious on the poll? Forgotten? Or just generally agreed that it cannot be the worst?

[alexman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Commercial can make your life slightly easier corruption-wise, especially on larger maps.

That's exactly the oposite of what I would expect. Commercial civs increase the number of "optimal" cities by 1. For a huger map, that's 33 instead of 32. Almost not detectable. On the other hand, for tiny maps the increase is 13 from 12, which is very noticeable.

I once participated in a French succession game on a huge map and was surprised, how productive cities were even at locations, where they would be down to one shield, one gold without being commercial.

This was before 1.21f, right? The increased effectiveness of couthouses and police stations have made the commercial-civ benefits even less noticeable since then.

btw you forgot the industrious trait... not that I would vote for it, but for the sake of a complete list.

That's what happens when you stay awake all night playing civ!
Yes, Industrious belongs up there with the best of them.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
This was before 1.21f, right? The increased effectiveness of couthouses and police stations have made the commercial-civ benefits even less noticeable since then.

Yes, it started, when 1.16f was new, and went till 1.17f. As for the dimension of the described effect: You probably noticed the word "slightly" in my previous post. I just noticed in that game, that the border between 2-shield-cities and 1-shield-cities was fairly far from our palace, without spending too much attention to this. And the difference between 1 shield and 2 shields is 100%, hence noticeable.

[Giovanni Wine]

I agree that commercial is the worst trait, and was increadibly weakened down with the new patch.

I like the idea of having reduced cost for marketplace (2/3 of the cost seems fair to me).
the discount in trading would not help since the AIs trading between each other is still much different in confront of Human - Ai trading. And in MP would not help.

Plus I think that the normal bonuses plus cheaper Marketplace (and maybe banks too) is enough to make this trait as desirable as the other

Saluti

[chiefpaco]

I'm with you all the way, alexman. Something for commercial seems necessary, maybe using the % in some way like you suggested.

Some sort of guaranteed benefit for Expansionist might be ok, like a cheaper granary. It would be a failsafe for a bad starting position for them. I do think them starting with granaries is pretty powerful though.

An equal argument can be made for the rest, IMO.

It just seems like I'm missing something when I get a civ that gets no cheap buildings. I understand the need for variety, but I'm not sure it comes out fairly.

[BillChin]

I have an idea for Expansionist, especially if scout resource blocking is patched out at some point.

Expansionist civs get a free army at the end of each age. Gives a big boost when the early bonuses are long gone. Opens up a whole batch of interesting new strategies in single player and multiplayer for Expansionists. A free army is useful, but is not overpowering (except on tiny maps). In many situations a player would prefer a free advance (Scientific) over a free army.

Other people have suggested a two-move settler special unit, maybe make that available at the end of the first age.

While I'm at it, maybe give Commercial free maintenance on Marketplaces or maybe one extra gold for each Marketplace so Smith's Trading company is still useful. This gives them a decent gold boost without changing game balance much at all. A change in the percentage would be too big of a bonus later in the game.

[Sean]

I find expansionist useless. The poor English get stuck with both Commercial and Expansionist, not to mention a lame UU. It frustrates me, because I traditionally play as the English.

[Harovan]

I dare to say, that at any map larger than standard Expansionist is one of the best traits. The larger your initial landmass is (pangaea, large continent) and the less civs are living there, the more powerful is expansionist. On huge pangaeas with a substandard number of civs, it's worth 2 or 3 of the other traits together. In particular it can give:

- practically every ancient advance for free, given you send enough scouts
- a bigger amount of free settlers than the other civs can get (and any free settler before 3000BC is a HUGE bonus)
- early knowledge about fertile land, choke points, strategical and luxury resources
- lots of cash, because your world maps will be enormous valuable
- the opportunity to deny your opponents resources to a certain point (you can't stay there forever anymore, that's patched out)
- a cheap and flexible observation unit, that warns you, if unusual troup movements occur, that may lead to a sneak attack

Well, that's on large, thin settled maps. But I agree, on standard maps it's at most mediocre, and on tiny/archipelago it's useless.

[Jethro83]

On smaller maps, Commercial and Expansionist are weaker traits.

On larger maps, they are quite strong.

Though I've found Scientific to be quite weak since moving up in difficulty level. The cheaper libraries, unis and labs, with free tech at start of each era is nice, but I prefer to grab it all off a civ thats ahead of technology by beating them into submission.

So generally speaking, Scientific is weakest in most circumstances IMHO.

[alexman]

Sir Ralph: Agreed 100%. Expansionists rock when there is room to explore. Because of that (and their UU, of course) Iroquois were my favorite for a while. Although BillChin's suggestion of a free army at each age would help make the trait useful for smaller, more crowded maps, without making much of a difference for larger maps. Nice solution for a well-rounded trait.

LordAzreal: Again, (see above) commercial is actually weaker on larger maps. I agree that scientific is not very strong at the start of the game at higher difficulties. But as soon as you start doing your own research (I typically do, starting the second half of the middle ages at the latest), it is very useful. Those universities are expensive full price!

[DrSpike]

As always it depends on the land. If scout denial is not considered most of the time expansionist is as weak as commerical. It also depends on how you mean to play the game. If I am going for a spaceship/diplomatic win (and you really need to decide early in civ3) I wont pick a militaristic civ even on higher levels, where some early war is required. For this type of game religious and industrious are great traits.

For a more conquest orientated game militaristic is a must, and your civ choice is probably more dominated by that and UU than the second trait.

To answer the initial question no they aren't balanced. However the skill lies in getting the maximum out of the traits, which for most comparison games you will not be able to pick.

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
- a bigger amount of free settlers than the other civs can get (and any free settler before 3000BC is a HUGE bonus)

I agree with all of your points, Sir Ralph, but this one really rings true because I've seen the difference in tournament & GOTM games. In these, the people who get a bonus town early have a great advantage. Getting a settler from the first goody hut pays for the trait right there! In fact, I'd almost say with the other benefits, that alone can make Expansionist the best trait. 2 towns by 3000BC is far better than anything, I say.

May I also add to your list that using your scouts, you can do heavy and profitable map trading? I don't know how to do it well, but have heard others do it extremely efficiently.

I strongly disagree that Scientific is weak. I consider it at least as good as the others, if not the best for many play styles. Libraries give more culture than temples and Universities give more culture than Cathedrals. Plus they boost research. Plus you get cheap Research Labs. Plus you get 3 free techs and the modern one is worth quite a bit.