Civ Traits for PTW Civs

[civman2000]

COrtes and Pizarro were NOT by any long shot great leaders. REad some actual history and it's very obvious(I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel)!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

That is one of the defining books in my life (Along with "Blood, Tears and Folly". I semm to have a fetish for titles with 4 words in them.)

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Is that sarcasm?

Not at all.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by LordAzreal


Easy. Just add a third trait into each of the existing civs.

For example, the Romans could be Industrious as well as Militaristic/Commercial (think of the roads, bridges and aqueducts they were able to build ahead of their time). Germans could also be Industrious on top of their existing two traits (think of how quickly West Germany was able to reconstruct following the end of WWII).

Yes, it's a possibility. But its easier said than done. I don't think Firaxis would make such a drastic change.

[ydiiby]

Originally posted by civman2000
COrtes and Pizarro were NOT by any long shot great leaders. REad some actual history and it's very obvious(I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel)!

tell us, what is a great leader for you?

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by civman2000
COrtes and Pizarro were NOT by any long shot great leaders. REad some actual history and it's very obvious(I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel)!

Frankly civman, it is you who has to read a bit of history. Well, not just a bit... actually a ton. Only in this thread, this is the third time someone applies the old adage that "Only those things I know count. Everything I ignore never happened".

[monkspider]

In what way would you disagree that Pizarro and Cortes were not great leaders Jay Bee?
Certainly you haven't read all the literature available out there regarding Spain's adventures in the new world yourself and thus are no less guilty of letting personal bias seep through than anyone else in this thread. In fact, you may be possibly much more guilty as you are universally known as an outspoken defender of all things Spanish.

[Jay Bee]

Monks, it does not take many neurons to figure out that to forge an empire the size of the Spanish and to maintain it for 3 hundred years a strong military and very capable leaders are needed. Come on, it's not rocket science, man.

As to the personal biases, I really do not follow you. Who's talking here about personal biases? Not me, for sure. It was civman who advised some history reading to Azrael. Ever heard that story of the kettle and the pot?


EDIT: spelling

[monkspider]

I don't disagree with you that the great Spanish empire needed much more than a couple of halfwits to run things. I have no doubt at all that there were many great Spanish leaders, In fact, I'm sure good ol' Espana has had about as many quality leaders as any of the great European cultures. I just think it's perfectly reasonable for Civman to believe that Pizarro and Cortes specifically weren't nescarrily good leaders.

[Jay Bee]

And don't you think that it would be helpful to back up an affirmation like that with some info (especially if you are recommending people to read some "actual" history)?

I think you misunderstand my intentions, monkspider, mon ami

[civman2000]

I did not mean to provoke a lot of discussion, just point a few things out. Cortes conquered the Aztecs and Pizarro conquered the Incas only bbecause of the diseases they brought. Unfortunately, I don't own Guns, Germs, and Steel so I can't find a quote, but expertise in military strategy or leadership abilities played little or no role in their successes. THis may not be exactly correct, but I think this is more or less the priorities of what let them conquer the areas:
1. Diseases
2. Help from natives that opposed the rulers (the Aztecs had many enemies and iirc Atahualpa had only just gained power after a civil war)
3. Psychological effects (including the Aztecs thinking the Spanish were gods)
4. (Aztecs only) Weak government structure; when the king was lost they collapsed.
5. Horses
6. Iron vs stone weapons
7. Guns
8. Other miscellaneous things, including Cortes's and Pizarro's leadership abilities.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by nostromo


Yes, it's a possibility. But its easier said than done. I don't think Firaxis would make such a drastic change.

Not that drastic. Unless I'm remembering wrong, you can already set up to 4 traits in the editor.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Cesa


I didn't see any info on that. I think there's a chance this is the case, but we haven't seen any evidence have we?

No offical info, but I can bet it there's at least one new trait, possibly two.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Amadan


Not that drastic. Unless I'm remembering wrong, you can already set up to 4 traits in the editor.

Yes, adding a civ trait or two is a piece of cake. But doing so would have IMO a drastic effect on game balance. And balancing it all afterwards could prove to be very, very tricky.

[Arrian]

Religious/Industrious/Militaristic would be just about unstoppable. Three traits per civ is too many, unless you add some more, and somewhat minor, traits.

-Arrian

[ydiiby]

Originally posted by civman2000
I did not mean to provoke a lot of discussion, just point a few things out. Cortes conquered the Aztecs and Pizarro conquered the Incas only bbecause of the diseases they brought. Unfortunately, I don't own Guns, Germs, and Steel so I can't find a quote, but expertise in military strategy or leadership abilities played little or no role in their successes. THis may not be exactly correct, but I think this is more or less the priorities of what let them conquer the areas:
1. Diseases
2. Help from natives that opposed the rulers (the Aztecs had many enemies and iirc Atahualpa had only just gained power after a civil war)
3. Psychological effects (including the Aztecs thinking the Spanish were gods)
4. (Aztecs only) Weak government structure; when the king was lost they collapsed.
5. Horses
6. Iron vs stone weapons
7. Guns
8. Other miscellaneous things, including Cortes's and Pizarro's leadership abilities.

You forgot "La Malinche" in this list.

Military abilities: Cortes and Pizarro conquered the Aztecs and the Incas. A military man must accomplish the mission that entrusts to him. Both did it.

Leadership abilities: Can somebody that does not have leadership to command to 500 soldiers to a mission against very superior forces in number in another unknown and hostile continent?

writing with the aid of babelfish

[Mikhail]

ydiiby: Which is exactly my (original) point. Spain didn't conquer them with large armies. But by superior technology.

"Scientific" would even be a more appropriate trait for spain, than Militaristic.

with the 3 civ trait in effect, they'd be: Religious, Expansionist, Scientific

England had a superior military to spain at the time, and have been in a ton of more wars throughout history, though they aren't considered militaristic by civ standards. why should spain be?

As for Cortez being a 'great leader', that comes down to opinion. A 'leader' isn't always 'great'. It depends on how you look at it. Not worth arguing about.

[Jon Shafer]

New civ traits is on Firaxis' wish list for things to come, but it's by no means definite. Hopefully they'll tell us more later.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Mikhail
"Scientific" would even be a more appropriate trait for spain, than Militaristic.

with the 3 civ trait in effect, they'd be: Religious, Expansionist, Scientific

How exactly could the Spanish be Scientific? The Inquisition hardly seemed like the brainchild of an intelligent, cultured ruling class. When Napoleon invaded Spain, the place was still pretty much in the dark age, while the rest of Europe was much further ahead, around the Industrial age.

England had a superior military to spain at the time, and have been in a ton of more wars throughout history, though they aren't considered militaristic by civ standards. why should spain be?

If each civ had 3 traits, I'd give the English Militaristic.

As for Cortez being a 'great leader', that comes down to opinion. A 'leader' isn't always 'great'. It depends on how you look at it. Not worth arguing about.

True. I think of him as a great leader because he realised the horrid truth about warfare: People fight harder if their lives depend on it (as such he burnt his ships, so that the only way he and his men could stop themselves from starving was to conquer the natives. The fact that they didn't behead him there and then shows that he held strong influence over his men). But that's just my opinion. If others agree, then that's fine. No big deal if there are those who disagree.

[civman2000]

Yes he showed leadership abilities, but were those greater than any other significant generals that were not included in GL lists of other civs (sorry can't name any examples but just pointing out that not everyone with leadership abilities whose army had a significant impact on the world is a great leader)

[Panag]

hi ,

there should be more civ specific Qualities , .....

have a nice day

[Oerdin]

I'd be against adding more CSAs unless the old civs were rebalanced in order to let them take advantage of the new traits as well. Note that changing the traits will also lead to the necisity of rebalancing the UUs as well as updating each civ's AI in oder to take advantage of it's new traits. That sounds like a lot of work for very little pay off.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd be against adding more CSAs unless the old civs were rebalanced in order to let them take advantage of the new traits as well. Note that changing the traits will also lead to the necisity of rebalancing the UUs as well as updating each civ's AI in oder to take advantage of it's new traits. That sounds like a lot of work for very little pay off.

hi ,

hmmm , but one would have the option to turn it on or off , .....all you have to do is "flag" them yes or no , ....

have a nice day

[Spiffor]

Oerdin :
I disagree with you. It's most likely that, if they include a new CSA, it will be the "maritime" one, who had much fan support. The only existing Civ who'll get this trait are the British, who already have a specific (backstabbing) AI, and a maritime UU.

The old traits won't have to be balanced with the new trait(s)... At the contrary, the new traits will have to be thought not to unbalance the game. Think of Diablo2Expansion : the 2 new character classes were as powerful as the 5 old ones, but it didn't take a major overhaul to make it.

[The Bloody Baro]

For Carthage[with the ablities that are known to us right now] Commercial and Relgious. I read a book on Carthage and every so often[can't remember the intervel] They would take 1 baby frome every city in the empire until they reached 100 and throw them into the fire to please their gods. Commercail, well they did fight rome 3 times so they could have the Meditterean shipping lanes.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Oerdin :
I disagree with you. It's most likely that, if they include a new CSA, it will be the "maritime" one, who had much fan support. The only existing Civ who'll get this trait are the British, who already have a specific (backstabbing) AI, and a maritime UU.

The old traits won't have to be balanced with the new trait(s)... At the contrary, the new traits will have to be thought not to unbalance the game. Think of Diablo2Expansion : the 2 new character classes were as powerful as the 5 old ones, but it didn't take a major overhaul to make it.

hi ,

one CSA is a start , there is room for ten in total at least , ....

they should put 4 more in , ....

have a nice day

[tomcat ha]

Arabs shoud be also Scientific
Osmanle that`s how we turks prononce ottoman empire
shoud be scientific,expansionist/militraistic/religous