New traits.

[Beren]

I think there should be extra traits in a new patch. Some civilisations would make more sense this way. What traits do you think should be used? Listed after my personal favour:

Nationalistic - Your citizens will easier revolt against a foreign ruler, are less likely to depose and are harder to integrate in a different society. (Greece, Germany (?))
Cultural - Your border expansion rate will be lowered. Cultural expansion will go faster. (France)
Universal - Citizens with other nationalities will integrate easier, conquered cities are less likely to resist. Big integration function. (Roman Empire, USA (big melting pot))
Agricultural - Gain a grain in the tile where the city is built. (Poland)
Nomadic - Abandoning towns will make you gain a settler. Balancing is unsure maybe like this: size 1: 1 settler, size 4: 2 settlers, size 7: 3 settlers and so on. (Mongolia)
Mountainous - Cities can be built on mountains. (Incas)
Partizan - Units are more likely to retreat (maybe give every unit retreat possibility) and maybe: units are harder to be spotted. (Mongolia, Celts)
Hegemonious - Other civs or barbarian tribes can become your vassal states. I am not sure how you should work this out. (Germany)
Other - I am open to suggestions.

[TacticalGrace]

You missed out maritime - ships gain +1 sea movement perhaps
Imperial - reduced city distance coruption

[One_Brow]

you also missed Fatalistic -- war weainess cut by 50% and only 50% chance of discontent from pop rushes.

[Beren]

I like the new ideas! Wonderful! Maybe we could expand the number of traits to much more.

The maritime would be **** on a Pangea map, but then again expansionist is **** on a small map. Would be great for the Phoenicians, English and Polynesian.
Imperial sounds like fun. I would vote for that one in, definately. Would be one for England, France, Spain, maybe Romans.

Fatalistic sounds like fun (not if you want to be a monarchy, but then again you can always choose not to be one), but I can't quite make up which civ should be Fatalistic.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Beren
Fatalistic sounds like fun (not if you want to be a monarchy, but then again you can always choose not to be one), but I can't quite make up which civ should be Fatalistic.

Definately the Russians and the Chinese.

[Beren]

Originally posted by One_Brow


Definately the Russians and the Chinese.

Is this another remark about these countries' communist regimes, which treated the population bad? Or does it refer to fatalistic elements in the communist ideology (In saying: It is fate that communism will rule the world!)?
I still don't think it would fit these countries. What you call fatalistic would suit a very warlike nation, I think. Like the Spartans or the way Zulus and Iroqouis are presented. (Although in Spartan society the vast majority of the population was oppressed and did revolt: so the population was not really 'fatalistic')

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Beren
Is this another remark about these countries' communist regimes, which treated the population bad? Or does it refer to fatalistic elements in the communist ideology (In saying: It is fate that communism will rule the world!)?

It has nothing to do with Communism (except perhaps by making Comnism more tolerable to the populace. The Russians were fatalistic long before Marx.

I still don't think it would fit these countries. What you call fatalistic would suit a very warlike nation, I think. Like the Spartans or the way Zulus and Iroqouis are presented. (Although in Spartan society the vast majority of the population was oppressed and did revolt: so the population was not really 'fatalistic')

Exactly. I am attempting to descibe a national/cultural characteristic that, in essence, you expect things to be bad, and that they will never be all that good. So, when things really are bad, it doesn't phase you.

I certainly could be wrong about the Chinese, but certainly the Russians are fatalistic.

[Beren]

So Fatalistic should be a characteristic that the population is willing to sacrifice itself totally just to win a war. Total warfare. I think it would be more likely to fit Germany, than it would fit China or Russia. Then again: I have adviced to give so many traits to Germany:
Militaristic
Scientific
Hegemonious
Nationalistic
Fatalistic

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Beren
So Fatalistic should be a characteristic that the population is willing to sacrifice itself totally just to win a war. Total warfare. I think it would be more likely to fit Germany, than it would fit China or Russia. Then again: I have adviced to give so many traits to Germany:
Militaristic
Scientific
Hegemonious
Nationalistic
Fatalistic

No, war or peace is irrelevant. Fataslistic means your people expect hardships and oppression.

I only took a year of Russian, but in that time I learned several ways to say, essentially, "things will always be bad, so it doesn't matter". Given the weather, it's not surprising they would develop language in this way.

War weariness is a game effect to describe the population becoming unhappy with the deprivations of war when the war itself is not going well. The two sides to this are 1) needing the war to go well, and 2) expecting to not be deprived after the war ends. Extreme nationalism/militarism would attack the first root, fatalism the second.

This same theme is behind the idea that there is less unhappiness from pop-rushing.

[Beren]

Oh, I see. In that case I think fatalistic is al right. I would have to disagree on your China scheme. I don't think this argument could be used for China.

[sabrewolf]

oh, i like the idea of fatalistic.
also maritime (or naval) should be in (+1 movement, no sink in sea, halved costs for naval stuff (units and improvements), great lighthouse, colossus and magellan's voyage trigger golden age)

i wouldn't mind some old and new traits that make improvements cheaper. at the moment we have religious, scientific and militaristic. expansionist could reduce costs of granary and courthouses (historicly important for such civs), commercial helps for marketplaces and banks and industrious for powerplants (allthough industrious is powerful enough as it is)

[Serb]

Russians are fatalistic 100%

Imperial, isn't it the same as commercial "less corruption expected"?

What about division of commercial on two different traits: commercial- extra gold edit: + cheaper marketplaces and banks,
and Imperial- less coruption in distant cities, or no distance modifier for coruption at all, only modifier for total number of cities.

Or perhaps lawfull- less construction cost for courthouses and police stations and reduced corruption. USA?

"No sink in sea" for maritime is too powerfull imho (why to build Great Lighthouse then?), perhaps 'lesser chance to sink in sea' would be better?

[Beren]

I like the idea of splitting commercial in two.

Lawful sounds nice, but I think an extra bonus should be included apart from cheaper courthouses and police stations (and maybe more effect of them) I think you should change the name to law-abiding.
Maybe we can think of an obedient trait as well, but I am not sure what obedient would mean in civ terms. It would definately go for Egypt (making Egypt obedient, agricultural (or religious))


I thought of some different idea. Wouldn't it be great that apart from choosing your government you can also choose your faith?
Maybe something like the following options:
paganism (ancient Rome, Egypt, Greece, Babylon, India - default type)
prophetic monotheism (Hebrews, Persia, medieval Europe, Arabs, Turks (Mayahana buddhism and Manicherism also here))
philosophical (China, Japan (Confucius-based), original buddhism, maybe communists, but they could also be secular)
secular (modern states all over western Europe)
So what do you think? I thought of this this very moment so I am not quite sure what benefits each type should get. The civs could gain a loved and hated type. What do you think?

[Serb]

Well, I thought about this too. The only reason why this thing wasn't included in Civ3 is famous American polit corectnes, imho.
I guess it's clear that in this case people of faith X could find traits of religion X (how Firaxis describe them) offensive, as well as people of faith Y, Z, etc. And all this situation would ends with multiply cases "religion group X,Y or Z vs. Firaxis"
I guess they made right choice, but obviously it's cool idea which could make game only better.

[Zero]

Nomadic is ridiculously powerful. You are talking about rush building a settler in one turn by abandoning a city. While the city is growing, player can concentrate on building units.

Agricultural is ridiculosly weak if you consider that +1 food only adds up to 1/2 more citizen.

Mountainous is also ridiculosly powerful. CIty will be virtually impervious to assaults and according to civ3 rule city square reaps 2/1/1 Food/Shield/Trade.

Somethings need to be balanced here.

[Andemagne]

good ideas

[Serb]

What about "Survivialists"? A civs which knows how to survive in harsh conditions.
Such civs could gain bonuses (+1 food or even a sheild) for tiles such as Tundra or Jungle, + no disease for flood plains? Or it could be their settlers special ability to improve such tiles?

It could be: Russia for sure (as guy who live in Siberia I can guaranty this) and perhaps Incas or Aztecs?


Also, I like idea of mountinous, but I guess it's too powerfull, perhaps instead of this survivialists should also gain ability to terraform their mountins and hills to gain one extra food per tile? Such examples are exist, in China and Japan, iirc they make gardens out of their hills.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by Calc II


Agricultural is ridiculosly weak if you consider that +1 food only adds up to 1/2 more citizen.

The benefit comes not from an Agricultural city being able to support larger populations, but from its being able to grow faster, especially in the early game when you are in Despotism. For example, if your city would ordinarily have a surplus of two food (meaning 10 turns to grow by one), then with the Agricultural trait you would get a surplus of three food (meaning 7 turns to grow by one). This means that Agricultural is like getting the Pyramids for free.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Calc II
Nomadic is ridiculously powerful. You are talking about rush building a settler in one turn by abandoning a city. While the city is growing, player can concentrate on building units.

Agricultural is ridiculosly weak if you consider that +1 food only adds up to 1/2 more citizen.

Mountainous is also ridiculosly powerful. CIty will be virtually impervious to assaults and according to civ3 rule city square reaps 2/1/1 Food/Shield/Trade.

Somethings need to be balanced here.

I agree, but balancing can be done, somehow. If agricultural is weak, maybe you can also decrease the size of their amount of grain needed to grow (and you get cheaper granaries and harbors)
For nomadic you can decide that the player gets only one settler independant on the size. It's not that good anyway: if you want to abandon your city and start somewhere else you might have choosen not to build the city in the first place.
For mountainous you can do that mountains don't get the city bonus (or less bonus) and maybe decrease the defence bonus.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Serb
What about "Survivialists"? A civs which knows how to survive in harsh conditions.
Such civs could gain bonuses (+1 food or even a sheild) for tiles such as Tundra or Jungle, + no disease for flood plains? Or it could be their settlers special ability to improve such tiles?

It could be: Russia for sure (as guy who live in Siberia I can guaranty this) and perhaps Incas or Aztecs?


Also, I like idea of mountinous, but I guess it's too powerfull, perhaps instead of this survivialists should also gain ability to terraform their mountins and hills to gain one extra food per tile? Such examples are exist, in China and Japan, iirc they make gardens out of their hills.

Hm... these new ideas for mountainous are not so bad. They are quite good actually.
But about survivist: I don't know it would really link certain civs to certain areas, but maybe it's okay. You'll have to switch your tactics from improving your terrain to the best to expanding to the worst places (build on north or south pole.)

Then: my religions idea. It could be part of the integration proces as well. Make it three religions: paganism (Egypt, Rome, Hindu)
prophetic monotheism (Arab, Persia, mahayana buddhism) philosophical (China, Japan, original buddhism)
And you get to choose how much tolerance you have in your reign(let's say five options with the secular option only becoming avaiable in industrial or modern times) Certain religions will limit certain spending (like no more than x percent science, I don't know it is just an idea.
It would be cool if you got a message like you did in civ II when another civ changed government. And that every civ had their religious leader(s) (okay, so we reuse christ a couple of times.)
For example: India:
The Indians decide to worship a wide range of gods.
The Indians decide to follow the teachings of prophet Buddha.
The Indians decide to rule society by the findings of Buddha.
Russia:
The Russians decide to worship a wide range of gods.
The Russians decide to follow the teachings of prophet Christ.
The Russians decide to rule society by the findings of Lenin (or Marx).
But I would have to find a way how it doesn't intervene with the type of state you have. (The case is most obvious with communism).

[statusperfect]

More stuff is always a good thing. Doen't matter if it's units, civs or traits. But keep in mind that someone has to do them.

[ranskaldan]

Personally I think we should do away with the idea of traits; instead, the traits come by the choice of the player. He/she gets 30 points at the beginning and can spend it wherever he/she wants...

E.g. Player expands, find himself on island:
8 points onto 1/2 the cost for ships
Player finds large, fertile plain
8 points onto +1 food for irrigation+road
Player builds many banks
5 points onto 75% price for marketplaces/banks
etc etc
and the AI civs would do the same.

But in the meantime, assuming that we use the existing model, I'd say that Agricultural and Maritime are in short supply.

[aaglo]

A thing about mountaineous trait (Incas)

They could generate +1 food on mountains and/or hills
Then it would make sense to build a city on a mountain (because single mountains in grassland are quite rare).

Why? Mountains are not barren. You can hunt game and grow something on mountains - very much like in tundra.

[Beren]

If you generate 1 extra food on mountain and you can built on them maybe they become too good. But maybe we could include that the mountainous have to start on mountain.

[TriMiro]

Personally I think we should do away with the idea of traits; instead, the traits come by the choice of the player. He/she gets 30 points at the beginning and can spend it wherever he/she wants...

That's exactly what I would sugest. If you have played Master of Orion II you would know how powerful of a feature tha could be. This would be fight on completely different level of strategy, what traits are better than other traits. Would be a perfect idea for next Civ.

[Dauphin]

I like the Agricultural and and Imperialistic trait ideas.

[Panag]

hi ,

new traits



we really need some , ..... the above look fine

what is also needed is to give some civ's more then two , others maybe just one , .... it makes a game more intresting , ....

Firaxis , please include some new traits


have a nice day

[Beren]

Originally posted by panag
what is also needed is to give some civ's more then two , others maybe just one , .... it makes a game more intresting , ....

And more imbalanced, thus more fun. Indeed it would be nice with a couple of leading civs and quite a lot of depending civs who get their techs by joining in alliances.
And indeed: Firaxis! We need extra traits! We did all the thinking for you already so include the examples given. (Agricultural, Imperialistic, Maritime, Universal, Cultural, Nationalistic, Nomadic and Mountainous)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Beren

And more imbalanced, thus more fun. Indeed it would be nice with a couple of leading civs and quite a lot of depending civs who get their techs by joining in alliances.
And indeed: Firaxis! We need extra traits! We did all the thinking for you already so include the examples given. (Agricultural, Imperialistic, Maritime, Universal, Cultural, Nationalistic, Nomadic and Mountainous)

hi ,

the whole world is unbalanced , so why not reflect that in the game , ....

but we need to be carefull that we dont unbalance it to far , .....

that can easy be overcome by changing UU's , cost of a unit , government versus traits parameters , etc , ....

have a nice day

[Aramis]

Hegemonious sounds interesting, but all civs should have this trait. Vassal states could be created from barbarians (not from civs). Barbarians could be allowed one trait of their own each, and the opportunity to "grow" a bit, at a much slower pace. And definately terminate their growth at some point (don't want Etruscans w/ cruise missles).

Their terminations could be at the time they become vassal states. Their settlements would then assimilate into towns of their reigning power much as conquered cities assimilate.

Lots of things Firaxis could do. Hope they will.