New traits! What will Seafaring and Agricultural do?

[bobbo008]

i think the Pyramids are the greatest wonder (that sounds a bit wierd, but moving on...), followed by Leonardo's Workshop. i say this because, playing on huge maps with around 70-80 cities, those are a lot of shields. the Internet is nice, but that comes quite late in the game and is more of a little boost scientifically/culturally.

[CerberusIV]

How about new units only available to civs with the appropriate trait, much like only expansionist civs can build scouts.

Seafaring could allow longships with mapmaking that would be the same as galleys but not sink in sea. That would allow greater exploration but the Great Lighthouse would still be worthwhile for the extra movement and sea trading.

Agricultural could have farmers instead of workers that would irrigate faster.

There is also the possibility that some traits would be less affected by natural disasters. We know there will be volcanoes but maybe there will also be droughts, floods and locust plagues. Agricultural civs could be less likely to be affected or less badly affected by such disasters.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
(...)Agricultural could have farmers instead of workers that would irrigate faster.(..)

What would happen if this civ was Indust.?

[History Guy]

And to think, at one time, America would have qualified as Agricultural... Not any more...

[Sheik]

I think we might see some sort of naval unit only avaliable to the Seafearing civs. As for agricultural, probably reduced price in granaries and maybe something else that we can't even think about (perhaps somethig new to conquests).

[zorbop]

well, this will make 8 civ traits, so 28 different combinations. if there are 4 additional civs, then it works out pretty well.
then you can assume which civs are going to change (like 2 of these :aztec, celt, japan).
there will be no double's left.

about seafaring, i agree that they will get a new unit. i think they will get a 0/0 unit that transports only 1 unit and comes at the beginning of the game. might also be assured a starting location near the ocean.

agriculture might get cheap aquaducts and hospitals in addition to graneries

[Gravity Happens]

Of the civs there are now, the following I'll bet 'ya will be Seafaring:

Vikings
English
Spanish (not really sure here)
Carthaginians
Phoenicians

And these guys will be agricultural:

Russians
French
Mayans
Aztecs
Inca
Zulu
Egyptians

As to what these powers might do, here are my guesses:

Seafaring:
1. harbors, commercial docks, coastal fortresses, and "coastal only" wonders (collosus and great lighthouse) cheaper

2. Ships cheaper, faster +1 movement
3. Higher transport capacity for galleys, caravels, galleons, and transports (maybe +1 or even +2)


Agricultural:
1. growth improvements cheaper (granary, aqueduct, and hospital) and maybe even available sooner (that would really rock)
2. All grasslands and the center square of the city radius produce +1 base food
3. Irrigation built instantly

Please comment and critique this!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, my thoughts are:

Agricultural

1) Bonus food capacity on unimproved desert/swamp/jungle and mountain terrain.

2) Either a) Farmer unit which can ONLY irrigate, but at 2x speed; b) double irrigation rates for workers or c) an extra level of irrigation after a particular tech is achieved (like the old farmland tile improvement) it might be possible that a) and c) are combined!!

Seafaring

1) A special naval unit early on, as many other people are suggesting.

2) 1/2 price coastal only improvements and wonders-again as everyone else suggests.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
2) 1/2 price coastal only improvements and wonders-again as everyone else suggests.

Half-price Wonders?

I think not, somehow.

[Brundlefly]

These new traits, agricultural & seafaring, do not really make sense as civ characterisics outright. They seem to me to be sub-characterisitcs of the expansionist trait. Perhaps if you were to give every civ an additional third trait (either ag or seaf) alongside the two they already have, then these would make more sense. When in history was the last time did a civ that was a world power have one of these as their main, dominant characteristic - agricultural (never), seafaring (18th century Spain, maybe).

In any case, I can't conceive of a civ having one of these traits that would give me a better chance of winning than a civ with Industrious and either Milataristic or Commercial. I think it is a mistake to try to rebalance the other civs with these traits. If they are really doing that, I doubt I'll buy Conquests.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by History Guy
And to think, at one time, America would have qualified as Agricultural... Not any more...

America has always been Expansionist/Industrious. They, as all expansionist civs do, focussed on agriculture early due to their expansionist policy.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by bobbo008
i'm not sure about china and india being agricultural, with their near constant famines and everyone basically being hungry constantly

Ah, but such famines can be found almost anywhere. It's hard to paralell the agricultural might of the Yantse and Yellow Rivers, or the Indus. There's the Mississippi of course, and numerous other river valleys, but the loess of China is notable... there is often famine in these areas, but this is related to poor transportation of foodstuffs and farming materials (i.e., poor infrastructure) and is or is not a problem in these countries alternately throughout history.

But, I do like China and India's traits as they stand. Just food for thought.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Falconius
Regarding seafaring: It may be possible to go through most or all of a game without this trait doing anything. What if you start out in the middle of a large continent on a large map? What if an AI civ does? You could spend a good deal of a game trying to reach the sea so your seafaring trait "kicks in." The AI may not know enough to do this.

Well let's hope the designers don't totally overlook this aspect of the game, and place seafaring civs on the coast.

On the other hand, expanionist civs do sometimes start on tiny islands, never a pleasant experience.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Dominae
On another note, would half cost Granaries really be that powerful? You get a really really nice early boost, but in the entire game you would only save on about 100 or so Shields? Or would they be cheap enough to build in all cities?

Dominae

The idiot speaks: seems like they would be great for the early game (like expanionist with its scouts) and then taper off in importance later. I'd like to at least give half-price granaries a shot and see how it affects early-game strategy, and how much you can rock the REX.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by History Guy
And to think, at one time, America would have qualified as Agricultural... Not any more...

there's still an argument to be made for this. Our farming population may be about 4%, but our agricultural output is still great (though won't be when all the topsoil's used up 'round 2050 or so)

[bobbo008]

actually, isn't America one of (or the) largest exporters of food (such as corn and grain) in the world?

then you have to look at how advanced our farming is (Europe wont even touch or GM foods). Even I think it was Kruschev visited and saw farming methods, and he was from a country full of farming peasants.

I live in Wisconsin (USA) and i'll tell you that we are agricultural...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by History Guy
And to think, at one time, America would have qualified as Agricultural... Not any more...

I've been thinking about that. Actually, America is still one of the largest food producers in the world. Perhaps America (if we really have to have it) should be Agricultural - Industrious.


We're certainly not expansionist the way the game has it.

[The Mad Monk]

...and I really should learn to read the whole thread before posting.

[The Mad Monk]

Before we peg cultures with exceptional amounts of farmers as "agricultural", we should consider why those countries have exceptional amounts of farmers.

It seems to me that agricultural cultures would be those that are good at it, not just massively preoccupied with it.

[ChaotikVisions]

What about having a bonus to trade/food in all costal cities for Seafaring civs? The same setup that commercial/indusious get for cities. Forget how much per size of city they get, but you understand the idea.

As for Agricultural, what about excess food being counted as trade also? To show the wealth that agricultural civs usually aquired from their farming.

Thats not enough by itself, but combined with other ideas I say it'd be pretty good.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

It seems to me that agricultural cultures would be those that are good at it, not just massively preoccupied with it.

Ok, I need some clairifcation here. Are these mutually excluse terms? I mean a good farmer is likely to some what preoccupied with farming are they not?
What did you have in mind?

[The Mad Monk]

Cultures that were known for out-producing their similarly-situated neighbors in terms of food. For example, the low countries in Europe brought about many improvements in agrcutultural methods during the late middle ages, and as a result flourished while their less-advanced brethren suffered shortages. They were able to build on this agriculture-fueled prosperity to create a trade empire.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Feephi



America has always been Expansionist/Industrious. They, as all expansionist civs do, focussed on agriculture early due to their expansionist policy.

hi ,

the two traits they have make building your empire faster , .... now , if we where to see for some civ's three traits , ...... thats an other story then , ....

have a nice day

[The Mad Monk]

Cultures that had exceptionally fertile lands, such as Egypt or America would also count as agricultural.

Cultures that were victimized by famine on a regular basis could not be considered agricultural, no matter how much of the population was forced into serfdom.

[GodKing]

I would say russia by that definition would not be agricultural. Stalin starved many of the people by taking the food thay had grown away. He tried to force russia (USSR) to become an industrial nation. It was a land so used to "pesant farming" that even now they have to import grain from the USA to feed their population.

USA should be agricultural - between us and Canada what percentage of the world gets fed?

[Panag]

hi ,

, what if traits where to change depending upon form of gov and era , ...... that would be great

have a nice day

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

, what if traits where to change depending upon form of gov and era , ...... that would be great

have a nice day

(this has probably been said before, but this thought just crossed my mind)

Along those lines, I would rather have each civ have 2 leaders tp choose from at the beginning (maybe one male, one female even) with the two having different traits to show the evolution of the society. Granted, some of the more ancient and temporary civs would then have to be, who knows, their second set completely made up, but I think overall it would make the game interesting. Perhaps you could have a different UU depending on the leader as well. That would make the game more fun for me I think, more variety.

that would even be a more natural way to work in a civil war, take London and half of England breaks off under a new name with Churchill as the leader with different traits.

[Kuciwalker]

USA should be Agricultural and Industrial. It would make the Americans way more powerful, and compensate for the F-15, aside from the fact that it's historically accurate.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm not sure -- I think I would favor agricultural and commercial. Well, before this I had reassigned commercial and industrious to the Americans, because I thought it more accurately reflected history.

Of course I usually leave the Americans out of my games, because it more accurately reflects history.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by GodKing
I would say russia by that definition would not be agricultural. Stalin starved many of the people by taking the food thay had grown away. He tried to force russia (USSR) to become an industrial nation. It was a land so used to "pesant farming" that even now they have to import grain from the USA to feed their population.

Same thing was tried for China under Mao for a long period of time until they finally realized they couldn't keep feeding their population.

USA should be agricultural - between us and Canada what percentage of the world gets fed?

We shouldn't go with just what it is today or fairly recently....although for america there really isn't too much of a timeline to look at....