Who should get these traits ?

[Mad Bomber]

Jon:

Japan reigned supreme in the pacific for less than a year, before the war the US had a slightly superior navy in comparison with the Japanese navy. It was only the attack on Pearl Harbor that gave them this superiority and theses losses were made up by January of 1943 when the Essex and Independece class carriers started to enter service.

A nation that only rules the seas for 6 mos does not deserve the seafaring trait.

As for the English I don't think that they will keep the expansionist trait, which will almost certainly be replaced by the seafaring trait.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Jon:

Japan reigned supreme in the pacific for less than a year, before the war the US had a slightly superior navy in comparison with the Japanese navy. It was only the attack on Pearl Harbor that gave them this superiority and theses losses were made up by January of 1943 when the Essex and Independece class carriers started to enter service.

A nation that only rules the seas for 6 mos does not deserve the seafaring trait.

As for the English I don't think that they will keep the expansionist trait, which will almost certainly be replaced by the seafaring trait.

hi ,

, the english should get expan and seafaring

when are some civs going to get three traits , ...... even if it where only at the start of a certain era of for a certain era , .....

have a nice day

[Myrddin]

The expansionist trait is the hardest to pin down - were empirers successful beacause they were expansionist, or were there other reasons?

IMO America, Russia should certainly be expansionist, as they kept adding territories as a matter of principle

England acquired an empire in a fit of abscence of mind -it didn't plan to, especially in India, but kept adding bits to ensure the stability of its current holdings

[arkammler]

English is sea. and com. this is form the preveiws; so lock it in.

[Kuciwalker]

America should be Agricultural-Industrious.

[GhengisFarb™]

Or maybe Agricultural-Scientific. Its hard to iron down two obvious traits for America.

[Kuciwalker]

Scientific? Nah. America has historically been better at taking discoveries from other nations and perfecting them, which is more Industrious.

[sabrewolf]

another "what traits for the US"-thread?

well, ok, now it's changed with the 2 new traits.

the americans could have any trait.

the only definate thing is commercial. after all, the US is the engine of the world economy. if the US economy coughs, europe is badly ill and asia is dying... and most great economical brains were yankeestanis (adam smith, milton friedman, john maynard keynes, etc.)

2nd trait could be anything:
most matching:
- expansionist (mainly in the 19th century)
- industrial (20th)
- militaristic (biggest and most powerful army ever. no president in the last several decades without at least one war)
- religious (the most religious western country after ireland)

not really matching, but could be:
- scientific (has some of the leading scientific institutions (MIT, etc.), but nobel prize winners per capita very low)
- agricultural (self-feeding country... however, 250 million aren't that much)
- seafaring (well, not really, but a quite powerful fleet)

[joncnunn]

That would seem to present problems with Holland unless that's one of the duplicates.

Originally posted by arkammler
English is sea. and com. this is form the preveiws; so lock it in.

[joncnunn]

America wasn't Scientific in the orginal Civ III, and that traight was around then, so it's almost certinately not going to be in Conquests.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Or maybe Agricultural-Scientific. Its hard to iron down two obvious traits for America.

[joncnunn]

There's too many other empires that were more commerical at their peak than we are. (We have more natural resources than many countries)

Adam Smith was a UK economist, not a US one.

I think "Religous" in the Civ III terms is all levels of socity.

In the US, many Elites are down right hostile to all strongly held religious beliefs.

On Militarious, that's a very recent thing that started with the Cold War, and again. (We were outright Pacifist Isolationists in the 1930s.) We didn't want to be in second place to USSR.

As for Expanionistic, that pretty much died off in the 1910s.

On Seafaring, We didn't really seriously consider having a strong navy until the late 1880s, and that was in part due to worries about massive surpluses taking money out of circulation, and so the navy was modernized and greatly enlarged lest we burn a whole in our pocket. And post WW I, navy funding was greatly cut.

We were industrial even before the 20th century; I date that to 1830s with the railroads in the north, spreading to the south starting the 1850s (just in time to be destroyed and rebuilt in the Civil War, and especally post WW II, with the railroads spreading to the west especally in the 1870s and 80s.)

On Agricuture, our farmers feed the world. (Not literately, but we have massive agricultral surpluses, some of which is stored in Americans as fat)

There's civs that are better examples of Scientific.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
another "what traits for the US"-thread?

well, ok, now it's changed with the 2 new traits.

the americans could have any trait.

the only definate thing is commercial. after all, the US is the engine of the world economy. if the US economy coughs, europe is badly ill and asia is dying... and most great economical brains were yankeestanis (adam smith, milton friedman, john maynard keynes, etc.)

2nd trait could be anything:
most matching:
- expansionist (mainly in the 19th century)
- industrial (20th)
- militaristic (biggest and most powerful army ever. no president in the last several decades without at least one war)
- religious (the most religious western country after ireland)

not really matching, but could be:
- scientific (has some of the leading scientific institutions (MIT, etc.), but nobel prize winners per capita very low)
- agricultural (self-feeding country... however, 250 million aren't that much)
- seafaring (well, not really, but a quite powerful fleet)

[Myrddin]

Surely the Dutch should be Seafaring and Agricultural?

especially as this is quite an unusual combination

[Combat Ingrid]

Regarding China, some of their dynasties were certainly peaceful and invented lots of stuff (Agr, Sci). However, some other dynasties expanded like crazy into central Asia (Mil, Exp). I guess the traits to pick depends on what kind of China you prefer to play.

And btw, China is not industrious, they just use lots and lots of worker units to build their big projects


The Vikings should be Mil/Sea; although the peaceloving Swedish Vikings were more into trading.

[joncnunn]

I'm not aware of the Dutch Empire being known for Agriculture. Seafaring, yes! Commerce, yes! England actually regarded the Dutch as the bigger Commerical rival than France until the Dutch navy was destroyed in the late 1600s.

But for that matter, I'm not aware of any of the 31 civs being known for both Seafaring & Agricutural unless you just count size of their Navies as Seafaring.

Originally posted by Myrddin
Surely the Dutch should be Seafaring and Agricultural?

especially as this is quite an unusual combination

[Panag]

hi ,

all this talk ( hey its a great discour going now ) leads only to a stronger case to give several civs at least three traits , ......

the US should stay with its ind / exp traits , its a unique combination and really works great ones you get the hang of it

have a nice day

[Louis XXIV]

I think the Inca would be a good candidate for Ind, Exp

I agree that the combo is great (the American UU is the worst, though)

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

all this talk ( hey its a great discour going now ) leads only to a stronger case to give several civs at least three traits , ......

The problem with this is that it would have the potential to destabilize play balance with three traits instead of two (I know from personal experience) First you would have to give all of the civ's three traits or it won't work. Second you need to think of the possible trait combinations and determine if possible combinations would be two powerful or too weak (e.g. the combination of Industrial-Religious-Scientific was a combination that I did not allow when I experimented with three trait combos)
Then you must assign specific combos to each civ, even the ones that you can't even find two good traits to adequately describe of them. While some balance might be found in a personal mod, incorporating them into a commercial product would lead to endless debate and complaints.

[Myrddin]

I'm not aware of the Dutch Empire being known for Agriculture.

Any nation that can convert marsh into farmland has to be Agricultural IMO

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Tiberius


Mil+Rel just fits them so well. The whole feudal era (which I consider the golden era for Japan) was based on military classes, Samurais and Daimyos and their bushido code.

I always thought of the golden age of Japan as the 1980s.

[Virdrago]

Carthage should be seafaring/agricultural. It's former holdings were the breadbasket of the Roman empire.

The Vikings should have seafaring, but at different points in time they were traders (and founded Russia), settlers and conquerors, depending on circumstances (probably the king's mood).

The Americans would probably be expansionist/industrious, because they were becoming industrialized and "going west" at about Lincoln's time (if that helps with the argument about the Americans, what were they doing while their leader in the game was alive? Besides fighting each other).

The Japanese would be Militaristic/Religious, for the same reasons (Japan in tokugawa's time).

The English in Elizabeth's time? Seafaring and Expansionist (either against the Dutch or the Spanish, the French didn't concern them too much at that time).

Sumer was definitely agricultural, and I'd also say they were scientific.

China would be Militarist/Industrious. Two reasons: the Great Wall, and secondly, who's their leader? Mao.

The Dutch are more Seafaring/Commercial. Amsterdam is still the largest trading port in the world.

Feel free to debate.

[Tarquinius]

I agree with you on everything Virdrago
The Dutch should be commercial and seafaring, that would make most sense. Religious could be instead of one of these but it is less fitting. England is more known for having a large empire than for trading, so they should have expansionist and seafaring .

I think you are coming quite close to the traits in the game, because you look at the leaders, just like Firaxis seems to be doing

One small thing: Rotterdam is the worlds' greatest port nowadays, not Amsterdam.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


The problem with this is that it would have the potential to destabilize play balance with three traits instead of two (I know from personal experience) First you would have to give all of the civ's three traits or it won't work. Second you need to think of the possible trait combinations and determine if possible combinations would be two powerful or too weak (e.g. the combination of Industrial-Religious-Scientific was a combination that I did not allow when I experimented with three trait combos)
Then you must assign specific combos to each civ, even the ones that you can't even find two good traits to adequately describe of them. While some balance might be found in a personal mod, incorporating them into a commercial product would lead to endless debate and complaints.

hi ,

well there are plenty of other ways to rebalance the game , .....

have a nice day

[Myrddin]

England is more known for having a large empire than for trading

I believe Napoleon called them 'a nation of shopkeepers'

IMO expansionist should be reserved for a country that intenionally expanded its borders, which fits America and Russia far better than England