So, I though, how can we make differences, without throwing the whole system out of wack. I thought that civ specific techs were wrong. Because why would the Brits need great seamanship if they were a landlocked civ? It wouldn't make much sence, would it?

So, I began to think of ways to make civs different, where the player would have the choice on what path to follow. What did I come up with? "Traits".

Now what are traits? Well, first of all, we must divide the tech tree into 4 (or 5) eras, like the Wonders of the World were in Civ2. Then insert these "traits" into the tree. "Traits" are a dead end on the Civ tree, but they are specializations. For example, a trait during modern times might be -Advanced Armor-, which would increase movement and power of armored units. Now, the main part of this arguement, is that Civs can ONLY CHOOSE ONE TRAIT PER ERA! So they must make a choice between that -Advanced Seamanship- or -Advanced Infantry- depending on what the player sees as the better choice for his civ, based on where he is and where he wants to go.

This idea of "traits", dead end specializations that a civ can only chose one of per era, would add this differentiation between civs. You could have your great naval powers and great army powers by specialized picks. While an island nations choses -Advanced Seamanship-, a landlocked nation can pick -Advanced Infantry-.

However, it isn't just relegated to military. Traits can also be under political or cultural. You could have -Improved Fascism- or -True Socialism-, which could improve the benefits of a particular government. Or You could pick -Greater Playwrights- to improve happiness inside your empire. But remember only ONE Trait per era. You'd have to pick between military or political or cultural traits, and of course you could only get traits when you get the neccessary techs that the prereqs for the traits. This adds another element. A civ could pick a trait early in the era to get a boost through the era, or wait until the end of the era to get a more powerful trait, but be rendered weaker in the era as the result.

This addition of "Traits" adds more strategy and creates interesting differentiations. You could have civs that spend all 4 traits (one per each era) on naval upgrades, while others spread their traits in different area (like creating the Perfect Fascism, while having the best Infantry).

Japanese: Feudalism would grant them an extra unit a la Age of Empires (Samauri)

Chinese: [Scrolls] Scrolls would allow a boost in a temple if you have a library in the same city; Confucious's writings

Persians: [War Boats] They would have the War Schooner, with stats like the trime, 1-1-2 except it would be able to go away from land and carry troops.

No CIV specific traits! That is what I'm against! ANY civ can pick ANY trait! It is up to the player (Human or computer) to pick which trait is best for them at that point!

quote: I thought that civ specific techs were wrong. Because why would the Brits need great seamanship if they were a landlocked civ? It wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Or just take the AI: Even if it gets much better, the AI wouldn't be smart enough to choose effectively between different "Traits".

Yes, that's about the fears I have on this.
If you can take them from me, I surely support your idea.

I admit I haven't thought it out that much, but I'm sure that traits could be decided at a later date. And I'm sure they could balanced within reason. They are like mini-wonders, but you have to make a choice on which ones you want.

I just think that all civs should have didfferences right from the start.

------------------
- Biddles

Okay, but consider those the traits you can pick:

You could pick them no matter what civ but they would be 'meant' especially for one civ, say you get a research bonus if the trait is 'meant' for your civ.

Japanese: Feudalism would grant them an extra unit a la Age of Empires (Samauri)

Chinese: [Scrolls] Scrolls would allow a boost in a temple if you have a library in the same city; Confucious's writings

As for Britain, they were kind of powerful, no? If you were able to be that strong, there'd be some balance problems, no? I think 1 trait per era is sufficent.

Biddles, good idea, but I wonder if it can be implimented (with the AI and all).

Another thing I like about Civ is the way that it makes you plan ahead, and the way that earlier decisions affect later ones (or is that two things?). IMHO, it would be interesting if the differences between civilizations were somehow the cumulative consequences of a lot of earlier decisions. For example, if the proportion of trade arrows that you devote to taxes is higher than average (the average of all the other civs perhaps), then eventually you will have more efficient tax collection. Or if you spend more than the average number of shields on ships, or on cavalry, or on libraries, then these start to get cheaper or more effective for you. There could be cross-effects too, like if you keep building ships then eventually it gets easier to research naval technology.

By the same token, if you are spending much less than the average on land units, then your land units will become less effective, or if you are devoting much less trade than average to science, then your people will be less efficient researchers. If you happen to be near the average in that particular category, nothing happens.

After all, the reason the English had great navies was ultimately because they had a long tradition of seafaring. Allowing civilizations to pick a trait every once in a while would still allow sudden changes (the Prussians suddenly decide to become a naval power and so pick advanced seafaring), which seems odd.

Also, there should be some possibility for civilizations to be weaker in some areas, not just stronger, and finally, it might be easier on the AI if it doesn't have to make an explicit choice about what to be good (or bad) at.

You can have both.

Thankyouverymuch.

I already saw great idea for specific Tech trees, mutually exclusive or dead end discovery.

I agree Civilizations must have some cultural difference (until the advent of Hollywood movies and McDonalds menu, at least ).

I agree that having that difference evolving from different style of play, is better than having them strictly related to a specific Civ, but if you prefer so it can be quite easy to have a "earth like" scenario that can link from start a Civ and its specialties.

Thumbs up to Rashid for underlining that often "special traits" must have some drawbacks and to Evil Capitalist suggesting (e.g.)

quote: advanced archery delays research into early gunpowder

Rashid, I'd love to do it that way.. though decisions made.. but I don't know if the computer AI is that sophisticated enough. That is why I made it simple... so that the AI can't screw it up .

If the AI can handle it, I'd say go for it. I do have my doubts about the AI though...

Good idea.

I especially support the part about: each civ having an equal chance of researching these traits.

I think however that there should be more than one possible trait for civ. Especially in the modern era since now the changes all nations have underwent in the last century were enormous and many.

These traits will be like wonders and there will be tough competition. There are already trait like wonders even in civ2:

A wonder that gives all your sea units +2 mov points

A wonder that makes all your troops veterans (could be changed too only ground troops to give ground superiority)

A wonder that gives order in cities (Woman's suffferage)

However, a question comes to mind,
Should the traits ever expire?
For instance, until the 20th century england had obvious sea superiority, but now it's not bigger than US superiority.

Also, in ancient times rome and greece had infantry superiority that italy and greece now don't have. In the 20th century german and soviet troops were the best. And if I may add Israeli troops are quite good, especially special forces and THE MOSSAD.

quote: But the question is... can the AI acurratly give you a trait based on your prior actions? And how would it do so? Does it count specific troops? And how does it distinguish between giving you a military trait vs. a political trait, etc.

Let's leave that question to the programers(sic)....

------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"