New traits.

[Quintrala]

I believe that agriculture is clearly the most importan trait that should be included.
Anyway the traits Hegemonious-Nationalistic is interesting too

[Panag]

Originally posted by rmds
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.

hi ,

the last line of your post , well with a bit of luck they make at least one more XP , who knows , maybe they make one each year , .....

have a nice day



edit ; typo

[Beren]

Originally posted by rmds
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.

I like them better when their small civs on their own, well officially. I like when they would be negotiating with another civ and they are about to accept an offer and you can veto it (with a threat of war, which we all know they cannot afford)
Anyway, vazzal states would only be of use if they were not directly linked to your own territory. Maybe you could make some sort of unit which can 'convert' barbarian state to be vazzals of you. For instance, imagine the Germans having a vazzal in Iberia. Then the vazzal could really be of use when you wage war with the French. If you are Germany and you have a vazzal in the Netherlands who will help you out, what extra value whould they have for your empire. My point being: vazzals would be fun if they were not directly connected to your own territory (Maybe these small civs can come screaming to you: help be our powerful ally: in return we give you a lot of say in how our country is governed.)

[Louis XXIV]

I like Nationalistic (You can add Japan to that list. I think China would be one too). Traits usually get a second ability (Industrious, whose fast workers are often considered the best in the game, also get extra production for large cities).

I also like opposite, Universal.

Agricultural should also have the Despotism tile penalty removed. That would make it a very good trait, and mix well with Expansionist (extra food is great) or Industrious (Irrigation of Grassland no has a use). I actually think this should be part of Expansionist (give those Civs something in modern times).

Cultural would be far the most un-balanced when combined with Religous or Scientific.

I suppose Nomadic can be powerful because you get an instant settler, but you do loose your city. Perhaps it could be:
"Towns (below 7)" produce 1 settler. "Cities(7-12(?))" produce 2 or 3. And "Metropolises (12(?) and above)" produce 3 or 4. So if you have a size 6 city, you don't want to abandon your city only to get a size 1 somewhere else.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
I like Nationalistic (You can add Japan to that list. I think China would be one too). Traits usually get a second ability (Industrious, whose fast workers are often considered the best in the game, also get extra production for large cities).

I also like opposite, Universal.

Agricultural should also have the Despotism tile penalty removed. That would make it a very good trait, and mix well with Expansionist (extra food is great) or Industrious (Irrigation of Grassland no has a use). I actually think this should be part of Expansionist (give those Civs something in modern times).

Cultural would be far the most un-balanced when combined with Religous or Scientific.

I suppose Nomadic can be powerful because you get an instant settler, but you do loose your city. Perhaps it could be:
"Towns (below 7)" produce 1 settler. "Cities(7-12(?))" produce 2 or 3. And "Metropolises (12(?) and above)" produce 3 or 4. So if you have a size 6 city, you don't want to abandon your city only to get a size 1 somewhere else.

It does need to be balanced, and that would be a proces of trying a lot. I am convinced that neither trait will be unbalancing, because if it is too good, deteriate it. If it is too bad, improve it. The agricultural idea combined with despotism would of course only apply to the food production.

[Verto]

Great list of traits. I really like Universal, Nationalistic and Agricultural. Nomadic could also be worked in, with certain bonuses given to settlers and workers.

It would be great if Firaxis could implement some of these ideas into future expansions.

[Beren]

Universal (or cosmopolitan) and nationalistic are basically two of traits of the same thing. Maybe you could set the degree of nationalism (like you can set the agression level). Nationalistic civs tend to be very exclusive and not open to others (Jews, Greece, China) while universal/cosmopolitan are open to others, take over elements of other cultures and integrate people quickly into their own (USA (immigrations), Romans (non-ethnic citizenship and the army function))
What do you think?

[TriMiro]

Nationalistic and Universal would bring a problem when it comes to Russia. I believe most of you would say that Russia is Nationalistic, but at the same time Moscow is probably the most diverse city in the world. It is definitely more diverse than New York for example, everybody that has been there would say that.

Agricultural and Nomadic should also be oposites and I think they are very cool.

[Beren]

Originally posted by TriMiro
Nationalistic and Universal would bring a problem when it comes to Russia. I believe most of you would say that Russia is Nationalistic, but at the same time Moscow is probably the most diverse city in the world. It is definitely more diverse than New York for example, everybody that has been there would say that.

Agricultural and Nomadic should also be oposites and I think they are very cool.

Well, if they are universal/cosmopolitan that would mean different ethnic group integrate quickly into the Russian culture and less foreigners oppose you rule. This is clearly not the case. Nationalistic would mean the Russians go easier into resistance against a foreign ruler and they would integrate slowly into a foreign culture (Typical for Poland) This, I think, would more be the case. So if we were to set a degree of nationalism for Russia it would be reasonably nationalistic.
There is however a big problem to how it works out in the game. In the game you wouldn't have Tartars, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and all the other small ethnic groups. So any city you found will automatically be Russian. As a result Russian nationalism would turn into some kind of German or Polish nationalism. For the effect you might want to call reasonably cosmopolitan, but that would give other problems. I agree this one is a tough one.

[TriMiro]

Beren you just nailed it.

The only good solution will probably be to split Nationalistic into to. One for the atitude towards foreign nations and another toward conquered nations.

[JCG]

I wonder...shouldn't Partisan also increase the number/frequency of guerrilla/rebel/whatever units that could pop up when an enemy captures your cities?

Makes sense to me, but then again maybe such an effect would probably be contained within Nationalistic...

[Sparkle]

What about this

Fundamentalistic

All combat units get +1 to attack and -1 to defense.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Sparkle
What about this

Fundamentalistic

All combat units get +1 to attack and -1 to defense.

Is that an advantage?

[sabrewolf]

for some players definetly!
some of the best players (e.g. aeson) build more offensive units than defensive.
that extra attack will make your horsemen 50% stronger.
however, what happens with units with defense 1? do they keep it or are they defenceless?
fundamentalistic civilizations should also get an early and free civil defence.

[Sparkle]

Or draft won´t make them unhappy.

[TriMiro]

I think Firaxis could put not only new treats but also new forms of mobilizations. In addition to the normal ones Normal, and Militaristic, there could be:

Jihad ( fundamentalistic ): no war weary but could not be done by some governments. Also easyer draft. Other civs will start to hate you if you stay in it too long.

Scientific: all miltary units and structures cost twice but boosts research. also cannot declare war (people do want to fight they just want to do their lab homework)

Hiperproduction: Economy will suffer badly, but there will be great boost on building and unit production. (good for space race)

Cultural: decrease military but increase culture tremendously. Good for gaining points or boosting the other civ opinion for you.

what do you think. Can you come up with other mibilizations.

[Sparkle]

there can be a "relaxing" or "resting" mobilization - heavily decreases production, but cities grow much faster.

[Beren]

I am not convinced of the use of mobilization levels. Well all right all additions are welcome.

[Fatalis2]

I'd vote for :
- "Cultural"... but "Artistic" sounds better IMHO : happier people, more culture, cheaper new improvements like "museum"... Wonders like Shakespeare, Bach, Sixtine or Oracle should be "Artistic". And civs like France, Greece, Arabs or Rome (for Italy !).
- "Universal"... Very good idea ! US, Rome, Persia.
And the new "maritime" trait, with more deplacements and cheaper harbors. England, Vikings, Spanish.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Fatalis2
I'd vote for :
- "Cultural"... but "Artistic" sounds better IMHO : happier people, more culture, cheaper new improvements like "museum"... Wonders like Shakespeare, Bach, Sixtine or Oracle should be "Artistic". And civs like France, Greece, Arabs or Rome (for Italy !).
- "Universal"... Very good idea ! US, Rome, Persia.
And the new "maritime" trait, with more deplacements and cheaper harbors. England, Vikings, Spanish.

hi ,

agreed , with new traits we need new buildings , units , wonders , etc , .....

have a nice day

[Bummer]

hmm... i don't know if anybody noticed this, but, if you implement all the changes suggested in this forum, you'd end up with something similar to alpha centauri... which isn't a bad thing.

however, i think that just giving the civs two traits is severely limiting. also, fundamentalism should be brought back in, with it's drawback in science and diplomacy and advantages in offense and terro... err, espionage.

[Sparkle]

Or fundamentalism can be a govt type, with corruption same as in Despotism, no scientific research, but bonus to units´ attack value.

[sabrewolf]

uhm... since when does fundamentalism have attack bonus?

in fact, fundamentalists are usually not very well organised, have weaker weapons and use guerilla warfare-like tactics.

the only ADvantage they have in comparison to others is not being afraid of dying. so to me, representing fundamentalism could maybe give 1 HP more, but definetly not more attack...

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
I like Nationalistic...... .

I also like opposite, Universal.

Surely the opposite of Universal would be Xenophobic??



How about a Narrowview or Shortsighted trait (ignorance of other Civs diplomatic gaffs)

Or how about Superstitious - the reverse of Scientific?

My point is this - it gets very hard to balance one Civ getting benefits from one trait if another Civ gets benefits from its opposite trait...

So I think positive traits are the way to go - and I'm disappointed that no present Civ can build cities on mountains.

[Bummer]

in SMAC, fundy's got attack bonus due to "fanatical zeal". the way you describe it, it sounds like they should get lower retreat rates...

also, civ2 gave them "lesser penalties for espionage" since the reasoning was that everybody else was expecting it. that makes sense, no?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sparkle
Or fundamentalism can be a govt type, with corruption same as in Despotism, no scientific research, but bonus to units´ attack value.

hi ,

, they should have a UU with that trait , ....

"fundamentalists" , they should come at a low production cost

have a nice day

[Beren]

Originally posted by Cruddy
My point is this - it gets very hard to balance one Civ getting benefits from one trait if another Civ gets benefits from its opposite trait...

So I think positive traits are the way to go - and I'm disappointed that no present Civ can build cities on mountains.

I thought about it already and I came up with the idea that every civ could have a degree of nationalism. Nationalistic civs will rise in resistance against foreign rulers and integrate harder in other civs. Unnationalistic civs will integrate others quicker and the other civs are less likely to go in resistance.