Predict Who Gets the New Traits!

[Autotropx Sox]

(he never built anything)

Would the modern nation state known as "India" be considered a noun?

as defined by Warlords

As defined by Civ IV, the "personality" of a leader is modeled directly on the personal beliefs of that leader, not what happened during their reign.

Alexander, for example, was a man who believed very firmly in the idea that Mesopotamia should be the center of a new multicultural civilization incorporating all the elements of the classical world while also being extremely aggressive in his desire to rule other empires through force of arms. Thus, Civ IV gave us a leader with two contrasting extremes which seem to represent both his philosophical idealism concerning a multicultural Eden as well as his aggressive and militarist need for conquest to accomplish these ends.

So, if we are going to say that Stalin was a regular Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte only because his action during his reign can be interpreted as the game benefits of being charismatic, then we must also assume that Asoka was a brutal, soulless warmonger who could be identified with aggressive because he propagated wars during his early reign as a solution to his problems.

[Thedrin]

My understanding is that each leader in CivIV has a predefined personality (which can be changed using random personalities). This predefined personality exists independent of the leaders traits - indeed, it seems kind of redundant to give them a personality twice by giving them their traits based on it. Consequently, Alexander will act as he does in game regardless of what traits he is given.

My opinion is that leaders should not recieve the traits based on:

a) their personality
b) the standard definiton of the trait name

but instead recieve them based on

a) the direction taken by the leader's civilization during their rule
b) the trait defined by what bonuses go with it.

What little I know of Asoka would tell me that spiritual and organised are apt and I don't take issue with those traits. It wouldn't be unusual for some leaders to be good candidates for multiple traits. Victoria, quickly scanning the trait bonuses, would be a good candidate for at least 6 of the 11 traits. Also for some leaders it would be difficult to find apt traits. I can only think of 1 trait; imperialistic, that would suit Genghis Khan (though there are traits that would partially suit him - expansive isn't one of them and aggresive is scraping the barrel).

Let me put my point another way: Why should the charismatic trait give a civilization the bonuses that it does? Or (more bizarely) why should the philosophical trait give the bonuses that it does? As far as I'm concerned these are just titles - nothing more - used to distinguish the different sets of bonuses.

Edit: Incidentally the way you used to assign Asoka aggressive does not neccesarily follow the way that I suggest that a trait should be assigned. As I said I don't know a great deal about him, however the fact that Asoka started wars would not be enough for him to recieve the aggressive trait.

Finally in Vanilla CivIV there are 26 leaders and 28 different pairs of traits. In Warlords CivIV there 36 leaders and 55 different pairs of traits. Part of the way traits were assigned in Vanilla seems to have been so that no two leaders had the same pair of traits - something that I'm glad happened. With the increased number of unused combinations I hope that some of the old leaders will be reassigned to a new pair.

[monkspider]

That's an interesting way of looking at the traits Thedrin, but for the purposes of the game, traits are based on the standard definition of the trait name and the leader's personality. Your suggestion though is a new way to look at things though. The main problem is that when you try to assign traits based on what trait's effects most closely match what happened during the leader's reign, you get weird trait assignments. For example, Gandhi arguably increased the health of the average Indian. Should Gandhi be considered expansive?

[Thedrin]

There aren't that many trait assignments that clash badly with my way of doing it. The few that do could be put down to trying not to have different leaders share the same traits. On top of that there are a number of leaders that I just don't know enough about to say whether they have accurate traits (Huyana Capac?).

It may have come across above that I think that Genghis Khan is, by my way, badly suited to aggressive and expansive. But we know that Shaka has been given these traits for Warlords (I'm ok with this but I don't know a great deal about him) so Genghis will probably change.

[Thedrin]

I see I'm not the only person who regularly edits after posting.

As for Gandhi, I think you're taking the health bonus of expansive too literally. A health bonus in CivIV (assuming the happiness cap hasn't been reached) would give larger (or faster growing even) populations in the biggest most productive cities. So that these cities produce more over the major cities of other civs - be it food, production, money or science - kind of like a less powerful but long lasting golden age. Expansive is kind of like Industrious in my way of looking at it. I would give it to civs whose boosts in production weren't focused on particular areas like an Industrious civ would be but impacted every area of power.

Bismarck and Victoria (though an early 19th century English leader would be better) are perfect matches for this.

I'm not really sure what traits Gandhi should get. Maybe expansionist but I don't know a great deal about India's history. However, spiritual (decreased anarchy during political change) seems fine. Industrious I am dubious about.

The main problem is that when you try to assign traits based on what trait's effects most closely match what happened during the leader's reign, you get weird trait assignments. For example, Gandhi arguably increased the health of the average Indian. Should Gandhi be considered expansive?

Even if this does make Gandhi a perfect candidate for an expansive leader, I see nothing wrong with calling Gandhi expansive if you define expansive by the bonuses it gives. Using a more typical definition it may seem weird but that weirdness could be put down to the the trait being slightly misnamed.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Thedrin

My opinion is that leaders should not recieve the traits based on:

a) their personality
b) the standard definiton of the trait name

but instead recieve them based on

a) the direction taken by the leader's civilization during their rule
b) the trait defined by what bonuses go with it.

I agree with this, and because of this I don't think Stalin should have Aggressive. The Soviet military during Stalin's reign was notorious for their lack of morale and training, why should they get free promotions? And Industrious? What world wonders did Stalin build? The trait combination fits Hitler far better than Stalin, too bad we'll never see him as a leader.

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru


I agree with this, and because of this I don't think Stalin should have Aggressive. The Soviet military during Stalin's reign was notorious for their lack of morale and training, why should they get free promotions? And Industrious? What world wonders did Stalin build? The trait combination fits Hitler far better than Stalin, too bad we'll never see him as a leader.

I agree with Industrious. While Stalin didn't build any of the in-game wonders he did oversee some massive increases in production level focused on specific areas of Russian power.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Thedrin
I'm not at all sure that Stalin should recieve the charismatic trait. Howver, I would like to suggest, Autotropx Sox, that you are using the dictionary definiton of charismatic in making your arguement when the appropriate definiton would be the CivIV definition.

Charismatic bonuses:

1) +2 happiness in each city
2) -25% cost of unit promotions
3) double production speed of broadcast towers

These bonuses could easily be given to someone who

b) reduced dissent (taking account that happy faces in CivIV are a way of countering unhappy faces)
a) had an army that rapidly developed in strenght and ability
c) the broadcast towers could be used to imply good use of propaganda

First, the alphabet startes a,b,c not b,a,c. Second, are you trying to say that Stalin's people were happy. They were scared to death of him. They were so scared that everyone was to scared to be the first to stop clapping for Stalin. After twenty minutes everyone would be ordered to stop. Also, he took so much food from the framers that they often ate the people who starved to death. I not sure what your definition of happy is, but that difinitly is not mine. Third, the Red Army only fought because if they surrendered they would be tortured, and if they retreated their generals would shoot them. I now belive it is clear that Stalin does not deserve the charismatic trait.

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Will9


First, the alphabet startes a,b,c not b,a,c.

Thanks. Edited.

Second, are you trying to say that Stalin's people were happy. They were scared to death of him. They were so scared that everyone was to scared to be the first to stop clapping for Stalin. After twenty minutes everyone would be ordered to stop. Also, he took so much food from the framers that they often ate the people who starved to death. I not sure what your definition of happy is, but that difinitly is not mine. Third, the Red Army only fought because if they surrendered they would be tortured, and if they retreated their generals would shoot them.

See b). Which has been changed to a). To repeat: happy faces in CivIV are a way of countering angry faces.

I now belive it is clear that Stalin does deserve the charismatic trait.

Fixed. (Not really since this doesn't take account of unit promotions or broadcast towers but I would say that at least one of the three advantages could be used to describe Stalin)

Edit: To combat possible nitpicking, happy faces can be viewed either as a way of countering angry faces or a way of showing people are happy. It does not have to be only one of these ways.

[Will9]

In civ the only things that would cause happiness is something that would cause happiness. If you can find something in civ (other than level) that doesn't cause happiness, but does in civ I will stop attacking your postes saying that Stalin should have the charismatic trait.

[Thedrin]

I may be misreading your post. Could you confirm that I am interpreting this correctly:

If you can find something in civ that doesn't cause happiness, but does in civ

interpreted as:

If you can find something in civ that doesn't cause happiness, but does [cause happiness] in civ

Edit: Also, I have said that Stalin could have the charismatic trait. I also said that he could have the industrious trait and others (which I didn't specify). A list of possible Stalin traits in order of applicability (which is by no means definitive):

1) Industrious
2) Creative
3) Charismatic
4) Protective

[Will9]

What I meant to say that doesn't cause happiness in real life, but does cause happiness in civ.

[Thedrin]

My first arguement is that happy faces in CivIV do not strictly mean the presence of happy people. We try to increase the number of happy faces in our CivIV cities as a means of countering the number of angry faces in our CivIV cities. Looking at CivIV in this way, happy faces can then be anything which reduce the risk of upheaval due to angry citizens. Brutal suppression does this.

My second arguement is that the traits are defined by the bonuses that they grant - not by the names assigned to them - and since the bonuses of some traits can be arrived at in different ways there is the real possiblity that it will seem that some traits are misnamed due to the leaders they are applied to. In short, I am saying that Stalin could get a set of bonuses that have been labelled 'charismatic'. Not that Stalin coud be charismatic.

[Will9]

Do I now need to start an arrgument on why Stalin shouldn't get the creative trait because that is alot worse than him getting charismatic.

[Thedrin]

If you wish.