New trait combos for original leaders?

[Common Sensei]

A lot of the information being released about the Warlords expansion is geared towards the new leaders and civilizations, which is to be expected. However, I am equally interested in information about changes the original civilizations.

For example, some of the new leaders have the traits that original leaders currently have. If they want to maintain the uniqueness of leader trait pairs, they're going to have to reassign traits.

These original leaders would have to get new trait(s):

Napoleon
Julius Caesar
Huayna Capac
Genghis Khan

The new traits also fit some original leaders very well. I could easily see Victoria getting Imperialistic, for example. I'm also willing to bet that either Napoleon or Alexander (most likely Napoleon) get the juicy Aggressive/Charismatic combination.

[Badtz Maru]

I agree about Napoleon...the Industrious trait does not fit him well at all, especially considering his AI files give him the second lowest chance to build wonders of all the leaders (Montezuma never builds them).

[Simplicity]

I'm guessing Caesar is Imperialistic... Just a wild guess.

[monkspider]

Caesar actually wasn't an imperialist like say Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc. He was expansive (with his invasion of Gaul), but he doesn't strike me as an imperialist. I would actually say that charismatic would be the perfect trait for him, being a fiery public speaker.

Khan will get imperialist

Napoleon may well get charismatic/imperialist (!)

Capac will get imperialist

That may seem like a lot of imperialists, but remember that none of the new civs got the imperialist trait.

[Simplicity]

Well, Julius Caesar didn't really live long enough to be much of a real imperialist. He did invent the position though, and Augustus followed through in a big way.

So I could see Julius as expansive not imperialist, but for goodness sake... At least make Augustus (the first Roman Emperor) imperialistic.

[Louis XXIV]

I'd make Augustus imperialist, but Caesar could really use Charismatic (unless it would be too unbalancing with Praetorians).

[LordShiva]

Praetorians are unbalancing by themselves

[Dauphin]

Not if you build axeman.

[Autotropx Sox]

Not if you build axeman.

Praetorian v. Axeman
(8.0 v. 7.5)

Praetorian v. Archer (40% city bonus, 50% city def., 25% fortify [115%])
(8.0 v. 6.35)

or

Praetorian v. Archer([115%], 25% hill def, 25% hill bonus [165%])
(8.0 v 8.65)

Either way you look at it, anyone facing the Praetorian is not going to have a good day.

[One_more_turn]

Well promoted Praetorians even eat through Longbowmen defended cities.

Only the appearance of Macemen and Crossbowmen makes them obsolete.

[LotharTheSwede]

Originally posted by Autotropx Sox

Either way you look at it, anyone facing the Praetorian is not going to have a good day.

I am sure this is an accurate representation of history though..

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Slightly O/T, but does anyone else think that expansive and imperialist are the wrong way around?
Imperialists are better at controlling EXISTING nations, IMO, and befits such rulers as Augustus Caesar (at the height of the Roman Empire) and Josef Stalin (at the height of the Soviet Union). As such, the Imperialist trait should be more about increasing your chances of holding on to conquered territory-either in terms of assimilation rates, happiness of conquered cities or simply the cost of captured cities. At the very least it SHOULD have the +2 health currently enjoyed by the expansionist trait
Expansionist, OTOH, seems to better reflect the Manifest Destiny ethos of the Westward expansion in the US. As such, it is this trait which should recieve the bonus to Settler construction, along with a bonus to distance maintainance costs.
What do the rest of you think?

Aussie_Lurker.

[Autotropx Sox]

Expansionist, OTOH, seems to better reflect the Manifest Destiny ethos of the Westward expansion in the US.

Players get bonuses based on the personality of their leader, not the historical tendencies of their civilization.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Autotropx Sox

Not if you build axeman.

Praetorian v. Axeman
(8.0 v. 7.5)

Praetorian v. Archer (40% city bonus, 50% city def., 25% fortify [115%])
(8.0 v. 6.35)

or

Praetorian v. Archer([115%], 25% hill def, 25% hill bonus [165%])
(8.0 v 8.65)

Either way you look at it, anyone facing the Praetorian is not going to have a good day.

I'm not saying its easy, just that its not unbalancing if you follow the right strategy - which was the suggestion made.

You should play against someone like Snotty. He is very good at carving up Praets that come at him. One method is if you play as an aggressive civ you get the extra 10% making Axemen favourite to beat the Praet. If you have a barracks as well you can choose to have an Axeman with the melee upgrade for another 25%. Praets are damned good at city attack with their upgrades of course, but if you have a player who knows what he/she is doing then they can be stopped more easily than you'd imagine. Its about playing it smart.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK I see what you are trying to say, Autotropx Sox, but I see the 'Leader' of a civ in more-shall we say?-Symbolic terms.

i.e. If Catherine has the Financial trait, to me this more represents that Russia was considered an economic powerhouse during her reign-and thus this trait is assigned to her. This is also how I am able to overlook the fact that one leader can live over 6000 years .
Of course, non of this alters my original argument, which is that Imperialism-in my mind-represents control of FOREIGN land, wheras Expansionism represents the ability for a nation to expand out into unclaimed territory. If so, then the traits are somewhat backward IMHO!

Aussie_Lurker.