Who should get these traits ?

[Spiffor]

Bane Star :
I didn't try your mod. Is the AI proficient with these "trait buildings" ? I was under the impression the AI was quite crappy with the ordinary replacing buildings already...

[Bane Star]

AI.... hmmm

well my AI has a rough time, It tends to build the buildings that its Trait is ticked in the building list, But one of my Races is the GM Race, which has no tech tree atm, but has access to over 30 types of UU creatures, In the scenario it has these pre-placed, But in a random generated game, It builds only 3 types of troops.

so no the AI sucks...

[Spiffor]

Oh crap
Maybe when the tech tress and the like will be finished, there will be room for some AI optimization ?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Oh crap
Maybe when the tech tress and the like will be finished, there will be room for some AI optimization ?

hi ,

there is always room for that , but at what cost , .....

two disk's and load's of ram maybe , ......

have a nice day

[Odin]

The SCANDINAVIANS (not Vikings Vikings were the seafaring warriors, not the common people) should definitly be seafaring, but I am torn in whether the other trait should be millitaristic or comercial. They were both great warriors and traders.

[Jethro83]

Ones I definitely believe should be:

Vikings: Militaristic/Seafaring
Americans: Expansionist/Agricultural
England: Commercial/Seafaring
Spain: Religious/Seafaring
Greeks: Scientific/Seafaring


Ones I might, or might not believe should be:

India: Agricultural/Religious
China: Agricultural/Scientific
Iroquois: Agricultual/Religious
Carthage: Commercial/Seafaring


I'm unsure as to what the Ottomons should be (since Sci/Ind doesn't really suit them anyway), and the new civs since I haven't had time to really think (plus I have no idea as to who is in other than Sumer, the Incas and the Maya). As for the rest of the existing civs, I think they should remain as they are.

[joncnunn]

I would think that with the new traights there would be no need to have 2 civs share the same traight combos.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by BigDork
Okay, how could the Vikings not be militaristic? Also I don't see the Japanese as being seafaring. I think the Vikings would do better with sea, mil and leave the Japs as they were.

BigD

You're right about the Vikings.

I was trying to fit all the traits in (I can't think of anyone to be Sea, Exp).

I wanted to change Japan so there wouldn't be 3 Mil, Rel civs (I don't think there will be). I found every civ with "Build often: Navy" flag and made them Seafaring.

I could think of Japan as Seafaring, anyway

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
I was trying to fit all the traits in (I can't think of anyone to be Sea, Exp).

You can have the British doing that (the Carthaginians could be the ones beaing seafaring/commercial), or maybe the Portuguese.

I could think of Japan as Seafaring, anyway

Well, not me. Japan was very much oriented on its own islands, and most of its seafaring history in the old times was about piracy and disruption of Chinese sea trade. Fishing was also important, but the Japanese aren't "seafaring" in the sense they didn't crossed large areas of water nor made a huge navy in their history.
Only during the imperial period of 1905-1945 did Japan build a huge fleet. At this rate, they may be "airfaring" as well

There was sure many traffic between the Japanese islands, but I don't think this can be considered as a seafering tradition though.
You can make North-African Arabs seafaring as well by such standrads.

[Louis XXIV]

I guess I was mainly thinking about Japan's fishing tradition, which is huge. They didn't really have a large navy until the 20th Century, so I guess they might not be Seafarring.

But there can't be 3 Mil, Rel civs. Can you think of one of the 3 (Aztecs, Celts, Japanese) that can be something else?

[Captain Crunch]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
I guess I was mainly thinking about Japan's fishing tradition, which is huge. They didn't really have a large navy until the 20th Century, so I guess they might not be Seafarring.

But there can't be 3 Mil, Rel civs. Can you think of one of the 3 (Aztecs, Celts, Japanese) that can be something else?

The Celts could be expansionist. They historically spread from the black sea to Ireland.

[sabrewolf]

there are 28 (=8*7/2) combinations, if every civ has exactly 2 traits.

that means that in the ideal case of being able to give every civ a matching pair of traits, there will be only 3 combinations which more that 1 civ has.
but if we look at ptw, there were some combinations which 3 (or even 4?) had and some for just 1 civ... so i don't think everything will be evenly spread.

if each civ gets 3 traits, there are 56 possible combinations (=8!/5!/3!) {the exclamation mark means 'faculty' for those who's math lessons are too far back }. this could make sence, because even similar civs (e.g. spanish and english were both seafaring and expansionist at there peaks) could have a difference (e.g. spanish religious or militaristic, english commercial).

maybe there are even some civs with 3 and some with 2 traits... if my calculations are correct: 75 combos (= 9!/6!/3! - 9) (the -9 come from the highly unlikely case that a civ would have just 1 or even 0 traits!)

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Ones I definitely believe should be:

Americans: Expansionist/Agricultural
England: Commercial/Seafaring
Spain: Religious/Seafaring

i disagree that these are definate.

americans could just as well get industrious or commercial, depending on which era is represented.

english (as i said in the post before) could also be expansionist (1/2 the world map was coloured red.... which btw should be their colour in the game, but that's not the topic here ).
spain could have militaristic and aswell expansionist (they grabbed most of south america and the majority of central america)

Ones I might, or might not believe should be:

India: Agricultural/Religious
China: Agricultural/Scientific
Iroquois: Agricultual/Religious
Carthage: Commercial/Seafaring

basicly, it looks like you've taken away the expansionist of all civs

i think expansionist fits quite well to: english, spanish, portuguese, celts, russian, mongols, americans. possibly also vikings, china. i don't know enough about iroquois and zulu history to be able to judge if they really were expansionistic...

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
there are 28 (=8*7/2) combinations, if every civ has exactly 2 traits.

that means that in the ideal case of being able to give every civ a matching pair of traits, there will be only 3 combinations which more that 1 civ has.
but if we look at ptw, there were some combinations which 3 (or even 4?) had and some for just 1 civ... so i don't think everything will be evenly spread.

if each civ gets 3 traits, there are 56 possible combinations (=8!/5!/3!) {the exclamation mark means 'faculty' for those who's math lessons are too far back }. this could make sence, because even similar civs (e.g. spanish and english were both seafaring and expansionist at there peaks) could have a difference (e.g. spanish religious or militaristic, english commercial).

maybe there are even some civs with 3 and some with 2 traits... if my calculations are correct: 75 combos (= 9!/6!/3! - 9) (the -9 come from the highly unlikely case that a civ would have just 1 or even 0 traits!)

quoting myself... but the more i think of it, the more i like the idea of 3 traits

[Panag]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


quoting myself... but the more i think of it, the more i like the idea of 3 traits

hi ,

yes for some civs , others should get only two or even one , your idea sounds great

have a nice day