I don't remember what was decided on this issue so I thought there should be a poll.
The question of civ traits is hotly debated and has alot of effect on the type of game we get and suits different player styles.
There are several basic opinions on this:
1. Preset cvilization traits (like Civ 3 or SMAC)
Players who want to start with pre-set civilization traits to fit a certain style of playing they know they wish to udnertake during the game. Players believe it is more historically accurate, and makes a good "first strategic choise".
Pros: Easier for AI. Supposdely historically accurate. Helps players fit their gaming style.
Cons: Every game plays out pretty much the same (expansionist civs always conquer the world, perfectionists are always small civilizations that launch space ships)
2. Develop as you go No preset civilization traits (like Civ I or Civ II)*
Players who want to start up with a blank file - no civilization traits for me - I want all civs to start the same.
Many of the supporters of this option actually want to see civilization traits develop over time - as a result of player choises made DURING the game. For instance: building wonders and mini-wonders, researching specific technologies, achieving certain "tasks", changing governments etc.
Players beleive it is not accurate to portray a civilization with certain traits, which are supposed to describe it for 6000 years. Traits, they say, are born out of a certain need or environment - and aren't "genetically encoded" - the English are good sailors because they had to be, not because their forefathers passed on "sailor-genes".
Pros: Players can develop their civilization according to taste and according to changes in strategy in mid game. Every game is different.
Cons: Initial civ choise has no effect on game. Non-historic results (Egyptians become commercialists and a navy superpower). AI may have hard time making smart choises as player.
* - this is slightly incorrect - as civilizations did have basic traits such as "expansionist / perfectionist"; "civilizized / agressive" etc.)
The question of civ traits is hotly debated and has alot of effect on the type of game we get and suits different player styles.
There are several basic opinions on this:
1. Preset cvilization traits (like Civ 3 or SMAC)
Players who want to start with pre-set civilization traits to fit a certain style of playing they know they wish to udnertake during the game. Players believe it is more historically accurate, and makes a good "first strategic choise".
Pros: Easier for AI. Supposdely historically accurate. Helps players fit their gaming style.
Cons: Every game plays out pretty much the same (expansionist civs always conquer the world, perfectionists are always small civilizations that launch space ships)
2. Develop as you go No preset civilization traits (like Civ I or Civ II)*
Players who want to start up with a blank file - no civilization traits for me - I want all civs to start the same.
Many of the supporters of this option actually want to see civilization traits develop over time - as a result of player choises made DURING the game. For instance: building wonders and mini-wonders, researching specific technologies, achieving certain "tasks", changing governments etc.
Players beleive it is not accurate to portray a civilization with certain traits, which are supposed to describe it for 6000 years. Traits, they say, are born out of a certain need or environment - and aren't "genetically encoded" - the English are good sailors because they had to be, not because their forefathers passed on "sailor-genes".
Pros: Players can develop their civilization according to taste and according to changes in strategy in mid game. Every game is different.
Cons: Initial civ choise has no effect on game. Non-historic results (Egyptians become commercialists and a navy superpower). AI may have hard time making smart choises as player.
* - this is slightly incorrect - as civilizations did have basic traits such as "expansionist / perfectionist"; "civilizized / agressive" etc.)
Comment