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.