New traits! What will Seafaring and Agricultural do?

[bobbo008]

actually, isn't America one of (or the) largest exporters of food (such as corn and grain) in the world?

then you have to look at how advanced our farming is (Europe wont even touch or GM foods). Even I think it was Kruschev visited and saw farming methods, and he was from a country full of farming peasants.

I live in Wisconsin (USA) and i'll tell you that we are agricultural...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by History Guy
And to think, at one time, America would have qualified as Agricultural... Not any more...

I've been thinking about that. Actually, America is still one of the largest food producers in the world. Perhaps America (if we really have to have it) should be Agricultural - Industrious.


We're certainly not expansionist the way the game has it.

[The Mad Monk]

...and I really should learn to read the whole thread before posting.

[The Mad Monk]

Before we peg cultures with exceptional amounts of farmers as "agricultural", we should consider why those countries have exceptional amounts of farmers.

It seems to me that agricultural cultures would be those that are good at it, not just massively preoccupied with it.

[ChaotikVisions]

What about having a bonus to trade/food in all costal cities for Seafaring civs? The same setup that commercial/indusious get for cities. Forget how much per size of city they get, but you understand the idea.

As for Agricultural, what about excess food being counted as trade also? To show the wealth that agricultural civs usually aquired from their farming.

Thats not enough by itself, but combined with other ideas I say it'd be pretty good.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

It seems to me that agricultural cultures would be those that are good at it, not just massively preoccupied with it.

Ok, I need some clairifcation here. Are these mutually excluse terms? I mean a good farmer is likely to some what preoccupied with farming are they not?
What did you have in mind?

[The Mad Monk]

Cultures that were known for out-producing their similarly-situated neighbors in terms of food. For example, the low countries in Europe brought about many improvements in agrcutultural methods during the late middle ages, and as a result flourished while their less-advanced brethren suffered shortages. They were able to build on this agriculture-fueled prosperity to create a trade empire.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Feephi



America has always been Expansionist/Industrious. They, as all expansionist civs do, focussed on agriculture early due to their expansionist policy.

hi ,

the two traits they have make building your empire faster , .... now , if we where to see for some civ's three traits , ...... thats an other story then , ....

have a nice day

[The Mad Monk]

Cultures that had exceptionally fertile lands, such as Egypt or America would also count as agricultural.

Cultures that were victimized by famine on a regular basis could not be considered agricultural, no matter how much of the population was forced into serfdom.

[GodKing]

I would say russia by that definition would not be agricultural. Stalin starved many of the people by taking the food thay had grown away. He tried to force russia (USSR) to become an industrial nation. It was a land so used to "pesant farming" that even now they have to import grain from the USA to feed their population.

USA should be agricultural - between us and Canada what percentage of the world gets fed?

[Panag]

hi ,

, what if traits where to change depending upon form of gov and era , ...... that would be great

have a nice day

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

, what if traits where to change depending upon form of gov and era , ...... that would be great

have a nice day

(this has probably been said before, but this thought just crossed my mind)

Along those lines, I would rather have each civ have 2 leaders tp choose from at the beginning (maybe one male, one female even) with the two having different traits to show the evolution of the society. Granted, some of the more ancient and temporary civs would then have to be, who knows, their second set completely made up, but I think overall it would make the game interesting. Perhaps you could have a different UU depending on the leader as well. That would make the game more fun for me I think, more variety.

that would even be a more natural way to work in a civil war, take London and half of England breaks off under a new name with Churchill as the leader with different traits.

[Kuciwalker]

USA should be Agricultural and Industrial. It would make the Americans way more powerful, and compensate for the F-15, aside from the fact that it's historically accurate.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm not sure -- I think I would favor agricultural and commercial. Well, before this I had reassigned commercial and industrious to the Americans, because I thought it more accurately reflected history.

Of course I usually leave the Americans out of my games, because it more accurately reflects history.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by GodKing
I would say russia by that definition would not be agricultural. Stalin starved many of the people by taking the food thay had grown away. He tried to force russia (USSR) to become an industrial nation. It was a land so used to "pesant farming" that even now they have to import grain from the USA to feed their population.

Same thing was tried for China under Mao for a long period of time until they finally realized they couldn't keep feeding their population.

USA should be agricultural - between us and Canada what percentage of the world gets fed?

We shouldn't go with just what it is today or fairly recently....although for america there really isn't too much of a timeline to look at....