Radical Idea?

[Epistax]

I just got the idea from the China thread. I'm not talking about implementation, etc, simply concept:

Should traits change with ages- either by user choice, user action, or by history? What I mean by user action is if someone acts industrious, then at the next age advancement, perhaps the civ becomes industrious.

I don't have the game available right now for checking on specifics so I can't give any solid examples. It is a little hard to think about this as not all nations evolved simultaneously. The americans were originally industrious and expansionist, but that's in the 16th-18th century AD, not 40th century BC. (I'd call modern americans industrious commercial).

[Cort Haus]

Interesting idea, but expansionist is only applicable to the start-game. It would also be a bit complicated. You'd have to learn 8 traits for each civ, and it would be even harder for the poor AI to cope with.

[Panag]

hi ,

why not , they should change with age and form of gov , ....


BUT this should have an option on and off , ......

have a nice day

[Sheik]

sounds very SMAC. I love SMAC so a great idea.

[notyoueither]

It would be very interesting to modify behaviour in an attempt to gain traits. That would add a bunch to the game. Being able to lose them too? Maybe.

[alva]

I would love a more dynamical on other fronts too ( geography for one (ie mountains rising whlile other terrain flattens)).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It would be very interesting to modify behaviour in an attempt to gain traits. That would add a bunch to the game. Being able to lose them too? Maybe.

Kinda like the GalCiv concept of having to make choices?

[Epistax]

I think the only major problem is Cort Haus said, the AI would be utterly confused. (By that, I mean they wouldn't exploit it at all, and would likely be set back)

As long as you could turn it on and off, I see no player complaints about it

Someone make Civ4 already. Wait a few years?... I guess...

[ISTANBUL]

Re: Radical Idea?

Originally posted by Epistax
... simply concept:

Should traits change with ages- either by user choice, user action, or by history? What I mean by user action is if someone acts industrious, then at the next age advancement, perhaps the civ becomes industrious.

Do you mean an improvement in the level of a particular skill if the user acts accordingly (for example if you irrigate 30% of your territory, your workers irrigate even faster; if you fight wars for 40 turns your units are more likely to get promoted; if you can reveal a quarter of the map in a certain turns your scouts/naval units move even faster, etc) or just getting commercial trait if you're the one who gets the most gold per turn or losing it if you're the poorest civ inthe game?

Anyway that's cool. Don't several other games have similar features? (HoMM?)

[Epistax]

Re: Re: Radical Idea?

Originally posted by ISTANBUL


Do you mean an improvement in the level of a particular skill if the user acts accordingly (for example if you irrigate 30% of your territory, your workers irrigate even faster; if you fight wars for 40 turns your units are more likely to get promoted; if you can reveal a quarter of the map in a certain turns your scouts/naval units move even faster, etc) or just getting commercial trait if you're the one who gets the most gold per turn or losing it if you're the poorest civ inthe game?

Anyway that's cool. Don't several other games have similar features? (HoMM?)

I didn't mean that but it's a good idea. If you started industrious, and acted industrious, you become more industrious. I just used industrious three times in a sentence.

[ISTANBUL]

Re: Radical Idea?

Originally posted by Epistax
... simply concept:

Should traits change with ages- either by user choice, user action, or by history? What I mean by user action is if someone acts industrious, then at the next age advancement, perhaps the civ becomes industrious.

Do you mean an improvement in the level of a particular skill if the user acts accordingly (for example if you irrigate 30% of your territory, your workers irrigate even faster; if you fight wars for 40 turns your units are more likely to get promoted; if you can reveal a quarter of the map in a certain turns your scouts/naval units move even faster, etc) or just getting commercial trait if you're the one who gets the most gold per turn or losing it if you're the poorest civ inthe game?

Anyway that's cool. Don't several other games have similar features? (HoMM?)

[The Mad Monk]

Americans were never expansionist -- at least not the way the game models it.

[Spiffor]

I'm all for it .
Traits should depend on your behaviour and surronding geogragphy (well, both are tied anyway), rather than to be predetermined. A highly militarized society should become militaristic; the game couldmaybe determine if a Civ is militaristic based on the length of military service (ratio units / population).
If a Civ is landlocked in your game, it should not be seafaring, even if it's English or Viking. By the same token, a Civ should not develop the expansionist trait if it's locked on a tiny island. I think these traits should be directly dependent of the emphasis players accord to exploration and to navy-building.

But to decide how a Civ would turn religious or scientific isn't easy. I wonder what the factors to become religious would be.

[Panag]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Americans were never expansionist -- at least not the way the game models it.

hi ,

, just take a look at all the wars the US has waged since its birth , more then 100 , ...... if that aint expansionist , ....

have a nice day

[Kuciwalker]

I'm all for it - for civ4. It is simply TOO LARGE of a change, code- and gameplay-wise, to be as an expansion.

Also, I think there are many more important things.