triaxial civs

[Elok]

I hate to introduce yet another improve-this-game thread, but it occured to me: what if, in our imagined "civ4," the civilizations had three traits instead of two? E.G., the Romans could be Militaristic, Industrious, and Expansionist, which I consider the only proper combination for the ancient Romans, seeing as they were marvelous engineers who conquered the ancient world. This would also allow for a greater number of civs without the repetition of trait combos, and make it less potentially harmful to experiment with different ideas, since one bad trait choice only screws you out of one-third of your options instead of an entire half. The downside, of course, is that each individual trait becomes less valuable. Comments?
And, again, I insist that there should be an Arab civ(religious, expansionist, scientific) in the next one. The bloody Aztecs get a place but not the authors of the rennaissance...ridiculous.

[Thirgaral]

I´d simply like to see more traits...

About triaxial, wouldn´t almost every civ end up being expansionist?...after all, Firaxis's choice of is often made because the civ grew large, which is a result of expansionism...

[2manyusernames]

Of course it is easy enough to use the editor to add a third (or even a fourth) trait.

I agree that some additional traits would be nice.

[Elok]

I don't know that I would go so far as to say every civilization; most great civilizations developed wealth after a time, but not all could have been considered commercial geniuses. More of the civilizations would be considered expansionist, certainly, but mostly because of the demands of a triaxial format. Throughout most of history the Japanese were not especially expansionist, nor were the Babylonians, French(until Napoleon, and he was Corsican), Indians, Egyptians, or the Greeks prior to Alexander. I would call a civ expansionist insofar as a strong desire to spread outwards is a fierce component of its natural identity, as with "Manifest Destiny," or the worldwide conversion efforts of the Muslim Caliphate. I'm not saying that's how Firaxis did or didn't make their decisions, but as long as we're talking about possibilities there's my version.
As for more traits, I'm not sure what else you could add. There are already benefits for shields, trade, science, military units, religious buildings, and "expansion." I suppose there are other areas of expertise, but it would be hard to define them as major traits of a civilization. Diplomacy and spying advantages, for example, might be an excellent strength, but what is a "diplomatic" civilization? Maybe the Japanese, or the Iroqius(however the devil you spell their name), gathered under Hiawatha...certainly not the Americans. It also sounds kinda sad("my people are great fighters!" "mine are tireless workers!" "Mine are obsequious!"), but that's beside the point. At any rate, it might be hard to implement them without screwing the game's balance even further, which is my main fear.
I personally think efforts should be made to rebalance the weaker traits before adding more. Expansionist should get cheaper workers and settlers, at the very least, and an extra settler at the beginning, instead of that stupid scout. Religious could probably use some strengthening too, maybe in the form of quicker integration of captured peoples to simulate missionary work. Corruption and waste are ridiculous and serve to unbalance commercial and industrious even more than they would be already, and commercial basically overwhelms the scientific trait by providing a similar boost with extras. Maybe if commercial were limited to increased taxes somehow; idunno. It wouldn't hurt if expansionists got city walls and granaries cheaper too, to simulate that hardy frontier spirit. You get the idea. I hope.

[Spiffor]

Before PtW came out, there have been many talks about new traits, the most playable ones being maritime and agricultural.
In a chat, a Firaxian told us they had seriously thought about planting those two in the expansion, before realizing it would be a hell to code properly, so it has been ruled out.
The lack of extra traits was more a technical problem, rather than the sheer incompatibility of any new trait with the existing game mechanics.

[epics]

Originally posted by Elok
Expansionist should get cheaper workers and settlers, at the very least, and an extra settler at the beginning, instead of that stupid scout.

That's the last thing we want to do. It would unbalance the game entirely !!!

[CerberusIV]

What might be better for Civ4 would be to rate each civ for all the traits so that some would be better (and get more benefits) than others in particular traits.

On a scale of 1 to 5 a civ rated 5 for commercial would have lower corruption than a civ rated 1. A civ rated 3 for expansionist might get one scout and a civ rated 5 get two scouts.

It would be more complicated but would produce civs with particular tendencies, rather than fixed traits.

[Daz]

Yes, I agree. And let us pick civ traits. I want a lithovore civ...oh, thats MoO... sorry..

No really. Since many of the traits dont actualy apply ( as Elok elaborated....), why not let us pick the traits? I know making Indians Militaristic and Industrious doesnt make sense but I want to be able to choose.

And..yes... additional settler unbalances the game completely. Unless they give more weight to other traits.... Tricky task....

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Yes, create new traits and/or improve existing ones.

Three traits each civ sound good.
One could also consider a system of switching traits according to certain achievements.

Have more UU's too !!!!
(and improve the worthless English, American and Korean ones).

AJ

[Elok]

Uh...Korean? Was that added by the PtW pack or something?
I don't think an additional settler would unbalance things too much, considering how abysmally sucky expansionist is at the moment. A useless extra unit and better chances with goody huts. Blecch.
Maritime and agricultural sound good, though extra food priveliges could really unbalance the game in some respects. Tack on diplomatic and you have nine. With extra traits an extra axis would be absolutely vital, IMO.

[Alex]

Re: triaxial civs

Originally posted by Elok

And, again, I insist that there should be an Arab civ(religious, expansionist, scientific) in the next one. The bloody Aztecs get a place but not the authors of the rennaissance...ridiculous.

There is an Arab civ in the expansion pack.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Re: Re: triaxial civs

Originally posted by Alexnm


There is an Arab civ in the expansion pack.

Yes, and what about the ... Babylons, Persians and Ottomans.

That make 4 Arab linked civs (do I forget one?)

AJ

[epics]

Originally posted by Elok
I don't think an additional settler would unbalance things too much, considering how abysmally sucky expansionist is at the moment. A useless extra unit and better chances with goody huts. Blecch.

Actually, with this "useless scout you can gain a settler, a couple of worriors and, practicly, all the Ancient Age techs!!! I don't think this is blecch.
Read some threads about the Expansionist trait, I learned a lot from them.

[HazieDaVampire]

i did this a while back, only think i noticed was the game speeds up (I don't mean running speed, i mean how long it takes to get from one age to another.).