Tweet
Four of the six civ traits are mostly well liked, you may see an occasional bad post about Militaristic, or maybe someone who doesn't like scientific every once in a while. But compared to these four, there are two civ traits that *MUCH* more complained about. These two are Expansionist and Commerical. In the thread that follows I will explain the case against them for any would-be Firaxis readers and exactly how they can be fixed in a balancing way.
Expansionist-
Why we don't like it- First and foremost, there is absolultely nothing to look forward to beyond the first ten or twenty turns. This goes beyond not being a very good trait, but it's absolutely no fun at all. You have no idea how depressing it is to know that once the first few turns are over, you have one civ trait that will contribute absolutely nothing to your cause. Secondly, the benefits that it offers aren't nearly as good as the others. The fact that you *MIGHT* get a few ancient level techs if you happen to be close to a few goodie huts is hardly ever as good as the benefits of say cheap temples or faster workers. So even if you do happen to have a little bit of good luck, 99.9% of the time the benefits you get are very slim compared to other civs. Moreover, if you are lucky enough to find horseback riding in some goodie hut, everyone knows ancient level techs are the easiest thing in the world to trade for anyway, so this is doubly damning to any conceivable benefits to being an expansionist civ. And yes, you do get to explore the map a little bit earlier, and maybe gain a shield or two of production from a couple of your cities because you were able to place your cities in more strategically sound locations, due to scouts. But that is about the only thing Expansionist civs have going for them. So we have already established that being an expansionist civ is without question much less "fun" than any other trait, is arguably much less "effective" than other trait, the fact that it's entire success is based on pure luck is something that just shouldnt' be in a Civ game. The fact that expansionist civs recieve absolutely ANY benefit at all relies on map settings being set a certain way is just ludicrus. As I see it, If Expansionist civs aren't retooled, there is going to exist a game-balance hole big enough for a mack truck to drive through.
How to fix it: There are a number of novel ways for expansionist civs to be effectively retooled. I like Apolyton user Nationalists' suggestion to make it less likely for cities conquered by expansionist civs to culture-flip. Thus, effectively allowing them to "expand" more easily. Given some player's annoyance to Culture-flips, this would make them much more attractive. It would simply have to be a resistance to culture-flipping large enough to be noticeable, but small enough to not be game-balancing. If you could simply do this, expansionist civs would see their stock rise greatly.
Commerical-
Why we hate it- I don't really have any particular outspoken feelings regarding the commerical trait. It's just that, well, it just doesn't do much. It is said to reduce your corruption in theory but in practice all it does is increase your optimal number of cities by one (read: it does nothing). Poster Alexman's study has proved it does next to nothing for corruption. So beyond that it offers a little bit of extra income in your major cities, which is helpful but isn't really a huge deal. And aside from that, it does nothing! It doesn't even lower the cost of commerical-oriented city improvements. Which leads us to our next point.
How to fix it- Simply raise the ammount that it lowers corruption by, raise it maybe to be about equal to the ammount that a courthouse lowers. And then just allow commericial civs to have cheaper marketplaces and banks. That's it. That's all you need to do.
I hope Firaxis takes this into serious consideration, and I urge players who agree to vote yes, in the poll at the top, that these civ traits to need to be improved in order to be taken seriously in multiplayer competition. These traits are at the heart of every civ, and if not improved will create a huge balance issue.
Expansionist-
Why we don't like it- First and foremost, there is absolultely nothing to look forward to beyond the first ten or twenty turns. This goes beyond not being a very good trait, but it's absolutely no fun at all. You have no idea how depressing it is to know that once the first few turns are over, you have one civ trait that will contribute absolutely nothing to your cause. Secondly, the benefits that it offers aren't nearly as good as the others. The fact that you *MIGHT* get a few ancient level techs if you happen to be close to a few goodie huts is hardly ever as good as the benefits of say cheap temples or faster workers. So even if you do happen to have a little bit of good luck, 99.9% of the time the benefits you get are very slim compared to other civs. Moreover, if you are lucky enough to find horseback riding in some goodie hut, everyone knows ancient level techs are the easiest thing in the world to trade for anyway, so this is doubly damning to any conceivable benefits to being an expansionist civ. And yes, you do get to explore the map a little bit earlier, and maybe gain a shield or two of production from a couple of your cities because you were able to place your cities in more strategically sound locations, due to scouts. But that is about the only thing Expansionist civs have going for them. So we have already established that being an expansionist civ is without question much less "fun" than any other trait, is arguably much less "effective" than other trait, the fact that it's entire success is based on pure luck is something that just shouldnt' be in a Civ game. The fact that expansionist civs recieve absolutely ANY benefit at all relies on map settings being set a certain way is just ludicrus. As I see it, If Expansionist civs aren't retooled, there is going to exist a game-balance hole big enough for a mack truck to drive through.
How to fix it: There are a number of novel ways for expansionist civs to be effectively retooled. I like Apolyton user Nationalists' suggestion to make it less likely for cities conquered by expansionist civs to culture-flip. Thus, effectively allowing them to "expand" more easily. Given some player's annoyance to Culture-flips, this would make them much more attractive. It would simply have to be a resistance to culture-flipping large enough to be noticeable, but small enough to not be game-balancing. If you could simply do this, expansionist civs would see their stock rise greatly.
Commerical-
Why we hate it- I don't really have any particular outspoken feelings regarding the commerical trait. It's just that, well, it just doesn't do much. It is said to reduce your corruption in theory but in practice all it does is increase your optimal number of cities by one (read: it does nothing). Poster Alexman's study has proved it does next to nothing for corruption. So beyond that it offers a little bit of extra income in your major cities, which is helpful but isn't really a huge deal. And aside from that, it does nothing! It doesn't even lower the cost of commerical-oriented city improvements. Which leads us to our next point.
How to fix it- Simply raise the ammount that it lowers corruption by, raise it maybe to be about equal to the ammount that a courthouse lowers. And then just allow commericial civs to have cheaper marketplaces and banks. That's it. That's all you need to do.
I hope Firaxis takes this into serious consideration, and I urge players who agree to vote yes, in the poll at the top, that these civ traits to need to be improved in order to be taken seriously in multiplayer competition. These traits are at the heart of every civ, and if not improved will create a huge balance issue.
Comment