Tweet
Are civ traits balanced?
OK, after playing this game for a few months I have come to the conclusion that the civ traits are surprisingly well balanced.
When the game came out, many people were complaining that the Militaristic and Expansionist traits were weak compared to the others. But after players slowly started realizing the potential of Great leaders (the single most powerful element of the game), and after Aeson's revolutionary (at the time) tactic of resource denial using scouts, these two traits are now considered among the best.
Religious is probably a little more powerful than the other traits, but not by much.
The Commercial trait is another story!! This trait is so much worse than the others, I would never pick a commercial civ unless it had a really great UU (i.e. Rome, and maybe Greece)
Why is this trait so weak? Well, first consider its benefits. You get one extra trade for cities above size 12 (not size 6 like the manual says). Big deal! That's probably a 2% to 5% increase in commerce for a city above that size, depending on the amount of commerce the city is already producing. You also get the "optimal" number of cities for corruption increased by one. ONE! This is barely noticeable (maybe 2% increase in income for a city in the middle of the pack) on small maps, and next to useless on large ones.
Don't get me wrong. These benefits are not bad to have. They are just not nearly as good as the increased probablility of having a Great leader to build your FP, or half-price temples and one-turn anarchy.
Part of the problem is that the commercial trait is partly meant to combat corruption. Since the release of the game, Firaxis has provided ways to reduce corruption, which diminished the value of being commercial. So even if the trait was balanced when the game was released, now it is not.
Here are some suggestions of how to bring the commercial trait up to par with the rest:
What do you guys think? Do you agree that commercial is the worst trait in the game?
When the game came out, many people were complaining that the Militaristic and Expansionist traits were weak compared to the others. But after players slowly started realizing the potential of Great leaders (the single most powerful element of the game), and after Aeson's revolutionary (at the time) tactic of resource denial using scouts, these two traits are now considered among the best.
Religious is probably a little more powerful than the other traits, but not by much.
The Commercial trait is another story!! This trait is so much worse than the others, I would never pick a commercial civ unless it had a really great UU (i.e. Rome, and maybe Greece)
Why is this trait so weak? Well, first consider its benefits. You get one extra trade for cities above size 12 (not size 6 like the manual says). Big deal! That's probably a 2% to 5% increase in commerce for a city above that size, depending on the amount of commerce the city is already producing. You also get the "optimal" number of cities for corruption increased by one. ONE! This is barely noticeable (maybe 2% increase in income for a city in the middle of the pack) on small maps, and next to useless on large ones.
Don't get me wrong. These benefits are not bad to have. They are just not nearly as good as the increased probablility of having a Great leader to build your FP, or half-price temples and one-turn anarchy.
Part of the problem is that the commercial trait is partly meant to combat corruption. Since the release of the game, Firaxis has provided ways to reduce corruption, which diminished the value of being commercial. So even if the trait was balanced when the game was released, now it is not.
Here are some suggestions of how to bring the commercial trait up to par with the rest:
- Increase the optimal-number-of-cities bonus to a percentage instead of a fixed value of one. Courhouses increase that number by 25% (in addition to reducing the corruption due to distance). The commercial civ trait could increase number of optimal cities by, say, 10%. That would result in no change (1) for tiny maps, but increase to 3 or 4 for huge maps.
- Change it so the center-square bonus commerce occurs for cities above size 6, not above size 12.
- Give commercial civs cheaper marketplaces. (Not half price though. This would make them too strong). If not marketplaces, then perhaps harbors and banks? Anyway, since all civs (except expansionist) get cheaper buildings, why not commercial civs too? By the way, I would also decrease the cost of granaries for expansionists.
What do you guys think? Do you agree that commercial is the worst trait in the game?
I personally prefer to have cool abilities that make the civs unique, and play at a higher difficulty level.
Comment