I had an idea about adding a trait that would allow the civ to build buildings that aren't normally available. The trait could be called 'engineering' and could allow the civ to build things like aquaducts or Pagodas. It would be historically acurate since you see some civilizations building large buildings while others do not.

I definately thing the Romans should be an engineering Civ...I guess the Americans could be also, since Americans aren't really expansionist. Being Industrious and Engineering is much more fitting.

It would add a lot to the game also.

It may be too unbalanced to allow some civs exclusive rights to a group of buildings, unless the remaining civs have other buildings reserved for them.

I get what your saying, the Mongols rarely built Cathedrals or even Barracks.

The balance comes with some leaders able to build particular buildings at half cost.
Other than balance issues, however, I like the idea of an Engineering trait. The Game Creators probably tried to create such a trait with "Industrious".

Maybe have it the opposite way: some civ's don't need to build barracks, catherdrals/etc to get thier advantages

...I guess the Americans could be also, since Americans aren't really expansionist.

Ha ha tell that to the Iroquois (and non-Civs like the Mexicans and Hawaiians and various other American tribes).

I get what your saying, the Mongols rarely built Cathedrals or even Barracks.

The Mongols were pretty religiously tolerant, actually. Also, it's not fair to say that they built this or didn't build that, as they conquered already existing nations; they didn't build a new nation from scratch. The Mongols that got assimilated into China, Persia, and Russia also adopted the local religion. Temujin might not have cared for such things, but his descendants did. You shouldn't just focus on the initial conquest by the Mongols; their influence and control lasted centuries.

Maybe have it the opposite way: some civ's don't need to build barracks, catherdrals/etc to get thier advantages

I'm guessing they tried that in Civ3 and deemed it too powerful, and so scaled it back to "half cost." Kind of like how Leonardo's Workshop in Civ2 was free upgrades, but in Civ3 was half cost.


Ha ha tell that to the Iroquois

You misspelled Iraqis. It's a joke! Please don't hurt me.

First of all, that would go under industrious.
Second, the Americans were expansionist when everyone moved westward in the industrial revolution and crap, just because they arent expansionist now doesnt mean they weren't ever.
Finally, Che, Ernesto's last name was spelt "Guevara," not "Guava."

First of all, that would go under industrious.
Second, the Americans were expansionist when everyone moved westward in the industrial revolution and crap, just because they arent expansionist now doesnt mean they weren't ever.
Finally, Che, Ernesto's last name was spelt "Guevara," not "Guava."


First point, agreed
Second point, I think Che is presenting a parody in that name, don't you think?

First point, agreed
Second point, I think Che is presenting a parody in that name, don't you think?

........maybe :mischief:

My opinion for a new trait is something refered to the internal order, or maybe to drastical changes. They should have not anarchy between turns (religion is now a big part of the game, and is not necessary to have this trait in the "spiritual" part) and could build castles and police station faster (all to control better the discontent). This should be applied to Washington, Lenin, Mao, and other revolutionaries leaders, because imagine: 6 traits for 28 or 26 leaders is very little...