Cant belive there is no threath sacrificed to this :)
Now it is
Post your toughs of actual trait system as well as ideas, possible changes, new ones.

I start to negate those that think that +1:commerce: on plots with 2:commerce: as it is in vanilla Warlords is a good thing for financial trait.
This simply makes Colosseus less unique. Also dont forget that coastal cities usually have highest resarch output as well as taxes, giving financial civs more :commerce: stright from begining, you will see Mali, Korea, Vikings England and Incas far too advanced than the rest of the world.
I have tested it my self and AI doesnt seem to use this very well, but I on prince and monarch diffs can build every available wonder, couse AI wont even have a chance of resrching needed technology in time.

And my another thing is to change Imperialistic and Expantionist traits.

Imperialistic gives 50% fsater settler production, i say thats not needed (atleast on world map). I think Imperialistic means more conquest than Expanding with settlers. Maybe giving it some military unit production bonus, or xp or "imperialistsic" promotion (+5% strenth +5% city attack +5% city defance) ?

As for Expantionist. +1:speed: to scouts ? What for on World Map. Normally you wont have a chance to build and send scoouts before AI border will block your path (mostly Spain).
+50% worker production, still a bit pointless. Since you can have slaves why do you need many workers ? And why you need many workers when 2 are enough for small eauropean civs ?

How about removing leaders with Cultural and Imperialistic(if it wont be changed) traits from World map ? I know that Cathrine is making Germany declare war vs her, becouse she steals Munich teritory.

I start to negate those that think that +1:commerce: on plots with 2:commerce: as it is in vanilla Warlords is a good thing for financial trait.
This simply makes Colosseus less unique. Also dont forget that coastal cities usually have highest resarch output as well as taxes, giving financial civs more :commerce: stright from begining, you will see Mali, Korea, Vikings England and Incas far too advanced than the rest of the world.
I have tested it my self and AI doesnt seem to use this very well, but I on prince and monarch diffs can build every available wonder, couse AI wont even have a chance of resrching needed technology in time.

This is ok, and realistic. Most of great civilizations in history was engaged with sea: Phoenicia, Greece, Vikings, England etc, when others were jusr barbarians wandering around. If you want any special balancing, I would increase advantages of agressive trait

Can we add a leader to Japan ?

Minamoto no Yoritomo
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Minamoto_no_Yoritomo.jpg
I prefer this jpg as leader head than a plain reskin (hate them).
He will take Tokugawa's traits (militaristic, protective)

As for Tokugawa, change his traits.
Militaristic or Imperialistic (due to his many generals, that he betrayed when he felt it needed) as for second trait, not protective as he didnt had to protect Japan from foreign invasions. But he created better administation (organized) as well as setup Kagoshima as main trading port, thus attracted many foreign merchants (financial) and set Bushido to a Law, and all that have to follow it must obey, or get persueted and killed (before it was only a shame to break Bushido) and this also gives organized.

And another one
Takauji Ashikaga
He changed samurai class more into artists and people that go after luxuary, so first trait is Cretive.
As for second, he reorganized agriculture, his rules (that was continued by his family) made villages and cities to grow, witch was made by incrasing the number of workers and merchants (organized/finnancial). He also changed smaurai "currency" from rice to coin (after Ashikaga has lost power, it was changed back) this also goes for financial.
http://www.samurai-archives.com/image/takauji.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/nobukaze23/nihon.htm

After Gold version is out, I'm going to release my leadermod for it (I'm already running it through betas for personal use, but not posting for download since I'd have to update it often to keep up with beta changes). There, most civs (except Russians, English - they already have 3, and Zulus, Incas and Aztecs, IIRC) get at least one new leader to ultimately cover every possible trait combo. They all have static leaderheads (even the stock ones - since I don't like Firaxis cartoon-style leaderheads), and Japan is getting two more leaders, though not the ones you listed - Oda Nobunaga and Mutsuhito.

Oda Nobunaga
I would not place him as leader as he was only a daimyo (he was not selected as shogun, nor given such title). He murdered his enemies and sacked the buddist monastary along with oppsiong monks. Conquared Kyoto and set campaign to Korea where he commited seppuku(before began campaing to Korea) after Mitsuhide Akechi has betrayed him. His "rule" or "campaign" started in 1573 and ended i 1582, so i dont think he deserves to be a leader.

Hideyoshi Toyotomi would be faster made leader. He was general of Oda's army and claimed his place after his death. He didnt made any campaign eept still trying to unificade Japan. His rule was mostly made on loyalty. He was great tactician and strategiest. He disarmed peasants and made only samurai class allowed to have weapons. Also he brough up caste system, from now onwards all Bushi's (warriors) must decide eighther to declare them selves as samurais and live with Bushido or normal inhabitans, sublings of samurais. Later he tried to conquer Korea in 1592 and 1597. He died in 1598. So he ruled from 1582 to 1598 (longer than Oda...).

As for Mutsuhido. He barelly changed Japan into England, dont you know ? His reforms of Japan to make it equal in other European countries, made him to not only destroy shogunate, but also take out samurai class. In 1872 he took down samuri class, but no long after that, in Tokugawa's family temple Kan'ei-ji(todays Tokyo park Ueno) two tousand of shogunate ers to die in last battle. They killed hundreds of defenders and razed many buildings, after they got defeated their bodies were left lying without burrial. Over 10 days later Meiji ordered to set their sould free (by burning rotten bodies). Today Kan'ei-ji is a big temple with over 100 buildings inside temple walls.

Know that he organized and industriated Japan, but he was very close of lossing Japan to domeistic, cultural and diplomatic defeat by european nations, he even wanted to change language! Close story was shown in "Last Samurai" movie, but it was more Holywood than history.

Oda Nobunaga
I would not place him as leader as he was only a daimyo (he was not selected as shogun, nor given such title). He murdered his enemies and sacked the buddist monastary along with oppsiong monks. Conquared Kyoto and set campaign to Korea where he commited seppuku(before began campaing to Korea) after Mitsuhide Akechi has betrayed him. His "rule" or "campaign" started in 1573 and ended i 1582, so i dont think he deserves to be a leader.

Hideyoshi Toyotomi would be faster made leader. He was general of Oda's army and claimed his place after his death. He didnt made any campaign eept still trying to unificade Japan. His rule was mostly made on loyalty. He was great tactician and strategiest. He disarmed peasants and made only samurai class allowed to have weapons. Also he brough up caste system, from now onwards all Bushi's (warriors) must decide eighther to declare them selves as samurais and live with Bushido or normal inhabitans, sublings of samurais. Later he tried to conquer Korea in 1592 and 1597. He died in 1598. So he ruled from 1582 to 1598 (longer than Oda...).

Makes sense. I was choosing between the two, and I could still recosider.

As for Mutsuhido. He barelly changed Japan into England, dont you know ? His reforms of Japan to make it equal in other European countries, made him to not only destroy shogunate, but also take out samurai class. In 1872 he took down samuri class, but no long after that, in Tokugawa's family temple Kan'ei-ji(todays Tokyo park Ueno) two tousand of shogunate ers to die in last battle. They killed hundreds of defenders and razed many buildings, after they got defeated their bodies were left lying without burrial. Over 10 days later Meiji ordered to set their sould free (by burning rotten bodies). Today Kan'ei-ji is a big temple with over 100 buildings inside temple walls.

Know that he organized and industriated Japan, but he was very close of lossing Japan to domeistic, cultural and diplomatic defeat by european nations, he even wanted to change language! Close story was shown in "Last Samurai" movie, but it was more Holywood than history.

He led a backwater feudal state to become a fully industrialized world power in mere decades, a feat unmatched in history. Do you think a pre-Meiji Japan could have won a war with Russia in 1905? There wouldn't even be a war, swords and sail ships are nothing against rifles and armored ironclads. If not for Meiji, Japan would become a colony of some Western power (England, France, Russia, USA). He did a brilliant thing destroying the power of samurai, as those guys did much more harm to the country than help. All in all, he might have been the greatest ruler Japan ever had.

Meiji - yes he made thing great, but im just to nota that His rule was not so easy, and he did made a lot of mistakes. By taking down samurai class he made a war with the ones that liked shogunate. Early on its more his advisors to lead him, not him. He was a weak emperor. Onlya fter the Kan'ei-ji rebelion he decided to take voice. He than dismissed many of his former ministers advisors and cancellors and replaced them with ex-samurais that still did follow Bushido. Ex-samurais showed up much more loyal and trust worthy than "greedy" ministers, who were mostly merchants and cared for wealth not Nihon.
Also in his early years many foreigners in Japan had title of ministers. Long later, when Japan inhabitans learned to use industrial technology (steam engine, printing, gunfire etc) Meiji has dismissed foreigners in political and economical structures. Also he broke treaties signed by his ex-ministers, becouse that treaties were hurting Japan. He also wanted to take down shoguns treaties with foreign countries, but that worked out in late 90's of XIX after dismising many high in command.
The fact that some ex-samurais that were near Meiji has decied to learn new thing (even when this means breaking Bushido) only to "serve" his majesty better, as even with no title, some felt them selves as samurai.

So for me was was close to Ieyasu Tokugawa, signing friendshit and breaking it when it was worthy no more. Reorganizing, and industriating country.

Meiji - yes he made thing great, but im just to nota that His rule was not so easy, and he did made a lot of mistakes. By taking down samurai class he made a war with the ones that liked shogunate. Early on its more his advisors to lead him, not him. He was a weak emperor. Onlya fter the Kan'ei-ji rebelion he decided to take voice. He than dismissed many of his former ministers advisors and cancellors and replaced them with ex-samurais that still did follow Bushido. Ex-samurais showed up much more loyal and trust worthy than "greedy" ministers, who were mostly merchants and cared for wealth not Nihon.
Also in his early years many foreigners in Japan had title of ministers. Long later, when Japan inhabitans learned to use industrial technology (steam engine, printing, gunfire etc) Meiji has dismissed almost all foreigners in political and economical structures(nearly 2000 people). Also he broke treaties signed by his ex-ministers, becouse that treaties were hurting Japan. He also wanted to take down shoguns treaties with foreign countries, but that worked out in late 90's of XIX after dismising many high in command.
The fact that some ex-samurais that were near Meiji has decied to learn new thing (even when this means breaking Bushido) only to "serve" his majesty better, as even with no title, some felt them selves as samurai.

So for me was was close to Ieyasu Tokugawa, signing friendshit and breaking it when it was worthy no more. Reorganizing, and industriating country.

In 1894-1895 war with China won by Japan showed that Japanese know how to use new weapons and rized their status in Europe.
thw war betwean Japan and Russia took in 1904-1906. Forgot the name of port Japan took...
In 1910 Japan set up untimatum to Korea, and occupied them till II World War. Thats when Koreans adopted Kyokushin Karate and modified it to create Taekwondo.

Meiji died in 1912 (actually Born as Meiji is his name after detah ;))

Koto & Shakuhachi - Etenraku.mp3

Can this be implanted, or not licenced ?
Not posting mp3 it self as dont want to be acused for anything.

Koto & Shakuhachi - Etenraku.mp3

Can this be implanted, or not licenced ?

What is it, actually?

Traditional japanese music.
Bamboo flute
some viola or somethuing simmilar in back groun
japanese drums
japanese guitar thingy

Shakuhachi is from i heared a known fluet player.
Koto heared hes a drummer, but dont know.

Sounds cool, but I guess it is copyrighted, and as such we shouldn't include it into the mods available to public. :(

Yes i know, but after all its not for "commercial" use. Still TR team is more in this buisness.

And my another thing is to change Imperialistic and Expantionist traits.

Imperialistic gives 50% fsater settler production, i say thats not needed (atleast on world map). I think Imperialistic means more conquest than Expanding with settlers. Maybe giving it some military unit production bonus, or xp or "imperialistsic" promotion (+5% strenth +5% city attack +5% city defance) ?

As for Expantionist. +1:speed: to scouts ? What for on World Map. Normally you wont have a chance to build and send scoouts before AI border will block your path (mostly Spain).
+50% worker production, still a bit pointless. Since you can have slaves why do you need many workers ? And why you need many workers when 2 are enough for small eauropean civs ?

Depends on how you define Imperialistic doesn't it?

I mean, the British Empire was built primarily on trade, not on military strength (although obviously the Royal Navy allowed security for that trade). Likewise if today there can be considered to be an "American Empire", it's a cultural empire, not a military one (Although certainly their military resources are immensed, it's likewise no secret that those resources are currently extremely stretched).

Even older Empires like the Romans had to depend equally heavily on taxes and the economics of empire rather than the purely military side of it... just a thought anyway... :)

If I was going to edit Imperialistic as a trait, I'd maybe suggest the granting of additional trade routes per city or an additional cultural boost of some kind.

Maybe.
But British, their empire was trade ? What about natives, slaves etc. Havent they conqered them ?
America, havent Washington Conquered British colonies ?

But trade and cultural bonus - this will take some time ballancing it.

How about, as a slight "bump" for Imperialistic, make it so that they don't have any turns of unrest when conquering a city? Perhaps also a faster rate of cultural assimilation?

@ bovinespy

Yes i tought about that, maybe also some +1:culture: for borders to expand.

And i also tought of draft action. 1(warrior or archery unit with no xp) per turn requires 4 pop city. Does not stack with Nationhood/police state (if they have draft)

Idea for batter traits !

How about Spiritual will get +%bunus resarch for religious techs(mysticism, Monotheism, Dualism, Politeism, Priesthood etc.) and social (Code of Laws, Monarchy etc) and -%bonus for all other ?

Cretive will get +%bunus resarch for cultural(Mysticism, Dualism, Thetre, Music and all other that give building with +:culture:)and social and -%bonus to all other.

Financial gets economical and growth (Wheel, Fishing, Agriculture, Animal Husbandary, Hunting, Currency).

Industrious to all industrial (Masonary, mining, Bronze, Iron, etc)

Organized to social and growth (Code of Laws, Agriculture, Hunting, Fishing)

Expansive to growth some financial and some militaristic (Hunting, Currency, Archery)

Militaristic to all militaristic (hunting, archery, horseback riding, mining, bronze working, iron working)

Protective to some military some social and some industrial (Masonary, Hunting, Archery, Code of Laws, Monarchy)

Charismatic to social (Monarchy, Code of Laws) and smaller disadvantage than rest traits to all others.

Philosophical small bonus to all and normal disadvantage to militaristic.



this still needs some work, but not getting into it if TR is not interested.

Maybe.
But British, their empire was trade ? What about natives, slaves etc. Havent they conqered them ?
America, havent Washington Conquered British colonies ?

But trade and cultural bonus - this will take some time ballancing it.

Maybe, but if you look at the major "jewels" of the British Empire, such as India, all they did was take over the already existing caste social structure. Those people who were undesirable in the Indian society would've been manipulated and oppressed regardless of whether the British were in control or not.

And I don't think you can class the American Revolution as an act of American military imperialism. If anything, that's an act of counter-imperialism, thus the exact opposite. :)

The point is that Militaries don't make Empires go around. Money does. Trade does (Be it in spices, drugs, people or cultural influence). Military strength is a factor in maintaining an empire certainly, but it's not a big enough factor IMO to make an imperialist trait give any major military trait bonuses. Again, this is just my opinion though, ultimately whatever best serves the balance of the mod for the majority of the players is what's important ;)

Yes But look. World Map starts at 4000bc and Vivtoria, Cathrine, Cyrus and Genghis have Imperialistic. So Victoria starts her trade imperial 3000 yesrs before it should (only open borders and sailing forbids her).
Same for Cathrine and Genghis, who conquered half of the world in 1200ad didnt start in 4000bc by settling cities, as Mongold were tribal civilization even in Genghis Kahns time !
Cyrus also did conquest.

AS its only Victoria that "doesnt" fit to imperialistic threat, as she allready has finansial.

Yes But look. World Map starts at 4000bc and Vivtoria, Cathrine, Cyrus and Genghis have Imperialistic. So Victoria starts her trade imperial 3000 yesrs before it should (only open borders and sailing forbids her).
Same for Cathrine and Genghis, who conquered half of the world in 1200ad didnt start in 4000bc by settling cities, as Mongold were tribal civilization even in Genghis Kahns time !
Cyrus also did conquest.

AS its only Victoria that "doesnt" fit to imperialistic threat, as she allready has finansial.

Actually, yeah, that's a good point. The financial trait kinda already reflects that part of it...

I'm stumped *Shrugs*

Maybe a slight military bonus coupled with a slight culture bonus?

Personally, I would like to see a system where the leader and his traits changed over time. After all, in many of these societies, particularily the ancient ones, the traits and talents of their rulers determined their fortunes. Great empires could only withstand so much incompetence before they fell, and likewise small powers could rise to epic proportions given the right leadership.

Changing the leader over time, and of course the traits, also removes some (although not all) of the balance concerns. Ancient v. Modern, relative strength, and unfair combinations are a little less troubling when they change every so often and are randomly determined.

Note thet empires usually fall after death of its founder/counquerer etc.
Roman emipre has fallen long after Julieus Cesar. Greek(Macedonian) empire also fall after Alexanders death. Mongols empire has fallen under Kublai Khans rule (if im right), and Kublai was 8th (?) succesor of Genghis Kahn. Persian empire founded by Vyrus arround 500bc felt under Dariusz III rule in 332bc.

And traits are not made for a civilization, but a leader.

I was thinking about adding civilization trait as a 3rd one.

What say you that leaders should have 3 traits ?

2 Traits that are HIS traits and 1 that is civilization specific ?
Of course this will require weakening some traits, like 75% great person for philosophical instead for 100%, and 1:hammers: on plats with 4:hammers: instead for 3:hammers:.
Militaristic, protective and financial traits should not be affected, as they are "weak" enought for me. Especially Militaristic, 1 promotion cant do much, especially if its only for melee units and mounted.

What say you to THAT ?

What say you that leaders should have 3 traits ?

2 Traits that are HIS traits and 1 that is civilization specific ?
Of course this will require weakening some traits, like 75% great person for philosophical instead for 100%, and 1:hammers: on plats with 4:hammers: instead for 3:hammers:.
Militaristic, protective and financial traits should not be affected, as they are "weak" enought for me. Especially Militaristic, 1 promotion cant do much, especially if its only for melee units and mounted.

What say you to THAT ?

interesting idea, but can't say, if it is easy doable - but as future plan is good for me

mexico

<Traits>
<Trait>
<TraitType>TRAIT_PHILOSOPHICAL</TraitType>
<bTrait>1</bTrait>
</Trait>
<Trait>
<TraitType>TRAIT_AGGRESSIVE</TraitType>
<bTrait>1</bTrait>
</Trait>
</Traits>

According to XML it is Doable. Will try this now on TR Gold (will make backup of course. Will Add Militaristic to Incas (Financial, Industrial) and play as them. I say it is easy to see if I will gain militaristic while checking if prevous ones are still intact.

But im using Walter HawkWood's leader heads. Still i do not see it will make much differance.

Edit: Works perfectly with Incas

It should be perfectly doable, but I am somewhat against it. The more traits leaders have, the less their strtegy differs from each other. If you have a pair of traits, you'll be thinking how to implement this particular combination. With three traits it is less obvious, at least to me. And I already mentioned elsewhere that I don't think of leaders' traits as personal traits, but as traits of his nation when he lived.

I'd much more like to see more traits added. Some good ones could be "Enlightened/Progressive" (some bonus to science output), "Diplomatic" (bonus to relations and quicker border expansion, maybe gets more boni from tech transfer), "Agrarian" (same as Industrious, just for food) or "Patriotic" (bonus promo for units inside national borders).

Also some ideas about tech transfer (don't know what thread it should be in). You get different boni (along with actual tech bonus) from it based on your traits:

Financial: +10% :gold: (selling patents and stuff)
Aggressive: +1 xp for units built (using foreign equipment)
Protective: none (less incentive to keep your borders open)
Creative: +2/+15% :culture: (and axe :culture: bonus otherwise)
Imperialistic: +5% :science: :gold: :culture: (a little of everything)
Charismatic: +1 :) (bringing in foreign trinkets)
Philosophical: +15% :gp: (employing foreigners more)
Spiritual: helps spread :religion:
Organized: +1 :health:
Idustrious: +1 :hammers: (borrowing production methods from foreigners)
Expansive: dunno.

And I already mentioned elsewhere that I don't think of leaders' traits as personal traits, but as traits of his nation when he lived

And i think i allready said i dont like this thinking ;)
Leo Franco for instance. Spiritual, Militaristic and some thing else. But what did Spanians think of him ? Most of them Hates Church even now, as Franco used Christianity and Church influance, for his own ideas.

Now Mieszko I (Poland). He converted all Poles to Christianity, but that is NOT Spiritual, as you may think. More Charismatic. Poles were very religious back than, even their pogan religion, but with Christianity, they also were religious (of course some stayed with their trusted pogan gods). Still from what you said, you would give him spiritual trait.

Now Jadwiga (she was a king, regardless to what you might know) She built 1st University in Poland (dont remember, but teacher was saying it was the 1st university in europe, others were libraries and cathedrals), so she should get some science trait. Philosophical is best of what exist ATM. She also was religious one, loved some prince, but married pogan Jagiello, as thus praying she recived such mission from "god". Due to that marriage, she has peacefully converted Litva. Now witch one is this, spiritual, or charismatic, or protective, as Poland was under threat of Teutonic Order.

Really, Leader had power, and did his deeds, sometimes it was apriciated, sometimes not.

What im saying is that a Leader may build 1000 thousand universities, to get his pple richer in knowledga. But what if that universities will never be used, as his pple will prefer training in army, or practicing his faith ? another thing is that he can force them to go there, and learn, but what will this give, if they wont use what they have learned ?

Leader and his nation are differnat. Japan for intance, was not much organized it self, it was its leaders, that made authority, administration and thus put some organized things in their country. But once this shogun passed away, other had to eighther upkeep old system, or create new one. Hideyoshi Toyotomi, used oath to keep up his army, vassals and such. But once he passed away, Oaths made to him weakened and his system was crushed, Chaos arose in Japan and Ieyasu used it to create STABLE system, witch was upkeeped bu his successors, so all Tokugawas were organized you may say. But Ieyasu, made arregments with foreigners, as well as building big trade ports, witch were used by inhabitants, not only his emissaries. This was HIs trait, not Japanese nation, or Edo peroid. His succesor close bordes, but left Kagoshoma port, witch was build by Ieyasu's order, still open and only trading place with rest of world. Later it was closed as well, mostly becouse Christans were trying to spread their faith much further into Japan.

As for your traits with tech transfer.

Agressive. There is no such trait :o. Militaristic gives +3 xp.
Agressive might become a new trait. Lets say no War Wearines, or even Happiness for long wars.

Agressive. There is no such trait :o. Militaristic gives +3 xp.
Agressive might become a new trait. Lets say no War Wearines, or even Happiness for long wars.

:lol: It used to be. Once TR team (I don't remember current or previous) renamed Militaristic to Agressive, and it has stuck with me. I was quite surprised it is back to militaristic when you said that and I checked :D

I remember vanill civ to agressive.

Or it's that. :)