Note: This mod has now been updated to version 1.1. Please see below for a list of changes. Thank you! :)

=========>=>

This is a pretty simple mod, but I quite like it.

All I've done is re-assign some of the Traits for some of the Civs. I tried to make sure every Civ had a unique combination of two traits, and also that their traits were more in style with my perception of what they should be.

None of the changes are meant as pure whimsy -- I went through each one and thought long and hard at whether its existing traits really were that Civilization's strengths, or whether another trait was more apt.

Also, a very small amount of the changes were made more to ensure each Civ had a unique pairing of traits, rather than ones that were most suitable -- Russia is an example of this. But note, this is very rare -- most changes were made for a better reason than uniqueness!

As an example, if a Civilization was known for its scientific endeavours mostly in regard to Agriculture, then it is more an Agricultural trait than a Scientific one. This is just an example of some of my reasoning. I may explain more of the changes, in time. But I'm very busy with my work and hardly ever have spare time other than for simply playing Civ3.

There are a few I'm still unsure about, and I may update them again in time. Also I might delete the other, non-trait modifications to make this mod more "pure." But no promises. :)

All Civs should also have the correct starting Techs to match. Also, the new Expansionist civs should be able to build Scouts. If there's an error with starting Techs or any other knock on effects from these trait changes, please let me know.

Please download this mod using the Attached File link at the bottom of this post. Inside the downloaded ZIP file, you'll find an Excel spreadsheet detailing the trait changes.

List of changes

The modified Civ traits include:
(- indicates a trait removed, + indicates a trait added)

Rome : Expansionist, Industrious
(-Militaristic, -Commercial, +Expansionist, +Industrious.)

Egypt : Agricultural, Industrious
(-Religious, +Agricultural.)

Greece : Expansionist, Scientific
(-Commercial, +Expansionist. Can anyone say Alexander?)

Britain : Expansionist, Commercial
(-Seafaring, +Commercial.)

China : Scientific, Agricultural
(-Militaristic, -Industrious, +Scientific, +Agricultural.)

Japan : Militaristic, Industrious
(-Religious, +Industrious.)

Carthage : Commercial, Seafaring
(-Industrious, +Commercial.)

Zululand : Expansionist, Agricultural
(-Militaristic, +Agricultural.)

Arabia : Religious, Militaristic
(-Expansionist, +Militaristic.)

Hittites : Commercial, Militaristic
(-Expansionist, +Militaristic)

Maya : Expansionist, Agricultural
(-Industrious, +Expansionist.)

Inca : Religious, Industrial
(-Expansionist, -Agricultural, +Religious, +Industrial.)

Ottomans : Industrious, Militaristic
(-Scientific, +Militaristic)

America : Expansionist, Religious
(-Industrious, +Religous.)

Sumeria : Agricultural, Commercial
(-Scientific, +Commercial.)

Russia : Scientific, Industrious
(-Expansionist, +Industrious.)

Aztecs : Agricultural, Militaristic
(-Religious, +Agricultural.)

Iroquois : Expansionist, Commercial
(-Religious, +Commercial)

Those that remain the same as in C3C:

Portugal - Expansionist, Seafaring
Celts - Religious, Agricultural
India - Religious, Commercial
Mongols - Expansionist, Militaristic
Persia - Scientific, Industrious
Netherlands - Agricultural, Seafaring
Scandinavia - Seafaring, Militaristic
France - Commercial, Industrious
Germany - Scientific, Militaristic
Babylon - Religious, Scientific
Korea - Scientific, Commercial
Byzantines - Scientific, Seafaring
Spain - Religious, Seafaring

The other changes:

There's also a couple of other changes, which I may keep or remove at but a whim. ;)

Changes in v1.1:

EDIT: Scouts are now 0/1/2 and still cost more, at 12.
EDIT: Explorers are now also 0/1/2, and still cost more, at 22. They can no longer be upgraded.
EDIT: Conquistadors can no longer be upgraded to Cavalry.
ADD: Quite a few more British city names added, and reordered.
EDIT: India has lost the Agricultural trait, and now has Commercial instead. Because of this change, it is now back to how it is in C3C.
EDIT: Japan has lost the Seafaring trait, and now has Militaristic instead.
EDIT: The Celts have lost the Commercial trait, and now have Agricultural instead. Because of this change, it is now back to how it is in C3C.

Present in version v1.0:

Civ traits reordered for many Civs, with the goal of ensuring all trait pairings were unique. Please read above to see the Civs with modified traits, or check the Excel spreadsheet in the download, below.
Scouts are now 1/1/2 and cost more, at 12.
Explorers are now 1/2/2 and cost more, at 22. They now can be upgraded to Cavalry.
Conquistadors are now slightly cheaper, at 70. They now can be upgraded to Cavalry.
Curragh has been renamed to Sail. (I just like it better.)
Modern Armor has been renamed to Mech Tank. (C'mon -- "Modern Armor"? Seems like a defence unit!)
England renamed to Britain.
Britain has more City Names, including some major Scottish cities and some more English ones. No other changes to Britain made (GL names... etc)
America's City Name list now includes the English ones, so there's even less chance of seeing New Los Angeles and Los Angeles 2 -- those kind of names annoy me so much!
Byzantines' City Name list now includes the Roman ones, for the same reason as above.

Disclaimer

I made this mod very quickly and wanted to release it quickly too -- please take this into consideration.

If any of my changes are historically correct, that's great. And if not, then I don't really care but I'd love to hear your polite suggestions otherwise. Basically, I will be ignoring any rude comments or unhelpful criticisms -- this is a fun mod, not a serious one. I may update it as I go, but I knew if I didn't release it as it is, right now, then I would probably never bother.

I am sure some of the changes have broken the game balance. Oh well. :) Maybe I might change it to rebalance any obviously powerful Civs, but then again, sometimes knowing exactly which Civs are tough is good. :)

I will not be able to provide much, if any, email support for this mod -- so it is provided as is, and without the promise of future updates or further modifications. If this is unacceptable to you, simply do not use this mod.

===============>=>

This is the first mod I've actually bothered to release, which is funny because it's also the most simplest I've made. Maybe sometime I'll get around to posting the others!

Thanks! Enjoy. :)

Download this Mod here:
v1.0 removed after 43 downloads.

Current version: v1.1, Download Size: 34KB
17+ downloads since posted.
http://www.frimlin.com/civ/frimlin_trait_mod_v1_1.zip

Three things. First is England's not seafearing? Their navy has been one of the largest aprts of their history! Not to mention they're a fricking island, hence their navy being of greta importance. I'd say up until the last centuary, mby not even their navy has been the best in the world. Second, Japan as a seafearing nation? I don't think that's right either. They didn't really open up to the rest of the world until after the start of the Industrial Revolution. I think a better option for them would be either A) Scientific to show how they're on the cutting edge of technology in the modern age or B) Militaristic. This would be because when you think of Japan, most imediatly think of the Samurai, not to mention that they were quite powerful in WWII and were able to beat the Russians on most if not all of the wars between the two nations. Also don't forget Pearl Harbor. My final thought is on America. You gave them the religious tag and my only question is why? America is much too diverse for a flag that is suppose to signify a country with one religion. We are a secular nation, in other words we do not concentrate on religion. My suggestions for a replacement for Religious are Militaristic, Scientific, or Industrious, Militaristic being my first choice.

I do like that China is flagged as scientific.

Thanks for your thoughts! :)

Yes, England could be Seafaring. But this is Britain. And anyhow, if you look at them, many of the Civs can have more than 2 traits. I could have kept them as Seafaring, like the English. But I felt in their case at least, their Seafaring was more of a means to their Commercial end. And being on a *cough* "fr*ck*ng" island means nothing, especially when you're so quick to dismiss Japan as Seafaring.

I did mention in the article that I wasn't sure of Japan's Seafaring, but that I put it in there to "fill a gap." For a while they were going to be militaristic instead of Seafaring, and they might still change. I know less about Japanese history than other Civs, so it suffered. But Pearl Harbour could never be the justification for Militaristic -- if anything it was their earlier warrings with mainland states and amongst themselves that would earn them this trait.

When you look at Japan's history *in full* I don't get an overwhelming feeling that they were particularly more technological / scientific than any other Civ represented in Civ3. I could be wrong, though. But until I believe otherwise, no, they won't be Scientific. But thanks for that suggestion. :)

America is much more religious than many Americans think. There is a very extreme conservative christian heartland in that country, whether you want to accept it or not. ;) And it dictates a lot of America's political machinations -- especially in it's early, formative years. Plus in Civ3 "Religious" is a term that encompasses more than just religion -- it is similar to Entertainment -- something that the US is also known well for. So although I did teeter on this trait a bit, it's staying for now anyhow.

I'm glad you like China as Scientific. It is Agricultural also because you can't look at that massive population, and all those Paddy fields, and not tell me they didn't know how to feed their people. They were very agricultural, in my mind. China was also a candidate for Industrious, Commercial and Militaristic -- but in the end I had to choose but two.

Hope this helps explain! I'd love to see you making your own traits mod so we can compare notes. :)

Although I find Americas traits to be perfect as they were(Expanionist and Industrious), Religious is probably the next greatest trait.

The US may be secular, but religion, thanks to Christian Conservatism, plays a big role in American politics. Abortion is proving to be an issue that is the most divisive in American politics since Slavery.

I think England should definetely be industrious...After all they invented a whole new way to produce goods. Also, I think Netherlands should be commercial...it fits them a whole lot more than agricultural, since they were, and still are, the region in europe were the most commerce occurs.

By the way, are you Frimlin from the Creatures series(sorry if you aren't)?

Part of the problem is that the characteristics of nations evolve. For example, America today has very different traits from 200 years ago. The early US had agricultural, religious, and expansionist traits. Today, it is commercial, scientific, and industrious. Of course, the US is also known for its military and seafaring skills - though, I think these are more the result of the unique combination of the other traits, history, and government.

Narrowing all this down to two traits for a single nation can be a bit of a challenge.

-Dearnen

I have an idea that has been tried before and I think it's pretty good. Give each civ 3 traits, this way you can add some of the suggested traits without compromising the uniqueness of each civ

Daarkseid proclaims:
Although I find Americas traits to be perfect as they were(Expanionist and Industrious), Religious is probably the next greatest trait. The US may be secular, but religion, thanks to Christian Conservatism, plays a big role in American politics.I agree. What I feel about the American Civ having Industrious trait is that if you take the size and population of America into account, it doesn't really seem that in comparision to other countries (of varying sizes), the American Industry is somehow innordinately strong.

I was about to say China seems more Industrious -- China is the Earth's Factory of our modern age (can anyone say Made in China -- I knew you could) -- but then again, China has a massive population so it too has to be compared fairly against other countries -- taking the country size (and thus available resources) and population into account.

I personally feel America's Industrial strengths are more due to their Expansion over a very productive large area. But I'm sure people will disagree, especially Americans who haven't travelled much outside of the US. But the point of mods is that we can make what we feel like, and if someone else likes it -- that's cool -- but not necessary. ;)Androrc speaketh:
I think England should definetely be industrious...After all they invented a whole new way to produce goods. Also, I think Netherlands should be commercial...it fits them a whole lot more than agricultural, since they were, and still are, the region in europe were the most commerce occurs.
I can see where you're going with England/Britain -- especially as some could argue it was the birthplace of modern Industry. But then in counter, I'm sure still others could argue the same thing about other countries -- especially if there's national pride involved.

There's lots of traits that could be placed on the various cultures that lived in the British isles over time, and contributed to what I'm collectively calling "Britain" -- none of them, bar the English, were particularly Seafaring and that I was sure of. You can't ignore Britain's Expansionist trait, though -- but you could argue that it and Commercial drove each other -- and could perhaps be mutually exclusive. But anyhow, I wanted to fill a gap to make sure each unique trait coupling was covered.Androrc queried:
By the way, are you Frimlin from the Creatures series(sorry if you aren't)?Yes. I am the one and only Frimlin. I no longer work at Creature Labs anymore, though -- as Creature Labs no longer exists. As you can see from my signature, I'm now working on a cool new game called "The Movies" -- at a games studio called Lionhead. You might have heard of our game "Black and White."

I think you're the first person on CivFanatics to recognise me -- not that it surprises me. The Creatures series had a similarly passionate fan base, but it was very much smaller than Civilization has ever been.Dearnen announced:
Narrowing all this down to two traits for a single nation can be a bit of a challenge.I agree completely, and I think Firaxis did a very good job with it. But hey, it's nice to change the options now and then -- brings a bit of something fresh and unknown into the game. :)

I agree that America was more Religous in the past, and also agree with your mention of Agriculture. Even today America has a whopping great Agricultural base. But making a country size / population comparison with China, China definitely has a distinct lead on food production for the masses.Dearnen announced:
I have an idea that has been tried before and I think it's pretty good. Give each civ 3 traits, this way you can add some of the suggested traits without compromising the uniqueness of each civThis is indeed a good idea, but one I considered and decided against. I felt changing the traits around was enough of an "unknown quantity" change, without also introducing a whole load more "unknown" in the form of three traits -- for one thing it increases the chances of early Golden Ages. I just think the game balance issues would outweigh those created by my simple "two trait shuffle" mod.

But hey, nothing is stopping you from making such a mod. I'd love to see it. :)

Thanks for the helpful comments, everyone! Enjoy! :)

I agree that America's industrial capacity is not what it used to be. While I agree that US industry is directly tied to the earlier expansion across the continent, and thus access to vast resources, I'd also say that it is linked to American culture itself (or once was). There is a certain vitality and drive embedded in American culture which has manifested itself in many ways, including expansionism and industrialism. I think it is an inheritance from America's colonial and immigrant origins. It also fed on expansionism and success in war. Over the last 40 years, though, this aspect of American culture has slowly dissolved and doesn't play nearly the roll it once did. Complacency and comfort, as well as a growing acceptance of socialist philosophy, has nearly dried up the energy. It has reappeared to some degree as a reaction to the Sept. 11th attack, but doesn't seem to have much staying power.

I wonder if, in some future version of Civ, there could be a way for a nation to change traits. This would require some hefty limitations to avoid abuse, though.

-Dearnen

Frimlin,

I like some of your changes, but must agree that Britain should be seafaring. Britain had the greatest navy the world had ever seen, and their expansion wasn't so much for other lands as for other resources to trade back to Britain. I would say Britain has either to be seafaring/commercial or seafaring/scientific, taking account of their enormous influence on science. Nice to see somebody giving us Scots some credit too!

Other change. Spain shouldn't be seafaring but, in my view, Religious and Military, considering that they were at war from ~700 - 1492 kicking the Moors out of Iberia, followed by extended military domination of Spain, the gold from which was poured onto the battlefields of Central Europe by Charles V. In terms of seafaring, name one famous Spanish seafarer (remember, Columbus was Italian and Magellan was Spanish) In terms of their navies, they featured in two notable engagements: The Armada (and their disastrous retreat around Britain and Ireland, culminating in mass shipwreck on the Irish coast - the Black Irish) and Trafalgar. Say no more!

Chinese: Agricultural and Scientific? At long last! The only combination for this incredible civilisation. Sheesh. These guys were streaks ahead of the world for the majority of their time.

I like the Scout getting different values. Personally, I'd put them at 0/1/2 with 1 or maybe 2 hp's to start with. This would reflect the fact that whilst they can't attack, they'd be good at running away and hiding. And would become better and better at so doing, employing guerilla-style tactics as their hp's increase through promotion.

I personally think Netherlands should be Commerical instead of Agricultural.

Dutch East India Company, anyone?

with only 2 attributes per civ, there are only 8!/2!6! possible combinations, or 28 unique combinations. With 31 civs, there will be some duplicate attributes.

With 3 attributes per civ, there are 8!/3!5! combinations, or 56 possible combinations, more than enough to handle any additional expansions.

Not to mentino a better representatino of the true civ.

Also, now that I've seen your reasoning, Religious for America is a good one. In game it also co-incides with a fast government transaction time which is another thing America had.

As a side note, you said that other countries could argue that they started the Industrial Revolution, especially when national pride is on the line, but what I have always been tought and what I've looked at (for research reports) is that the industrial revolution started in England and spread throughtou the world, coming to America because of a crafty guy who memorized all the schematics to their factories and reproducing them in America. So i guess a more correct saying is they invented the factory (I might be wrong, but go w/me for a second) and since that is the main driving force in the Induatrial Revolution, they would have in escence been the birthplace of Industry, however I'm not fond of them being industrious. I think that if you go w/3 traits, you should give them seafearing as their third

More 3 trait madness
I think China should get industrious as a third to quote an earlier post "Can you say Made in China" lol, funny, and a bit sterotypical, but I've decorated 4th of July events and all the American flags, everything had Made in China stickers, they even make American Flags! :p But yah, a lot of things are made there, so I dno't think that industrious would be too off.

Also, I really think you should give Japan the military flag. Their history is oozing with it, from all forms of Samuari to modern warfare.

Balastulin said:
Nice to see somebody giving us Scots some credit too!Biologically I'm about half Scot -- so I just had to include them too!

Balastulin also said:
I like the Scout getting different values. Personally, I'd put them at 0/1/2 with 1 or maybe 2 hp's to start with. This would reflect the fact that whilst they can't attack, they'd be good at running away and hiding. And would become better and better at so doing, employing guerilla-style tactics as their hp's increase through promotion.In my latest version of the mod, I've removed the Scout/Explorer/Conquistador changes. I just think the mod should be purely, or at least mostly, about the trait change.

But I do like the idea of at least giving them 1 defence. I'll think it over. My main problem with my "Scouting" changes was that it gave Expansionist Civs even more of a bonus, and I'm loathe to break balance *too* much.

ilikeverin also said:
I personally think Netherlands should be Commerical instead of Agricultural.Yeah, I did want to do that -- but yet again, I didn't because I wanted them to have a unique coupling of traits. However, I might review this.

computerdude113 mentioned, amongst other things:
Also, I really think you should give Japan the military flag. Their history is oozing with it, from all forms of Samuari to modern warfare.Yeah, I think I'm heading closer towards making this change. I'll think on it.

Thanks for your comments on English/British Industry. I'm generally hesitant to get deep into talking about "who did what first." History was written, generally, by the ones who won out -- and often those they learned from on the way are disregarded as being irrelevant -- if they are remembered at all.

And it was interesting what you said about American flags Made in China -- that's brilliantly apt. :D

...

I want to reiterate, though -- I have no intention of making this mod give Civs three traits. Some other mod, by someone else -- sure. Sorry. :)

I played as the Zulu last night and realised that because of my trait change, they can't build Impis straight away -- I'll look into it, and any other potential starting tech issue like this, and will include it in the next version I post.

The Civ traits (and UUs) that are given are supposed to be those that the civilization showed during its "golden age", or at least that's the impression I get. As such, when you think of most historical empires, you think of their greatest achievements. Therefore you would do best to choose traits that were strongest during that empire's greatest point.

As to the three-trait question: I think it's a good idea. It can be so hard to pick just 2.

Originally posted by computerdude113

Also, now that I've seen your reasoning, Religious for America is a good one. In game it also co-incides with a fast government transaction time which is another thing America had.


The US never had a political revolution as far as I know... Also, I don't see why Religious is a good one for America... It never had anything religiously special, not that I know of. Also, I personally think Religious should go to birthplaces of great religions(modern and ancient).

Originally posted by Frimlin

There's lots of traits that could be placed on the various cultures that lived in the British isles over time, and contributed to what I'm collectively calling "Britain" -- none of them, bar the English, were particularly Seafaring and that I was sure of. You can't ignore Britain's Expansionist trait, though -- but you could argue that it and Commercial drove each other -- and could perhaps be mutually exclusive. But anyhow, I wanted to fill a gap to make sure each unique trait coupling was covered.Yes. I am the one and only Frimlin. I no longer work at Creature Labs anymore, though -- as Creature Labs no longer exists. As you can see from my signature, I'm now working on a cool new game called "The Movies" -- at a games studio called Lionhead. You might have heard of our game "Black and White."

I think you're the first person on CivFanatics to recognise me -- not that it surprises me. The Creatures series had a similarly passionate fan base, but it was very much smaller than Civilization has ever been.I agree completely, and I think Firaxis did a very good job with it. But hey, it's nice to change the options now and then -- brings a bit of something fresh and unknown into the game. :)

I know CL isn't there anymore... Though I did think you continued to be hired because it was bought by some company. And yes, I've heard of Black and White(never played it though). Good luck ;) Also, I'm Androrc, not Daarkseid.

I don't quite understand your reasoning on giving the English cities to America. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning?

Also, on the Byzantines and Romans -- perhaps the Byzantines should get every Roman city they managed to reconquer under Justinian and Theodora (most of Italy, parts of Spain, parts of northern Africa, modern Yugoslavia) and the Romans get every Byzantine city? Just a little suggestion. Of course then they would run through city names double-speed if they appeared together on a map. (I love how Memphis, Egypt prevents Memphis, USA from appearing :D)

I also went through a list to give America Agricultural instead of Religious. While America has a strongly religious interior, it also has the highest Atheist percentage in the world outside of Communist antitheist nations.

America – Expansionist, Agricultural
Maya – Religious, Agricultural. The Mayans were not Expansionist at all.
India – Religious, Scientific. Not great, but not completely false, either.
Babylon – Religious, Commercial. Babylon could easily be either Scientific or Commercial.
Celts – Religious, Expansionist. Very nice, very true, and it ends the chain. Who could ask for more?

Cuivienen -- I put the English city names after the American ones in the American city list for my own personal reasons. I thought I'd said already above, but basically I get sick of seeing "New York 2" and all that. I will probably be removing this and other non-trait changes before the next version. Though I will, of course, be keeping it the way I like it for my own personal copy of the mod. ;) If you take a look at a very detailed US map sometime, you will see a large number of English city, town and village names are there.

Think I've also already commented on this -- but yeah, I was tempted to give America Agricultural, but this would have put them on par with China. And I personally wanted Agricultural to partially account for large populations today, not just Agricultural prowess. Agricultural has recently been labelled as quite a powerful trait -- I might suspect people who wanted it for America might in fact be US citizens themselves. ;) But at the same time, I too have considered it for them -- so I don't blame you for questioning why they don't have that trait.

That's about it. I look forward to seeing the mods people are talking about making, after seeing my mod. There seems enough of you to work together to create a 3-trait mod -- why not do that? :) Please let me know when it's done. It took me what -- all of 1/2 an hour to think this mod up, make it, upload it and announce it. So don't feel put off by hard work -- it isn't. I encourage you to try. :)

Andorc -- sorry about the name confusion! I've now edited the post.

No, unfortunately while Creature Labs was dead -- before the new company started -- previous staff like myself still had to feed ourselves despite the fact that we had no money. So we had to get new jobs. I think if you know much about the European games dev community, having to leave CL was a good move for me -- it brought me to Lionhead. ;) But I do miss the Norns.

Originally posted by Dearnen
Part of the problem is that the characteristics of nations evolve. For example, America today has very different traits from 200 years ago. The early US had agricultural, religious, and expansionist traits. Today, it is commercial, scientific, and industrious. Of course, the US is also known for its military and seafaring skills - though, I think these are more the result of the unique combination of the other traits, history, and government.

Narrowing all this down to two traits for a single nation can be a bit of a challenge.

-Dearnen

I cant see how americans can be considered "skilled" at science. I mean with that amount of money and people devoted to science you have to be quite crappy at science if you cant come up with anything.
For example if the Germans had the superpower place in the world instead of USA with the exact amount of cashflow that the US has today they would have made more scientific breakthroughs since the Germans are in general better at science than Americans.

Giving the americans the religious trait is also quite wrong.
They are about as religious as most european countries and that is a small amount indeed.

Ok comments on the mod...
India should be Religious commercial instead of Agricultural.
The Indians were VERY succesful commercially for a couple of thousand years ago but they are not quite as skilled at agriculture seeing as they have so serious food problems today.

Also Japan should be militaristic. If anyone should be militaristic then its the japanese!

Dogmeat said:
I cant see how americans can be considered "skilled" at science. I mean with that amount of money and people devoted to science you have to be quite crappy at science if you cant come up with anything.

Can you name any of the inventions or discoveries of Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison? Orville and Wilbur Wright invented a rather useful machine. It was American Robert Goddard who invented the modern rocket, not the Germans. It takes a lot of science to get people to the Moon and back. America is also the birthplace of the Internet. Make no mistake, America owes a lot of it's success to the rest of the world - it is a nation of immigrants, after all. But to say that America hasn't come up with anything is mistaken.

Dogmeat also said:
Giving the americans the religious trait is also quite wrong. They are about as religious as most european countries and that is a small amount indeed.

I'd agree somewhat. Americans are more religious than Europeans, according to most polls. However, a casual look at American popular culture certainly indicates that religion is declining in America. The rise of the Christian conservative (AKA Religious Right) movement is a reaction to the cultural shift. America used to be far more religious than it is today, however. The writings of early Americans, such as the Founding Fathers, clearly indicate that faith was integral to American life - and formed the foundation of the political effort that birthed the Constitution, etc.

-Dearnen

Originally posted by Dearnen
Dogmeat said:
Can you name any of the inventions or discoveries of Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison? Orville and Wilbur Wright invented a rather useful machine. It was American Robert Goddard who invented the modern rocket, not the Germans. It takes a lot of science to get people to the Moon and back. America is also the birthplace of the Internet. Make no mistake, America owes a lot of it's success to the rest of the world - it is a nation of immigrants, after all. But to say that America hasn't come up with anything is mistaken.


I agree that USA has invented some very important things in the 19th century, but in the 20th century the most important scientists were german. Also, the brothers Wright didn't invent the airplane. Santos Dumont did. The Wright's plane couldn't take off by itself and it more of glided than actually flied.

Originally posted by Dearnen
But to say that America hasn't come up with anything is mistaken.


Yes that would indeed be mistaken. Luckily noone said that...

More Scientific breakthroughs would have been achieved if a scientific civilization would have americas place today.
America shouldnt be scientific. Expansionist Industrious fit in with their style much better than scientific, commercial, militaristic or any other trait.

Originally posted by Dogmeat



Yes that would indeed be mistaken. Luckily noone said that...

More Scientific breakthroughs would have been achieved if a scientific civilization would have americas place today.
America shouldnt be scientific. Expansionist Industrious fit in with their style much better than scientific, commercial, militaristic or any other trait.

I would like to contradict you at the moment. Industrious and expansionastic are good traits for America, however if you're going by modern standards, or at least our "golden age" which I believe would be the 20th centuary, the three best traits for America are Industrious, Scientific, and Militaristic. Here are my reasons:
Industrious: American industry was a great driving force in the 20th centuary, mass production, and many industrious innovations came from America
Scientific: First I would like to repute your statement that other countries would be better suited scientifically if they were in America's place. You don't know this, there is no way to prove this, it's your oppinion. Second, let's see all of the world-changing inventions that came out of AMERICA (these could have come from any other nation, but they came out of America). 1 The Airplane, enough said. 2. The Internet, what you're surfing right now. 3. Electricity. 4. Neuclear weapons (other countries were developing them aswell, America the first to finish them, and in Civ terms, makes them the origion of them) 5. Stealth. 6. Manned space flight (Russia was in space before us, but we were the first with humans in space). Now there is no way you can still say that America hasn't been an integral part of modern day living thru their scientific contributions to the world. We're scientific, wether you like it or not.
Lastly, Militaristic. As a side note, I calculated it, and between 1776 and 2003, America has had an average of about 1 war every 18 years, but anyway, moving on. America is deffinatly a military world power. Both world wars ended only after America came into them, America and Russia had quite a big standoff, a little thing called the cold war? Remember the threat of a neuclear holicost? Gulf War I was over before it started, once America came in. Now we're parading ourselfs around the middle east taking out dictors and people we put into power, not saying I condone that, but proving that we're a military force. As a side note and tying this to scientific, what other country has 2 stealth fighters and a stealth bomber, or a supersonic VTOL plane? (British you will say, the Harrier, it's not supersonic, the JSF, an american plane, is). Also, where is the home of the largest weapons company in the world? In america. Lockheed if you didn't know.

If we were to go back, comercial might tie in concidering the origonal colonies "main purpose" was to be a "cash cow" for Britian, they did a lot of trading as colonies, however this is a bit of a streach. Religious also fits in. America was settled by people who wanted religious freedom, many laws are based in religions, and our politics are deffinatly based in religion. Everyone of our presidents were of the same Christian faith, only JFK wasn't. He was roman catholic and everyone was worried about that because of the pope. Also, has anyone heard of the Bible Belt?

Anyway, now I'm done

I consider militiaristic civs to be ones who are EAGER to start wars, such as Rome or Germany. If you look back on American History you'll see that the only wars we entered intentionally were the Revolution and the Civil War, others were mainly the product of the enemy attacking us first (WW2), or being convinced by anything to enter the conflict (WW1, Vietnam). Also, just because a nation has one of the largest armies in the world does not mean it should be alotted the warmongering trait. Look at North Korea, IIRC, they have the world's third largest army (#1 being China I believe and the 2nd one escapes me), but the Koreans don't have the military trait.

Sorry if I sounded a little angry

Originally posted by computerdude113
6. Manned space flight (Russia was in space before us, but we were the first with humans in space).

Actually you were the first to land on the moon. Yuri Gagarin(a russian) was the first human in space.

Ahh, my bad
Also, to continue w/the theme of space, TMK most of the scientific telecopes (telescopes included) that orbit in space are American, NTM the mars landers and such, anyway, thanks for correcting me.

Originally posted by computerdude113
Ahh, my bad
Also, to continue w/the theme of space, TMK most of the scientific telecopes (telescopes included) that orbit in space are American, NTM the mars landers and such, anyway, thanks for correcting me.

That's true. While the first advances in space flight were Russian, USA has made the most modern ones. Though I think it's going a bit slower on the research than in USSR days because there's no competition.

Originally posted by Lord_all_Mighty
I consider militiaristic civs to be ones who are EAGER to start wars, such as Rome or Germany. If you look back on American History you'll see that the only wars we entered intentionally were the Revolution and the Civil War, others were mainly the product of the enemy attacking us first (WW2), or being convinced by anything to enter the conflict (WW1, Vietnam). Also, just because a nation has one of the largest armies in the world does not mean it should be alotted the warmongering trait. Look at North Korea, IIRC, they have the world's third largest army (#1 being China I believe and the 2nd one escapes me), but the Koreans don't have the military trait.

Sorry if I sounded a little angry

You don't sound angry, but how can you not say that America isn't a warmongering nation? Also, there are a bunch of wars that we started, Spanish American, Gufl War I and II, the new "war on terror", Korean. However my point on America being a militaristic nation extends to the fact that A) we spend more on "defense" then anything else, including education (I know that therea re other countries that do this too) B) we've had in the past 15 years 3 wars, Gulf War I and II, and the waron terror. We weren't even done in Afghanastan before we attacked Iraq. C) We have the largest stockpile of WMDs of any nation, built up from arms races. I know that you think having a large army isn't a sign of being militaristic, but having a large army that you use constiantly is. D) I believe the number is like 162 of the 192 countries recgonized by the UN the United States has a military prescence in. That might not, and is probably not the correct number, but it's something rediculious like of all the 'real' nations of the world, there are only like 30 some odd that we don't ahve our military in.
I'm sure that there was a point or two that i said earlier that i forgot to include, but i do believe that we are a warmongering nation. Someone that's not american back me up.

Originally posted by Androrc


That's true. While the first advances in space flight were Russian, USA has made the most modern ones. Though I think it's going a bit slower on the research than in USSR days because there's no competition.

Well now we feel threatened by China's space program, hence the speculation that Bush is going to announce that we're re-vamping our space program soon, along with the centinial of the wright bros. Dec 16 I believe it was.

Originally posted by Androrc


I agree that USA has invented some very important things in the 19th century, but in the 20th century the most important scientists were german. Also, the brothers Wright didn't invent the airplane. Santos Dumont did. The Wright's plane couldn't take off by itself and it more of glided than actually flied.

Actually, he invented a plane that used an existing motor to take off.
the Wright Flyer did take off on it's own, it was only guided by a track. It was flown using an engine the brothers made, and it did not mearly glide, in fact it flew into the wind, as opposed to with it. Finally, he preformed his flights in 1906, the Wright Flyer was 1903.
Also, if you look at his plane, it looks quite a bit like the Wright Flyer

Originally posted by computerdude113


You don't sound angry, but how can you not say that America isn't a warmongering nation? Also, there are a bunch of wars that we started, Spanish American, Gufl War I and II, the new "war on terror", Korean. However my point on America being a militaristic nation extends to the fact that A) we spend more on "defense" then anything else, including education (I know that therea re other countries that do this too) B) we've had in the past 15 years 3 wars, Gulf War I and II, and the waron terror. We weren't even done in Afghanastan before we attacked Iraq. C) We have the largest stockpile of WMDs of any nation, built up from arms races. I know that you think having a large army isn't a sign of being militaristic, but having a large army that you use constiantly is. D) I believe the number is like 162 of the 192 countries recgonized by the UN the United States has a military prescence in. That might not, and is probably not the correct number, but it's something rediculious like of all the 'real' nations of the world, there are only like 30 some odd that we don't ahve our military in.
I'm sure that there was a point or two that i said earlier that i forgot to include, but i do believe that we are a warmongering nation. Someone that's not american back me up.

I think you are very right. USA has military bases even in Cuba! Also, USA has done war with almost every country in the world...The War of Intervention in Russia after WWI, when it conquered the north of Mexico, against England not only during the Independence War, but during the Napoleonic Wars, against Germany in both WWs, against Yugoslavia in Kosovo, and many, many others.

(Accidental double post - ignore)

-Dearnen

While the US certainly has a powerful military and has been in quite a number of wars, it is not accurate to call America militaristic.

Computerdude said:
Also, there are a bunch of wars that we started, Spanish American, Gufl War I and II, the new "war on terror", Korean.

Of these, only the Spanish American war might have been started by America. However, it is important to remember that while the explosion of the USS Maine is now known to have been accidental, at the time tensions between America and Spain were high, so it didn't take much to get out of hand. The First Gulf War was started by Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. The Second Gulf War is merely one front in the overall "war on terror", which actually began about 3 decades ago. Islamic terrorists started it with small attacks that slowly escelated over the years. Everyone merely got used to it and didn't realize it was a real war until the Towers fell. Apparently there are many people who still don't see, or don't want to see, what's really going on. Also, the Second Gulf War was technically a resumption of the First War since Iraq had never fulfilled its obligations as agreed to at the end of the first war. The Korean war was started by the North Korean invasion of South Korea.

-Dearnen

Originally posted by Dearnen
While the US certainly has a powerful military and has been in quite a number of wars, it is not accurate to call America militaristic.

Computerdude said:


Of these, only the Spanish American war might have been started by America. However, it is important to remember that while the explosion of the USS Maine is now known to have been accidental, at the time tensions between America and Spain were high, so it didn't take much to get out of hand. The First Gulf War was started by Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. The Second Gulf War is merely one front in the overall "war on terror", which actually began about 3 decades ago. Islamic terrorists started it with small attacks that slowly escelated over the years. Everyone merely got used to it and didn't realize it was a real war until the Towers fell. Apparently there are many people who still don't see, or don't want to see, what's really going on. Also, the Second Gulf War was technically a resumption of the First War since Iraq had never fulfilled its obligations as agreed to at the end of the first war. The Korean war was started by the North Korean invasion of South Korea.

-Dearnen

Yes, Golf War I and Korean weren't started by USA, but it intervened. It could've been out of them, but still it decided to intervene to make sure it's interests would be best served.

About the so-called 'War on Terror' there was no reason to believe Saddam Hussein had any involvement with Al Qaeda, nor that he had WMDs, and neither has been proven, even after months(almost a year) that the war has finished. USA invaded Iraq deliberatly. Also, don't you think it's too much of a coincidence that Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves and Afghanistan is the ideal place for an oilduct from the most oil-rich countries?

I don't think anyone wants to turn this thread into another battle zone over whether the US was justified to invade Iraq. But, the issue is simple. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda is irrelevent, as you know, since the war is not against al Qaeda alone. Since the beginning, it has been repeated daily that the war is against all terrorist organizations with an aim against the US and any nation that in any way aids or supports them. Secondly, whether Iraq had WMDs was never questioned before the Bush administration began making its case for war. The Clinton administration, the United Nations, humanitarian organizitions, all agreed that Saddam had WMDs, sought to build more, had never fulfilled his cease fire obligations, and continued to stall efforts to bring Iraq into compliance. Isn't it quite a coincidence that no one questioned Saddam's WMDs until Bush (the "unelected") wanted to finally do something about it? It seems to me that the real root of the opposition to the war has nothing to do with the reality of what's going on in Iraq, but what's going on in America. Many people hate Bush; he's a conservative, a Christian, and a Southerner. Of course, this is simple minded intolerance and bigotry, and it has clouded a lot of thinking and effected the information made available to the public. We all need to think critically about what we hear and see; don't merely accept what either the White House or the media tells us.

-Dearnen

Originally posted by Dearnen
I don't think anyone wants to turn this thread into another battle zone over whether the US was justified to invade Iraq. But, the issue is simple. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda is irrelevent, as you know, since the war is not against al Qaeda alone. Since the beginning, it has been repeated daily that the war is against all terrorist organizations with an aim against the US and any nation that in any way aids or supports them. Secondly, whether Iraq had WMDs was never questioned before the Bush administration began making its case for war. The Clinton administration, the United Nations, humanitarian organizitions, all agreed that Saddam had WMDs, sought to build more, had never fulfilled his cease fire obligations, and continued to stall efforts to bring Iraq into compliance. Isn't it quite a coincidence that no one questioned Saddam's WMDs until Bush (the "unelected") wanted to finally do something about it? It seems to me that the real root of the opposition to the war has nothing to do with the reality of what's going on in Iraq, but what's going on in America. Many people hate Bush; he's a conservative, a Christian, and a Southerner. Of course, this is simple minded intolerance and bigotry, and it has clouded a lot of thinking and effected the information made available to the public. We all need to think critically about what we hear and see; don't merely accept what either the White House or the media tells us.

-Dearnen

1) USA has lots and lots of WMDs. Why can't Iraq have? Also, what I really regret is not only the war itself, but that US is governing the country. There's no need for this provisory government anymore. Saddam is captured. Also, the US is privatizing state things in Iraq, which will place it even more under US's rule.

2) Bush is hated worldwide. Not only in USA. But I agree completely with what you said about thinking critically. I think that even if the person has a rightist or leftist opinion, that opinion must be founded on what the person really thinks, not on what it is told.

3) As for giving USA the militaristic trait, I would think that the most adequate would instead be giving it Expansionist, Industrious and highest agression level, since it is at war so frequently and with so many nations, but it's military is more of a consequence of it's industriousnes. It's not a military founded on new and unique aspects which make it good(like Rome has), it actually gains by quantity of weapons.

OK please no more debates on America in my mod thread. ;)

Originally posted by Frimlin
OK please no more debates on America in my mod thread. ;)

Surely.

No problem. :D

I have now updated this mod to version 1.1.

Please read the first post of this thread to see the latest changes and additions.

The download link is now direct from my server, frimlin.com. Somehow I lost the ability to attach files to my original post.

Version 1.1 is also attached to this post, too.

Enjoy! :crazyeye:

It bothers nobody that Russia is industrious?

BTW many scientific discoveries were made simultaneously in several countries, and then claimed by the national propaganda machines. So arguments based on the number of scientific discoveries a country has made hold no weight at all. It is very easy to make most advances once the prerequisites have been achieved, it's just the next logical step. Several scientists do it and several countries write their own history about it, America included.

Exactly -- as I've said, it is the "winners" who write history. So you could argue about any trait given to a Civ.

Unless it was only based on what they were like as a Civ *now* then for the most part, we can't say we know what a Civ was good at. We weren't there. We don't know for sure.

I don't think I've once used any arguments about the number of scientific discoveries a country has -- are you referring to someone else?

As far as I am concerned, any real differences now between cultural groups on the Earth is due to starting locations. I believe certain nations, under certain leaders and their ilk/progeny, tended to behave in certain ways -- however I don't think any particular race actually has a particular trait.

PS: If you don't like a trait -- you can use your Editor to change it to what you want it to be. :) That's all I did with the mod, except I chose to share. ;)

Yes, I'm referring to several posters here, but not you.
I'd like to hear your rationale behind making Russia industrious, since most people who have ever visited it or studied its history would probably strongly disagree ;)

That is very accurate about initial georgaphy and such affecting "traits", but these things become parts of culture that are then taught by example, and remain even after extensive changes to geography and social structure.

My rationale was simply to fill another unique trait coupling. However, obviously they're sharing it with Persia at the moment. (If memory serves me -- I've got to be quick, I'm at work!)

If I gave them something other than Industrious, it might be Scientific. I don't want them to be Expansionist -- they're like that in the Epic game if you like it that way! ;)

Nah, they're one of those civs the random generator never forced me to play. I'd say militaristic and expansionist are the traits for em, because most of Russian history involves conquering various neighbors - or at least fighting somebody, even if it has to be Russians themselves (I understand the Mongols have those traits too).

Tricky. I just realised if I did give them Scientific, in my mod at least, they'd have *double* Scientific trait -- ie, impossible. ;)

Militaristic, Scientific? Why are they Scientific in the game, anyhow? Were they particularly scientific? My Russian history is very very sketchy. I know more about Slavs, Alans, Samatians...etc than I do about Russia. And even then I know only a little!

No, they were only scientific when the whip was applied :whipped:

You know, I'm really starting to think that you could just randomly hand these traits out, and it'd still probably look eerily valid. :D

This is why I still maintain Firaxis did a good job with it already. Heck, a large portion of the Civs in my mod (majority, even?) still have the original trait choices Firaxis made.

It'd be cool if the game could have an option to randomly assign traits, so you could be surprised. It'd probably only be Seafaring appearing in odd places that'd confuse people -- the other traits are seemingly up for grabs to almost anyone. ;)

To anyone who's got the v1.1 version: how do you like the price of the Scouts and Explorers? I'm thinking I need to increase them to the nearest 5. At the moment they seem to take as long as Workers or Warriors, and I want them to be even more expensive considering they now have the same defence as a warrior.

Also, I'll have to make sure they don't have the AI "Defend" ability. Pretty sure they don't but I wouldn't want to see the AI deliberately using Scouts for defence.

Anyone else noticed anything in the non-trait changes that I could tweak to make a little better?

And does anyone think adding defence to Scouts and Explorers has really ruined the balance?

Russia should be scientific!
Science is not just inventing stuff. Think about Ivan Pavlov (conditioning), Lev Vigotsky (human Intelligence), several other phisicans and psichologists, Mijail Bajtin (lingüistics), etc. Russia had a great Science boost during the early days of the Russian Revolution. In comparison, american scientists have advanced in few fields: military technology, early electronics (Morse, etc.) and economics. Commercial & Militaristic, I´d say.

Ever noticed how Americans & Brits have made so few advances in social sciences compared with the french or germans?

Umm... Russia *is* Scientific in this mod. :)

Commercial and Militaristic *are* traits you could apply to America, I agree. However, I didn't choose them. ;)

I meant it as a reply to those who think it should not be, Frimlin.
I just meant to give my opinion, as Traits are something quite easy to change.

OK, just checking. ;) Your opinion is most welcome!

hi!i agree in most preferences you have set.but can u help me in something or modify your mode?is there a way to make the STUPID ai of the pc to use shipd for offense?i m sick and tired seeing warships only for escorting duties...!

Which ships in particular? Or do you mean *all* non-transport ships? The AI *should* be using those offensively already.

One thing I have noticed myself, is that the AI seems a bit more likely to attack another ship with their offensive ship, rather than bombard the land or a city. But maybe that's just because I play on Monarch -- it's probably worse at Deity & Sid.

What level are you playing on?

Dromons, Frigates, Man-O-Wars, Privateers, Ironclads, Submarines, Cruisers, Destroyers, Battleships, Nuclear Submarines and AEGIS Cruisers are all marked as being "Naval Powers" and the AI *should* be using those to attack you.

hi,thanks for the immediate response as well.i m playing in demigod,i have add a lot of extra naval units,but the result is the same(although i have ticked the icon naval power):naval units still escorting transport ones!!!arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
and thimk,that i have put tha ai agressive in most!STUPID ai,dones something fool:although i m in war i have seen enemy ships just passing by mine,wiythout attack!!!!!have u play civ 2?do you remember the ai there in naval units?much much better than here.unefortunately,a lot of thing in civ 2 worked much better from this....

Russia shouldn't be Scientific just because it had some scientists. You forgot Tsiolkovsky anyways. In any case, it should be either expansionist or militaristic and some other trait, like lazy... give it seafaring for world maps so it has a completely useless trait.

Ok, here my humble opionion on two of the civs.
The Dutch should be commercial. East India Company, invention of company shares, Amsterdam was the first world trading centre, Rotterdam is the biggest harbor in the world, the only reason for exploration and discoveries was commerce (unlike British colonization or Iberian conversions) and so on.
Second trait should remain seafaring, for obvious reasons. Agriculture could be third.

And my traits for the USA.
Militaristic - NO! Only the last 70 years do they have a large army. In 1914 their army was smaller then that of Holland or Belgium.
Scientific - Not really. There were some very important inventions (like flight) but not enough to make it scientific above other traits.
Expansionistic - Could be, but not my choice either.
Agriculture - The US has one of the largest output of grain and other food, but only because of the enormous size of the country.
Seafaring - Nothing compared to England, Holland or Vikings in their days.
Religious - Absolutely. It plays a very important role. From the start of the country till present. A small example is how many times God is mentioned on movies, series, and so on. Our (Dutch) Prime Minister is from the Christian Democrat Party and he has never mentioned God in any of his speeches. I hear American presidents mention Him in every speech I see/hear.
Industrious - Absolutely. WW2 is the best example on how brilliant and uncontestedly superior American industry is. In the long run no country would have won of the US in WW2. Yamamote of Japan said that if Japan would go to war with the US it should be defeated in 6 month, otherwise the industry would be going and no one could stop the American production of tanks, planes, jeeps, ships, bombers and so on.
America should also get an Iron Works in all of their cities in wartime! :p

Originally posted by Tavenier
Industrious - Absolutely. WW2 is the best example on how brilliant and uncontestedly superior American industry is. In the long run no country would have won of the US in WW2. Yamamote of Japan said that if Japan would go to war with the US it should be defeated in 6 month, otherwise the industry would be going and no one could stop the American production of tanks, planes, jeeps, ships, bombers and so on.
America should also get an Iron Works in all of their cities in wartime! :p

But you see, that's exactly why it should be militaristic. Because it's industries have nothing special, also, neither Russia(which had around the same industrial power that the USA had during the Cold War) nor England(which invented the modern production) have the industrious trait, so there's no reason for USA to get it. What is impressive is their wartime easiness to change from simple consumer products production to production of guns, tanks, airplanes, etc.

Originally posted by Androrc


What is impressive is their wartime easiness to change from simple consumer products production to production of guns, tanks, airplanes, etc.



And isn't that special enough to make them industrious?

England could have industrious to, but because of the importance and the period of time of England they have other traits that are more right for them.

Russia had a great industry during the Cold War indeed, lasting merely 40 years. That of the USA was well before WW1 an impressive industry. And lasting to this day. And the USA had/has very much mass production, like the T-Ford and things like that.

Originally posted by Tavenier
And isn't that special enough to make them industrious?


No, it should make them militaristic, since then military buildings would be cheaper and etc., simulating their easiness to change production in wartime.


England could have industrious to, but because of the importance and the period of time of England they have other traits that are more right for them.

Russia had a great industry during the Cold War indeed, lasting merely 40 years. That of the USA was well before WW1 an impressive industry.

Not really. USA's industry was not impressive well before WW1. It was already a power from the middle to end of the XIX century, yes, but only another power, and didn't have any chance to defeat Germany, Britain or France in Europe. In WW1, remember they didn't win the war exactly, it was an equilibrated war, and USA's extra troops helped to break that balance. That's the only reason it proved decisive. In WW2, USA only won the war against Japan and liberated western European countries, while Russia defeated Germany and took Berlin and all of eastern Germany. By taking Berlin, Russia won the war in Europe.


And lasting to this day.

Well, but then again, you could argue the same thing for Germany if we lived in the XIX century.


And the USA had/has very much mass production, like the T-Ford and things like that.

There's a technology and a city improvement in the game to represent that. To simulate that, all a civ would have to do is research and build it in many cities.

Originally posted by Androrc



Not really. USA's industry was not impressive well before WW1. It was already a power from the middle to end of the XIX century, yes, but only another power, and didn't have any chance to defeat Germany, Britain or France in Europe. In WW1, remember they didn't win the war exactly, it was an equilibrated war, and USA's extra troops helped to break that balance. That's the only reason it proved decisive. In WW2, USA only won the war against Japan and liberated western European countries, while Russia defeated Germany and took Berlin and all of eastern Germany. By taking Berlin, Russia won the war in Europe.

.


This comment of you exactly points out that America shouldn't be militaristic. I don't know, honestly, what your point is.

Because of the industry they can build a large military force (and by sheer number of inhabitants, of course). If I think about the USA I don't think about things like military tradition, military codes, or stuff like that. Of course they have them, but so does any other nation. Japan or Germany (or rather Prussia) or Sparta makes me think about militarism. Their whole society was based on that. America's society is a mass consumption society and so relies on a large industry to satisfy the needs of the consumers.

And I don't see why the Russian occupation of Berlin is better then the allied liberation of France, Italy, the Benelux and the defeat of Japan and conquest of the better part of Germany.

Originally posted by Tavenier



This comment of you exactly points out that America shouldn't be militaristic. I don't know, honestly, what your point is.

Because of the industry they can build a large military force (and by sheer number of inhabitants, of course). If I think about the USA I don't think about things like military tradition, military codes, or stuff like that. Of course they have them, but so does any other nation. Japan or Germany (or rather Prussia) or Sparta makes me think about militarism. Their whole society was based on that. America's society is a mass consumption society and so relies on a large industry to satisfy the needs of the consumers.

IMHO the simple fact that USA has been at war with almost every country in the world would make them militaristic. But you have a good point there about it being industrious. I think it should be industrious and militaristic.


And I don't see why the Russian occupation of Berlin is better then the allied liberation of France, Italy, the Benelux and the defeat of Japan and conquest of the better part of Germany.

Because eventually Russia would have liberated all of Europe, the US had to rush in it's campaign in Europe to not let western Europe be put under Russia's control. Look at it like this: Germany was the main power of the axis and Russia defeated it, therefore ending all possibilites of the continuation of WWII in Europe. The defeat of Japan is nothing near the defeat of Germany, although it's overvalued by the 'west' because statamericans did that. Just like Waterloo is overvalued, when who really won the war against Napoleon was Russia, when he invaded it.

I see what you mean, with the defeat of Germany. And indeed was Germany much more difficult then Japan to defeat.
And indeed Russia is the number 1 winner of WW2 IMHO. And they paid the highest price for it.


But what do you mean with the USA have been at war with almost everybody? I'd rather say England or France dod that, not the USA.
Correct me if I am wrong but they haven't been at war with most African countries, Oceanic countries, Indonesia, Mongolia, most of Western Europe (except Spain and England), Eastern Europe, Russia (they never really had war, only Cold War), and so on.
If I have to name countries not having a war with England or France in the past the list would be shorter. And they both aren't militaristic in Civ3.

Originally posted by Tavenier
I see what you mean, with the defeat of Germany. And indeed was Germany much more difficult then Japan to defeat.
And indeed Russia is the number 1 winner of WW2 IMHO. And they paid the highest price for it.


But what do you mean with the USA have been at war with almost everybody? I'd rather say England or France dod that, not the USA.
Correct me if I am wrong but they haven't been at war with most African countries, Oceanic countries, Indonesia, Mongolia, most of Western Europe (except Spain and England), Eastern Europe, Russia (they never really had war, only Cold War), and so on.
If I have to name countries not having a war with England or France in the past the list would be shorter. And they both aren't militaristic in Civ3.

USA has been at war in Europe with: England, Spain, Germany(of course, hehe), Italy, Yugoslavia(or was it already called serbia at that time?) and Russia(during the war of intervention just after WW1).

At America it has been at war with Mexico, Granada, many central american nations, and incited many revolutions, like the one that split Panama from Colombia. Not to mention it finance the many military coups all over latin america.

At Asia, they've been at war with Iraq, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Japan. Not to mention it made an outpost in the middle east called Israel.

I can't really remember any African or Oceanic ones... although there were many African ones they fought with.

I think I might have missed many countries... But well, there's a list.

Now, if I were to list the number of places they intervened indirectly I would perhaps have almost all countries in the world.

Originally posted by Androrc


USA has been at war in Europe with: England, Spain, Germany(of course, hehe), Italy, Yugoslavia(or was it already called serbia at that time?) and Russia(during the war of intervention just after WW1).

At America it has been at war with Mexico, Granada, many central american nations, and incited many revolutions, like the one that split Panama from Colombia. Not to mention it finance the many military coups all over latin america.

At Asia, they've been at war with Iraq, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Japan. Not to mention it made an outpost in the middle east called Israel.

I can't really remember any African or Oceanic ones... although there were many African ones they fought with.

I think I might have missed many countries... But well, there's a list.

Now, if I were to list the number of places they intervened indirectly I would perhaps have almost all countries in the world.




It is indeed still an impressive list. And I forgot about that Russian intervention after WW1.
But still countries like England or France had fought more wars against more opponents. And not only because they existed longer. Most of those wars were in the last 4 centuries.
I think Civ3 intends not to see how many wars have been fought or won. I think it is more about what role militarism plays in society. It plays a large role in the US, but again nothing compared to what role it played it Mongolia, Japan or Sparta. Religion did and still does play a large role in the USA. All discussions about abortion and things like that have a very religious background. And if I am not mistaken the largest non-European minority in the USA are from Latin America. Those peoples mostly are devout catholics which adds to the discussion US trait should be religious.

Originally posted by Tavenier





It is indeed still an impressive list. And I forgot about that Russian intervention after WW1.
But still countries like England or France had fought more wars against more opponents. And not only because they existed longer. Most of those wars were in the last 4 centuries.
I think Civ3 intends not to see how many wars have been fought or won. I think it is more about what role militarism plays in society. It plays a large role in the US, but again nothing compared to what role it played it Mongolia, Japan or Sparta. Religion did and still does play a large role in the USA. All discussions about abortion and things like that have a very religious background. And if I am not mistaken the largest non-European minority in the USA are from Latin America. Those peoples mostly are devout catholics which adds to the discussion US trait should be religious.

Yes you are right. France and England were very imperialistic in their day. Maybe you are right about that religious thing...Then what should be done then is make it's agression lvl go a bit up, and the same should be done to England and France too(I never really understood why in normal civ3 France was almost with the lesser agression...)

Originally posted by Androrc


Yes you are right. France and England were very imperialistic in their day. Maybe you are right about that religious thing...Then what should be done then is make it's agression lvl go a bit up, and the same should be done to England and France too(I never really understood why in normal civ3 France was almost with the lesser agression...)



That would indeed be a good solution. Make them more aggressive.
I think level 1 for the French is too low, but it shouldn't be higher then 3. Napoleon or Louis XIV were warmongers, but also a lot of peaceful things came from France. The theory of power to the people (Liberté, Equalité et Fraternité) is peaceful, although in practice the guillotine was all but very peaceful.
Fact still is that the French, of all colonizers, was relatively the most peaceful one. I think they like no other tried to co-exist with the natives and in French colonies it was not rare for natives to go up the social ladder too.

English aggressive level should be 4.

Darn, I wrote up a long reply but the server was busy and it was lost!

Basically, in my current unreleased version, I've made the following changes:

Britain - Seafaring & Industrious - (Yes, quite a big change! Not sure I'm 100% happy yet, though!)

America - Religious & Industrious - Aggression increased. (Still not completely convinced Industrious is right for them. No I haven't given into pressure to make them Industrious -- I'm just testing it! Definitely no plans to remove the Religious trait, though. Interestingly we "all" came to the same conclusion about trying to make them more Aggressive rather than Militaristic. Unfortunately this does make them exceptionally hard to deal with. They're very focused on themselves. But perhaps that's apt? No, that's not meant as anti-American as it might sound. Believe it or not, I am trying to be diplomatic!)

Inca - Expansionistic & Religious - (Removed Industrious, but it kinda makes me whimper to think about it... so I'm not sure yet.)

Carthage - Expansionistic & Commercial - (Removed Industrious.)

Netherlands - Seafaring & Commercial - (Removed Agricultural, though I'm not completely happy about doing so. Would their Agricultural trait have been so high if their available farmland had been so low? Does that kind of question really matter? Afterall, every Civ was affected by the place it "grew up" in.)

I fiddled around with the Explorer and made him a lot more useful. Not sure the AI will be able to take full advantage of the new unit, though. But perhaps it's better than a unit that most people, including the AI, avoid anyhow.

I'll probably remove all non-trait specific changes from this mod, though. And then I'll release a new mod that has just whatever change I like in it -- rather than a trait-specific mod with a few, perhaps unwanted, "extras" as it is now.

One question though -- people give a lot of comments but nobody says anything like "I'm actually really enjoying some of the changes in this mod!" Does anyone? :) I hope so. I do!

Originally posted by Frimlin
Darn, I wrote up a long reply but the server was busy and it was lost!

Basically, in my current unreleased version, I've made the following changes:

Britain - Seafaring & Industrious - (Yes, quite a big change! Not sure I'm 100% happy yet, though!)

America - Religious & Industrious - Aggression increased. (Still not completely convinced Industrious is right for them. No I haven't given into pressure to make them Industrious -- I'm just testing it! Definitely no plans to remove the Religious trait, though. Interestingly we "all" came to the same conclusion about trying to make them more Aggressive rather than Militaristic. Unfortunately this does make them exceptionally hard to deal with. They're very focused on themselves. But perhaps that's apt? No, that's not meant as anti-American as it might sound. Believe it or not, I am trying to be diplomatic!)

Inca - Expansionistic & Religious - (Removed Industrious, but it kinda makes me whimper to think about it... so I'm not sure yet.)

Carthage - Expansionistic & Commercial - (Removed Industrious.)

Netherlands - Seafaring & Commercial - (Removed Agricultural, though I'm not completely happy about doing so. Would their Agricultural trait have been so high if their available farmland had been so low? Does that kind of question really matter? Afterall, every Civ was affected by the place it "grew up" in.)

I fiddled around with the Explorer and made him a lot more useful. Not sure the AI will be able to take full advantage of the new unit, though. But perhaps it's better than a unit that most people, including the AI, avoid anyhow.

I'll probably remove all non-trait specific changes from this mod, though. And then I'll release a new mod that has just whatever change I like in it -- rather than a trait-specific mod with a few, perhaps unwanted, "extras" as it is now.

One question though -- people give a lot of comments but nobody says anything like "I'm actually really enjoying some of the changes in this mod!" Does anyone? :) I hope so. I do!





My dear Frimlin. I think I speak for all us if I tell you we are happy with your mod! (Better?) :lol:

Since you changed the Dutch I am happy. It was silly for the Dutch not being commercial. That's like not making the British Seafaring.

heheh! Thanks. :)

I know it's not exactly the most fantastic mod in the world, and it didn't exactly take weeks and weeks of development time... but it is nice to see the mod is enjoyed, all the same.

Well, I admit I was against Britain being Seafaring. But I see the "Seafaring" trait as being a kind of a mixture between a Commercial bonus, and an Expansion bonus -- and that suited Britain.

Afterall, the trait names are simply "pretty names." If we were being purely pedantic about it, Religious would be "Culture Bonus," Expansionist would be "Growth Bonus" ...etc

I really, really liked the new changes :)

Hi all, i have wold map on wh mod

inscribe on my e-mail and i send map is best
my e-mail is adamkubant@email.cz

Cool. :)

By the way, sorry to everyone that I haven't released a new version for a while -- I've been distracted by busy times at work.

I'm working at a games development company called Lionhead Studios, on a game called "The Movies." If you're in the US, check out my photo in the February edition of "Game Informer." :)

Please someone tell me they've seen it! ;)

Our "The Movies" site is at: http://www.themoviesgame.com/

And you can see us working on the game by visiting our webcams at: http://www.lhtimes.com/ (click on "The Movies" link).

I promise to release a new version of the mod soon! :) Possibly not before my birthday on the 25th, though... ;)