Actually, what would be the most useful 3rd trait is something along the lines of Nomadic.
Of course a better term should be used, but the trait could add some of the bonuses based on the nomadic lifestyle.
We barely have possible traits for leaders like Attila, Arpad, some of the natives, or leaders of semi-nomadic tribes. Even some of the african civs could get something like that, if the bonuses of the trait are well choosen. Of course Genghis Khan and other similar Vanilla leaders could also get that, Imperialistic barely suits him...
Just an example why it is needed: for most of these leaders Imperialistic, Industrious, Financial, Organized are out of the question, along with the new Seafaring and Nationalistic traits (because of the espionage part). Also doesn't seem the best choice in most cases: Philosophical, Spiritual, Protective, Creative, the nomadic style is clearly not the best for those either...
So that leaves us only with Aggressive, Charismatic and Expansive, and for many leaders even Expansive is a bad choice :S
It's very bad for trait balance, would get repetitive very soon!
EDIT: Just to pop a few ideas, bonuses could be:
- reduced or no maintenance from distance of cities
- some kind of mobility based promotion for the armies (mobility or flanking for example)
- bonus yield from pillaging
- DPS of stable
I agree a "Nomadic" type trait would be a productive idea as well.
Specifically for those 2 bonuses.
I also agree the trait would fit fantastically for the Attila/Arpad/Mongol/Other Warlord leaders.
However, the only problem I see with such a trait is the variety of leaders that would have it. The trait seems like it falls into a "Mold" specifically designed for leaders from the Central Steppes, or Africa, with a few from other areas. The same concern had been voiced by a few regarding the Seafaring trait and its affinity toward the Spanish/Dutch/Portuguese/Vikings/Phoenicias. I myself was guilty of lumping them into that trait because of where they were from. The problem though persists that such specificly defined traits, might have a hard time finding leaders to use them.
I pose a question. Instead of adding 2-3 new traits that would fit into the same type of matrix combinations, i.e. 2 traits per leader, while keeping an eye on the combinations.
Why dont we add 3, and then give each leader 3 traits. Having the 3 new traits be related to the way they organized their "empire/kingdom/tribe/etc.."
For example even using the 3 that have been discussed.
Nationalistic --> Goes to leaders with an afinity toward settled nations
Seafaring ---> Goes to leaders with an afinity toward the Sea/exploration
Nomadic ---> Goes to leaders with an afinity toward pasture/loosely organized tribal cofigurations.
So (just an example)
Aggressive/Imperialistic/Nationalistic: (fill in the blank)
Aggressive/Imperialistic/Seafaring: Philip II of Spain
Aggressive/Imperialistic/Nomadic: Genghis Khan (from Vanilla Civilization)
I know it was brought up before about the difference in personalities will differenciate between the "same trait leaders". I agree it will, which is one reason I take alot of time coding them instead of just throwing numbers in. One problem I noticed is that more often than not, the personalities and the traits they recieve are based off of the same information. So leaders that we derive to be "Aggressive/Imperialistic" from these sources, will have very similar personalities.
Again I am probably reading to much into it.