I'd like to see a unique trait for each nation in addition to the building and unit. For example the romans would get additional road movement points, the british additional sea movement points, the vikings early ships would be able to move across ocean as long as they end their turn on a shore, the spanish could use military units to purge religions from a city with a slight unhappiness penalty, etc.
National Traits
- Thread starter Eugenius
- Start date
It was possible in the previous civ editions, and I realy would like to see it coming back.Eugenius said:
Their is already a similar request in this topic, but then for scouts.Eugenius said:
Both those ideads are great, but I much rather see them applied for all the civ nations, instead of just a few.
kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
yes i agree
eg
england free city gar to acrhers/gunpowder or no no of cities cost
scotland free strength to all units
china free comunism tech
eg
england free city gar to acrhers/gunpowder or no no of cities cost
scotland free strength to all units
china free comunism tech
Englor
General
One question, when you play as the americans, do you automatically win the conquest victory? 
50_dollar_bag
Imitation Louis Vuitton
Englor said:One question, when you play as the americans, do you automatically win the conquest victory?
Probably a lot more likely than Diplomatic
Englor
General
Well I think it moreso goes, that the trait is of option value. Yesterday I submitted an idea that encompasses schematics how traits first govern specific resource preference. IE peace and financial traits cause desire for growth and welath baring resources, whilst militeristic and industrious traits cause for strateigic value and production enhancing resources, And resources that between luxury- and culture based hold esteem amongst the spiritual and philosphical traits.
If direct nation-traits are enabled, this might be another gameplay charachteristic which helps define circumstance and open new experience of play. SOunds good.
If direct nation-traits are enabled, this might be another gameplay charachteristic which helps define circumstance and open new experience of play. SOunds good.
Guys...
How many times to I have to post the Starcraft argument? It seems like I have to go to every thread where some person decides it's a great idea to complicate the game even more without paying attention to balance. I'm not going to post it again in great detail here, but I'm just going to say with more than 20 civs and more on the way, less is more when it comes to uniqueness. Starting technologies, 2 traits, unique units, and unique buildings are enough--don't make the game any more of a balancing nightmare than it already is.
One of the reasons I think there is not a Seafaring trait in Civ4 is because of the trait in Civ3--it was very situation-dependent. As in, if your map did not have water, you essentially played with 1 trait. Adding this as a unique ability to, say, the Vikings, would not be fair--what is the use of going into ocean squares and then darting back to the shore if there is no ocean? And how about the fact that galleys, triremes, and ironclads are all move 2 units (or more with promotions that are available after Flanking I)? The fact that terrain is mostly irrelevant of your decision to play any given civ is a good thing (at least my decision is...some might say with the Aztec/Celt UU abilities, they do). But that's a small fraction of the whole.
Seriously, free communism for China at the beginning of the game? That sounds a little
. Considering the Soviet Union was the "original" communist state, that sounds a little unreasonable. But wait, if you focus on the communism, how will you represent the age of the czars? Or the Chinese emperors? How will you reconcile these two distinctly different periods of their history with one national trait? Here's a bright idea: give them at least 2 different leaders: say, one relatively modern communist, and one from the more distant past. And, say, these leaders have different traits representing their focus and what they did in power...wow, isn't that great? And guess what, it's already in the game!
How about you just make the Scottish leader (if they get added to the game) Aggressive to give their units Combat 1 instead of artificially adding it separately? And Spain isn't the only country to persecute other religions (although they seem to be the most famous for it).
How many times to I have to post the Starcraft argument? It seems like I have to go to every thread where some person decides it's a great idea to complicate the game even more without paying attention to balance. I'm not going to post it again in great detail here, but I'm just going to say with more than 20 civs and more on the way, less is more when it comes to uniqueness. Starting technologies, 2 traits, unique units, and unique buildings are enough--don't make the game any more of a balancing nightmare than it already is.
One of the reasons I think there is not a Seafaring trait in Civ4 is because of the trait in Civ3--it was very situation-dependent. As in, if your map did not have water, you essentially played with 1 trait. Adding this as a unique ability to, say, the Vikings, would not be fair--what is the use of going into ocean squares and then darting back to the shore if there is no ocean? And how about the fact that galleys, triremes, and ironclads are all move 2 units (or more with promotions that are available after Flanking I)? The fact that terrain is mostly irrelevant of your decision to play any given civ is a good thing (at least my decision is...some might say with the Aztec/Celt UU abilities, they do). But that's a small fraction of the whole.
Seriously, free communism for China at the beginning of the game? That sounds a little
. Considering the Soviet Union was the "original" communist state, that sounds a little unreasonable. But wait, if you focus on the communism, how will you represent the age of the czars? Or the Chinese emperors? How will you reconcile these two distinctly different periods of their history with one national trait? Here's a bright idea: give them at least 2 different leaders: say, one relatively modern communist, and one from the more distant past. And, say, these leaders have different traits representing their focus and what they did in power...wow, isn't that great? And guess what, it's already in the game!How about you just make the Scottish leader (if they get added to the game) Aggressive to give their units Combat 1 instead of artificially adding it separately? And Spain isn't the only country to persecute other religions (although they seem to be the most famous for it).
SkippyT
Who?
Hmmmm maybe a tiny diffrence
Aztecs get +1 hammer per priest in largest city
America gets +5% commerce per broadcast tower
Arabia gets +5% military production in 4 largest cities with state religion
Russians get more effective jails, -10% war weariness per jail
Vikings get +2 exp for naval units in 3 largest coastal cities
Korea gets +1 science per scientist in 4 largest cities
Spain gets 25% cheaper ships in 3 largest coastal cities
France gets +1 culture per temple with state religion
yeah it might work. But not too powerful. I know Spain's UT (Unique trait) would be darn powerful with drydocks.
The Viking UT is also quite nifty,..
Maybe Korea shouldn't get a science basted UT because it already has the Seowon (+10% science!), financial trait which is without a doubt the best trait for science, and I think Wang Kon would be way ahead in science at the start of the Industrial era when he's got Seowons in his cities and used his scientists. AND his fav civic is Caste system so he would get endless scientist and with Representation would be unstoppable...
Aztecs get +1 hammer per priest in largest city
America gets +5% commerce per broadcast tower
Arabia gets +5% military production in 4 largest cities with state religion
Russians get more effective jails, -10% war weariness per jail
Vikings get +2 exp for naval units in 3 largest coastal cities
Korea gets +1 science per scientist in 4 largest cities
Spain gets 25% cheaper ships in 3 largest coastal cities
France gets +1 culture per temple with state religion
yeah it might work. But not too powerful. I know Spain's UT (Unique trait) would be darn powerful with drydocks.
The Viking UT is also quite nifty,..
Maybe Korea shouldn't get a science basted UT because it already has the Seowon (+10% science!), financial trait which is without a doubt the best trait for science, and I think Wang Kon would be way ahead in science at the start of the Industrial era when he's got Seowons in his cities and used his scientists. AND his fav civic is Caste system so he would get endless scientist and with Representation would be unstoppable...
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Personally, I don't like these ideas, since they implicitly say "These guys are Arabs, so they get this" out of the blue. They imply that it's in the blood. I have this idea, which I freely admit is not perfect, and probably needs to be updated to suit CivIV now that we know what it looks like, that might take history into account (for instance, by starting with a certain trait), but be able to provide big boosts to the civilization while still reflecting how it changes based on history.
Englor
General
Antilogic said:Guys...
How many times to I have to post the Starcraft argument? It seems like I have to go to every thread where some person decides it's a great idea to complicate the game even more without paying attention to balance. I'm not going to post it again in great detail here, but I'm just going to say with more than 20 civs and more on the way, less is more when it comes to uniqueness. Starting technologies, 2 traits, unique units, and unique buildings are enough--don't make the game any more of a balancing nightmare than it already is.
One of the reasons I think there is not a Seafaring trait in Civ4 is because of the trait in Civ3--it was very situation-dependent. As in, if your map did not have water, you essentially played with 1 trait. Adding this as a unique ability to, say, the Vikings, would not be fair--what is the use of going into ocean squares and then darting back to the shore if there is no ocean? And how about the fact that galleys, triremes, and ironclads are all move 2 units (or more with promotions that are available after Flanking I)? The fact that terrain is mostly irrelevant of your decision to play any given civ is a good thing (at least my decision is...some might say with the Aztec/Celt UU abilities, they do). But that's a small fraction of the whole.
Seriously, free communism for China at the beginning of the game? That sounds a little
How about you just make the Scottish leader (if they get added to the game) Aggressive to give their units Combat 1 instead of artificially adding it separately? And Spain isn't the only country to persecute other religions (although they seem to be the most famous for it).
Antilogic, I'll assure you I do not mean any doubt or personal rift against you, though I think you did not read my post at all. My idea was that the same traites for leaders are the traites to use for civs as well, so that its like giving the civ leader a third traite, except its giving the nation a traite, plus a leader with two traites. The logical enhancment that'd follow is great and all, though my idea is also adding in a bit more of the charachter capability that is now present in the game.
By having national traits(in my idea), adds the potential drive for what the people expressively yearn for during gameplay. This means factors that are probably relevent in terms of pathing and execution towards growth and effort throughout the game.
Again pertaining to the traits(which I believe should be possible for custom as well as a side preference),
of a nation adds the factor of favor and disfavor in a slight yet affecting manner. That's my take.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
To the OP, may I suggest you try out Rhyes and Fall of Civilization? Because it has a strong historical feel, the trait (singular) applies to the nation-not the leader. For instance, Egypt has 'Power of the Pharoh', where you start the game with Hereditary Rule and Slavery. India has 'Power of Spirituality' and so on. What makes this scenario such an intriguing experience is that you also don't get to start playing until the time your Civ ACTUALLY appeared in history. I can definitely recommend it, its a blast.
As for traits in general, I still hold to the opinion that traits should be EARNED. For instance, you spend the first 1000 years of the game traitless, then you are assigned traits based on how you have played thus far.
For example, you start the game as Egypt. You have access to cows, wheat, stone and marble-so you build your first 2 cities to exploit these resources. You go for early Wonders and a mixture of both Industrial and Agricultural techs. Thus, when you reach 3000BC, your civ gains the Industrious and Expansive traits.
If, however, your civ pursued priesthood and polytheism-on the one hand-and tried to build a lot of cultural improvements in the early game-then you might end up as Creative and Spiritual instead.
Anyway, just a thought.
Aussie_Lurker.
As for traits in general, I still hold to the opinion that traits should be EARNED. For instance, you spend the first 1000 years of the game traitless, then you are assigned traits based on how you have played thus far.
For example, you start the game as Egypt. You have access to cows, wheat, stone and marble-so you build your first 2 cities to exploit these resources. You go for early Wonders and a mixture of both Industrial and Agricultural techs. Thus, when you reach 3000BC, your civ gains the Industrious and Expansive traits.
If, however, your civ pursued priesthood and polytheism-on the one hand-and tried to build a lot of cultural improvements in the early game-then you might end up as Creative and Spiritual instead.
Anyway, just a thought.
Aussie_Lurker.
That might be hard to implement. But if you can "earn your traits" I'd like to try that mod.
@ Englor: Yes I read your post. And I've read just about all the other "let's add unique X" posts in this forum, and to no end they are disappointing.
To refer to your second post (because the first one wasn't really contributing anything):
I responded directly to the thread and your post by saying adding more complexity to the game only adds more problems. The three trait argument has been posted before (only for all three on leaders instead of two on leaders and one on a civ). The two trait system as currently implemented is simple and it gives clear and obvious bonuses that aren't directly related to the terrain (well, as much as can be done--even then, you can get the financial bonus from several sources (seas, any flat land cottages, special resources), so it isn't as terrain-dependent as someone is going to post that it is).
Adding some stuff that has been already posted in this thread (not your post, in others), I argued the above.
Against your post, it's the Starcraft argument. I've posted it before, and I'm not going to now because I'm sort on time. The long story short, adding more "unique" factors makes balancing harder, and it makes the game harder to learn how to play. I think right now there is a balance between strategic involvement with your traits, UU, and UB, and simplicity.
I don't know what your second to last line is, sounds like BS.
EDIT: Fixed quote brackets.
@ Englor: Yes I read your post. And I've read just about all the other "let's add unique X" posts in this forum, and to no end they are disappointing.
To refer to your second post (because the first one wasn't really contributing anything):
I responded directly to the thread and your post by saying adding more complexity to the game only adds more problems. The three trait argument has been posted before (only for all three on leaders instead of two on leaders and one on a civ). The two trait system as currently implemented is simple and it gives clear and obvious bonuses that aren't directly related to the terrain (well, as much as can be done--even then, you can get the financial bonus from several sources (seas, any flat land cottages, special resources), so it isn't as terrain-dependent as someone is going to post that it is).
Adding some stuff that has been already posted in this thread (not your post, in others), I argued the above.
Against your post, it's the Starcraft argument. I've posted it before, and I'm not going to now because I'm sort on time. The long story short, adding more "unique" factors makes balancing harder, and it makes the game harder to learn how to play. I think right now there is a balance between strategic involvement with your traits, UU, and UB, and simplicity.
I don't know what your second to last line is, sounds like BS.
EDIT: Fixed quote brackets.
Similar threads
