New Leaders (art, personalities, diplomacy texts)

[AbsintheRed]

Don't forget there will be many new leaders in the modpacks.
So we don't have to force greek leaders or Afonso to Seafaring, there will be many better candidates.
I agree on avoiding as much overlap as possible. But keep in mind, that there will be at around 100 leaders in the main release, and somewhere near 200 with the main modpacks (not counting just for fun, and similar civs).
And with 13 traits there are only 78 combos...


EDIT: veBear is right here, I can't even multiply
Of course not 72, there are 78 combos

[veBear]

Originally Posted by AbsintheRed

And with 13 traits there are only 72 combos...

I spot a problem...

[The Capo]

How is there a problem? No civ will have the same trait combinations, each leader has customized personalities so playing agianst one Charismatic/Organized leader won't be the same as playing against another Charismatic/Organized leader. I understand that we want to spread the traits out a bit, but if a few of them overlap so what?

[veBear]

What about an Agricultural Trait with +1 on plots with 3? Much like the financial trait, but with slightly difference. New trait gives new possibilities

[The Almighty dF]

Originally Posted by veBear

What about an Agricultural Trait with +1 on plots with 3? Much like the financial trait, but with slightly difference. New trait gives new possibilities

It's already been agreed that this would be too powerful.

Also, either Victoria or Elizabeth I should get Seafaring as well.

[Edgecrusher]

Originally Posted by The Capo

How is there a problem? No civ will have the same trait combinations, each leader has customized personalities so playing agianst one Charismatic/Organized leader won't be the same as playing against another Charismatic/Organized leader. I understand that we want to spread the traits out a bit, but if a few of them overlap so what?

I dont think there is anything necessary wrong with overlap, I just think we should be aware of the trait combinations, and avoid giving out a trait combination 3-4 times, when others arent used or are only used once. Many of the leaders could have 3-4 if not more traits, and the line between some (Imperialist and Aggresive) is sometimes very thin. So all I am saying is we should be aware, and maybe aim to use each combination at least once. Then from there, aim to use each twice, and so on.

Also for what its worth, Mathamatically its:
Adding 2 new traits is 78 combos, we if aim to do each twice, thats 156 total combinations
Adding 3 new traits is 91 combinations, 182 if we do each twice

52 Leaders in Civ4
67 Leaders are listed above
119 Total before Modules

That leaves 37 for Modules if we add 2 traits, 63 if we add 3 traits.
6/7 Module packs or so, each with 6 civz. thats 42 Civs with at most 2 leaders per making 84 Module Leaders.

Just saying, there is plenty of options to choose from. Imperialist/Charismatic is listed 3 times + Cyrus. Now I understand this is an exception rather than the rule.

I guess its my nature to "complete" things. In the end though, I know their are only bonuses, not personalities, and dont have as big an influence, but again its my nature.

Edit: fix spelling

[AbsintheRed]

Totally agree with you, I like to organize and balance everything like this too.
In fact, we already discussed this with Capo a month ago, there were a few posts about "trait balancing" in the other thread

My goal is to get not just the trait combos, but every trait by itself used more or less the same amount.
Every trait combo should be used maximum 3 times. Of course the goal here is to use them only 2 times where it is possible.
Of course there will be exceptions, probably with the new traits, but hopefully we will be able to do this in most cases...

[The Almighty dF]

Did anyone have any thoughts on my suggested changes to the personalities for Ramses and Lincoln? Notice nobody commented on them.

[Edgecrusher]

I would have to play against Lincoln to judge. On paper the changes look good.

Ramesses, I felt was fine the way he was, He is known for his building endeavors and monuments.
Yea he did have his battles, but I think 80 to 90% of the leaders in the game had their military endeavors. that is what made them the leader of the civ. (outside of Gandhi and a handful of others.)
With that said, I have never played a game that Ramesses was in that he was a pushover.
By the way, it could be argued that Ramesses didn't win the Battle of Kadesh, the battle for all purposes was a draw, maybe even a victory for the Hittites. The Egyptians certainly didn't take Kadesh, the Hittites didn't loose it.

[The Almighty dF]

Originally Posted by Edgecrusher

I would have to play against Lincoln to judge. On paper the changes look good.

Ramesses, I felt was fine the way he was, He is known for his building endeavors and monuments.
Yea he did have his battles, but I think 80 to 90% of the leaders in the game had their military endeavors. that is what made them the leader of the civ. (outside of Gandhi and a handful of others.)
With that said, I have never played a game that Ramesses was in that he was a pushover.
By the way, it could be argued that Ramesses didn't win the Battle of Kadesh, the battle for all purposes was a draw, maybe even a victory for the Hittites. The Egyptians certainly didn't take Kadesh, the Hittites didn't loose it.

True that they all had their military experiences, but for Ramses that's part of his image.
He needs to be a good mix of builder and warmonger. Someone that collects culture, builds wonders, -and- stomps his neighbor into the ground. That's how Ramses ruled.

And yeah, Kadesh was... basically a no-win. However, that doesn't really count as a strike against him as a warmonger. He's far from being the only military man to have lost in Civ4.

Also, in most of my games, Ramses plays too much like Hatshepsut. He builds up wonders, then gets taken over/vassalized by someone else.
If you look at his coding, it's obvious why. He's 75% Hatty, 25% FDR.

[The Capo]

Here's what I'll say to all of this:

Firstly, as far as balancing out the trait combos and traits themselves; I certainly do want to do that, and will definitely make that happen. Initially I just wanted to give out traits that make sense. After that, when we realign them this is the order or preference I want:

1. I want each civ to have balanced out traits, so that none of the leaders for one civ are the same trait-wise. There will be cases where traits will double, or sometimes triple (Vikings and Seafaring for example), but as much as possible I want a good mix on a per-civ basis.
2. The second in importance is overall balancing of the traits. So we get a good mix, but we have to first make sure that on a per-civ basis, there is a good mix.
3. Finally, I want to make sure that the traits make as much sense for the leader as is possible while keeping a mix. It is a tough balancing act, but this is the order of preference for me.

Which means first we should mix them up on a per-civ basis, then afterwards make sure there is a good overall mix, finally we should ensure that the traits make sense for the leader (i.e. Ghandi shouldn't be Aggressive). We have to balance these three things, but the order I listed is the order of preference for me. For the most part, more than two traits could be appropriate for the various leaders, so we do have a level of leeway here.

I am completely fine with changing the stock-leader personalities, so long as it isn't dramatic.

As far as Ramesses and the battle of Kadesh goes; while it was a draw the Egyptians ultimately benefitted from it, and even if the Hittites did technically impede their progress Ramesses definitely used it politically back home. Regardless of this, he should probably be slightly more aggressive, or at least engage in wars of opportunity.

Another thing I want to say is that we should NOT be considering modular leaders when deciding on the trait combinations. The reason for this is very simple; not all of the modules will be used by every player all the time. For sure, some will use many modules, but to me those are extras and should not be considered in the overall mix. For the modules we want the leaders per civ to be different and the traits to make sense, I'd like to basically ignore what the base-civ leaders' traits are when giving the modular civ leaders their traits. I know I put out module packs for you to test, but when we are discussing the mod let's basically put them out of our heads.

[The Almighty dF]

I have an idea for the third new trait.

Hear me out... change Expansive's name to Agrarian.
Cheap workers? Health bonus? Cheap granary? It makes sense.

Now, make an expansive trait that is a little closer to something truly expansive related.
My idea?
Reduced maintenance based on distance, +1 trade route per city.

How's that sound?

Also, dunno where else to put this... Can we change it so that one of Egypt's starting techs is Myst?
It just seems strange to me that such a religion-centered civilization doesn't start off with Myst. Maybe have them start with Myst + Wheel, or Myst + Mining (since stonework's generally what's associated with Egypt.)

[Edgecrusher]

Originally Posted by The Almighty dF

I have an idea for the third new trait.

Hear me out... change Expansive's name to Agrarian.
Cheap workers? Health bonus? Cheap granary? It makes sense.

Now, make an expansive trait that is a little closer to something truly expansive related.
My idea?
Reduced maintenance based on distance, +1 trade route per city.

How's that sound?

Also, dunno where else to put this... Can we change it so that one of Egypt's starting techs is Myst?
It just seems strange to me that such a religion-centered civilization doesn't start off with Myst. Maybe have them start with Myst + Wheel, or Myst + Mining (since stonework's generally what's associated with Egypt.)

I always thought the reason that Egypt didn't start with Mysticism was a balancing issue, specifically related to their UB the Obelisk and Stonehenge. I remember reading that the Obelisks bonus of two priest slots, was designed to get the Egyptians a religion quickly, giving them mysticism will let them get that sooner.

Not sure if that makes sense, or if I am pulling that out of my ass.

Also, I know Capo mentioned not wanting to change much from the core game, but if we are talking about changes Suyavarman II's favorite religion should be changed to Hinduism... not sure why it was ever Buddhism, seeing as he was a devote to the Hindu got Vishnu.

[The Capo]

I can change Sury's religion, that's fine.

Egypt stays like it is.

I kinda like the idea of the trait you suggested, TAdF, but at the same time I think it would still be a bit frivilous to add. I think until we get the final two extras ironed out (Seafaring and Nationalistic) we should refrain from thinking of a third.

[MadmanOfALeader]

Another thing... Gandhi's favorite civic should be Pacifism. US sounds like more Mandela's department.

[veBear]

Originally Posted by MadmanOfALeader

Another thing... Gandhi's favorite civic should be Pacifism. US sounds like more Mandela's department.

Agreed!
And I know you won't talk about a third trait right now, but i know that tsentom1 posted a wery useful strategic trait that halves the cost for unit upgrades (50%). If it is to powerful, i think that it sure can be changed to a smaller %. I can already think of a good deal of leaders who could fit to this trait, such as Hitler, who transferred Germany into a military superpower in few years, and Washington, who led the American troops agains a much more skilled and numerous British Continentals, and still he won. I bet there are a good deal of leaders fitting this trait.

[Vortilex]

I like that idea (wow, that was helpful of me )

[AbsintheRed]

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

[Edgecrusher]

Originally Posted by AbsintheRed

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.

[The Capo]

Well, that idea certainly has merit. I am a bit iffy on doing it though. If we were to do this, I would make the third trait a very slight one. In which case it would probably be something like one little bonus, the problem is when doing that some of the names wouldn't make sense anymore (nationalistic for example would suck, unless of course I split it in two and made it Secretive and Nationalistic, Secretive getting +2 Espionage points per city and Nationalistic getting the +1 happiness and/or +1/2 culture per NW). If I did go in this direction I'd give Seafaring only the +1 ship movement bonus, and Nomadic would either get something like a free horse resource (which is pretty strong) or a pillaging bonus. Although the pillaging bonus wouldn't make sense for certain nomadic peoples, like the Sioux for instance who I wouldn't say engaged in pillaging because it was in their nature, and only did so because they were up against a much stronger enemy (and in which case it was for materials and not for money).

I will give you this though, that is a pretty good idea the more I think about it.

EDIT: If I did this, I would most likely try to do it on a per-civ basis. But this also creates a whole new discussion.