19 Unused Trait Combinations

[Rancid Sushi]

It was just a point. To the Persians, Xerxes was a great man...and maybe leaders ought to be portrayed as they were, or, failing that, as how their people saw them....not how Europeans saw them....

I never said Xerxes wasn't great. My point was that portraying Xerxes as a scary mofo would be a more accurate representation of his greatness, IMO. I'm not one of those shi-shi fu-fu liberal peacemongers who looks down on conquerers. I actually have more respect for leaders who aren't afraid to pursue greatness and elevate their nations into empires. I don't play CIV to get an exercise in diplomacy or build a superior culture. I play as aggressive leaders so I can crush everyone else, therefore I would like for such leaders to look more intimidating. It's strictly for aesthetic appeal, I don't care about historical accuracy as long as the game is fun. Guess I should've been more clear on that earlier.

 

[khumak]

Agg/Cha who here thinks that'd be overpowered? I don't think it's anymore over powered then Toku's Agg/Prot.

Sure you can get a miliatry production city and use all military Civics and plus west point, Heroic Epic and military Academy , Instructors and pentagon and be the ultimate warmonger but I dont think it'd be any better then Toku.

Besides Toku get Drafted Unit with automatic 3 promotions. can you call that not overpowered? You can get 3 of them every turn and amass an army quicker then the Agg/Cha Civ.

So I believe Agg/Cha should be in the next expansion, not sure which leader he'll be though, hopefully not a gunpowder or melee UU. Unless it's extremely weak liek the Aztec Jag.

Edit: I don't know much about history but from a game balance stand point, I think Napolean would suit an Agg/Cha Leader, His UU is the Musketeer and hiis UB is the Salon (replaces Observatory) His UU ain't exactly overpowered and have a short lifespan if you dont beeline to gunpowder that And I miss drafting combat 1 Musketeers LOL

IMO, Agg/Cha is FAR superior to Agg/Prot. In fact I prefer Prot/Cha over Agg/Prot as well.

Agg gives a nice boost to your melee units in the early to mid game and then becomes totally obsolete in the late game/gunpowder/armor era.

Prot gives a nice boost to your archers which also carries into the late game gunpowder units but gives no boost to the late game armor units.

Cha gives a boost to ALL military units for the entire game and stacks with Agg making your early to mid game melee units crazy powerful. On top of that it also gives you a happiness boost which is useful in just about every situation. Cha also makes using GGs for warlords a reasonable option, making all of those warlord only promotions cheaper. Try Qin in the Chinese scenario and be amazed...

IMO Prot/Cha is superior to Agg/Prot too due to the stacking possible in the gunpowder era. Not quite as good in the early game but archers/crossbows with multiple levels of drill and combat are suprisingly good offensively in addition to being practically indestructible defensively. Give Churchill a try and beeline for crossbows. Trust me, he's a beast.

 

[kniteowl]

IMO, Agg/Cha is FAR superior to Agg/Prot. In fact I prefer Prot/Cha over Agg/Prot as well.

Agg gives a nice boost to your melee units in the early to mid game and then becomes totally obsolete in the late game/gunpowder/armor era.

Prot gives a nice boost to your archers which also carries into the late game gunpowder units but gives no boost to the late game armor units.

Cha gives a boost to ALL military units for the entire game and stacks with Agg making your early to mid game melee units crazy powerful. On top of that it also gives you a happiness boost which is useful in just about every situation. Cha also makes using GGs for warlords a reasonable option, making all of those warlord only promotions cheaper. Try Qin in the Chinese scenario and be amazed...

IMO Prot/Cha is superior to Agg/Prot too due to the stacking possible in the gunpowder era. Not quite as good in the early game but archers/crossbows with multiple levels of drill and combat are suprisingly good offensively in addition to being practically indestructible defensively. Give Churchill a try and beeline for crossbows. Trust me, he's a beast.

I believe we Agree with one things, each of the Warmonger trait combinations are more powerful then the other depending on the time period. Cha/Prot generally most powerful in the Ancient/Middle Age era with their Drill 4 Promoted Archers but can countered by Horse archers and Knights whom are immune to First strikes, sure you can pillage and capture horses to deny your opponent AI from building them but there's always Saladin with his Resourceless UU Camel Archer (replaces Knights).

Agg/Prot is generally has the Advantage Post Nationalism where you can Produce Fresh Armies from the Draft with 3 Free Promotions, and you can produce quite quickly, compared to Cha/Prot where you'd have it's take longer, and on higher level, time is of the essence, because if you attack 1 turn too late, your units may not have the advantage or are too weak and obsolete to properly attack your opponent.

But to be realistic, you have to include the Leaders who own these Combinations, Churchill , even after the Ancient and middle ages is still a powerful warmonger, in the early industrial age with his UU Redcoats, Drafting Protective Redcoats can be quite powerful and could possibly counter the high Promoted Japanese 3 promotion rifles.

Toku on the other Hand has his Samurai's in the Middles Ages which could Cut down Churchill's Drill 4 Archery Units if in the right situation and properly promoted.

Chances are Agg/Cha would be more powerful then both of these combinations I stated above, throughout the entire game, unless used incorrectly. Your only 8XP away from March Melee and and Gunpowder units

 

[LAnkou]

Hi everyone,

before giving my list, i will tell you that

first, it's incomplete (because i don't think we will have so many new leaders)
second, a great part of it include leaders for existing civ. I didn't take civ
-with two leaders that aren't so different or totally unknown (in my own concept of the whole thing); i.e. Carthage/Incas/Aztecs/zulus
-that has more than one leader (personnal choice, those with two could have a third one, but enough complain about that)
third, the new civ are those that i think would appear in the next expansion.

existing civ:
Spain: Philippe II FIN/EXP
Ottoman: Suleyman IND/IMP
Celts: Boadicea AGG/CHA (need a girl who fights)
Arabs: Abou bakr SPI/IMP (but any great "muslim conquerer" could fit)
Grece: Pericles CRE/PHI (i think no one will complain that these two traits fits this leader)
Vikings: Canute PRO/ORG
Korea: Sejong CRE/PRO (i know, enough extreme asian protective leaders, but hey "never fight a land war in asia")
Japan: Meiji IND/CHA (i think there will be no complaints there too)
Persia: Abbas I the great AGG/ORG (this one will be debated i think, but persia isn't only 300!!...)
Mali: Sundjata Keita FIN/ORG (another gold whore mali, i know)

New civ:
Portugal: Henry the navigator IMP/EXP (because he really launch the colonisation movement)
Netherland: Guillaume of Orange FIN/CRE (won't be much discussion i think)
Babylone: Hammurabi CHA/PHI
Amerindians: Sitting Bull PRO/PHI (i know amerindians are different tribes, nation and all, but like the celts, they are a common "civ" to me)

that leaves the forbidden industrious philosophical and:
Cre/Exp
Cre/Cha
Imp/Phi
Imp/Pro

wadoyufink?

 

[mitsho]

I disagree with you that for example the Inca do not deserve a second leader. They do. And in gameplay terms, it is actually wishable too as too much unity among these civs can get annoying quite soon, why not have a non-stereotype aztec btw too? But I must say that at the moment I can't tell you another good and accepted leader for the Aztec (and I'm in no mood to look it up ).

For the Incas however, why not Pachacuti (Imp/Pro)?

For Others I suggest

Poland: Ian III. Sobieski CHA/CRE (no one else fits that description more than him imho..)
Khmer: Jayavarman CRE/EXO (don't get me on the spelling, you know who I'm talking off )
Assyrians: xy IMP/PHI (I can't recall one exactly, but imho there are several that fit the criteria...

Few other foughts on yours:
Arabs: I personally dislike Abu Bakr, I'd rather have someone like Harun al-Rashid, but yes - as a Historian - I must succede, Abu Bakr probably fits more... (But I'd like to have a peaceful Arab powerhouse: I suggest Abd ar-Rahman III. , he was the first ruler of the Caliphat of Cordoba and the empire flourished under him)
Vikings: Suggestion: Change the name to scandinavians and pick for example Gustavus Vasa or Queen Margarete. we have enough Vikings...
Persia: Abbas I is great, I would havbe picked Shapur I. though, as i have a bias for the sasanids, abbas I nevertheless the better choice.
Mali: Yes, you said it... I didn't even know that person before though.

Btw. What does speak against having a third leader for Rome for example?

mfG mick

 

[LAnkou]

a lotof people complained about russia and england having a third leader whereas some still have only one...particulary Greece

and about the incas, my little knowledge of them prevent me from chosing a decent leader...i'm french

Notice by the way that despite the fact french should have another leader considering what they gave to history and mankind (well, admit it: all leaders should be french IMO), i didn't put another for other civ not being astonished by the greatness of French leaders, particulary military ones...and stick to the no more 3 leaders civ!!!

 

[SilverTab]

We all know Hitler was Agg/Chr

 

[kniteowl]

We all know Hitler was Agg/Chr

Please! not another Hilter Thread I beg of you... especially this thread :S

 

[SilverTab]

*whispering*
Hehehe...sorry, didn't know that Hitler threads were a problem! I'm pretty new. So if I ever say anything about Hitler, I'll just whisper...

 

[kniteowl]

*whispering*
Hehehe...sorry, didn't know that Hitler threads were a problem! I'm pretty new. So if I ever say anything about Hitler, I'll just whisper...

It's all good as long as no one starts up a debate about why Hitler should be Agg/Cha and be included in the game etc... it's been done a million times... no seriously I'm not exsaggerating... well maybe a little. Besides there are better Leaders to chose from, I wouldn't know which one, I'm not a Historian, actually I've never studied history unless you count the history channel lmao

Btw I believe There's a Hitler Thread over in the general forum, just search for it with the search option, if you're interested.

 

[Antilogic]

The Hitler debate...guys, Germany has two great candidates besides him: Otto I and Barbarossa. Less controversial, still wildly important and great nation-builders, didn't leave their country in ruins divided into puppet states between two superpowers...come on.

For Persia, I have suggested Darius before. Just not Xerxes, please--he was as nearly useless as you can get. Darius still consolidated the empire, and even if he lost Marathon, he conquered Thrace and Macedon. He at least won some battles instead of getting a humiliating pasting over and over again by the Greeks.

Suleiman and Abu Bakr are solid picks for the Middle Eastern civs.

As for Pericles, although Cre/Phi is a good match, you have to look at the whole man. His rapid temple building programs in Athens, building the Parthenon and the famous Acropolis, could earn him Industrious. Not to mention Cha--he was elected to the head generalship 15 times in Athens, an unprecedented feat. He had a way with words and influence that was incredible. He also believed war with Sparta was inevitable, and since it was, he pushed for war (the result was the Peloponnesian War) when it looked like Athens could take over the sum of Greece--warmonger traits like Aggressive or Imperialistic could fit him as well. And if only those idiots Nicias and Alcibiades didn't mess up with that Sicilian campaign...but I digress.

Your Meiji traits match mine, and I'm glad you picked Meiji over Hirohito, the all-to-commonly suggested Japanese leader. May praise be heaped upon LAnkou!

On the new civs, you mention Guillaume of Orange: in Dutch, that would be Willem, and more than likely would be translated as William of Orange. Can't say I can put up a fight there, I was just confused as to who you were referring to (and saved anyone else in this thread from looking it up).

Overall, not a bad list, although I oppose the "Amerindians" civ name--at least call them the "Plains Indians" or something like that. The Aztecs, Maya, and Inca are also American Indians, and hence "Amerindians". It's confusing.

I'd wait until we actually see more of the Civs that will be in the game before we try to guess more leaders. I would guess one or two of those may get two leaders, reducing the ones added to Civs we know will probably be about 4-5. And Honest Abe is already in (hell yeah!). So that's the 3-4 range.

 

[Breunor]

I have to say I'm not crazy about Perikles for Greece. I would prefer his rival Cimon. Perikles led what we would think of as the pro-Athenian view, while Cimon was an early believer of Pan-Hellenism and viewed that the Greeks should unite against Persia. He's probably as close as we can get to a total 'Greek' leader in the early glory days.

I think other Athenians are better choices than Perikles, who led them into the Pelopennesian War. Other good Athenian choices are Themistocles (lead to athens being a naval power, but he was eventually ostracized), Cleisthenes, who invented their modern democracy, and maybe Solon.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[LightSpectra]

If Byzantium is going to be in the expansion pack, Constantine I the Great should definitely be Spirit/Imp.

Also, I maintain that Napoleon should be Agg/Org.

 

[SkippyT]

Vikings: Suggestion: Change the name to scandinavians and pick for example Gustavus Vasa or Queen Margarete. we have enough Vikings...

Yes, Cre/Cha, IMO is good for her ..or even him. And yes, Vikings into Scandinavia!!

 

[mtncake1]

I would like to see more leaders for all races. Also, it would be interesting if there were every combination of leader traits which were possible to be combined. More variety would be much welcomed.

 

[Antilogic]

@mtncake1: It looks like all but three will be used in the expansion. The speculated "out" traits are:

Aggressive/Charismatic
Industrious/Philosophical
Financial/Organized

Besides that, however, the other combos are in...it's just a matter of matching the traits to the leader, something Civ4 hasn't done well in the past...

Washington as Charismatic/Expansive? WTF? Expansive?
I see the Charismatic, being the head of a Revolutionary Army that managed to organize it from the ground up, keeping it together despite the lack of funds, and being perhaps the only American to be the first president--there really weren't any other serious candidates besides him. Adams and Jefferson did not have the appeal Washington did. But Expansive? How? Washington deserves Organized more than Expansive, and probably Financial as well (Hamilton).

 

[LightSpectra]

Suleiman the Magnificent (Ottomans) should be in the expansion pack, he was a significant leader.

Obviously, he'd be organized, but I'd go with his next trait to be either philosophical or creative. Both of those are taken. The only secondary traits he can take are either aggressive or protective - I would go with the former, given his military prowess.