Personality traits should be gamebreaking

[jamesddd]

Is anyone else kinda dissatisfied with the bonuses that traits give? I mean, you can basically play your intended style no matter what traits your leader has, if traits were a lot more gamebreaking and greatly affected your play style, wouldnt that be a bit more fun? Think about this, in addition to the current bonuses that each trait has right now, a cool boost would really add some spice to the game:

Aggressive: +25% melee, siege, and mounted unit production, no war weariness. Free combat one promotion on mounted also now
Protective: +25% archery and gunpowder unit production, +100% war weariness for opponents except against aggressive leaders
Financial: +2 instead of +1 extra commerce on each plot, double production speed of markets, grocers, and banks
Organized: No anarchy (yeah i'm changing spiritual), -20% city maintenance
Spiritual: Instead of no anarchy, have it very conducive to religious/cultural type games. Free (1 turn missionaries), -25% cost of researching techs that found religions, half priced cathedrals, +5 happiness for having state religion present in the city.
Expansive: Free granary in each city, +3 health per city, half priced settlers + workers
Charismatic: +3 happiness per city, +200% great general emergence (i'm basically just gonna eliminate imperialistic as a trait), barracks give +6 exp instead of +3
Industrious: +25% production for every building type, half priced factories, levees
Creative: All cities begin instantly with 2nd level of culture (instant bfc), free library in each city, when competing with rival borders, a creative civ will get all tiles in their cities bfc (like with vassals), cities cannot revolt
Philsophical: +2 beakers per specialist, +1 free specialist per city


any thoughts? What do you think would be the best trait? ^^

 

[kossin]

If all traits were gamebreaking, you'd end up at the same place as they'd balance each other out as they pretty much already do. Which is kinda nice as it opens up gameplay possibilities.

Aggressive, Financial, Organized, Expansive, Creative and Philosophical seem pretty good from your list.
Expansive and any economic tech would be REX until you win.
Expansive/Creative'd be scary.

 

[Kornaki]

The definition of gamebreaking is that it breaks the game. How is this a good thing?

 

[Bleys]

I dont think he means game-breaking, I think he means game-defining. In other words, your game should be more centrally strategically oriented based on the traits you have, which would mean the same game with each leader would go very differently because of the power of the traits.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You know, some people like the fact that the strategy they adopt does not solely depend on the leader they are dealt.

With the suggested traits above, there would be fewer decisions to make each game because only one strategy would be clearly optimal. That equals bad game design because players like to have to think.

For example, who's gonna be a builder if they roll an Agg leader with those traits? No war weariness also means police state has less value and no need to build jails. Bonus production for melee, siege and mounted is just nuts. No thanks.

 

[Cashew]

I dislike the idea. In a game like Civ you can try to steer towards one direction of play, but unlike fighter games or FPS's where you can balance uniquely different "characters" the core of the Civilization game lends itself to certain "game-breaking" styles being overwhelmingly dominant in certain game types. For example, Aggressive Expansive (shaka) is the only leader anyone would use in a teamer because he would run train on every other leader that tried to stand in his way.

Quite frankly, a lot of these remind me of the "uber traits" thread that got started a while back. Most leaders wouldn't need more than 1 of these traits to be able to compete at well above the level of any of the current leaders.

 

[AlienSexFilth]

If you think that current trait's don't dictate your playstyle, I think you should better take a closer look of your playstyle...

 

[Razzlesnaff]

I think traits are designed in such a way that they compliment certain strategies rather than define them. You don't need to be an Aggressive leader to win a war, but it certainly compliments a warring strategy.

I would certainly not like the game as much if essentially I had to play as certain leaders to play a certain strategy. I like my traits just the way they are. (Except for Protective...)

 

[gfm]

I think traits are designed in such a way that they compliment certain strategies rather than define them. You don't need to be an Aggressive leader to win a war, but it certainly compliments a warring strategy.

I would certainly not like the game as much if essentially I had to play as certain leaders to play a certain strategy. I like my traits just the way they are. (Except for Protective...)

I agree with that. Civilization is a very complex game where you manage a lot of different factors, be they geographical, military, diplomatic, etc. Traits are an enabling mechanic that favors some options, but I like the fact that it is quite subtle and open. For example : Aggressive gives your early rush an extra oomph, but what if you're isolated ? You can build up peacefully till Astronomy before you go in a drafting spree to conquer you intercontinental rivals ! (Aggressive synergizes heavily with Nationhood)

I like the idea of making leaders uniquely powerful, though, but I think this idea fits more in Civilization:Revolution, which is a real blast to play at first, but becomes less interesting in the long run than Civilization IV (if CIV doesn't overwhelm you by its sheer complexity, that is ).

 

[Killroyan]

Charismatic and agressive is scary . .. .. .. .. At least if the other stuff still counts. 6 exp from baracks, 3 more from stable and a free combat 1 promotion means combat IV horse archers straight away or CII/flanking II HA. Yikes.

Creative and expansive is the dream of a cultural conquest always peace game

 

[enigmagic]

I wouldn't like these traits as standard as I wouldn't like to feel like I'm being railroaded into playing a certain way.

Could be fun to play once in a while in a mod though.

 

[obsolete]

I mean, you can basically play your intended style no matter what traits your leader has...

If you're playing on Monarch, sure...

 

[troytheface]

the personality of the player is usually game breaking.

traits may be deceptive for those that think that which they are not perhaps.
(selecting non optimal traits they think are optimal...)

as stated above, many games start with "and i am Rome , no tech brokering and etc"
or i am Ragnar, Archepelgo, with ..."
In other words many "high" level victories are merely reloading, weighted frauds. not impressed.

 

[JonathanStrange]

I wouldn't mind have the OP's basic idea as an option: too often I see strategies and suggestions mostly devoid of any reference to what leader you've chosen; frequently little or no mention of a civ's traits is made. Is that stifling, forcing one to play in a certain fashion? Well, it should be, this is a game that is supposedly a reflection of history - it's not a simulation yet there must be more to it than calling one AI Montezuma and another Catherine the Great.

So if one had the easily enabled/disabled option to tighten that historical straitjacket, even if it meant some stereotypical, predictable AIs at times, then I'd choose it. It might make the game more flavorful for those who chose to play it with those settings. Others can choose the not to play any civ a particular way and continue the less civ-specific strategies.

 

[Bleys]

Another great thing about this game is that they released the source code, so you can pretty much do anything you want to your own copy of the game. If someone thinks its fun beefing up the traits, then so be it, go for it. Remember the AIs will have beefed up traits too. Anyone want to play Shaka or Boudi with those "adjusted" traits?

And troy, you bring this same crap to every single thread you post in. You basically call the posters on this forum cheaters who cant play the game without reloads or "best fit" leaders. Well your wrong, TOTALLY wrong. Many players on this board are into the HoF and GOTM and Gauntlets, and none of those allow re-loads. As far as public games, I see many players who purposely adjust the settings to be MORE DIFFICULT, not easier.

I am sure that there is a percentage of posters here that are as you describe, but I hardly think its a majority, and in fact, I bet its a fairly small sliver of the total population.

So stop making sweeping remarks that are intended to be insulting to EVERYONE. You have yet to post a single report on an actual game you played, so I think its YOU who is posing, not the other members of this board. YOU have no real skill, other than "confuse them with stupidity so they have to think more". Lets see the Great Attacko at work in some actual game situations, otherwise, stop the broken record of accusations and lies.

 

[troytheface]

thank you for the comments

i, however, don't take orders from strangers on a game board that get uptight and
whom i consider lower in skill.

on the other hand i encourage skepticism and as forthrightedly defending one's ideas as vigorously as any one else's.

 

[amit9up]

Interesting idea, it should be configurable though for those who prefer current traits

 

[Antilogic]

I wouldn't like these traits as standard as I wouldn't like to feel like I'm being railroaded into playing a certain way.

Could be fun to play once in a while in a mod though.

The way it is now doesn't "railroad" you into a particular type of play, but still offers significant bonuses that make the game easier to win. Like Philosophical's great person bonus. To be the best and beat those high-up Deity and Immortal games, you have to milk your traits for all they are worth. For the average levels and below, you can milk them or adapt a new style. And if you are new and don't have much experience, you don't need to worry about MMing every turn to maximize the benefits of your traits--just play.

It's flexible, it's minimalist (in the sense that you don't have a list of 20 effects, just 1-3 based on the trait)...I'll vote for the current system.

 

[gfm]

The way it is now doesn't "railroad" you into a particular type of play, but still offers significant bonuses that make the game easier to win. Like Philosophical's great person bonus. To be the best and beat those high-up Deity and Immortal games, you have to milk your traits for all they are worth. For the average levels and below, you can milk them or adapt a new style. And if you are new and don't have much experience, you don't need to worry about MMing every turn to maximize the benefits of your traits--just play.

It's flexible, it's minimalist (in the sense that you don't have a list of 20 effects, just 1-3 based on the trait)...I'll vote for the current system.

enigmagic was trying to say the exact same thing, actually. I concur, by the way.

 

[Bleys]

See, heres the thing troy. I dont dislike you. I actually warmed up to your "style" of giving advice, and I now thoroughly enjoy the "other half" of your personality. The Amphib Ele/Babylon half.

But this other stuff, bro, come on, look at this comment

In other words many "high" level victories are merely reloading, weighted frauds. not impressed.

?? This isnt the first thread you have made such comments in either.

I dont care for that "half" of you troy. Sorry. It actually ruins the other part too. Stay with the cool, abstract game hints personality (cottages on hills, because in MP, if you keep em on flatland, its like giving your opponent free money because they cant be defended. But on a hill with a GIII Archer in defense, they may think twice, or at least they will waste time with it).

This other bitter, vindictive, namecalling thing, thats not you bro, thats not your style, you need to be above the petty to be the superior.