19 Unused Trait Combinations

[Watiggi]

Seeing as how you think Constantine's favourite civic should be serfdom, when in fact that system did not even exist until well after Constantine's time basically ends this discussion.

The same could be said for Monty, Genghis and Qin with Police State. From a games perspective, just because a civic doesn't have a name to it, doesn't mean that it wasn't used. Imperialism is only a new word and yet the act has been around for a very long time.

 

[SkippyT]

1. Aggressive/Charismatic - No one
2. Aggressive/Organized* - Hitler of Germany - Grang conqueror (Agg) and the Nazis were extremely organized (Org)
3. Charismatic/Creative - Margareth I of Scandinavia - United Scandinavia (Cha) and united the cultures? (Cre)
4. Charismatic/Industrious - Pericles of Greece - Built up Athens (Ind) and the folks were happy (Cha)
5. Charismatic/Philosophical - Joan of Arc of France? - Got revelations from God (Phi..might be Spi) and made the [pathetic] French good (Cha)
6. Creative/Expansive* - Polish leader - Vast empire in the Lithuanian-Polish commonwealth (exp) and culture? (Cre)
7. Creative/Financial* - 2nd Korean leader - don't know..just suites Korea
8. Creative/Philosophical* - Maya leader - Exotic and unique culture (Cre) and astonoshing science (Phi)
9. Creative/Protective - late Byzantine leader - Defended Constantinople from Turks (Pro) and I don't know why he has to have Creative..
10. Expansive/Financial* - El Cid of Spain - destroyed the Arabs (Exp) and was filthy rich (Fin)
11. Expansive/Imperialistic - Hadrian of Rome - Empire from the Scottish borders to Mesopotamia (Exp-Imp)
12. Financial/Organized* - No one
13. Imperialistic/Industrious - Siamese leader - Built up a great empire (Ind) and expanded the country (Imp), there must be someone who did that for Siam, because every civ could have a leader with Imp/Ind..
14. Imperialistic/Philosophical - Constantine of the Byzantines - Expanded the country (Imp) and got some freaky revelations (Phi)
15. Imperialistic/Protective - ?
16. Imperialistic/Spiritual - Abu Bakr of Arabia - Expanded the empire (Imp) with the Quran in his hand (Spi)
17. Industrious/Philosophical - No one
18. Organized/Protective - Boudica of Celts - Defended from Romans (Pro-Org)
19. Philosophical/Protective - ?

These are just some ideas..

 

[Nilmerf]

The same could be said for Monty, Genghis and Qin with Police State. From a games perspective, just because a civic doesn't have a name to it, doesn't mean that it wasn't used. Imperialism is only a new word and yet the act has been around for a very long time.

I agree with you there, but serfdom really didn't exist until the Middle Ages. It is completely incompatible with the Roman concept of citizenship and land ownership.

 

[Watiggi]

2. Aggressive/Organized* - Hitler of Germany - Grang conqueror (Agg) and the Nazis were extremely organized (Org)

I have allways thought of and like the idea of Hitler being Charismatic/Philosophical. It's different from the norm Agg/Cha or something else that has a high level of over the top military synergy. If he actually was in the game, I would think that Firaxis would make him something like Cha/Phi.

I agree with you there, but serfdom really didn't exist until the Middle Ages. It is completely incompatible with the Roman concept of citizenship and land ownership.

Not that I really want to get into this argument, but I did find something that suggested there was serfom in the Roman empire:

Serfdom was known in the Hellenistic civilization, and in the Roman Empire economic maladjustment led to the appearance of the servile class, the coloni. In the Middle Ages, serfdom developed in France, Italy, and Spain, later spread to Germany...

 

[Nilmerf]

Not that I really want to get into this argument, but I did find something that suggested there was serfom in the Roman empire:

Of course it depends on what source you use. My history textbooks in front of me say serfdom didn't exist until the Middle Ages. My professor always says that you can't use overlaying terms like serfdom and feudalism because you have to define them every time you use them. I guess I see now that he's right!

Anyways, my real argument is that I want Constantine, El Cid, and Pericles in the game! I'm sure Firaxis has a team of historians much more qualified than this forum, so they'd be sure to assign everyone the appropriate traits.

 

[Amenmesse]

Seeing as how you think Constantine's favourite civic should be serfdom, when in fact that system did not even exist until well after Constantine's time basically ends this discussion.

Anyways, the main point is.. we need El Cid! Spain desperately needs a second leader. And El Cid is amazing. Anyone read "The Poem of the Cid"? A great, fairly short read that depicts Cid as the epitome of chivalry and loyal vassalage. And I don't use the word epitome lightly! Awesome stuff.

Nope, incorrect. The name 'serfdom' itself is a later termology (although derived from the Latin servus meaning slave) , but Constantine developed the concept of the system and enforced it in the empire and although it can be argued that concepts of serfdom have been present in most societies since the appearance of structured chiefdoms, Constantine defined serfdom in his edicts of 332AD specifically addressing the concerns of tenant farmers..
Read any discussion of Early Medieval Europe and you will see that serfdom origins is the laws passed by Constantine, specifically those in 332AD that transformed free coloni into serfs. Their servile and bonded status was even referred to in the Constitution of 321AD.

The fundamental principle of serfdom, as alluded to in the Civilopedia, is that it implies that one group of people have the rights and powers to control the destiny of others, but unlike in slavery, the people being controlled agree to their servile position. In the emerging Byzantine social system it would be Constantines bonded coloni who would form the lowest class.

The Late Roman Empire faced declining birthrates and a shortage of labour. Successive administrations had tried to stabilise the situation by freezing the social structure of the rural provinces - crafts and trades were made hereditary, so that sons could not leave their professions for more lucrative jobs. Councillors were forbidden to resign and the coloni, cultivators of the agricultural land, were not to move from the demesne (the plot of land that is characteristic of the serf system) they were attached to (as in serfdom).
Indeed, former slaves and former free farmers were, by the laws and edicts of Constantine, made into a dependent class of the coloni (forming the lowest level of populace in the feudal system, apart from criminals).

Constantine passed a series of laws around 325 AD that only reinforced the servile position of the coloni, limited further their rights to free action outside of the demesne (as in serfdom).

With a declining birthrate and population, labor was the key factor of production. Successive administrations tried to stabilise the imperial economy by freezing the social structure into place: sons were to succeed their fathers in their trade. Councillors were forbidden to resign, and coloni, the cultivators of land, were not to move from the demesne they were attached to. They were on their way to becoming serfs. Several factors conspired to merge the status of former slaves and former free farmers into a dependent class of such coloni. Laws of Constantine I around 325 reenforced both the negative semi-servile status of the coloni and limited their rights to sue in the courts. Their numbers were augmented by barbarian foederati who were permitted to settle within the imperial boundaries.

Constantine demonstrated through numerous edicts and rulings that he was Therefore is it complete reasonable, and more historically correct, to say that Constantine's favour civic would be serfdom, rather than 'free religion' (which in itself is connected to liberalism - something completely at odds with the conservative nature of Byzantine politics).

 

[kristopherb]

Imperialistic/Protective- kim gon in(current koroa leader)

 

[Underseer]

Actually, it would be interesting if they factored in 'negative' traits, like you have with the faction leaders in Medieval: Total War. Although I have a feeling it would generate some controvesy and more than a few complaints

Isabella: Spiritual, Expansive, Religious Maniac

That would be cool! Two positive traits and one negative traits would make it harder for the devs to balance, but it would make things very interesting for us.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

lots of text here..

Thank you, that was very informative post, i really appreciate it. You must be history buffy .

 

[Nay]

1. Aggressive/Charismatic - No one

Agamemnon qualifies i think.
2nd Greek leader ftw!

 

[tomasjj]

2. Aggressive/Organized* - Hitler of Germany

Sorry, but I think it is a common misconception that Hitlers Germany was very organised, the nazi party surely wasnt, and he as a person was not either.
He also believed in the survival of the fittest, and thus left a lot of things in the hand of his helpers, thinking that the strongest would prevail and enforce his solution. And he was a lazy worker too, slacking about in his retreats.

He was charismatic though, so AGG/CHA would be better imo.

 

[SkyknightXi]

We really need to get Sejong the Great (Korea, of course) in here. Somehow, I'm thinking that either Creative/Protective or Philosophical/Protective would work well. (Okay, so I'm looking for an excuse to GET Phi/Pro to play with and still manage role-playing. What's your point?)

The particularly tricky part is favored civic. Religiously/philosophically, he seems to have been both Buddhist and Confucian. From the Confucian, Caste System comes easily (especially since this was around the heyday of neo-Confucianism)...although Wang Kon already has that. However, tempering that with how readily Sejong worked on behalf of the lower classes (q.v. hangul et al.), I'm wondering if Representation would work (five Confucian relationships and attendant precepts*appreciation for what the common man seeks and speaks). Easy this is not going to be...

As for AI technology weighting, easy. Science 5/Culture 2 or Culture 5/Science 2 (if I'm understanding the weighting correctly, that is. I think the weight is added to any existing such score for a technology, and the AI tends to go after cheaper techs with the highest score among each category?).

 

[WoolyWoolwine83]

I suggest:

Charismatic/Philisophical: Ronald Reagan (don't start an arguement if you didn't think he was a good president.)
Charismatic/Industrious: Teddy Roosevelt
Philisophical/Industrious: Abe Lincoln.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Charismatic/Industrious: Teddy Roosevelt

I think Imperialist would fit him better then Industrious. Panama Canal, his participation in the Spanish-American war and taking advantage economically of the countries "won" through it.

 

[SkyknightXi]

The only problem is that we already have a Charismatic/Imperialistic in Cyrus...

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Ah yeah. Hmm. Maybe Imperialist/Philo then for him. He did contribute over many decades of political thought.

 

[Antilogic]

I suggest:

Charismatic/Philisophical: Ronald Reagan (don't start an arguement if you didn't think he was a good president.)
Charismatic/Industrious: Teddy Roosevelt
Philisophical/Industrious: Abe Lincoln.

I'm not going to start an argument over Reagan's policies, but I think Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson are more deserving of a slot in Civ than he is.

I would suggest Protective and Organized for Abe Lincoln as alternate trait ideas, and probably Philosophical and something else for Jefferson...Expansive fits like a glove, but a certain Peter the Great has that combo. Creative/Philosophical may fit--those are Frederick's old traits.


EDIT: I'm not going to post my entire wish list, but here's another idea: does anyone else agree with a Charismatic/Industrious Emperor Meiji of Japan?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

That would be cool! Two positive traits and one negative traits would make it harder for the devs to balance, but it would make things very interesting for us.

It would make the game easier to balance.
Some combos seem to be forbidden for their synergy.
Aggressive/Charismatic, Philosophical/Industrious, and Financial/Organised (Washington had this combo in vanilla, but I always thought it was too strong).
You could argue that unique units and buildings are good to balance the traits, but the designers have failed here. Julius and Augustus both have high synergy trait combos, and their UU and UB are among the best, while the Redcoat probably has been nerved because he would be much too strong with Churchill.
You could change the Redcoat back to 16 strength and give Churchill a Drunkard trait for balance.

 

[abuaftab]

SKippy.
Imperialist Spiritual, not Abu Bakr, but rather Omar. These would not be good choices in my opinion, perhaps a later Caliph, like Harun Al-Rashid.

 

[Antilogic]

It would make the game easier to balance.
Some combos seem to be forbidden for their synergy.
Aggressive/Charismatic, Philosophical/Industrious, and Financial/Organised (Washington had this combo in vanilla, but I always thought it was too strong).
You could argue that unique units and buildings are good to balance the traits, but the designers have failed here. Julius and Augustus both have high synergy trait combos, and their UU and UB are among the best, while the Redcoat probably has been nerved because he would be much too strong with Churchill.
You could change the Redcoat back to 16 strength and give Churchill a Drunkard trait for balance.

Some people might get offended by that...but what the hell? Why don't we make an all negative traits mod? That way, you would only have unique penalties rather than benefits? We could have a "Filthy" trait that gives you unhealthiness, a "********" trait that doubles the production time of libraries, universities, and research labs, a "Cowardly" trait that gives all your units -10% strength...

It would be hilarious!