19 Unused Trait Combinations
- Thread starter kniteowl
- Start date
Note: this is all assumptions and theories.
I've been wondering how powerful a Creative/Protective Civ would be on the Defense? Archers with Free CG1 & D1 combined with the early cultural Defense would be quite an annoying Civ to attack in the early stages of the game, you'd think twice before attacking if you didn't have a early UU, Pre-construction (Catapults). The only way to stop them would be to pillage them to the stone-age but if this Civ had a reasonable Pillage defender for UU then they'd could out tech you peacefully in the early stages of the game.
This trait combination would possibly be weak in the human hands, although it'd be great at fending off barbs.
Personally I wouldn't know how I'd play with this combination apart from the early peaceful expansion, possibly playing the game like I had no traits at all... until I reached gunpowder where Protective really Shines. Probably have half a mind to beeline to gun-powder.
I've been wondering how powerful a Creative/Protective Civ would be on the Defense? Archers with Free CG1 & D1 combined with the early cultural Defense would be quite an annoying Civ to attack in the early stages of the game, you'd think twice before attacking if you didn't have a early UU, Pre-construction (Catapults). The only way to stop them would be to pillage them to the stone-age but if this Civ had a reasonable Pillage defender for UU then they'd could out tech you peacefully in the early stages of the game.
This trait combination would possibly be weak in the human hands, although it'd be great at fending off barbs.
Personally I wouldn't know how I'd play with this combination apart from the early peaceful expansion, possibly playing the game like I had no traits at all... until I reached gunpowder where Protective really Shines. Probably have half a mind to beeline to gun-powder.
madviking
north american scum
My idea (i was bored and though of them, it's two for every civ and no civ has 4 or higher)
Hirohito Japan Imp Pro
King Dangun Korea Cha Phi
Parachuti Inca Agg Cha
Pericles Greeks Phi Ind
Tenoch Aztecs Ind Cha
Abu Bakr Arabs Imp Spi
Vercingitorix Celts Imp Ind
Hamilcar Barca Carthage Imp Exp
Sundiata Keita Mali Exp Fin
Suleiman the Great Ottomans Cre Fin
Xerxes Persia Imp Phi
Ferdinand II Spain Exp Cre
Canute Vikings Imp Pro
Cetshwayo Zulu Exp Cre
Lincoln America Org Fin
Charles de Gaulle France Pro Org
Hadrian Rome Pro Cre
Nefertiti Egypt Pro Phi
Charlemagne Germany Org Fin
Zhou Wuling China Cre Phi
Hirohito Japan Imp Pro
King Dangun Korea Cha Phi
Parachuti Inca Agg Cha
Pericles Greeks Phi Ind
Tenoch Aztecs Ind Cha
Abu Bakr Arabs Imp Spi
Vercingitorix Celts Imp Ind
Hamilcar Barca Carthage Imp Exp
Sundiata Keita Mali Exp Fin
Suleiman the Great Ottomans Cre Fin
Xerxes Persia Imp Phi
Ferdinand II Spain Exp Cre
Canute Vikings Imp Pro
Cetshwayo Zulu Exp Cre
Lincoln America Org Fin
Charles de Gaulle France Pro Org
Hadrian Rome Pro Cre
Nefertiti Egypt Pro Phi
Charlemagne Germany Org Fin
Zhou Wuling China Cre Phi
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
wow i do learn history from playing civ. i'd missed the original post the first time. i never knew there was an akbar other than in star wars.
completely non-civ story spoiler'd below.
Spoiler :
he'd have done that for star trek movies too (only those with TOS cast mind you), but they were always thanksgiving/christmas releases.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
50_dollar_bag
Imitation Louis Vuitton
Wouldn't Emporer Palpatine be more Imperialistic than Akbar?
druidravi
King
Palpatine should be Charismatic ( He was able to manipulate people) and Imperial( just for the amount of times the word imperial comes up in star wars)
.If I may be so bold, can we stay away from some particular World War II leaders? Such as Hirohito, having the dubious honor of his country's progress over the last few decades stripped from him, his navy, army, and air force utterly obliterated, and his country bombed and nuked doesn't make for a spectacular leader. Charles de Gaulle? I suppose he's passable, but I'd like to see some other leaders included before him.
Why not look at some of the more successful leaders from the histories of these countries? How about Emperor Meiji for Japan, the man who modernized the country and beat the Russians in the early 20th century? I have Cha/Ind written down for him, but that's just an idea. How about we give Persia the two emperors who earned the titular "the Great" instead of an extra guy who really wasn't all that good and is famous for losing to the Greeks--Cyrus and Darius.
On the plus side, I agree with the selection of Lincoln, Canute, Abu Bakr, Suleiman (kind of--there are several good sultans to pick from), and Pericles (although Ephialtes was stronger initially and the supposed origin of some of the Periclean reforms, he got assassinated). Hadrian is a nice choice, although I would also put up Trajan as a reasonable alternate--serious debate can actually follow over these two. But some of those leaders are simply not worthy of one of the few slots there are in Civ--Japan has a clearly better choice, and I think I can make a strong case for Darius over Xerxes. For Germany, I would suggest Barbarossa over Charlemagne, and keep Charlemagne a Great General.
I don't necessarily agree with your selection of traits, though...just the names.
I don't know which Ferdinand II you are referring to, but one actually became Isabella's husband (from Aragon, not Leon)--I think we should at least try for a generation of separation, if at all possible. I was thinking Charles V, who can also be a leader of Austria as well (and thus have a leader that can lead one of two civilizations--an interesting feature that works for Charles V).
Another American I think worthy of inclusion is Pres. Thomas Jefferson--definitely give him the Creative trait and something else. He's really famous for the Declaration, but his administration is marked by an uncommon brilliance but somehow is overshadowed by his contemporaries.
Yes I agree C. de Gaulle for instance was not really a leader - just an opportunist that used the English to gain power.
(with US help - as they wanted to squash English power after the war.)
And when he was placed in power, after the war, he then turned against the nation that more than helped free his country of birth. Infact he did all he could to turn the French people the English freed against the English.
He - himself did nothing, except run to England as a coward (even though a general). Then, when Paris was about to be liberated a few years later, the US let him enter the city as a puppet liberator. He knew the English nation new this (the French people did not.) that is why he always pollitically attacked Britain aftrer the war.
{He did not want the truth of his cowardness and lack of action, to be made public}.
A bold move that somehow worked, because before the war most of his countrymen reviled him. Just proves US money works - and also they secretly plot against their allies.
Blair beware - stop ASS licking.
Charles de Gaulle, though, at least didn't have his country nuked, whatever your personal feelings are of his character (at least the French consider him a success, is what I'm saying). I am surprised that anyone would seriously consider Hirohito as a Japanese leader--he presided over the demise of the Japanese Empire. He lost the massive war that was started by his sneak attack. I don't think the modern Japanese have any more respect for the man than is necessary to give to a head of state (at least the ones I have talked to, this seems to be the case).
Seriously, for some of these countries, don't pick the main opponent in World War II. Pick someone who improved the country or won wars, like Meiji, and not someone who lost it, like Hirohito.
Personally, I'm hoping we can come up with a better French leader than de Gaulle, and I really hope we can avoid guys like Hirohito--we already got rid of Xerxes from Civ3 to 4, lets not go backwards.
Seriously, for some of these countries, don't pick the main opponent in World War II. Pick someone who improved the country or won wars, like Meiji, and not someone who lost it, like Hirohito.
Personally, I'm hoping we can come up with a better French leader than de Gaulle, and I really hope we can avoid guys like Hirohito--we already got rid of Xerxes from Civ3 to 4, lets not go backwards.
Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
Henry of Navarre for the French. Can't forget which Henry he was, but he was the founder of the Bourbon line that would bring power and glory to France(and screw it all up!). Or even Cardinal Richelieu. Both are certainly better than De Gaulle. I echo Darius...Xerxes got spanked by the Greeks because he didn't give them any credit at all, whereas Darius was actually a successful conqueror.
Ditto on Meiji too....I simply cannot understand the fascination with Hirohito. Oh, wait....it's because all anyone ever learns about in relation to Japan is WW2, so Hirohito's name pops up about 10 times for every one mention of Meiji. Meiji is far more symbolic and was far more influential in terms of being a ruler in his own right. Hell, I'd take Prince Shotoku over Hirohito anyday....
China could also desperately use a Tang-era emperor. I know there were plenty of good ones, I just can't name any off the top of my head...
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
Hehe:
Spoiler :
hahaha i love it!
that is why it was spoilered *gigglefest*
Sorry I haven't looked at all ofthe posts here. France has such a glorious history, why even consideer De Gaulle? Henry of Navarre is a good pick, a very good one. my personal favoriate if Philip Augustus. When he took the throne, France was in pretty bad shape, and Phillip did a great job.
I also like Robert the Strong, the real founder of the Capetians.
Best wishes,
Breunor
I also like Robert the Strong, the real founder of the Capetians.
Best wishes,
Breunor
LAnkou
Breizh A Tao
Well, Robert the strong would be a very bad choice, since even French people (like me) had barely heard about him...
If you're looking for a french leader, there are plenty of other choice that can be better that Robert the strong:
Henri IV de Navarre, Louis the Saint (Louis IX), Georges Clémenceau, Francois Ier, Phillipe Auguste and many others...
I like Saint Louis because he will obviously spiritual and there would be another western leader with spiritual than isabella...however, spi/Imp wouldn't be a very good combination for him.
If you're looking for a french leader, there are plenty of other choice that can be better that Robert the strong:
Henri IV de Navarre, Louis the Saint (Louis IX), Georges Clémenceau, Francois Ier, Phillipe Auguste and many others...
I like Saint Louis because he will obviously spiritual and there would be another western leader with spiritual than isabella...however, spi/Imp wouldn't be a very good combination for him.
Similar threads
