Basis of civilization-identity

[Loppan Torkel]

I disagree. If bonuses were dynamic and based on your playstyle choices, then each playstyle would be relegated to a narrow range of gameplay.

The current civ-trait system ensures that every playstyle can experience every combination of traits and minor bonuses. I've always liked that: I'm a nut for variety of gameplay options.


- Sirian

Thank you! Even if I can see some nice things with a traitsystem based on playstyle, I very much doubt it could be implemented in a good way. And in a flawed system the hardcore player would soon learn to exploit the system and the mainstreem player would practically play the same civ each time and the same way, perhaps with minor differencies due to starting location, but essentially ignoring the traits.
If the traitsystem is to be more dynamic it has to involve player-made-choices imo. This way you would be able to play the civ you want to play, the way you want to play it, and if you limit the choices severely, by civ and either by playstyle or on historical basis(limited by timeperiod), you would have a number of fairly, in this aspect alone, unique civs.

@Aussie Lurker: The problem with expansionists and warmongerers lies more in civs victoryconditions and the lack of prevention from 'snowballing'. If you solve these things, you could increase the benefits of being militaristic and some other traits perhaps, to make it more viable to keep to the things you do well.
I've to say that I find it hard to picture how your 'Theistic'-system with abtract religions would play out in the game. It does sound interesting, but it's just too much to picture...

 

[dh_epic]

Evolving traits are complicated because you'd have half a dozen traits and factors that contribute to you gaining the trait, and factors that contribute to you losing the trait. Dynamic bonuses are more feasible -- more bang for buck.

Sirian's criticism is something I fundamentally disagree with. I think that's EXACTLY what Civ 4 needs -- giving a player the choice to focus on a subset of the overall gameplay strategy. The problem with the game is that there are too few choices about what subset of gameplay you'd like to pursue. And the end result is a game where every civilization plays basically the same way. This isn't realistic, but most importantly, it's not strategic.

What he calls narrow"... I call intelligent.
And where he sees "variety', I see homogeneity.

Not to mention that I can't see traits as really that instrumental in pushing players out of their gameplay style to try new things. Don't they end up expanding and conquering no matter what?

(Be that as it may, I don't think we're too different in our interests... I think that will come out as we establish understanding.)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Loppan, for you I will try and explain my preferred religion model:

You have a number of religions, each differentiated on the basis of belief system and culture group-the default would be generic names, with an option to name it as you wish. The religions would be Animism, Non-Deism, Humanism, Polytheism, Monotheism and Atheism. Each type of religion would have its own benefits and detriments, to make each equally 'playable'. For instance, Monotheism is least prone to religious conversion by other religions, but is most susceptible to sectarianism and Religious schisms, and vice versa for animism. Sectarianism represents a new branch, within the national religion, which comes about as a result of in-game factors (most often civics settings and/or new culture groups joining the faith). Some Sects which can appear are Blood-Cult, Asecticism, Orthodox, Reformist and Fundamentalist (there may be others, but I would need to check my original posts on this). When a new sect appears, the player has a choice to either leave it be, embrace it as the new state religion, or persecute its converts. Your choices will effect whether or not sectarian regions remain part of your nation or not.
Religious schisms are sort of akin to a 'religious' civil war-the difference is that with a schism your nation retains POLITICAL control of the city, but all of its religious buildings and specialists now belong to a faith or sect other than the one supported by your nation-this is important as the culture generated by these buildings and specialists are important both in 'converting' the citizens of other nations, and resisting conversion by other faiths. Also, a religious schism CAN be a prelude to an outright seccession, with the new nation which forms obviously adopting this new religion.
Last of all, Theism-as I mentioned above-represents a combination of both the depth of religious belief of the nation, and the extent to which the state is linked to religion. A Theism of 0 would probably represent a very Secular society, where the government keeps religion at arms length (and probably promotes freedom of religion) and where people-at most-only go to church once a week. Such societies are at increased risk of religious conversion and sect formation, but have almost no chance at all of suffering from a shcism. A Theism of 10, OTOH, represents a society where religion is ever-present, both in the government and places of worship. It also represents the fact that the State recognises only one OFFICIAL religion. How strongly they persecute people of other faiths will largely depend on the nations Libertarianism and Legalism levels. These nations are less susceptible to conversion and sectarianism, but are at extreme risk of religious schisms.
Anyway, hope that helps Loppan!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yea, it's a bit clearer. Though my main problem still lies in that it's a grand model. It would change the gameplay profoundly and that's what makes it hard to picture.

I like the theism-model, there should be a way to model secularism and fundamentalism in the game. It seems like you connect it to some degree to specific religions.

For instance, Monotheism is least prone to religious conversion by other religions, but is most susceptible to sectarianism and Religious schisms

There's also a possibility to tie it to my 'national identies'.
Not only should the theism level affect domestic affairs but also influence the rest of the world.

I also like the fact that you are given choices on how to react in certain situations, like when sects appears. Though it's not entirely clear if they pop up randomly, but based on your theism level. The same goes for the Religions - do they come at random? It could be a good idea to link the probability of religious leaders appearing to both the traits and your progress in the techtree. Say you're 'religious' and the first to discover Monotheism, then you would have tripled the chance of being the birth of a new Monotheistic religion.

As a whole I think it's a good way to start the religious concept by making it another cultural dimension not tied to culture, it would probably add a level of complexity as well as expanding the game away from expansion by force.

I would of course only use your abstract religions as a form for my specific religions , to add some flavour and depth to the religions as well as letting the mainstream players, such as myself, feel a greater connection to history, otherwise it's just a new cultural dimension and nothing more.

I have to wonder if letting the religions be abstract isn't more provoking than making them specific. The whole concept of religion is based on learning and living the truth, often by a revelation. This is supposed to be the core and the rest can if necessary be disregarded as human activities, which have taken any form in the world and could be represented in civ also.
Cultural differencies can be seen as arbitrary to a greater degree but I think the religious concept should be based in the real world to make sense.

@dh epic: The problem is that you take away the choices by making the traits fully evolutional, the choices you make will be to small for the mainstream players to detect, which will lead to him playing the same game each time, and an ongoing exploitation of the hardcore player, which will lead to an outcry for balancing patches.
If they instead are to make distinct choices either in beginning or during the game, they will have both choices and diversity.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I will help to try and clear up a few outstanding issues. Firstly, as a grand plan , I confess that I do not have ALL the details of how things would work-especially when it comes to getting the religions in the first place. Easiest means may be to leave it within the Social/Cultural area of the tech tree. Certainly, though, Religious civs would have the greatest chance of being the first in any culture group to get a certain religion. Another aspect, though, is that only 1 Civ from a culture group can FOUND a new religion-with other civs from that culture group either creating their own, adopting the religion of that culture group or the religion of another culture group-if that makes sense.

For example, lets say that the French 'discover' and 'adopt' Monotheism before any other Western European civ, then other Western European civs (such as Germany and England) will need to either adopt this faith, form another form of religious belief (such as Humanism or Non-Deism) or adopt a religious belief of another culture group (such as Mediterranean Monotheism, for instance).
Now, as for Sects, these will be mostly a response to your civics settings-for instance, a very high level of Theism might lead to the creation of Reformist sect within your religion-especially if it has become very old and a little corrupt. Excessive levels of Materialism might lead to the creation of an Asecetic sect within your religion. Lastly, a very low level of Theism might lead to an outbreak of Orthodoxy within your religion-hope that makes sense. Of course, embracing a sect can be a good way of essentially founding a 'new religion'. For a real-life example of this, you could consider Protestantism (Lutheran) to be an embrace, by the German Civ, of a Reformist Sect of Mediterranean Monotheism (Catholicism) that has risen up within their nation. This West European 'Reformist' Monotheism could then be adopted by other civs in both Western Europe and beyond (an important part of the religious victory of the game).
Lastly, a religions susceptibility to schisms, sects or conversions are BASELINE susceptibility, based on an average level of Theism, increasing or decreasing theism levels will, of course, raise or lower these susceptibilities accordingly.
Anyway, hope this clears things up a bit more!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

@dh epic: The problem is that you take away the choices by making the traits fully evolutional, the choices you make will be to small for the mainstream players to detect, which will lead to him playing the same game each time, and an ongoing exploitation of the hardcore player, which will lead to an outcry for balancing patches.
If they instead are to make distinct choices either in beginning or during the game, they will have both choices and diversity.

I think this is a legitimate concern, but one that is easily alleviated. Partially because I never talked about HOW the bonuses came about. And there are many, many ways to do it -- although all of them require some kind of new feature. The point is that they ARE choices.

One that I'd immediately back up, of course, are diverging tech tree options. I hope you know what I'm talking about, but I can clarify. The idea being that several times in the game, you pick one of multiple short branches. One of the techs on one branch might say "+10% to Commerce (Expires with Education)" while another tech on another branch might say "+6% to Hitpoints (Expires with Gunpowder)". The bonuses are abstractly numerical, but they become "real" by tying them to technologies like "Armor Mastery" and "Trade Expeditions".

Another that was suggested is the idea of offering the player random "issues" to deal with every bunch of turns, say 20 times in a game. These decisions are still a choice between bonuses like above, but they become "real" by tying them to a real issue. Say, "Tradespeople from around the world are paying homage to your magnificent cities, and goods are being exchanged more rapidly than before. However, some people are threatened and disgusted by the customs of these foreigners and are asking you to step in. Do you (A, B, or C?)" Moreover, because these issues are drawn from a random pool of text-paragraphs with numerical bonuses, the player seldom gets the same issue two games in a row.

Another idea is to simply make so many different building types that a player cannot possibly build them all. Even go so far as to make some of them mutually exclusive. One player is known for his Civilization's magnificent religious monuments, while another is known for his well crafted forts, walls, and towers.

For any of these ideas, and there ARE more if you think about it, the bonuses would be added up and possible to view at any given time. Moreover, it would be easy to see that "wow, I'm easily the most commercial civilization... but man, my culture is hurting."

And truthfully, I don't see how one choice that is hardwired to which Civilization you pick would somehow make the game more diverse than several choices throughout the game.

 

[mhIdA]

At the begining of the game every civ have only one trait/bonuses: agricultural or seafaring if starting in an island or in coast, then once a new era start the traits/bonuses are redefining tied the way a civ evolve in previous era. This should balance the civs. So in first era and given geography, climate and neighbors a civ develop a 2nd trait who appear in 2nd era. In 2nd era with more contacts with other civs and by choices that civ are made, civs develop a 3rd trait to apply in 3rd era. To rest of game we have 3 trauts/bonuses. The traits/bonuses could be entirelly differents from era to era, each mean their are refined in begin of every era. This implies there are 8 or 9 eras, not exclusivelly tied to techs, but the gameplay.
So the traits/bonuses becomes a way of identify or diferentiate a civ. Other thing is the civ itself with their language, ethnicity, arts, gastronomy, or with their choice on religion and government. How civics and great people work on this matter? Wait and see.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

And truthfully, I don't see how one choice that is hardwired to which Civilization you pick would somehow make the game more diverse than several choices throughout the game.

That is why my limited choice based on what you've focused on, perhaps through choices in the areas you've mentioned, and the civs real history would make sense and make the game more diverse.
Instead of thinking - 'Oh great, just because I was forced to focus on wars in the early ages, I'm either being cripled economically, culturally, etc this era or encouraged to keep fighting to benefit from my militaristic trait.' - you are at least given a choice between two or three options in the traits that fits your civ's actual history as well as your own, up until now, in-game history. You would be able to make some longterm planning this way plus be able to steer your civ in a more deliberate way, unlike with the small choices you make during the game.

And what if you made your choices you're talking about, focused on totally different things? You take the commercial road techwise, a militaristic in the a, b, c choices and built buildings focused on religion - would it be a toss up what trait you gain, and would this focus on diversity hurt your civ making it a bad choice, ultimately steering the gamers to a few given paths, to get the right traits and bonuses?
And at last wouldn't there be a danger with tying the traits to that concrete things that you're suggesting? Isn't there a possibility that the choices you make become a quest for the right traits instead of an realistic evolutional development of the civs? And if it's not concrete you end up with the problems mentioned in my post above.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the thing with me is overall BALANCE. For instance, if you had a balance between religious, commercial and militaristic play-as you suggested in the example-then you would probably retain whatever traits you currently had-as the game mechanism would always favour the 'Status Quo'. The only times trait 'evolution' is a factor is when you clearly FAVOUR a specific path and/or largely ignore the path relevent to either of your current traits. So, for instance, if you have spent the entire age focused on building religious improvements, generating religious great leaders, and evangalising to every civ you can find, but make next to no effort to pursue commercial relationships with any of those same civs, then you would have a pretty good chance of, sometime that age, losing your commercial trait in favour of the religious trait. Not only will that BENEFIT your current play style, but it simply makes SENSE! The key to model is both FAIRNESS (clear warnings to you from relevent advisors, a clear change in strategy) and BALANCE (that each trait has clear benefits/penalties which, when taken together, make no trait better or worse than another-simply DIFFERENT!!!) My problem is that simply PICKING a trait is both straitjacketing and grossly artificial, wheras my system is more fluid in nature (allowing players to change tack if they change their mind on their current direction!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Loppan, I think you confuse me with someone who wants discrete, finite numbers of traits. Like two definite bonuses in two specific areas.

I'm talking about continuous bonuses. What's going to stop you from investing time/energy into the commercial tech path, militaristic options in your national issues, and buildings focused on religion? If that's what aids you strategically, go ahead and do it. If the end result is 15% bonuses to commerce/military/religion, the game should let you do that -- rather than pigeon holing you into "Commercial and Military trait, no religion for you, sorry".

I don't like traits period, one because they're hardwired to which Civ you pick.

Two, even if you don't hardwire them, you still deal with what you're talking about, which is a legitimate concern -- the pursuit of traits over an overall strategy. Suddenly you do just enough of X to get a trait, which is very artificial and arbitrary.

And finally, dynamically and automatically determining someone's traits are risky... I'm just not sure I trust an algorithm to do it, since it can lead to player frustration in getting slotted into something that the player doesn't want.

The "choose your own adventure" strategy is good, to me. Just choose from a variety of bonuses, which don't earn you specific traits but a series of bonuses. To use an RPG analogy, I don't want to classify someone who's pursued stealth as a thief. This is more where everyone is the same class, but there are several traits that you can invest your energy into.

And for those who really need something to sink their teeth into, they can check out rankings. Instead of "Rome is Seafaring and Agricultural", you say "Rome is the #2 most Seafaring, and the #2 most Agricultural, and the #2 most Militaristic". Much more flexible, in my mind.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Ok, it's getting tough to keep all the ideas apart, but your last posts cleared things up a bit, regarding the traits.
To summarize my traitsideas------------
The things I want:
The player should be able to choose at a few points in the game.
The choices should be limited, at least by the civ's actual history.
The benefits as I see it:
The civs are different from eachother, which gives the game more diversity and 'immerses' the player in history.
The player is free to choose between clear, visible options.
The player can choose whatever he thinks benefit him the most.
The civs can gain distinktive benefits, rather than a bonus percentages in different areas - pick a militaristic trait in the industrial era and you could gain a UU in the same era, for example.

Both of you, dh epic and Aussie Lurker, are in favor of an evolutional system, but it seems that dh epic would like it to be a continous evolutional progress, while Aussie would like a 'evolutional leap'-system, right?!
I could live with your system Aussie, if you were given an option if you'd like to change the trait or not and if the traits were a bit different in each civ. Different cultural buildings could be locked up with the traits and more UU could exist to be given at the change to militaristic - the Germans could get the Teutonic knight in the medieval era for example, if you chose to change to militaristic.

@dh epic - have you played any crpgs? Is it there from you've got the inspiration for the evolutional system?
I have played some Morrowind and tried the demo for Dungeon Siege. I didn't like the evolutionary system very much in those games I have to say.
Planescape: Torment on the other hand - BEST GAME EVAH!!!ii!!i!! ....it's a bit old now but if you can find it cheap and you like rpgs (and a good book) it's worth trying.

 

[sir_schwick]

I don't like traits period, one because they're hardwired to which Civ you pick.

That has been my fundamental complaint with traits as well. This is especially true because the what Civ you choose does not inherently mean those traits should be used. The data that assigns traits and the data that assigns everything else unique to a civ can be seperated. I propose that you choose two things when you start a game, trait set and civ. The Civ is purely the aesthetic pieces, city names, unit names and graphics, government names, etc. The trait set is chosen from a list of trait sets that each have pre-determined traits, UUs, and anything else unique.

This has several benefits for the simple nature of Civ.

1) Algorithims and evolved systems tend to produce the similair two to three winners in almost every situation. While simulations should reflect this, Civ is not a simulation.
2) Simply evolved traits thorugh choices are also not very well balanced and suffer from 'evolution syndrome'.
3) Pre-determined traits are much easier to balance overall.
4) Now the strategy you want to use for a game is not dependant on the Civ you choose.
5) You can now add an infinite number of civs, since the game balanced data does not grow in size.

 

[dh_epic]

Sir Schwick, glad to see you join the discussion. I agree that hardwiring traits is bad for those who enjoy rewriting a Civ's history, not reliving it.

And Loppan with regards to your desires for traits, I agree with everything except limiting them by a Civ's actual history.

This is another reason I've been an advocate of a branching tech tree. That way you CAN make choices like "will I take the 15% food bonus and the ablity to build Shakespeare's Theatre, or the path with a special Knight Unit and the ability to build Sherrif's Offices?" The choices are explicit, while grounded in a sense of reality.

I think actual traits like "Commercial" and "Expansionist" are quite hard to balance in Civ 3. Imagine how much harder that is if you can change traits at several points in the game -- how do you balance all traits at all ages, especially when "expansionist" and "agricultural" probably don't mean much in the modern age?

The branching tech tree would be easier and more profitable to balance. Rather than having to balance 8 different traits at 4 different eras (or more) that you can slip and and out of, you simply balance a few pairs (triplets) of branches on the tech tree. And it could be as simple as dropping the commerce bonus down from 15% to 12%.

And Loppan, a small off topic note.

Spoiler :

I used to be a huge RPG fan, but lately I've found the whole genre to be kind of lackluster. I still love the stories, and I still love the characters, and I still enjoy the turn-based gameplay. But two complaints. One would be that the best drama I encountered was BECAUSE I didn't level my characters up -- and leveling your character up too much results in zero drama. Two would be that some of the combat isn't that strategic when you can win while pressing one button repeatedly (and stopping to heal every once in a while), and a little more intelligent choice should be required. But this is a whole other issue.

More and more, I'm realizing that Civilization is fun when you can *roleplay* your idealized Civilization, instead of playing Risk where you're forced into one personality.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

@Sir Schwick - I agree, it's best to keep it simple. You could cut the traits from the civ totally and select which civ and traits to play seperately. However since the traits and UUs should be balanced properly between to one another, I don't see a problem with letting some trait-choices come later in the game.
Regarding 4) you've simply moved the strategy being dependant of the civ to the traits, that you choose at the beginning, which really doesn't make that much difference imo.

I think it's a good idea but I would at least like to be able to choose between presets based on history - 'Scandinavian traits - Viking era', 'Scandinavian traits - 17th century era', etc, with the corresponding traits and UUs for each civs' Golden age/s - if they implement this. This way those who'd like to play civ with a more historical connection can do so.

dh epic:

I think actual traits like "Commercial" and "Expansionist" are quite hard to balance in Civ 3. Imagine how much harder that is if you can change traits at several points in the game -- how do you balance all traits at all ages, especially when "expansionist" and "agricultural" probably don't mean much in the modern age?

This would be a problem. Perhaps they should be fased out altogether in favor of some other traits in the modern era..? I guess the expansionist and agriculture benefits decline in your model too through the ages?!

I see benefits with your model dh epic, it's just that I hate the idea of a 'smooth' differentiation between the civs based on percentage benefits. I couldn't enjoy Alpha Centauri or Galactic Civilizations because of the 'distance' from the real world. I didnt' get immersed, it just felt like I was playing with numbers.

 

[sir_schwick]

You could simply have a 'historical lock' toggle which would restrict the templates you could use. Normally toggles indicate bad design, but here it is to accomodate a certain type of artificial restriction which is ruled necessary.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yea, either that or you could just pick 1. Civ: Scandinavia and 2. Traits: Scandinavia 'Viking era'.

edit: Or to clearify pick civ: France and traits: 'Soviet Cold War'-era.

 

[dh_epic]

You raise a really good point. Although truthfully, the numbers are always behind everything. I guess the key is hiding them, right?

And I'm not about to give up on "continuous" or "smooth" bonuses for traits... because I think discrete, categorical traits have a lot of pitfalls, especially when you make them "evolving" traits.

So here's my solution. Instead of smooth bonuses like "+12% commercial" versus "+6% commercial", it gives you bonuses in verbal form. "Economic bump", "Economic boom", "Economic explosion". Or "Small Armor Boost" or "Major Attack Boost" and so on. And when you go to check up on your stats, it doesn't say "+35% Economic Bonuses Total" or "-5% to Military Total". It says "Economy Strong" or "Economy Weak" or "Economy Booming!" and so on.

Kind of like how reputation is a continuous scale, but they mask it under a few names.

So if you're looking at the tech tree, you're choosing between "Gain Ability to Build Knights, and Happiness Increases A Lot!" versus "Commerce Increases Slightly, and Gain Ability to Switch to New Government". Thus keeping the player away from the calculator, and comfortably in the throne of his empire.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why do fixed traits and evolving traits have to be mutually exclusive? I would think that in a system supporting both, each part would make the other part better. As to whether the fixed part is tied to a CIV or picked in the setup screen, it really is only a setup screen issue. Ideal would probably be a fixed part that could be replaced and/or randomized during setup, thus accommodating everyone. Anyway, here is a example of how fixed and evolving traits might support each other, using a simple version to illustrate the concept:

Say that a trait really only has 6 stages, similar to the Civ3 aggression levels. Stage 3 is considered neutral on the trait, with Stage 2 representing a slight lack and Stage 4 a slight edge. Stages 1 and 5 are extremes. Stage Zero is total lack of that trait, with all that implies, and not actually obtainable in game. (Thus it has no game effects outside of what Stage 1 already does. It can be hidden from the user, but is needed conceptually and mechanically, as we will see below.)

Underneath these simple 6 stages is a larger counter, perhaps on a bell curve, representing how hard it is to evolve from one stage to the next. Whatever mechanism is used under the hood, it has to be fairly difficult to get to Stages 1 and 5. Stage Zero is obtainable only by complete and utter disregard for that trait. It is implied, therefore, that Stages 2-4 represent a fairly small, but significant affect on game play, with the outer stages representing a bigger extreme. For example, instead of the difference between Commerical versus not-Commerical, imagine Commerical versus anti-Commerical.

Now, the fixed/randomized/picked traits at the beginning of the game simply give a +1 to that trait, after the stages have been calculated from whatever evolving factors affect that trait. The final value of a trait always stays within 1-5.

The effect of this is that the fixed traits do matter a great deal. If a Civ has Seafaring and Commerical as its fixed traits, it will find it relatively easy to get to Stage 5 in both, and thus reap the most benefits from them. Likewise, even if it neglects these traits considerably, it will be hard for it to drop below Stage 2 (actually Stage 1 under the hood, but +1 raising it back to Stage 2). Call it "national character," if you will. Only if the Civ has centuries of aggressive indifference to its traits can it drop to Stage Zero, and thus get the effects of Stage 1.

On the other hand, the traits that the Civ does not possess as fixed can still reach 1 and 5. Ignore something for the most part, and it will drop to Stage 1. Really work at it, and get Stage 5.

This is, of course, assuming that evolved traits can be balanced enough to work.

 

[dh_epic]

The problem with evolving traits is there are many non-continuous numbers involved. It's an extra explorer unit at a certain stage, or a greater likelihood of nice goodie huts, or cheaper something-or-other, or an extra something-per-tile. It's hard to do "levels" of these kinds of things. Not to mention that some traits mean more at the end of the game. Expansionist -- with the explorer and goodie huts -- becomes useless by the end of the game.

Aussie suggests a "switch flipping" mechanism for traits, where you break a certain threshold to activate your two or three traits. If you're sufficiently millitaristic, killed enough people, and didn't exceed that in other aspects, then you get the military trait for an era. (This might fix a small subset of problems. It lets you have some of those non-continuous bonuses, because you either have a trait or you don't -- so you either get cheaper temples, extra stuff per tile, and a unit, or you don't get anything.) But it adds a new problem, as I see it. Rather than making a fluid series of decisions for a fluid series of bonuses, the player is now chasing a singular reward. The pursuit of "flicking that switch" becomes a strategy in itself.

Finally, the beef I have with fixed traits in the first place is that Civilizations shouldn't be fixed according to how they turned out in history, let alone how one person interprets how they turned out in history. Civilizations should be completely dynamic.