Swedishguy
Deity
Agricultural would be a bit overpowered I guess.
Bring Back Old Trait Combiantions in Next Expansion?
- Thread starter kniteowl
- Start date
Mad2rix said:
Personally, I think Washington should not have the Expansive trait--that makes no sense whatsoever. Sure, there was a bill to organize the western territory under his administration, but nothing else. I think he's a better candidate for Charismatic/Organized, and Napoleon Charismatic/Expansive (you can make a better argument for Napoleon being Expansive than Washington).
I again don't have my key with me, but I'll write down the others that I came up with. I have a couple leaders for the new civilizations with those traits, but I haven't posted them yet.
napoleonbee
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 45
Isn't Mao already Pro/Org?
Xanikk999
History junkie
Washingtons traits dont make sense except for charasmatic.
Washington was indeed very charasmatic. But expansive?
If anything washington should be charasmatic/protective since he tried to protect what he loved his country, and churchill should be charasmatic/industrious for rallying the brits during WW2.
Washington was indeed very charasmatic. But expansive?
If anything washington should be charasmatic/protective since he tried to protect what he loved his country, and churchill should be charasmatic/industrious for rallying the brits during WW2.
@ Xanik: I can see that...but I think Charismatic/Organized or Charismatic/Financial is even a better fit for him. Look at his time as a general and his administration--he oversaw the complete organization of a professional army out of raw recruits with no previous Continental model to go by (he roughly based it on European designs). He presided over the Constitutional Convention, the birth of the modern American state. Or, for the Financial approach, remember that he worked closely with the genius that was Alexander Hamilton (the Secretary of the Treasury at the time), which managed to keep the new United States afloat despite massive war debts.
Overall, the Charismatic/Organized and Charismatic/Financial trait combos fit Washinton much better than Charismatic/Expansive. The only reason I support Charismatic/Organized for Washington is that switching his traits with Napoleon makes sense--I'm not saying Napoleon wasn't Organized, but I think you can make a good argument that he deserves the Expansive (or Imperialistic) trait more than Washington does.
@Piemaster: Kind of recent though...my personal rule for including leaders is World War II or before. I'm pretty sure Margaret Thatcher is still around--I think any leader in Civ should be dead in real life. England already has 3 leaders as well...I would hope that in expansion packs there are more leaders for the 1- or 2- leader civs (especially the 1- leader civs), and not for the 3- leader civs (England and Russia jump to mind). Also, simply being loved or hated also is not an automatic inclusion into the game...
Overall, the Charismatic/Organized and Charismatic/Financial trait combos fit Washinton much better than Charismatic/Expansive. The only reason I support Charismatic/Organized for Washington is that switching his traits with Napoleon makes sense--I'm not saying Napoleon wasn't Organized, but I think you can make a good argument that he deserves the Expansive (or Imperialistic) trait more than Washington does.
@Piemaster: Kind of recent though...my personal rule for including leaders is World War II or before. I'm pretty sure Margaret Thatcher is still around--I think any leader in Civ should be dead in real life. England already has 3 leaders as well...I would hope that in expansion packs there are more leaders for the 1- or 2- leader civs (especially the 1- leader civs), and not for the 3- leader civs (England and Russia jump to mind). Also, simply being loved or hated also is not an automatic inclusion into the game...
Antilogic said:
Oh I don't think she should be an automatic inclusion. I just think a lot of 20 year old student socialists would have a lot of fun trying to smash her smarmy face in, while a lot of 40 year old libertarians will have fun trying to conquer the world with good old Mrs T. At the end of the day, this is the kind of thing that could help sell an expansion, which i guess is the idea.
I agree about the multiple leaders point, it was just food for thought really.
Landmonitor
Prince
They should bring back Joan of Arc for France and Cleopatra for Egypt. They were the greatest leaders ever.
Swedishguy
Deity
Greatest female leaders ever!
Swedishguy
Deity
It would rule!
Landmonitor said:
If by "greatest leaders" you mean lackluster and not actually political leaders (in the case of Joan), then yes, they were the "greatest leaders". Oh, wait! I have another one. If by "greatest" you mean not, then sure, they are the "greatest".
Hatshepsut is far more deserving of a place in Civ4 than Cleopatra, and I am glad they picked a real leader instead of a puppet this time. As for Joan of Arc...she was never a political ruler. She was an inspiration to soldiers, and her current place as a Great General is very befitting of her role in history. Plus, Louis XIV, the height of absolutist France, is a better choice to represent the old French monarchies.
I really think that Imperialistic and Spiritual fits Hammurabi of Babylon better...that's what is on my wishlist, at least. I have Industrious and Philosophical for Charles V--arguable, I think, but not a perfect fit. I think it could be balanced by having an opera house unique building that is a theatre that provides +1 happiness and a relatively weaker UU. But that's just to balance out the shear awesomeness of the Industrious/Philosophical combo.
Seriously...why don't we change Montezuma's traits to Aggressive/Charismatic? The Jag. Warrior is crap, so there is a tradeoff to having the end-all killer warmonger trait combo.
Bast
Protector of Cats
Antilogic said:
Charles V might be a better fit as philosphical and imperialistic?
They can also have Maria Theresa as Creative and Financial. Old Catherine traits. That'll be fantastic.
Mischief
Warlady
I`d like to see victoria`s old traits back in the next expansion - fin/exp. nice for large cities with cottage economy.
shame on firaxis for taking it out
I agree
shame on firaxis for taking it out
I agree
Swedishguy
Deity
Me too, Agg/Char is a trait I'm longing for.
Sharpe's Civ
Chieftain
I've always wondered why it's just two traits. Why not three? I just think it's too "simplistic" to box leaders into just two categories. Taking someone like Hitler or Stalin, for example, he could be anything from Charismatic, Aggressive, Expansionist, Industrious, Philosophical (ideology!). Louis XIV can fall into Aggressive, Expansionist, Creative. It's hard to think of a single leader (the well-known ones, at least) who had less than three traits.
I do think the leaders should have three traits. But there should also be more traits. I liked the concepts of Agricultural and Seafaring, but I never had C3C and so never had a chance to play arounbd with them - and then they took them out for Civ4.
Oh, and someone please tell me the worth of Spiritual? Anarchy never usually lasts more than a turn for me anyway, and coupled with adoption of religion and civic changes it's therefore rarely ever more than 7 or so times.
I do think the leaders should have three traits. But there should also be more traits. I liked the concepts of Agricultural and Seafaring, but I never had C3C and so never had a chance to play arounbd with them - and then they took them out for Civ4.
Oh, and someone please tell me the worth of Spiritual? Anarchy never usually lasts more than a turn for me anyway, and coupled with adoption of religion and civic changes it's therefore rarely ever more than 7 or so times.
napoleonbee
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 45
Spiritual isn't about saving 7 turns in civics changes, although a late-game civics change for even one turn can be pretty rough. Spiritual is about changing civics at your leisure, and doing this often. Switch to beauracracy once you start building a wonder in the capital. Switch to vassalage to start ramping up the war effort. Switch between Organized Religion for building, Theocracy for military and Pacifism to squeeze out a Great Person faster. When you acquire new territory, switch to slavery to whip a theater or temple and then to serfdom to hook up new roads and resources, then back to slavery again, all possible within 15 turns. If you don't find yourself visiting the civics screen several, several, SEVERAL times a game, you're not playing Spiritual right.
Maria Theresa would be a nice inclusion to the game. Since Firaxis feels obliged to add female leaders to the game, I would much rather see her than someone like Dido or Theodora. However, they will never make Montezume Agg/Cha, not to mention anyone else, because of his hyperaggressive programming. This is already why the Jaguar Warrior is so weak-- if Montezuma had Praetorians, you wouldn't survive the Classical Era with him as a neighbor. Likewise, if he was Agg/Cha, you wouldn't survive the Ancient Age with him as a neighbor.
Maria Theresa would be a nice inclusion to the game. Since Firaxis feels obliged to add female leaders to the game, I would much rather see her than someone like Dido or Theodora. However, they will never make Montezume Agg/Cha, not to mention anyone else, because of his hyperaggressive programming. This is already why the Jaguar Warrior is so weak-- if Montezuma had Praetorians, you wouldn't survive the Classical Era with him as a neighbor. Likewise, if he was Agg/Cha, you wouldn't survive the Ancient Age with him as a neighbor.
