LAnkou
Breizh A Tao
I just made some statistics about civs, leader traits and starting techs...
First, all couple of starting techs have a vanilla civ having it. However, since vanilla,all couple of starting tech hadn't been treated the same way. Agriculture/wheel is a 5 civ combo, mining/hunting and mining/fishing are 4 civ combo where some had no other civ than the vanilla: agr/min - agr/myst - min/wheel - fish/myst - fish/wheel - hun/wheel
some explanation about these combo:
-agr/min (chinese) leads directly to AH and BW. Powerfull combo for ressource placement
-fish/myst (spain) is the only combo without any worker tech, you'll never build a worker first, no matter what.
-min/wheel (Mali) is particulary powerfull if you search BW and have copper nearby, you can axerush very quicly. Note that the skirmicher needs 2 other techs to be build.
-fish/wheel (Japan) has no synergy. you can't build a road to a ressource you can use.
-hun/wheel (Mongolia) agr/myst(Incan) seem a little weak compared to some other combo.
Note that most of civ have either Agriculture/Hunting or Mining for obvious reason: they lead to key units/ressource in the ancient era. Only fice civ (spain, Japan, Arabs, Babylonia and Mongolia) don't. Note that only babylonia isn't a vanilla civ but a BTS Civ. Of all the 16 new civ, 15 had one of the following: Agriculture, hunting or mining. That may prove that these three techs are the three one to begin with.
Now, If you try to find some links between traits and starting techs, there are only two traits having a true influence on starting techs: spiritual and aggressive.
-Of the 10 civ starting with spiritual, 7 have mysticism. The last three being Ramses, Hatty and Mansa Musa. The obvious reason is simple logic. If spirituality is important, mysticism must be important.
-Aggressive is even more impressive: Of the 10 leaders starting with this traits, 8 (yes, 8!!!) start with Hunting. Only Hammuraby and Tokugawa starts with other tech combo. Hammuraby, having a very nice archer UU, could have hunting, it would have been too powerfull. Toku has the "vanilla civ feeling up combo slot syndrome".
Now are there antagonist traits and techs?
Yes there are:
-Agressive is not paired with mining in general: going for BW and axe-rushing would have been too powerfull. Only Staline have it.
-Creative is never paired with mysticism. Never. Simply that. maybe because of Stonehenge and monument. (that would explain why there are no Che/cha leader).
-Expansive and the wheel are no great friend. maybe because the wheel leades to potery (and the half price granary). only Mehmed 2 have it.
-Financial isn't a great friend of the wheel. Mansa musa is the only financial leader starting with the wheel. that makes me think that it just push you to cottage spam. Wheel and financial = no good
-Industrious and mysticism aren't linked. Only tha incan can have both. surely because most early wonder are on the religious path...
-Organised and mysticism too are no great friend. Only our friend ashoka can do it. well, India not starting with mysticism would have been an heresy. but i can understand why these are not very linked: apart from slavery, the first civics are on the religious path.
-philo have two nemesis: mysticism and wheel. Ghandi (mysticism) and Suleyman (wheel) are the bad pupils of the school. mysticism, i can understand: most building allowing specialists are on the religious path
but the wheel? only because it leads to metal casting (and forge)? i can't understand this one. Mostly bad luck i think.
-Protective leaders obviously don't have very often hunting as a starting tech. why? because protective archer are only one tech ahead. only Charlemagne can do it. but protective/imperialistic just excuse it.
-Spiritual leaders don't have fishing very often. well, only Spain have it. Moreover, only spain have fishing and mysticism. and everybody know why: Spain on a lake TM. Since a lot of spiritual leader have mysticism, it's normal that almost none of them have fishing.
Finally, relation between multileader-civs and traits: Does leaders of a same civ have a common traits? This particular trait would be a kind of trait for the civ itself, wouldn't it?
Of the 34 civ, 14 have more than one leader, for a total of 32 leader.
These civ are america*, celtic, chinese, egypt, english*, french*, german, greek, Indian, mongolian, ottoman, persian, roman, russian*.
The one with * have three leaders. When you look of the traits used, some civ don't have a common trait for any two leader: German, Persia, Ottoman and Russia. Note that Russia does it with 3 leaders, it means that Russia have 6 of the 11 traits: more than half of them. (If you like a particular trait, 50% of the time, there will be a russian leader with it...)
Three leaders civs can't have three leaders with the same traits. on the 9/10 combination for each trait, it would mean that 1/3 of them are gathered by a civ.
The others have a traits that could "define" a caracteristics of their civs:
-Mongolian leaders are both aggressive. no surprises here.
-American leaders tend to be charismatics, so does Celtic ones. Both have cool but not so great UU with an advanced promotion and another bonus.
-English leaders seem to be financial. synergy with their UB. Nice.
-Greek seems to be philosophical. historically accurate and the colosseum add two GA slots. good for a cultural victory.
-Chinese leaders are protective. protective cho-ko-nu...whow!!!
-Egyptian and indian leaders are all spiritual. Seems accurate in the popular view.
-Roman leaders are imperialistic. nothing strange and can profit from the praetorians XP
Finally, the French. Very strange. With the adding of De Gaulle, they pass from a zero common traits situation to a two common trait situation!! French are generally charismatic and Industrious. Some may consider them as the most oh!shiny...traits of the game. (spiritual, creative, financial and philo have all a oh!shiny aspect, but are generally considered more than that.) Well, it's true that we, french people, are shiny happy people. (we're amazing, fantastic, but very modest...). But i think it's more profound than that in game: the charismatic aspect help a not-so-bad-but-not-so-good-either UU and the industrious aspect is more cultural. If the french are not industrious (remember that in vanilla, both leaders were industrious), who would be industrious.
What is interesting too is that some trait are not shared by common leaders of a same civ: organised, creative, expansive.
Which civ could have been marked by these traits?
-I think than german leaders should be both organised, but that may not feet to Bismarck.
-An expansive civ would be any native americans civ (incans, aztec, mayas, native americans). Since only the mayan leader is expansive, that would be them. but that's an own interpretation.
-A creative civ is one that is known to be creative. When i think of a creative civ in the game, i think of the french (who are industrious), of the greek (who are philosophical) and of the egyptians (who are spiritual). And i think of the Russian. Why not have Peter being creative instead of philosophical...
he then would be Creative expansive and just make surya philo expansive? too bad...
Why these three traits are not "civ specific"? Maybe because they are mostly the reflection of a leader than a civ.
Hope you enjoy these analysis and share yours
First, all couple of starting techs have a vanilla civ having it. However, since vanilla,all couple of starting tech hadn't been treated the same way. Agriculture/wheel is a 5 civ combo, mining/hunting and mining/fishing are 4 civ combo where some had no other civ than the vanilla: agr/min - agr/myst - min/wheel - fish/myst - fish/wheel - hun/wheel
some explanation about these combo:
-agr/min (chinese) leads directly to AH and BW. Powerfull combo for ressource placement
-fish/myst (spain) is the only combo without any worker tech, you'll never build a worker first, no matter what.
-min/wheel (Mali) is particulary powerfull if you search BW and have copper nearby, you can axerush very quicly. Note that the skirmicher needs 2 other techs to be build.
-fish/wheel (Japan) has no synergy. you can't build a road to a ressource you can use.
-hun/wheel (Mongolia) agr/myst(Incan) seem a little weak compared to some other combo.
Note that most of civ have either Agriculture/Hunting or Mining for obvious reason: they lead to key units/ressource in the ancient era. Only fice civ (spain, Japan, Arabs, Babylonia and Mongolia) don't. Note that only babylonia isn't a vanilla civ but a BTS Civ. Of all the 16 new civ, 15 had one of the following: Agriculture, hunting or mining. That may prove that these three techs are the three one to begin with.
Now, If you try to find some links between traits and starting techs, there are only two traits having a true influence on starting techs: spiritual and aggressive.
-Of the 10 civ starting with spiritual, 7 have mysticism. The last three being Ramses, Hatty and Mansa Musa. The obvious reason is simple logic. If spirituality is important, mysticism must be important.
-Aggressive is even more impressive: Of the 10 leaders starting with this traits, 8 (yes, 8!!!) start with Hunting. Only Hammuraby and Tokugawa starts with other tech combo. Hammuraby, having a very nice archer UU, could have hunting, it would have been too powerfull. Toku has the "vanilla civ feeling up combo slot syndrome".
Now are there antagonist traits and techs?
Yes there are:
-Agressive is not paired with mining in general: going for BW and axe-rushing would have been too powerfull. Only Staline have it.
-Creative is never paired with mysticism. Never. Simply that. maybe because of Stonehenge and monument. (that would explain why there are no Che/cha leader).
-Expansive and the wheel are no great friend. maybe because the wheel leades to potery (and the half price granary). only Mehmed 2 have it.
-Financial isn't a great friend of the wheel. Mansa musa is the only financial leader starting with the wheel. that makes me think that it just push you to cottage spam. Wheel and financial = no good
-Industrious and mysticism aren't linked. Only tha incan can have both. surely because most early wonder are on the religious path...
-Organised and mysticism too are no great friend. Only our friend ashoka can do it. well, India not starting with mysticism would have been an heresy. but i can understand why these are not very linked: apart from slavery, the first civics are on the religious path.
-philo have two nemesis: mysticism and wheel. Ghandi (mysticism) and Suleyman (wheel) are the bad pupils of the school. mysticism, i can understand: most building allowing specialists are on the religious path
but the wheel? only because it leads to metal casting (and forge)? i can't understand this one. Mostly bad luck i think.
-Protective leaders obviously don't have very often hunting as a starting tech. why? because protective archer are only one tech ahead. only Charlemagne can do it. but protective/imperialistic just excuse it.
-Spiritual leaders don't have fishing very often. well, only Spain have it. Moreover, only spain have fishing and mysticism. and everybody know why: Spain on a lake TM. Since a lot of spiritual leader have mysticism, it's normal that almost none of them have fishing.
Finally, relation between multileader-civs and traits: Does leaders of a same civ have a common traits? This particular trait would be a kind of trait for the civ itself, wouldn't it?
Of the 34 civ, 14 have more than one leader, for a total of 32 leader.
These civ are america*, celtic, chinese, egypt, english*, french*, german, greek, Indian, mongolian, ottoman, persian, roman, russian*.
The one with * have three leaders. When you look of the traits used, some civ don't have a common trait for any two leader: German, Persia, Ottoman and Russia. Note that Russia does it with 3 leaders, it means that Russia have 6 of the 11 traits: more than half of them. (If you like a particular trait, 50% of the time, there will be a russian leader with it...)
Three leaders civs can't have three leaders with the same traits. on the 9/10 combination for each trait, it would mean that 1/3 of them are gathered by a civ.
The others have a traits that could "define" a caracteristics of their civs:
-Mongolian leaders are both aggressive. no surprises here.
-American leaders tend to be charismatics, so does Celtic ones. Both have cool but not so great UU with an advanced promotion and another bonus.
-English leaders seem to be financial. synergy with their UB. Nice.
-Greek seems to be philosophical. historically accurate and the colosseum add two GA slots. good for a cultural victory.
-Chinese leaders are protective. protective cho-ko-nu...whow!!!
-Egyptian and indian leaders are all spiritual. Seems accurate in the popular view.
-Roman leaders are imperialistic. nothing strange and can profit from the praetorians XP
Finally, the French. Very strange. With the adding of De Gaulle, they pass from a zero common traits situation to a two common trait situation!! French are generally charismatic and Industrious. Some may consider them as the most oh!shiny...traits of the game. (spiritual, creative, financial and philo have all a oh!shiny aspect, but are generally considered more than that.) Well, it's true that we, french people, are shiny happy people. (we're amazing, fantastic, but very modest...). But i think it's more profound than that in game: the charismatic aspect help a not-so-bad-but-not-so-good-either UU and the industrious aspect is more cultural. If the french are not industrious (remember that in vanilla, both leaders were industrious), who would be industrious.
What is interesting too is that some trait are not shared by common leaders of a same civ: organised, creative, expansive.
Which civ could have been marked by these traits?
-I think than german leaders should be both organised, but that may not feet to Bismarck.
-An expansive civ would be any native americans civ (incans, aztec, mayas, native americans). Since only the mayan leader is expansive, that would be them. but that's an own interpretation.
-A creative civ is one that is known to be creative. When i think of a creative civ in the game, i think of the french (who are industrious), of the greek (who are philosophical) and of the egyptians (who are spiritual). And i think of the Russian. Why not have Peter being creative instead of philosophical...
he then would be Creative expansive and just make surya philo expansive? too bad...
Why these three traits are not "civ specific"? Maybe because they are mostly the reflection of a leader than a civ.
Hope you enjoy these analysis and share yours
)
