Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I'm sure every combo will be used once (28 total) and the remaining 3 civs will have duplicates (probably one of them will be Mil, Exp)
Changing Current Civ's Attributes
- Thread starter cgannon64
- Start date
Lord_all_Mighty
Watching....
Originally posted by thestonesfan
Here's my totally revamped, far superior list!
Americans - Commercial, Industrious
English - Expansionist, Seafaring
Germans - Industrious, Scientific
French - Commercial, Scientific
Celts - Commercial, Militaristic
Scandinavians - Militaristic, Seafaring
Spanish - Agricultural, Seafaring
Russians - Expansionist, Scientific
Romans - Commercial, Expansionist
Greeks - Militaristic, Scientific
Turks - Commercial, Scientific
Babylonians - Commercial, Religious
Arabs - Expansionist, Religious
Egyptians - Agricultural, Religious
Carthaginians - Commercial, Seafaring
Persians - Expansionist, Industrious
Indians - Agricultural, Scientific
Mongols - Expansionist, Militaristic
Chinese - Agricultural, Expansionist
Koreans - Agricultural, Industrious
Japanese - Industrious, Militaristic
Zulus - Expansionist, Militaristic
Aztecs - Militaristic, Religious
Iroquois - Agricultural, Religious
Incas - Industrious, Religious
Mayans - Agricultural, Commercial
Hittites - Agricultural, Militaristic
Sumerians - Religious, Scientific
Portuguese - Religious, Seafaring
Dutch - Industrious, Seafaring
??
Stonesfan, I agree with everything on that list except......
The Romans not Militiaristic? If you read up on it you'll learn that that is what Rome is known for, its military and its culture. Militiaristic and Commercial are fine now
Egypt is hard to say considering they are Industrious, Religous and Agricultural. Greece had a well known Religion but it isn't Religous and Scientific. For Egypt, Agricultural and Industrious are good.
China should be either Militiaristic/Agricultural, Scientific/Agricultural or Industrious/Agricultural
I'm sorry but these sound more historically accurate, feel free to prove me wrong.
Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
forget this news attributes.
I'm hoping that industrious has been split into 2 to make agricultural... would balance the trait out somewhat, as I think it is very powerful as it currently is...
Agricultural would allow you to build roads, clear jungle and irrigate quicker and give you a food boost to large cities.
Industrious would give fast road, forest chopping and mine building with the bonus shields for large cities.
Agricultural would allow you to build roads, clear jungle and irrigate quicker and give you a food boost to large cities.
Industrious would give fast road, forest chopping and mine building with the bonus shields for large cities.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Thanks for the input, Lord!
Well, I agree that the Romans should be militaristic. But I figured that having each combo represented was more important than necessarily having the best fit. I felt that Rome should be expansionist above all others, and militaristic/expansionist really needs to go to civs that are poorly represented by anyhting else, like the Mongols and Zulus.
My basis for Industrious is kind of derived from how they are today. Egypt is not an industrialized nation, and never really was. They were far more agrarian than the early civs in the Tigris/Euphrates valley. And Egyptian religion seems to be the sole source of their accomplishments.
Greek religion was a big part of their society, yes, but I always felt that they often adapted their mythology/religion around the needs and desires of their society rather than the other way around. As opposed to other relgious societies, Greek religion never got in the way of Greek science. And I do believe they were strongly militaristic, especially if you look at the Alexander era. Greek armies were the first armies of the West, and crushed nearly all others. Greek states were constantly warring amongst themselves when not against a foreign power, and Naval Warfare was born in Greece. The Romans owed much of their military successes to Greek innovations and strategies.
China could have several traits. I picked Agricultural because in the game, it would likely help them achieve such an astronomical population. I might have to rethink expansionist, since they have traditionally fought themselves more than other civs. The thing is, AGR/EXP doesn't really fit any other civ at all. Russians, maybe.
Anyway, my focus was using every combo possible, not necessarily the best accuracy. I did try for it, though.
Well, I agree that the Romans should be militaristic. But I figured that having each combo represented was more important than necessarily having the best fit. I felt that Rome should be expansionist above all others, and militaristic/expansionist really needs to go to civs that are poorly represented by anyhting else, like the Mongols and Zulus.
My basis for Industrious is kind of derived from how they are today. Egypt is not an industrialized nation, and never really was. They were far more agrarian than the early civs in the Tigris/Euphrates valley. And Egyptian religion seems to be the sole source of their accomplishments.
Greek religion was a big part of their society, yes, but I always felt that they often adapted their mythology/religion around the needs and desires of their society rather than the other way around. As opposed to other relgious societies, Greek religion never got in the way of Greek science. And I do believe they were strongly militaristic, especially if you look at the Alexander era. Greek armies were the first armies of the West, and crushed nearly all others. Greek states were constantly warring amongst themselves when not against a foreign power, and Naval Warfare was born in Greece. The Romans owed much of their military successes to Greek innovations and strategies.
China could have several traits. I picked Agricultural because in the game, it would likely help them achieve such an astronomical population. I might have to rethink expansionist, since they have traditionally fought themselves more than other civs. The thing is, AGR/EXP doesn't really fit any other civ at all. Russians, maybe.
Anyway, my focus was using every combo possible, not necessarily the best accuracy. I did try for it, though.
aaglo
Furioso!
TheStonesFan -
Some comments on your list:
- The india caught my eye, why scientific? I think that religious is better for them?
- Babylonians not scientific? They should be - they vere the inventors of the inventors fathers (who were the sumerians - or was it the other way round
).
- Chinese could also be agricultural/seafaring
- Japanese should propably be religious, because their whole culture is driven by their religion.
- Dutch should be commercial/seafaring - or are there too many of them already
Some comments on your list:
- The india caught my eye, why scientific? I think that religious is better for them?
- Babylonians not scientific? They should be - they vere the inventors of the inventors fathers (who were the sumerians - or was it the other way round
).- Chinese could also be agricultural/seafaring
- Japanese should propably be religious, because their whole culture is driven by their religion.
- Dutch should be commercial/seafaring - or are there too many of them already
Lord_all_Mighty
Watching....
Well the Egyptians did build two wonders of the world: The Pyramids (the only wonder of the ancient world still intact) and the Sphinx, but then again you raise a good point considering they built them to please their deities
BTW even if you change the Romans on your list to Militiaristic and Commercial that really wouldn't be a problem considering Expansionist and Commercial are a hated combo anyway, at least from what I have read. Then again it might just be the English UU.
BTW even if you change the Romans on your list to Militiaristic and Commercial that really wouldn't be a problem considering Expansionist and Commercial are a hated combo anyway, at least from what I have read. Then again it might just be the English UU.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
You almost call Portugal the correct name this time
Agree with Seafaring and Agricultural CIVs, except that I'd replace America for Russia... Look to both histories (not 2003...) and you all know why. I'd add also Sumerians. Play Age of Empires to know why
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
You're probably right, but I thought AGR/REL fit the Egyptians the best, while AGR/SCI didn't really fit anyone better than the Indians. Maybe that could go to the Russians?
- Babylonians not scientific? They should be - they vere the inventors of the inventors fathers (who were the sumerians - or was it the other way round
Well, I made the Sumerians (Came first) scientific, since I thought that the Babylonians didn't really improve technology beyond established Sumerian innovations. I could be wrong, however. (I'd like to add that having both as civs is a little redundant, as well
)You just want your cool chinese ships to be more useful!
I used up seafaring on the western civs, since from what I know, western shipping and naval strategy has pretty much eclipsed the rest of the world since a greek dude picked up an oar.
True, I just went with Industrious instead. I see them as a very Industrious people, and well, obviously they lean towards the militaristic side of things.
- Dutch should be commercial/seafaring - or are there too many of them already
I did use it for the Carthaginians (Phoenicians were reknown sea-merchants), and Industrial/Seafaring seemed like a good fit for the Dutch, since they were one of the first nations to industrialize.
Iztvan
the Terrible
I realy think Rome should be MIL IND. They were constantly conquering other nations and building stuff. Roads, fortresses, aqueducts och the Great Colosseum (that should be a wonder!).
I saw a program on Discovery about some archeologists and British soldiers trying to build a bridge like the one Ceasar built when crossing the Rhine... impressive stuff, and definately IND!
I saw a program on Discovery about some archeologists and British soldiers trying to build a bridge like the one Ceasar built when crossing the Rhine... impressive stuff, and definately IND!
cepheii
Chieftain
The Sphinx isn't a wonder of the world, the lighthouse of Pharos was a wonder of the world, but the Sphinx is still a great monument. And all those buildings together with all the temples are reason enough for me to have them as a industrious civ...
I'd really love to see them as a industrious/agricultural civ!
Iztvan
the Terrible
Originally posted by cepheii
The Sphinx isn't a wonder of the world, the lighthouse of Pharos was a wonder of the world, but the Sphinx is still a great monument. And all those buildings together with all the temples are reason enough for me to have them as a industrious civ...
I'd really love to see them as a industrious/agricultural civ!
1. The Sphinx should be an Wonder!
2. AGRI IND or AGRI REL or REL IND for Egypt.
The ancient Egyptian society was very religious... on the other hand ALL societys were very religious 2000 BC!
cepheii
Chieftain
Originally posted by Iztvan
The ancient Egyptian society was very religious... on the other hand ALL societys were very religious 2000 BC!
Not only 2000 BC, in fact, every old culture could be religious, every culture had its gods.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
I don't understand why you guys think Egypt should be Industrious. All they built was monuments, they had scarcely any practical construction projects. There are many civs more deserving of the industrious trait than Egypt. It was a society wholly based on agriculture and the religion associated with it.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Iztvan
the Terrible
You're right, Stonesfan. AGRI + REL is probably correct. But i'd like that trait for India to.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
Ah, interesting. I think there are 2 approaches in assigning traits to certain Civs, and for both a lot of valid points can be made.
1) There are 28 possible combos, and 31 (32?) Civs. Now try to give each possible combo to the Civ it matches best, and give the remaining 3 duplicates a different starting tech. That's what they did in vanilla Civ3, and what thestonesfan supposed.
Because the concept behind (maximum variety in gameplay) is absolutely convincing IMHO, I favor that also. If only there wouldn't be endless discussions why a certain Civ doesn't have a certain trait
That leeds to
2) Try to depict reality as much as possible.
That at first requires to determine what a trait in RL reflects.
COM/ REL/ SCI are not really problematic, though conceptually it would be better if SCI and REL Civs benefit more from their respective buildings, not get a cost bonus; but in terms of gameplay, the effects are the same.
SEA is most likely obvious, and nobody can tell what AGR exactly will be (I'd prefer faster Irrigation and +1 Food in city tile, but who knows?).
MIL is better associated with competent soldiers than aggression (thanx Istvan for pointing that out), so Japan or Celts do qualify well here.
More problematic are EXP and IND.
EXP comes down to the question: Exploration (as suggested by the Scout) or large Empire (see starting Tech). Looking at the EXP Civs (Mongols, Russia at most), I tend to choose the later.
IND sounds like 'Having lots of Industry' (US, Germans, Japan,...), but in gameplay terms it's more 'Effectivity': You're better in handling resources (+1 Shield in city tile), and improving terrain (Worker actions). If you look at how few workers were needed to complete the Pyramids or the Persian King's Road, or the Transcontinental Rail Road, than Persia, Egypt or US seem to be very good choices (and China a very bad one, BTW).
While 2) is the more elaborate concept, it obviously gives a number of duplicates, and valid points could be made for less or more than 2 traits for a certain Civ.
So, I say, let's return to option 1), even if that means we Germans will stay militaristic Prussian Pickelhauben, or the Vikings Berserks.
1) There are 28 possible combos, and 31 (32?) Civs. Now try to give each possible combo to the Civ it matches best, and give the remaining 3 duplicates a different starting tech. That's what they did in vanilla Civ3, and what thestonesfan supposed.
Because the concept behind (maximum variety in gameplay) is absolutely convincing IMHO, I favor that also. If only there wouldn't be endless discussions why a certain Civ doesn't have a certain trait
That leeds to
2) Try to depict reality as much as possible.
That at first requires to determine what a trait in RL reflects.
COM/ REL/ SCI are not really problematic, though conceptually it would be better if SCI and REL Civs benefit more from their respective buildings, not get a cost bonus; but in terms of gameplay, the effects are the same.
SEA is most likely obvious, and nobody can tell what AGR exactly will be (I'd prefer faster Irrigation and +1 Food in city tile, but who knows?).
MIL is better associated with competent soldiers than aggression (thanx Istvan for pointing that out), so Japan or Celts do qualify well here.
More problematic are EXP and IND.
EXP comes down to the question: Exploration (as suggested by the Scout) or large Empire (see starting Tech). Looking at the EXP Civs (Mongols, Russia at most), I tend to choose the later.
IND sounds like 'Having lots of Industry' (US, Germans, Japan,...), but in gameplay terms it's more 'Effectivity': You're better in handling resources (+1 Shield in city tile), and improving terrain (Worker actions). If you look at how few workers were needed to complete the Pyramids or the Persian King's Road, or the Transcontinental Rail Road, than Persia, Egypt or US seem to be very good choices (and China a very bad one, BTW).
While 2) is the more elaborate concept, it obviously gives a number of duplicates, and valid points could be made for less or more than 2 traits for a certain Civ.
So, I say, let's return to option 1), even if that means we Germans will stay militaristic Prussian Pickelhauben, or the Vikings Berserks.
kryszcztov
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,423
Funnily enough, this is the combo (exp/ind) that I can't seem to fit in my mod (in construction) ; this is a mod about the Ancient times, and I chose 15 civs in order to have every combo possible without duplicate. But exp/ind is a
for me. I gave it to Hatti (Hittites), but if anyone has a better idea, you're welcome. See my thread in the general customization forum for more information if you're interested...And BTW, with C3C, I hope it will be easier to do this (I'm thinking of reworking my mod when C3C ships).
I agree that each trait has to be carefully understood.
Iztvan
the Terrible
And agricultural! And with half-priced windmills!
