Civ traits

[Hydromancerx]

I ment more for this specific examples. The concept of choosing different bonuses sounds great but I think they should be more generalized and less specific such as Bracers being a very specific technology.

 

[Micael]

I ment more for this specific examples. The concept of choosing different bonuses sounds great but I think they should be more generalized and less specific such as Bracers being a very specific technology.

Yeah, sorry, I just chose the first name for that that came to my mind- it was just an example.

I've edited my previous response (on page 2) with a section regarding why I don't think its suitable to have them as promotions- if you take a look at that I hope my previous comments will make more sense?

EDIT: Copied that into here as well to save you the effort:

If not quests they could be linked to say cultures and made wonders. There are many ways to make things "rare" but still open to anyone. For instance the "Poison Tips" promotion is extremely hard to get.

Maybe it's just me having some nostaliga for the days I used to play Age of Mythology (I know, its not exactly an old game in the grand scale of things), but when you went up the Age in AoM, you had to choose which god to worship- each god would give you a slightly different ability / troop. I guess having a similar choice of traits for you Civ here would just add a sense of accomplishment to reaching each age. As it is, you just get access to new buildings etc- the "ages" don't seem to mean that much.

Also, having them as promotions doesn't make much sense- I was thinking that you could link these traits with the promotions. For example, if you've upgraded the vast majority of your army with say Woodsman, then realistically, some of that skill and knowledge would filter down through the generations (fathers would teach their sons, etc, until it became part of your national/cultural heritage). So for the above example, you could have the following trait option:
Native Woodsman: +1 for all infantry units through Wooded Terrain.

- Micael

 

[AIAndy]

I ment more for this specific examples. The concept of choosing different bonuses sounds great but I think they should be more generalized and less specific such as Bracers being a very specific technology.

I also think they should be more powerful since you only get a very specific amount of them.
Definitely more power than a wonder. It should give you a lasting advantage in a certain area.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Micael

I totally understand, I try to incorporate my favorite game concepts from other games into C2C such as Sim City 2000 and 4, Empire Earth I, Age of Empires I, II and III, Outpost 1, MOO2, Haven & Hearth, SMAC, Civ City: Rome, etc. There is no shame in looking to other games or other mods. If anything C2C is one big melting-pot of games.

 

[Micael]

@Micael

I totally understand, I try to incorporate my favorite game concepts from other games into C2C such as Sim City 2000 and 4, Empire Earth I, Age of Empires I, II and III, Outpost 1, MOO2, Haven & Hearth, SMAC, Civ City: Rome, etc. There is no shame in looking to other games or other mods. If anything C2C is one big melting-pot of games.

I was wondering which member of the mod team was into Empire Earth- I recognised that load screen .

Not to mention all the Age of Empires icons used for buildings throughout.

Perhaps you could add this as a new section, and call it "Cultural Heritage" or something instead of traits?

I also think they should be more powerful since you only get a very specific amount of them.
Definitely more power than a wonder. It should give you a lasting advantage in a certain area.

Would you allow these traits to be stacking however (i.e. have a path of traits for the same "skill area")? Say my civilization made huge strides in Archery in the Prehistoric Era, and I picked that skill. What if my civilization made more huge strides in the Ancient Era? Would I get to pick another Archery based modifier (since technically my nation are now the archers in Civ5 which can shoot for miles) or would Archery no longer be a valid Trait Choice?

- Micael

 

[TowerWizard]

I think we are making progress with this idea. Micael makes some very interesting points and questions. My view is the following, at the moment (it can change):

I understand the reason for the missions to be "hidden", but that would mean that there have to be some randomness in what missions will be available that age. Otherwise, you will eventually learn the missions available anyway, and then they won't be hidden anymore. And if there is a randomness involved, then you may be aiming to get a bonus for, say, your archers, but it was never a mission to begin with, so the bonus was not attainable. I think it is best from both these viewpoints to have them revealed from the start, so you know what is and what is not good to do.

I don't think it would be impossible to make an event window allow for two choices, and if it is, just make two consecutive windows appear, where you choose one, and then one more.

About the negative list, again, you make a valid point. But as you say, how can we do it any other way?

So if you have made several cities in desert regions it might enable you to choose a trait that increases the yield in deserts.

Good point. Some "missions" could be just like you say. For example: "Mission: Build two cities with 5+ desserts within their fat cross. Unlocks trait "Desert Adaption": +1 Food on Desert tiles. Missions like these should always be available regardless of the age you accomplish them in.

So, there are two types of missions: era-dependent, and era-independent.

Would I get to pick another Archery based modifier [...] or would Archery no longer be a valid Trait Choice?

Interesting. Following the logic above, maybe the archery thing should be era-independent, so there is just one bonus for archers? Or, maybe the next more powerful trait replaces the previous?

 

[Micael]

I understand the reason for the missions to be "hidden", but that would mean that there have to be some randomness in what missions will be available that age. Otherwise, you will eventually learn the missions available anyway, and then they won't be hidden anymore. And if there is a randomness involved, then you may be aiming to get a bonus for, say, your archers, but it was never a mission to begin with, so the bonus was not attainable. I think it is best from both these viewpoints to have them revealed from the start, so you know what is and what is not good to do.

That makes sense, but it also limits it to however many missions you display to them.

The way I was thinking was that *everything* a player could do would be counted in some metrics somewhere.

If they built certain buildings, certain units, promoted certain troops in some way, won certain battles defensively/offensively, every x years on a certain % of the tech/culture/espionage/gold sliders, how many embassies founded, open borders signed, resources traded, and so on. All of this would be counted somewhere (and reset every time you go up the age) - each action you do has some some of point value.

Then when you came to the age, it would present you with 5 choices for both positive and negative traits. The positive traits would come from the action paths which have the most points on the list, while the negative traits come from the action paths with the least points on the list. If there was a tie in the counter, then it could randomly pick from the tied counters).

You'd then be presented with a message something like this:

As you enter the <NEW ERA>, you pause to reflect on your Culture's achievements over the last <X AMOUNT OF YEARS> years. Oh Mighty Leader, which tradition would you like to endorse, and add to our Cultural Heritage?

<Option1>
<Option2>
<Option3>
<Option4>
<Option5>

And then a suitably dismal one for the negative traits. How does that sound?

Good point. Some "missions" could be just like you say. For example: "Mission: Build two cities with 5+ desserts within their fat cross. Unlocks trait "Desert Adaption": +1 Food on Desert tiles. Missions like these should always be available regardless of the age you accomplish them in.

So, there are two types of missions: era-dependent, and era-independent.

I think missions/quests and Cultural Traits/ Heritage should be separate to any cultural traits/ heritage system.

- Micael

 

[TowerWizard]

The way I was thinking was that *everything* a player could do would be counted in some metrics somewhere.

I understand. However, that would make it almost impossible to realize. In this case someone would have to make a huge list of possible traits, and make prereqs for them, and make them balanced, and so on. I agree, this would be awesome. But it is much more realistic to just choose maybe ten possible rewards for each age. Much easier to balance, for instance. All those counters you speak of could be use for this list in the same way you describe. It is just that the list is much shorter.

Then when you came to the age, it would present you with 5 choices for both positive and negative traits. The positive traits would come from the action paths which have the most points on the list, while the negative traits come from the action paths with the least points on the list.

Again, the list of possible negative traits would be huge. Again, awesome if someone did it, but it is more realistic to limit the list to, say, 10 choices.

How does that sound?

This is the way I would do it, so it sounds good. The thing we disagree on is how the list should be made.

I think missions/quests and Cultural Traits/ Heritage should be separate to any cultural traits/ heritage system.

What do you mean? Please explain!

 

[Micael]

I understand. However, that would make it almost impossible to realize. In this case someone would have to make a huge list of possible traits, and make prereqs for them, and make them balanced, and so on. I agree, this would be awesome. But it is much more realistic to just choose maybe ten possible rewards for each age. Much easier to balance, for instance. All those counters you speak of could be use for this list in the same way you describe. It is just that the list is much shorter.

Again, the list of possible negative traits would be huge. Again, awesome if someone did it, but it is more realistic to limit the list to, say, 10 choices.

Sorry, I'm a firm believer of "If we're going to do something we may as well do it right the first time". Case in point: .

Besides, if someone on the mod team gave us the go-ahead, we could always start a list of traits, what we feel are their pre-reqs (what counts towards them etc), and then see how far we got with the list- if we covered everything, then great, if not, then we can limit the list. If you limit it in any way, we're effectively saying that certain parts of the gameplay are more important.

I mean, as huge as C2C is there can only be so many general areas that require counting, so a lot can be re-used just with a slightly different name. As far as I can see it (though this list is rushed so am sure I've forgotten some):

• Each type of unit (swords/axes, archery, spears/pikes, etc).
• Each promotion type.
• Diplomatic events.
• Combat styles (offensive/defensive, against stronger/weaker players, barbarians, etc).
• Exploration.
• Terrain Modifiers near cities.
• Buildings Built.
• Units Built.
• Improvements Built (or even limit to improvement types, e.g. Food Gathering, Mining, etc).
• Sliders.
• Overall Happiness.
• Overall Health.
• Religion.
• Great Person.

Balance isn't so much of an issue- we can give it a rough balance over, discuss it all here on the forums etc. Since neither of us (as far as I'm aware) is part of the mod team, we wouldn't directly be adding this into the mods- so it could be community balanced on here before it even went in. And then with the rate that C2C gets updated I'm sure that anything that slips through the balancing will get mentioned and corrected over time.

This is the way I would do it, so it sounds good. The thing we disagree on is how the list should be made.

But you would agree with me if you weren't concerned about the huge effort needed to do it?

What do you mean? Please explain!

Sorry- my brain seems to have lost it there. It's meant to say "missions/quests" should be separate to "culture/heritage". Which probably makes more sense . But then you're calling the metrics to get these traits "Missions" aren't you? In which case I was completely wrong in the first place, so this is kinda moot.

- Micael

 

[AIAndy]

That makes sense, but it also limits it to however many missions you display to them.

The way I was thinking was that *everything* a player could do would be counted in some metrics somewhere.

If they built certain buildings, certain units, promoted certain troops in some way, won certain battles defensively/offensively, every x years on a certain % of the tech/culture/espionage/gold sliders, how many embassies founded, open borders signed, resources traded, and so on. All of this would be counted somewhere (and reset every time you go up the age) - each action you do has some some of point value.

Then when you came to the age, it would present you with 5 choices for both positive and negative traits. The positive traits would come from the action paths which have the most points on the list, while the negative traits come from the action paths with the least points on the list. If there was a tie in the counter, then it could randomly pick from the tied counters).

I like that but I'd just let the different choices have a certain metric requirement to be enabled and then choose 5 random ones of those that are enabled.

 

[Micael]

I like that but I'd just let the different choices have a certain metric requirement to be enabled and then choose 5 random ones of those that are enabled.

But then wouldn't we have the issue that TowerWizard was originally concerned about? Where you may aim for something and then find out it wasn't a mission. Say using his Desert Adaptation idea:
Desert Adaptation: + 1 from all desert tiles.

If he aimed to get this "mission" by purposefully colonizing Desert Tiles, and then the Desert Adaptation trait wasn't an option, he now has sub-optimal cities (though I doubt even +1 would make desert tiles fun).

What about if the possible trait "rewards" were picked from each area (like the areas I suggested above). And then from each of those areas only the top action counts? Does that make sense?

- Micael

 

[TowerWizard]

Sorry, I'm a firm believer of "If we're going to do something we may as well do it right the first time". Case in point: .

Haha, ok, well... Civ V was a huge disappointment so I guess you are right, in theory. But it is obvious to me that we would have to limit the list anyway, because the choices will be effectively endless even with a limited list of counters. Because for instance we would be making a choice of what promotions should give traits. Obviously not all of them would. Besides, and the fun thing with choices is that you can plan ahead over the ages. But if you have hundreds of choices every age, and can choose only one or two from those, the choices stop being fun, but becomes at best extremely agonizing and at worst totally random. And, with hundreds of trait choices every age, some of them are bound to overlap. If not, then the effect will have to be made extremely small.

With a shorter list, the traits can be more unique, and can be made more powerful, since we can avoid overlap. If we restrict the lists, it would also be easier to program the AIs. Germany might be programmed to go after the aggressive traits, while Native americans might go after hunting traits. In the list you suggest, programming like this would be impossible, and the resulting AI choice would be totally random.

Thus, even if I agree in theory, I will still say we restrict the lists to 10-20 traits per age. Better to favor some parts of game play over others, than to have a system that is worse than the one we have at present.

One choice of 10 areas for the prehistoric age would be, with examples of counters relied upon:
Defend the tribe! (Archery type units trained, xp gained by them)
This land is ours! (Melee units units trained, xp gained by them)
Extra proteins! (Hunter/scout type units trained, animals killed)
Better rocks! (Gatherers trained, improvements built)
Edumecation! (Science rate, number of myth buildings built)
I can dance! (Culture level attained in capital)
Everything the light touches! (Explored tiles, civs met)
Mutual exploitation! (Gold saved at age transition)
Fire, water, gravel and vinyl! (Buildings built, total production in capital)
What we carry within! (Wonders built)

Feel free to add/remove items.

Balance isn't so much of an issue.

Here I don't agree. Balance IS an issue, especially with such a huge list as the one you propose. Since this game takes ages to play, it is not fair to stick people with worthless traits. All should be somewhat powerful.

But you would agree with me if you weren't concerned about the huge effort needed to do it?

Yes, in principle. But the idea is so inherent with problems, that it simply needs to be simplified and shortened to be able to realizer at all; even if we tried we would never make it otherwise.

 

[AIAndy]

But then wouldn't we have the issue that TowerWizard was originally concerned about? Where you may aim for something and then find out it wasn't a mission. Say using his Desert Adaptation idea:
Desert Adaptation: + 1 from all desert tiles.

If he aimed to get this "mission" by purposefully colonizing Desert Tiles, and then the Desert Adaptation trait wasn't an option, he now has sub-optimal cities (though I doubt even +1 would make desert tiles fun).

What about if the possible trait "rewards" were picked from each area (like the areas I suggested above). And then from each of those areas only the top action counts? Does that make sense?

- Micael

I like a bit of randomness so you have to adapt to what you can get. That means you have a certain amount of control and you will get something that fits to your actions but not necessarily exactly what you wanted.

There is also the problem that a metric that fully determines what choices you get needs to be one number computed from many and balanced so certain trait choices don't dominate.
Separate metrics that count certain aspects and enable trait choices on certain conditions do not require any kind of balance between the aspects.

 

[Micael]

Because for instance we would be making a choice of what promotions should give traits. Obviously not all of them would. Besides, and the fun thing with choices is that you can plan ahead over the ages. But if you have hundreds of choices every age, and can choose only one or two from those, the choices stop being fun, but becomes at best extremely agonizing and at worst totally random.

True.

And, with hundreds of trait choices every age, some of them are bound to overlap. If not, then the effect will have to be made extremely small.

True again.

With a shorter list, the traits can be more unique, and can be made more powerful, since we can avoid overlap. If we restrict the lists, it would also be easier to program the AIs. Germany might be programmed to go after the aggressive traits, while Native americans might go after hunting traits.

What about a compromise (to do with promotions)?

Going back to my "Native Woodsman" idea from earlier, but making it stronger;

Native Woodsman: +1 from each forest tile, + 25% (attack), +50% (defence) in Forest Terrain, +1 in Forest Terrain, +20% more from chopping Forest.
Metrics Counted: Woodsman Promotions, Combat Won in Forest (base value, + XP), Forest Tiles in City Radius.

Thus, even if I agree in theory, I will still say we restrict the lists to 10-20 traits per age. Better to favor some parts of game play over others, than to have a system that is worse than the one we have at present.

One choice of 10 areas for the prehistoric age would be, with examples of counters relied upon:
Defend the tribe! (Archery type units trained, xp gained by them)
This land is ours! (Melee units units trained, xp gained by them)
Extra proteins! (Hunter/scout type units trained, animals killed)
Better rocks! (Gatherers trained, improvements built)
Edumecation! (Science rate, number of myth buildings built)
I can dance! (Culture level attained in capital)
Everything the light touches! (Explored tiles, civs met)
Mutual exploitation! (Gold saved at age transition)
Fire, water, gravel and vinyl! (Buildings built, total production in capital)
What we carry within! (Wonders built)

Okay, if we compound all the available metrics into fewer, stronger, traits, then that would also work. I still think ~20 different traits per age would be needed to avoid repetition, and then a choice from the top 5 (you want a bit of diversity, and this way it would be pseudo-random).

How does that sound to you?

Here I don't agree. Balance IS an issue, especially with such a huge list as the one you propose. Since this game takes ages to play, it is not fair to stick people with worthless traits. All should be somewhat powerful.

True. So if we limit it like you've suggested, we do have more control over balance, and if we keep it around 20 per age we do have enough diversity. I was thinking (since some traits may be available in multiple ages) that if they pick a similar trait for the second (or third or whatever) time that it just makes it ~50% more powerful (instead of doubling). This would help prevent abuse.

There is also the problem that a metric that fully determines what choices you get needs to be one number computed from many and balanced so certain trait choices don't dominate.
Separate metrics that count certain aspects and enable trait choices on certain conditions do not require any kind of balance between the aspects.

Could this not be balanced in the metric gathering script? i.e. Building a unit provides 3 points towards said metric, a Building 5, etc? Once we have a list of metrics that would be getting checked, could we not balance the numbers out? I don't know how civ4 coding works, but surely it doesn't just have to be $i++.

- Micael

 

[AIAndy]

True. So if we limit it like you've suggested, we do have more control over balance, and if we keep it around 20 per age we do have enough diversity. I was thinking (since some traits may be available in multiple ages) that if they pick a similar trait for the second (or third or whatever) time that it just makes it ~50% more powerful (instead of doubling). This would help prevent abuse.

It is probably better to just disallow taking the same trait again. If you are an archer civ, then you are an archer civ.

Could this not be balanced in the metric gathering script? i.e. Building a unit provides 3 points towards said metric, a Building 5, etc? Once we have a list of metrics that would be getting checked, could we not balance the numbers out? I don't know how civ4 coding works, but surely it doesn't just have to be $i++.

- Micael

The problem is not in the coding but in the balance of numbers. You already mentioned 3 sources counting into the metric for native woodsman. How many woodsman promotions are equal to meeting one Civ for some exploration trait?
I fear that will result in some traits nearly always there as choice and some not at all.

 

[Micael]

It is probably better to just disallow taking the same trait again. If you are an archer civ, then you are an archer civ.

Cool.

The problem is not in the coding but in the balance of numbers. You already mentioned 3 sources counting into the metric for native woodsman. How many woodsman promotions are equal to meeting one Civ for some exploration trait?

Unless you have a 1:1 ratio between trait and metric though you're always going to have a bit of a balance problem there internal to the trait.

I fear that will result in some traits nearly always there as choice and some not at all.

Is it possible to have a relational check on some of the ones you wouldn't normally get and boost their points somehow?

What I mean is compare what they have achieved with what they could have achieved (obviously this would only work for some traits), and then compare the percentages.

For example, to get: I can dance! (Culture level attained in capital) check how many potential buildings they could have built, and then check how many they have actually built, and then boost this accordingly so it ranks alongside the absolute metric traits (the ones you can definitively measure).

Or alternatively have 2 positive traits every Age like TowerWizard suggested, one set of choices from the definitive traits, and one set from the relative traits.

Thoughts/Ideas?

- Micael

 

[TowerWizard]

How many woodsman promotions are equal to meeting one Civ for some exploration trait?

Yes, this is one of the balance issues I was talking about. The way I am thinking is that each mission will succeed if you score, say, 100 points in the mission. Then there would be no comparing between successes. You either succeed, or you do not succeed. Since no comparison is made, some of these comparison issues vanish. In the light of this, every one of the unlocked traits should be pickable.

Next, some of the metrics is not only dependent on your own actions, but on the actions of other civs, like the number of civs found. We should consider to scrap those metrics from the calculations. For example, on some maps, you don't even have opponents on the same island, making it impossible to find any civs during prehistoric. On other islands, it is so crowded you will find many quite easily.

Therefore, I propose that we only consider metrics that the player have total control over. Like, for exploration, tiles explored and scouts produced. The balance issue is then to make it possible to succeed in the ones you want to succeed in, regardless of how you start the game. Since this is also quite impossible, this is an issue we cannot take into consideration. Some starts have loads of hammers available, making units easy to build, but other starts may have almost no hammers. Then it is reasonable that it should be harder to accomplish some missions.

In short, two rules: Only consider metrics the player have total control of, and not worry about making every trait easily attainable regardless of starting conditions.

Next, we have to make the trait choices "feel right" for the age. For example, during the prehistoric age, exploration was not as important as simple survival.

Revised list: (Name Prerequisite Reward)

Defend the tribe! At least x Archery type units trained, have at least one unit with the City Garrison III promotion.
Not always evil! At least x Melee units units trained, have at least one unit with the Combat IV promotion.
Extra proteins! At least x Hunter type units trained, have at least one unit with the Hunter II promotion and the Woodsman III promotion..
Food galore! At least x Gatherer units trained, Capital producing at least x /turn.
I think I can dance! At least x culture level attained in capital.
Fire, water, gravel and vinyl! At least x improvements built, Capital producing at least x per turn.
Did you see that? Have two rogue units, have pillaged at least x improvements.
This land is ours! Control least 3 cities, at least x total population in all cities
Mutual exploitation! Have at least x gold saved at age transition
That's a big horse! Have built at least one unit attained from the Magafauna Domestication technology

I removed the wonder/research/exploration traits, because this is not an age that can focus so much on this. I did not write the rewards, because I don't feel creative enough. Feel free to alter this list, and fill in rewards. Also, I agree the list should be at least five-ten items longer, but even this list was hard to write. If you have any input, please, add more items.

Is it possible to have a relational check on some of the ones you wouldn't normally get and boost their points somehow?

Perhaps we don't need to do something like this. Hopefully not. If no comparison between successes is made, no adjustion need to be made either.

 

[Micael]

Yes, this is one of the balance issues I was talking about. The way I am thinking is that each mission will succeed if you score, say, 100 points in the mission.

My concern about "missions" as such is that then the Civ doesn't change as dynamically, and it essentially turns these back into Quests. What happens if you meet all of the criteria set out by your missions. Or what happens if you reach none- the idea is that the Civ develops even if they don't manage to achieve anything (the fundamental difference between this and quests) just by being themselves.

Next, some of the metrics is not only dependent on your own actions, but on the actions of other civs, like the number of civs found. We should consider to scrap those metrics from the calculations. For example, on some maps, you don't even have opponents on the same island, making it impossible to find any civs during prehistoric. On other islands, it is so crowded you will find many quite easily.

So make the calculation work out how many (say embassies) you have in relation to how many players you've met. But yes, some metrics would just be too hard to figure out relationally (like x amount of animals killed).

The balance issue is then to make it possible to succeed in the ones you want to succeed in, regardless of how you start the game. Since this is also quite impossible, this is an issue we cannot take into consideration. Some starts have loads of hammers available, making units easy to build, but other starts may have almost no hammers.

That's why I was suggesting that the traits that have been suggested are the top 5 areas that civ has excelled in.

Say the following is true:

Player 0 has lots of , and builds 10 archers and 5 axemen.
Player 1 has less and only builds 5 archers and 3 axemen.

When both civs age up, they are both allowed to pick the Archery trait- as that is something that both their empires focused on, regardless that player 0 built twice as many archers.

- Micael

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Did you see that? Have two rogue units, have pillaged at least x improvements.

Doesn't this one require neighbouring nations? If you are all alone on an island it won't be possible unless you pillage your own improvements.

OK, I see where you are going with this and I like the idea.

 

[TowerWizard]

What happens if you meet all of the criteria set out by your missions. Or what happens if you reach none- the idea is that the Civ develops even if they don't manage to achieve anything (the fundamental difference between this and quests) just by being themselves.

I don't understand why you are asking what happens if you do meet the criteria. Then you get to pick the trait at the next age? Am I missing something in you logic? If you do not succeed in any mission, or just one, there will be default rewards to fill up to two, as I wrote earlier when I presented my idea. Those won't be as good as the others.

That's why I was suggesting that the traits that have been suggested are the top 5

Yes, I see that, but then then each mission have to be compared to the other missions to see which ones was the best, and then we are back at the metric balance problems.

@Dancing Hoskuld: Yes, but as I said in the post, that is something that cannot come into consideration. Some starts are harder than others, simple as that. For some civs it might be impossible to found three cities for the same reason. Nice to know that you like the idea though!