Differences Between Civs

[Vladyc]

I have read that they are getting rid of Civ traits, and are replacing them with Civics options. However, what is there now to differentiate between different civilizations, aside from unique units and names?

I thought one of the most important strategies from Civ III was playing the game based on the strengths and weaknesses of your own civ. Unless there is something else that they have not talked about, it seems that all games will now play pretty much the same way.

 

[narmox]

The leaders have different traits.

 

[Gyathaar]

and there is still unique units I believe

 

[Colonel]

Your strengths and weaknesses are now based off of your Civics choices and not traits, and the traits of you leader, that is what you base your strategy on now, or at least I think that is how, seeing as Civics are suppose to take the place of traits.

 

[Commissar_Yari]

Civics take the place of governments, not traits.

 

[mdm]

I'm liking the idea of traits being set to leaders. Now if only there could be more leaders...

I like Russia, but I don't like their traits for example. Multiple leaders = problem solved (if Russia has them...)

I can tell that I'll instantly want expansions when the game comes out.

 

[Vladyc]

Your strengths and weaknesses are now based off of your Civics choices and not traits, and the traits of you leader, that is what you base your strategy on now, or at least I think that is how, seeing as Civics are suppose to take the place of traits.

Civics aren't at all dependent on what civilization you choose, though, correct?

The leader traits idea sounds interesting, but is it going to be much the same as the previous civilization traits, with some leaders being good at science or military? The only difference seems to be with the civilizations that have two leaders.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that a LOT of people-though they liked the concept of traits-didn't like the constraint of 1 Civ=2 traits only (and the fact that these traits were ALWAYS the same)-after all, most existing civilizations have probably been EVERY single trait in Civ3, depending on which historical era you look at. Instead, people wanted a traits system which could evolve depending on factors like the terrains you encountered, the neighbours you encountered, and the overall way in which you played the game.
In some ways, the multiple leaders per civ is sort of a 'compromise' between these two extremes. Civs will still have traits, but the traits the civ has will depend on which phase of that civs history the player wants to play-through their choice of leader. For instance, you are playing the US, but do you want it to be at a time when the US was a new nation desperately trying to expand and survive amidst hostile neighbours (Britain, Spain and France) or when the US was at the height of its powers as an Industrial and Commercial powerhouse-i.e., do you want George Washington or Franklin Roosevelt as your leader?
Of course, you must remember that your choice of leader effects WAY more than just your traits, it also has an effect on how you can deal with other nations, the kind of civics options you can select and even what kinds of improvements, techs, units and wonders will be favoured by your nation (at least, this is how I understand it). This is going to HUGELY effect how different various nations are-though I still hope that they will introduce the ability for leaders to change-IN GAME-based on how you are currently playing. For instance, to use the above example, you start with Washington but, after a while you become totally secure in your position and instead focus all your attention on diplomacy and commerce. This starts off initially upsetting your 'Washington' leader, and might even spark some kind of civil war or rebellion. However, if you take this path for long enough, and survive intact, then eventually you will be asked to choose a new leader for your nation (or one will be given to you). At least, that is how I HOPE it will eventually work!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Guagle]

In some ways, the multiple leaders per civ is sort of a 'compromise' between these two extremes.

Remember that not every civs have several leaders (at least for now), thus for some civs leader traits will effectively act like civ3 traits.

Of course, you must remember that your choice of leader effects WAY more than just your traits, it also has an effect on how you can deal with other nations, the kind of civics options you can select and even what kinds of improvements, techs, units and wonders will be favoured by your nation (at least, this is how I understand it). This is going to HUGELY effect how different various nations are-though I still hope that they will introduce the ability for leaders to change-IN GAME-based on how you are currently playing. For instance, to use the above example, you start with Washington but, after a while you become totally secure in your position and instead focus all your attention on diplomacy and commerce. This starts off initially upsetting your 'Washington' leader, and might even spark some kind of civil war or rebellion. However, if you take this path for long enough, and survive intact, then eventually you will be asked to choose a new leader for your nation (or one will be given to you). At least, that is how I HOPE it will eventually work!!

Same comment as above plus, so the features you describe might not be what we'll get at all. I think that leaders' personnalities will only affect diplomatic relations with your neighbours and not with your own civ.

This has the side effect of making AI civs a bit more predictable since particular leaders will probably always dislike certain civics choices (eg. militaristic leaders hating pacifists). But i guess it will introduce more depth to diplomacy as you'll likely have to adapt your civic choices to your neighbours' wishes or face the consequences.

It could also be a great way to start wars

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I have read in several places that it CAN influence your internal decision making, in that effects the preferred civics settings and preferred improvements and wonders-though these will be to some degree influenced by the traits of the leader, I guess.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mitsho]

It won't make the game more predictable. Civ3 is already pretty predictable with Hammurabi and Gilgamesh as the culture powerhouses and some civs (Mongols, Aztec) who will attack you sometime in the game whatever happens.

And to the fact that not every civ has two leaders. I'm pretty sure, that with the first expansion, they will give (most of) the last civs who have only one leader, another one. They may won't give another leader to civs like the Iroquios, Mali or Aztec, but all the rest will probably get one at first, possibly a first.
combine these new leaders with a few new civs (Hebrew, Turks, Carthage, Korea and all the other important missing ones atm) and a few changes to gameplay (adding of polytheistic religions, more units, balancing issues), and you have a pretty good expansion pack for civIV.

mitsho

 

[Ramalhão]

Aussie_Lurker, when I read that Civ4 will have some civs with more than one leader, I also thought that traits should be linked to the leader, not to the civilization, as before. UU could be linked to leaders too, accordingly to their era .

Possibly this will open a large amount of possibilities, as knowing the civs (not leaders) who are in one game isn't really a garantee. Imagine in a map and you see that America is there. But you know that this civilization have two leaders with different traits (and hopefully different UUs). So, you'll need to know who is their leader, as they play differently. And then adopt your tactic to this leader (and all others).

Having multiple leaders for several civilizations is a good idea - and a very old request. Possibly Washington will be expansionist and he'll reflect this in the game, expanding quickly. Roosevelt will possibly emphatize production and gold, not expanding everywhere quickly. If each leader has a different UU, so Washington would have an UU from his era, possibly one unique rifleman, while Roosevelt would have an UU from 2nd world war.

Regarding civics, it will possibly work as social engineering in SMAC, but having 5 choices each row. Maybe each leader will avoid one of these choices, remaining 4 (exactly as it worked in SMAC).

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Maybe each leader will avoid one of these choices, remaining 4 (exactly as it worked in SMAC).

That would be nice. But why stop at avoiding one choise per category. I hope they make it possible to make a civ shun up to four choises per category, maybe it wont be needed for the original civs, but for modding purposes it would be great.

 

[narmox]

What would be even cooler is if a leader could be toppled (through rebellions, too much civil disorder, etc) to be replaced by another. Kinda like Master of Orion got diff leaders after revolutions!