Do you prefer Civ IV's traits or Civ V's unique abilities and what'd you prefer in VI

[j51]

I'm gonna have to agree with the "both" sentiment. Give the civs a unique ability and unique items and the leaders a specific trait. This would allow for multiple leaders to give civs more than one playstyle. Also, give each civ more uniques and make them stand out more. Something like a combination between Civ 4's traits and Endless Legend's taking uniqueness further.

 

[Captain Fargle]

So, basically, you would add a 'trait' that is one more limiting factor that encourages you to play a civilization spanning thousands of years all according to the attributes of a single leader.

Bald-R-Dash

Call them Uniques or Traits or Cornucopia of Critical Colossal Combinations, but let them be selectable based on the civilization's progress through that particular game:

Mongols on a set of islands do not have to have Keshiks that they have no room to use.

You can play Germany as the Intellectual-Scientific German of the late 19th century, or the expansionist Germans of the Roman-Opposing tribes or the early 20th century - depending on the game and your preference.

Each civilization should have a number of Uniques that are peculiar to that civilization, based on its 'real' history - but the gamer should NOT be forced to try to try to use them in a game in which the 'real' history does not in any way apply or occur. For that, there should be a number of 'generic' abilities that can be chosen based on the actions in the game, combined with civilization-particular uniques or traits that may be adopted if applicable.

Finding new ways to straitjacket the nominal 'civilizations' or the player in the game is counter-productive. The limitations of the entire Unique system are eloquently shown by the number of 'alternate uniques' that the Mod Community has come up with for various civilizations in Civ V: if they can derive 7 different 'Russias' (including the Grand Duchy of Muscovy and Three different variations of the Soviet Union!), 3 different 'Romes', and an entire panoply of Indian' states/civilizations, then all over-riding 'unique' factors or traits are simply limiting, not enabling.

Away with both 'Traits' and 'Uniques' that define a civilization arbitrarily - give the Gamer the chance to define the civilization by the way each individual game proceeds, from the influence of the starting position through the terrain, neighbors, resources, technologies pursued, and Social Policies and religious policies adopted.

What you're asking for is a completely generic blank slate that utterly defeats the purpose of using various Civs and Leaders from history at all.

 

[dexters]

No, SMAC was.
Civics had a bigger impact and it gave with a diplomatic bonus with some leaders too. (favourite civic)
The policy system was interesting, but most of them were weak and I found it annoying to have to adopt several other policies to get the one I really wanted.
No more UAs right from the start. A civ's uniqueness should develop through the game made by the player's decisions.

I don't follow. The things I listed from Civ3 directly impacted Civ4 , 5 and 6. These are features the sequels followed up on, retained and expanded.

It's not hypothetical 'well X game did it better' type deal.
Civics was a replacement to governments from the previous Civs that was dropped in Civ5 for social policies, so it's impact, regardless of how great it may be, is limited to one game. You could argue social policies and later on ideologies were follow-ups to the Civic system, but upon its initial release, a lot of Civ4 fans disowned Civ5 citing social policies was nothing like Civics, so... you'll have to decide where you fall on that.

Granted Firaxis likely applied know how and ideas from SMAC into Civ3, Civ3 and more specifically Soren's direction with Civ3 were revolutionary to the franchise. Civ3 has always been overlooked for its contribution to the franchise and I feel like setting that record straight.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's mindboggling to me that anyone is voting for CIV traits here. I understand people preferring CIV overall, but the added flavor and variety in civ design in CiV is one of its huge draws...

Balance is ... almost irrelevant to me, as far as civilizations go. Civ is an exclusively SP game for me, so who cares if it's easier to win with Korea than with Denmark ? What matters far more is replayability : and CiV's unique abilities offers a lot more of that than CIV's traits (I'm not saying one is more replayable than the other overall, just that specific aspect).

I agree completely. I also don't think the balance in Civ5 is terrible because they can balance good UAs with weaker UUs, etc. Civ4 has traits that are clearly better than other traits and UUs that are clearly better than other UUs. I think many times those end up on the same Civ (particularly since Civs would have multiple leaders, making balance even more difficult). Not every Civ appeals to every playstyle, but that's a little different. But it's more fun.

 

[poom3619]

I also don't think the balance in Civ5 is terrible because they can balance good UAs with weaker UUs, etc.

IMO, Balance in Civ5 is not really good, despite how it was easier compare to Trait to do it. There are the like of Babylon and Korea who have great UA and decent UU/UB,
and there are England, Huns, Arabia and Mongols who have situational UA and great UU/UB.
and then there are the like of India and Japan who have UA with little practical value and pretty lame UU/UB.

Anyway, it is not the fault of UA system itself. It is the fault of how it was implemented in Civ5.

 

[Tatran]

Civ3 has always been overlooked for its contribution to the franchise...

Civ3 was the weakest version of the series, because Firaxis didn't had the IP for Civilization.
The civ IP became available when SMAC was finished, so they had less then 2 years to make it.
Listen to "Three moves ahead" episode 134 with Brian Reynolds and Soren Johnson.
Without SMAC the civ series would have died years ago.

 

[Lexicus]

Well Civ 3 was the one I started with and I had probably the most fun with it since I played it in elementary and middle school.

 

[Louis XXIV]

IMO, Balance in Civ5 is not really good, despite how it was easier compare to Trait to do it. There are the like of Babylon and Korea who have great UA and decent UU/UB,
and there are England, Huns, Arabia and Mongols who have situational UA and great UU/UB.
and then there are the like of India and Japan who have UA with little practical value and pretty lame UU/UB.

Anyway, it is not the fault of UA system itself. It is the fault of how it was implemented in Civ5.

Situational doesn't necessarily mean unbalanced, though.

 

[dexters]

Civ3 was the weakest version of the series, because Firaxis didn't had the IP for Civilization.
The civ IP became available when SMAC was finished, so they had less then 2 years to make it.
Listen to "Three moves ahead" episode 134 with Brian Reynolds and Soren Johnson.
Without SMAC the civ series would have died years ago.

No. Brian Reynolds wanted to make Civ3 into an RTS game.
Sid disagreed. Brian left to do Rise of Nations. The rest is history.

They had less than 2 years to remake the game after Brian left the project. That's how Soren Johnson was given the top job of designing Civ3.

And totally disagree with Civ3 being the weakest. It's IMHO the most influential of the last 3 games, though the game's popularity keep going up through to Civ 4& 5 so most people's experience with the franchise was likely 4 or even 5 and CivRev; and with Civ5 being the 2nd reboot. Odd numbered Civ theory and all that. Civ 4/6 appear to follow the pattern on building on the previous reboot's mechanics. Civ7 will be the next big idea if the pattern holds.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

The leader traits in 4 worked because there were some civs with more than one leader, so there was variation within a civ. They were supposed to be somewhat interchangeable. With only one leader per civ in 5 having common traits among leaders would make them seem less special. Especially co considering the presentation of them.
Really I think both worked for the game that had them.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[noto2]

It's mindboggling to me that anyone is voting for CIV traits here. I understand people preferring CIV overall, but the added flavor and variety in civ design in CiV is one of its huge draws...

Balance is ... almost irrelevant to me, as far as civilizations go. Civ is an exclusively SP game for me, so who cares if it's easier to win with Korea than with Denmark ? What matters far more is replayability : and CiV's unique abilities offers a lot more of that than CIV's traits (I'm not saying one is more replayable than the other overall, just that specific aspect).

I agree and disagree. Balance is mandatory for good game design. You can play scenarios if you don't a balanced game, but the standard settings game should be balanced. All civs should have an equal chance of winning.

As for traits vs UA, how is this even debatable? Sure, some of the UA's in Civ5 weren't designed very well, but the concept is far better than the Civ4 trait system. It allows for more unique civs, which translates to better replay value

 

[noto2]

What you're asking for is a completely generic blank slate that utterly defeats the purpose of using various Civs and Leaders from history at all.

But he raises a good point. It goes back to game design. If all Mongolia has is the keshik and some UA that gives mounted units more XP, playing Mongolia and rolling a start without horses is going to be an incredibly frustrating experience. On the other hand, you could give Mongolia a warfare-oriented UA that is more flexible. Look at the Aztecs, who get culture from kills. This is a great example of a well designed UA. It's still militaristic in nature, in keeping with the Aztec theme, but it's flexible enough to be of use under many different circumstances. Whether you're fighting with swords, horses, ships, early or late, it has an impact.

 

[Rusty Edge]

To me the glory of the series has always been the epic multitude of meaningful choices. It seemed like each version offered me more, until V. From there it felt like the most important choice was the civ, because it dictated your playstyle. When you drew a random civ, your choice was to defy it, or go with it. Whether that was by design or execution, whether it was because of UA verses Traits, whether it was because of SP vs, Civics or Governments, I cannot say. But it all amounted to a limitation on my ability to adapt to game events or even change strategies as the eras evolved.

What I want from VI is want I wanted from V and loved in the earlier versions. Meaningful decisions. Remember how the answer to so many questions on the IV forum began with "Err, It depends..." ?

I am encouraged by the designer's interviews in that regard.

 

[Teproc]

But in order to play them efficiently, you MUST go early war and keep warring. Otherwise you've basically chosen a civ that has no bonuses whatsoever. This is good design for synergy with one particular style (early warmongering), bad for variety of play. That being said, I am of the thought that not everything needs to be done for variety sake. But at the same time I do want some options for play style without having to go inefficiently about it (that is to say, completely wasting a civ's uniques). That's why I like the idea of a blending of traits and unique ability. Maybe the trait isn't static but selectable upon seeing the map generation. But not limited like religions in Civ 5 where once the trait is selected it is no longer available. Allow multiple Civs to select the same trait if they want. Perhaps make it part of an early Tech like Writing so that you can uncover part of the map and see which trait you wish to go with.

It actually is completely done for variety's sake. Playing the Mongols is unlike playing any other civ (maybe Arabia). Is there any CIV civ you can say that of ? No, they're all perumtations on a spreadsheet. THat's not uninteresting mind you, but it's definitely less diverse.

 

[dexters]

I just finally scanned the poll ratings. Civ5 UAs winning by a landslide. I think it's coming back too.

 

[kaltorak]

It's mindboggling to me that anyone is voting for CIV traits here. I understand people preferring CIV overall, but the added flavor and variety in civ design in CiV is one of its huge draws...

This. Since we are not voting the specific bonuses, just the system, the vote could be simplified to:

Do you wan each civ to have unique traits or to have a set of traits that are recycled between civs?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It actually is completely done for variety's sake. Playing the Mongols is unlike playing any other civ (maybe Arabia). Is there any CIV civ you can say that of ? No, they're all perumtations on a spreadsheet. THat's not uninteresting mind you, but it's definitely less diverse.

I prefer to be able to play different styles of game with the same civ without missing out on the bonuses they get. With this type of variety, the game play and overall approach are determined by civ and is decided for the player. When I roll Mongolia, I know I'm going to be horse hunting and early mounted war leading to a domination victory. Once I've played that game once or twice, it's novelty has worn off. I'd like to be able to play several games as the Mongols differently without losing out on every bonus.

 

[Captain Fargle]

I prefer to be able to play different styles of game with the same civ without missing out on the bonuses they get. With this type of variety, the game play and overall approach are determined by civ and is decided for the player. When I roll Mongolia, I know I'm going to be horse hunting and early mounted war leading to a domination victory. Once I've played that game once or twice, it's novelty has worn off. I'd like to be able to play several games as the Mongols differently without losing out on every bonus.

The answer to that is play someone other than Mongolia. It's The Mongols. GENGHIS KHAN. Quite possibly the most terrifying, ruthless and murderous man in all of human history. If you're expecting anything other than obscene specialisation into slaughter and conquest from the back of a horse then, quite frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Lexicus]

It actually is completely done for variety's sake. Playing the Mongols is unlike playing any other civ (maybe Arabia). Is there any CIV civ you can say that of ? No, they're all perumtations on a spreadsheet. THat's not uninteresting mind you, but it's definitely less diverse.

How is playing the Mongols unlike playing any other civ?

 

[salty mud]

The answer to that is play someone other than Mongolia. It's The Mongols. GENGHIS KHAN. Quite possibly the most terrifying, ruthless and murderous man in all of human history. If you're expecting anything other than obscene specialisation into slaughter and conquest from the back of a horse then, quite frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree.

That doesn't mean that you should only be rewarded for playing in that style. What if, for example, you start on an isolated continent as Mongolia? Your UA is rendered useless through RNG. In Civ IV he has the Imperialistic trait meaning you can churn out settlers quicker and expand peacefully faster than your rivals. Also, his aggressive trait can be used defensively if you so wish.