Do you think the traits are accurate?

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I'm not so sure all of the games leader traits are historically accurate to who got them. I was just looking at some leader traits, specifically Justinian, and then reading his biography on the wikipedia which just re-affirmed stuff I had already learned via school and the good old History Channell.

Justinian's traits are Spiritual and Imperialistic. In civ terms inperialistic gives 50% faster SETTLER production, as well as more great Generals. I don't question the Spiritual trait, but I am wondering, wouldn't Expansive be more suited for Justinian than Imperialistic? The reason being is because not just did he war to expand the empire, but he also built the Hagia Sophia in record time and Expansive gives a bonus to worker speed. Justinian wasn't just a war campaigner, he was a builder as well. You could even say he has a little bit of the Imperialistic trait in him for that. So he would need something to cover his wars along with his building marvels, right? Wouldn't that be Expansive? Wouldn't Expansive suit better than Imperialistic? If anything I think Constantine I is more Imperialistic than Justinian, considering he founded Constantinople (50% increased settler production) and won all his wars to re-unite the empire. Do you agree?

Do you think all the traits Firaxis gave the leaders are historically accurate, and if not, who do you think needs a change?

 

[dirtyparrot]

No, not really. But, at the same time a lot of this is done for the sake of gameplay. It would be kind of mundane if all the leaders had similar traits. I'm fine for sacrificing a little historical accuracy for a better game.

 

[Iranon]

Traits are quite arbitrary... the developers directly admitted as much by shuffling things around between the expansions - ORG/CRE to IMP/IND anyone?
Many leaders would qualify for several traits, and they had to make some concessions to avoid duplicates and still draw on recognisable leaders. I think they did an excellent job under the circumstances.

What upsets me far more is wildly inaccurate personalities, since they had far less restrictions there. Frederick as a the poster child for a trustworthy builder? Hah!

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

What upsets me far more is wildly inaccurate personalities, since they had far less restrictions there. Frederick as a the poster child for a trustworthy builder? Hah!

Yeah I hear ya there. Same thing goes for Bizmark and Augustus.

 

[Sisiutil]

Some of the "favourite civics" are less than accurate too. Any English Catholic or Irishman would roll his eyes over Elizabeth favouring "Free Religion", for example.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Is this thread approbiate to make the statement: "Washington's traits are sucky in any case"? No? So well...

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I agree. I love George Washington but he's not very good to play as in Civ 4. I can't seem to win with him.

 

[Sisiutil]

Is this thread approbiate to make the statement: "Washington's traits are sucky in any case"? No? So well...

Charismatic and Expansive are decent traits if leveraged properly, and even have a good synergy if you leverage the cheap granaries to whip units that pile up promotions lickety-split.

However, I can understand if you're partially reacting to the change in his traits; Financial and Organized were an awesome combination, which is why Darius is so popular now.

 

[Willem]

Do you think all the traits Firaxis gave the leaders are historically accurate, and if not, who do you think needs a change?

It's a game, not a historical simulator. Some leaders recieved their traits simply because of gameplay balance issues, nothing more.