Does anyone miss traits?

[Rusty Edge]

I'm glad that they tried to give each civ a different feel. It doesn't feel wrong to me that the Romans are building their buildings all over their empire, or that the English thrive by the sea.

The leaders should feel different also. Some things might characterize a Civilization throughout it's history ( England has been a maritime power for centuries ), but the character of a civ can change with the leadership. I hope that we will see the return of leader traits and multiple leaders /civ in the first Civ V expansion. I enjoyed the way it was different to play Ghengis from Kublai in IV.
I often wished we had an exploring expansionist Viking leader and an expansionist Japanese leader in IV, for a change in flavor from game to game.

 

[Bibor]

Are the French people really more cultured than any other civilization, but only until they discover the power of steam?
Do the English really build ships that move significantly faster than any other civilization in history?
Did the Babylonians produce twice the number of great scientists relative to other civilizations?
Did the Spanish really receive lump sums of money from discovering world wonders?(

Did Incas really discover Hinduism/Buddhism and built many wonders?
Were the English really financially strong and philosophical under queen Elizabeth I?

At least Civ5 traits try to actually capture the spirit of some unique aspects of each civilization, without labeling them with generic traits.

 

[Bad Brett]

I miss the traits, mainly because they allowed you to plan strategies for upcoming games... For example, I discovered how powerful the Imp trait could be combined with GW and some aggressive neighbours... And suddenly started thinking, "Hey, what if you combine this with Cha? Then you can get tons of promotions! On the other hand, combined with Pro, it would be even easier to defend against aggressive AI's. Maybe Charlemagne isn't so bad after all.

And this was one of the most fun aspects on Civ IV in my opinion. When I was away and couldn't play the game, if I couldn't sleep, I could always develop new strategies in my head.

However, this isn't possible in Civ V, because it always comes down to two options: Use the UA or don't use the UA. If you play as the Germans, you hunt barbarians. It may be a nice bonus, but it's not something that you stay up all night thinking about.

Finally, the tagline of Civ is often said to be "Easy to learn, hard to master". The traits from Civ III and Civ IV worked very well with this tagline. It was easy to learn what they did individually, but it was when you started to use the combinations that the magic appeared.

 

[SpearMan153]

I prefer the greater variety that UA give. There is a greater scope with UA for differing playstyles tailored for the different ability.

instead of: Financial = Cottage Spam = Win

not that UA are better balanced - Greece/Siam = CS Hog= Win

 

[LuCypher73]

I sometimes feel the uas can be so specific as to keep me from playing a civ sometimes though. I think it would be better if each civ had maybe several uas, units and buildings to choose from when you start the game to better accent the strengths of the civ you want to stress for that particular game. Still I have managed to enjoy playing most of them so far. Maybe bringing back multiple leaders could allow for different slants on each civ without going back to a generic trait pool

 

[lschnarch]

Am I alone on this? I used to like UAs for their uniqueness but now I'm beginning to detest them.

The traits already had specific weaknesses, but with the UA it has got completely stupid.
The Ottomans are a prime example for this, but Germany is not much better.
And what do I do as English, if circumstances force me to have a mainly continental empire?
And even, if the human player really could do something useful with the UAs, how does the AI deal with them? Are English AI's really the rulers of the waves?
Not in the games I've played so far.

English sailors were extremely good (they sailed to India!)

As did the Dutch and the Portuguese.
**************

Traits were okay as an idea, but they held too much influence over playstyles.

At least Civ5 traits try to actually capture the spirit of some unique aspects of each civilization, without labeling them with generic traits.

So you are not making use of the UA's? For what have they been implemented then?

 

[JohnnyW]

I sometimes feel the uas can be so specific as to keep me from playing a civ sometimes though.

I actually feel this way specifically about Germany and the Ottomans. Neither has a good UA, nor do they have UBs. The same could be said about America, but the +sight is kinda nifty.

 

[masonryan]

I dont miss traits as much as other things competent ai, spys, and much more.