Evolving Civ Traits

[Flak]

I still want to have some fun having a perfectly balanced game. In other words:

1. No traits are immediately assigned at the start of a game for any reason (geographic, historic, whatever).

2. If all of my trait points would be the same or within a very small percentage of each other, then I have no specific traits.

3. I get some sort of bonus for having a balanced civilization and keeping it.

Number 3 is not necessary, but it would be cool. Maybe if we could mod the game ourselves and create our own traits with certain conditions. The player could create a 'balanced' trait. I know I would always be striving for the perfectly harmonious games.

 

[genghis_khev]

Well here's my fuel for the fire!

Firstly I would say the 2 trait limit is set in stone (except for conquests!). Each Civ has 1 trait assigned to it (so there is some differences between civs other than UUs). The 2nd trait is picked at the beginning by the player (I personally love the religious trait and rarely play non-religous civs, limiting my own choices of civ I admit! This would allow me to experiment more by adding religin to any non-relig. civ ).

Secondly 1 (and only 1) trait can be changed and only with the GA or political revolution. This would allow, over the course of the game for a civ to change both its traits but would limit play trait hopping!

Thirdly, points are (somehow, don't ask me!) gained allowing some, all or no, traits to be "learned" and changed to. These points totals would be halved/quartered/reset to zero with each revolution / GA. If you wished to become a military civ you would have to actively "behave militarilly" by "doing military stuff!". In addition when the new trait is picked you can supply a bias, i.e. "government propaganda", allowing for bonus points into 1 trait. This would give slightly more control over the process.

Well what do people think?

<<warning - incoming fire detected>>

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by judgement
I'm intrigued by this whole discussion of "evolving traits" and think it would be cool if done right. As Shyrramar said, and you seem to agree, it must be quite hard to accomplish or its open to exploit. Your ideas about individual cities/citizens accumulating their own "points" towards trait changing would certainly add a lot of complexity (which always raises red flags for me ) but it occurred to me that if implemented, it could be connected somehow to the concept of culture and the chances of culture flips, resistance, rebellions, etc. For example, say you begin as a seafaring civ, and build your first several cities on coasts. Even if they were far from your capital, their people would lead a similar lifestyle to those in the capital, so they would feel like part of the same culture, and be unlikely to rebel or flip to another civ. But then later in the game you start expanding into the interior of a continent (maybe to grab a resource you want) and start making cities with lots of shields. The people there would thus be industrious rather than seafaring. This wouldn't affect the city production at first, since your overall civ was still seafaring, but it would give the citizens there less in common with the rest of your empire, so they might have a greater chance to rebel and switch to another civ, especially a civ with the industrious trait. And, like you suggested (assuming you kept them happy and they stayed part of your empire long enough) if they started to outnumber the earlier seafaring people, your civ might undergo a cultural shift and switch to the industrious trait from seafaring.

Good ideas here. I like Stefanskantine's proposals and think that they are indeed a good start, although I tend to agree with you about the starting traits. They are not very important to the overall-system though: the system of evolving traits should anyway be independent of the starting traits (should there be those or not).
One thing came to me while reading your post. Civ keeps track of individual citizens already to some extent. It wouldn't IMO be too much a trouble to develop this a bit further. Instead of simply measuring religions and such by numbers, they should be measured by citizens. 10% religion would mean that there indeed were 10 citizens in 100 of that religion. This would easily add the aspect of choosing your settlers (perhaps you could even just click on the worker you want to be part of the settler group when choosing to build settlers?) in order to relocate different religion groups - or lessening their impact on your civ by making them workers.
This would also mean that every citizen would have a cultural, religious and "trait-wise" property. This could be tweaked to a system where trait-property is connected to the cultural property. It would be easy to add these properties to each of your citizens (for example considering the Civil-Wars-thread).

This would not be too complex, as there is an aspect of this already in the game (nationalities) and nobody has made a fuss about them! It would only add properties, so the citizen would be "seafaring, Christian, happy Englishman". Perhaps with religious persecution would automatically turn your citizens with persecuted religion to unhappy and so on.

Don't know if this would work or not. I just see it as a good way to combine many of the aspects disgussed here in the forums.. Crappy Or Not?

 

[rcoutme]

Shyrramar, I think that your system would lead to a lot of unnecessary micromanagement. I like the general idea, but fear that micromanging each citizen would take a lot of the fun out of the game.

 

[Shyrramar]

@rcoutme: Yes, you are probably right, but let me defend it a bit. First of all mostly you didn't have to care about the citizens more than you need to care about them now. You needn't micromanage them at all (I actually don't know what are you referring to with micromanagement here), but you COULD do that if you wanted. I forgot to add to my earlier post that all proper percents would of course be displayed (so you didn't have to go count them yourself). So in normal game, there would be no change to earlier - it would at most be a fun thing to look at what kind of people you have in your civ.

Then if you wanted, you could battle religious infidels by relocating them (it should be made easy..), which would cause more unhappiness in the practicers of the religion in question. You could also make settlers and workers out of the less-liked part of your nation.

But as you commented, it would probably be a stupid idea . I just wanted to bring it forth as a suggestion with possibilities. Thanks for the comment, though!

 

[General Porkins]

the main issue as i see it is the idea of the starting traits. some of you may like to choose what you would start with, but i would say that this does not make good sense. Romulus and Remus did not say "here shall be Rome, which will be the center of an empire founded upon the concepts of Militarism and Commercialism, because thats what we like." These were traits that the Roman Empire developed over time according to their actions and policies. At first i was going to post a system of determining starting traits according to surroundings, but upon further thought i realized that Capslock's idea makes the most sense. Upon taking control of your nomadic peoples (a tribe that, being nomadic and unorganized, would have no inherent traits) you would found a city bereft of any prior biases. as time passes your country would develop its own unique culture/traits depending on the environment and how you led your people. clearly, traits should develop (and have the ability to change) over time, but should not be present in the beginning.

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by General Porkins
the main issue as i see it is the idea of the starting traits. some of you may like to choose what you would start with, but i would say that this does not make good sense. Romulus and Remus did not say "here shall be Rome, which will be the center of an empire founded upon the concepts of Militarism and Commercialism, because thats what we like."

But - its a game!!! You get to choose to found Rome, or choose to be found China, or whatever you want! No one in real life got to choose which civilization to found, then lived for 5000 more years, guiding their civ every step of the way... but thats what the game is about, and its fun! As I said, in Civ 1 and 2, all civs started the same (except for graphics and names). Civ 3 added a nice choice at the beginning of the game, which seems to add fun, even if it doesn't add realism. I can see the benefits of letting your civ build some sort of traditions, but why remove the pre-game choice that civ 3 added? Since many players tend to prefer certain styles of play, a system in which traits are based soley on play style, with no initial traits, would make a lot of players always wind up with the same traits in every game. Why reduce variety? Sure, it would still be possible to play with different styles and wind up with different traits, but you'd have to work harder to have one game be significantly different than the last... with starting traits, difference is built-in, for free!

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by judgement
But - its a game!!!

WHAAT?!

I agree with you judgement. There is a lot of things in the game that are not realistic, and that is not always a bad thing.

 

[General Porkins]

Originally posted by judgement
But - its a game!!! You get to choose to found Rome, or choose to be found China, or whatever you want! No one in real life got to choose which civilization to found, then lived for 5000 more years, guiding their civ every step of the way... but thats what the game is about, and its fun! As I said, in Civ 1 and 2, all civs started the same (except for graphics and names). Civ 3 added a nice choice at the beginning of the game, which seems to add fun, even if it doesn't add realism. I can see the benefits of letting your civ build some sort of traditions, but why remove the pre-game choice that civ 3 added? Since many players tend to prefer certain styles of play, a system in which traits are based soley on play style, with no initial traits, would make a lot of players always wind up with the same traits in every game. Why reduce variety? Sure, it would still be possible to play with different styles and wind up with different traits, but you'd have to work harder to have one game be significantly different than the last... with starting traits, difference is built-in, for free!

my thinking is quite the opposite. you would play a different game every time, depending on the surroundings. with initial traits, you are just going to start out with your same favored traits every game, and try to play the same way every time. without starting traits, you would be forced to improvise, adapt and overcome according to your environment, and this would lead to the development and evolution of your traits

however, you seem to be quite firm in your position, so why not have a nice little checkbox to turn starting traits on/off?

 

[rcoutme]

I like the idea of picking one of a few traits for your civ and then developing one or two more as in the suggestions in the thread. For instance, if you start with the Romans you could choose either commercial, militaristic, or religious but only one. Afterwards, your play would determine what type of trait you added on (perhaps after the Ancient Age). At the next jucture (maybe after the MA or after a certain tech is acheived) you would gain your last trait, or one of the two traits you have would have a chance of changing.

This would allow the beginning civs to have their own individual flavor but would not lock a (rational) player into playing a certain way.

Again, examples. Yes, I know that you do not have to be warlike when you choose the Aztecs. You can try to spend all your time building temples and libraries and being nice to people (I am referring to C3C so the Aztecs are no longer religious, they are agricultural). The problem with doing this is that you lose virtually all benefits of playing the Aztecs, so most rational players would not do this. In my system you would choose one trait for the Aztecs (which might be religious, or agricultural instead of militaristic) and then develop any other traits.

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by General Porkins
my thinking is quite the opposite. you would play a different game every time, depending on the surroundings. with initial traits, you are just going to start out with your same favored traits every game, and try to play the same way every time. without starting traits, you would be forced to improvise, adapt and overcome according to your environment, and this would lead to the development and evolution of your traits

however, you seem to be quite firm in your position, so why not have a nice little checkbox to turn starting traits on/off?

This would essentially like playing with all settings "random", now wouldn't it? Not all like it, and it is implemented in the game as it is, anyway. We'll really be drowning in those little checkboxes in cIV!

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by General Porkins
with initial traits, you are just going to start out with your same favored traits every game, and try to play the same way every time.

Why? Only if you pick the same civ every time you play, and that's kind of boring if you ask me. I enjoy trying different civs and finding out how that changes the feel of the game - its a nice feature that playing as the Aztecs makes for a different kind of game that playing with the English or the Greeks or whatever.

without starting traits, you would be forced to improvise, adapt and overcome according to your environment, and this would lead to the development and evolution of your traits

You already have to adapt your play style to the environment! Currently, for optimal success, your play style is affected by several things: which civ you pick, which civs start nearby, and what the terrain is like (including nearby resources, size of continent, etc.). If you eliminate starting traits, you eliminate the first two of those (it doesn't matter which civ you are, and it also doesn't matter who your neighbors are since they all are the same at the beginning of the game). That makes terrain the only factor you have to "improvise, adapt, and overcome." The result is thus less adapting of play style and more games that feel the same.

With starting traits, if I play a game as the Aztecs and I find myself sharing a small, mostly jungle island with the Zulu, and in another game, I play as the Greeks and find myself sharing a small jungle island with the Indians, the games are very different. Without starting traits, both of those games would be exactly the same, unless I went out of my way to try to play them differently just for the sake of variety. Call me lazy, but I like the variety of a game to be given to me by the game, I don't want to have to work to make my games feel different.

however, you seem to be quite firm in your position, so why not have a nice little checkbox to turn starting traits on/off?

Isn't there already a checkbox to turn off civ-specific traits? If you don't start with traits, then there's nothing civ-specific about the traits (any civ could get any one of them).

Let me be clear that I'm not opposed to the idea of traits that can change during the course of the game, I'm just opposed to eliminating starting traits. Inherent differences between civs adds flavor to the different games, and I don't see the advantage of removing it. If you'd prefer to play without it, you already can in Civ 3, presumably they'll keep that option in cIV.

 

[Stefanskantine]

Originally posted by General Porkins
the main issue as i see it is the idea of the starting traits. some of you may like to choose what you would start with, but i would say that this does not make good sense. Romulus and Remus did not say "here shall be Rome, which will be the center of an empire founded upon the concepts of Militarism and Commercialism, because thats what we like."

But Romulus and Remus did rise lead a tribe that already had a history and culture, based on Militarism and Commerce. Now, later leaders of the Roman civilization saw the advantage of continuing along these lines. But, a different set of leaders could have just as easily come along and said, "Rome shall isolate herself from the uncertainties of War and Commerce, and shall instead turn inward to the study of Science and Religion. Oh, and we know the people still remember their greedy and warlike ways, so we propose to invest in temples and libraries." Additionaly, I think there should be traits at the start so your nation isn't just flipping back and forth between 5 different traits the first time it builds a certain kind of improvement. If you wanted to keep the "clean slat" idea, however, you could add a clause under which no trait manifests itself until the civ gets a certain minimum number of points or citizens or whatever in that area...

 

[General Porkins]

so do what do you propose? initial traits by player choice, by nationality as in civ 3, at random, as a result of location or something else?

 

[Stefanskantine]

Here's another crazy idea. I think the idea of evolving traits is definitely a keeper, but I can see why there's disagreement about the starting traits. It seems the starting trait possibilities are:

1) Random start and "clean slate" at start, no traits
2) Random start, but start traits based on start location
3) Start traits fixed by civ, start location based on start traits

We might argue all day about which of 1 and 2 are better for gameplay, realism, etc. But the supporters of 3 have as a primary concern that they want to have some choice and control over their civ for either strategic or enjoyment reasons ,before the start of the game.

What if your start location (and, if you like, start traits) were determined by some sort of question process. For instance, before the map generated your Nomand Tribal Council might ask you, "Chief, in your infinite wisdom, should the choice be forced upon you, would you choose to have us settle upon the dry desert or upon the fetid swamp?" OR "Chief, we have to make a decision here. Do we follow the Buffalo north, or hang around here by the Equator?" Answers to these kinds of questions could determine where your nomads wander to. Of course, you shouldn't be able to say "settle there by those 5 cattle and 3 hills with grapes." But you could provide some vague input about whether you'd prefer to start on the coast, in a hilly region, near the equator, etc. For now, I'll call it the "Ogre Battle Plan," after another of my favorite games that determined start by a questionaire."

 

[capslock]

I propose that 2 civ traits are picked before hand by the player. They can be the ones assigned to the civ by Firaxis, or you can change them. Then, play like civ3 with the 2 traits fixed. Then I can play as my favourite civ every time without playing the same game everytime. (I always play as Russia, and sometimes I suffer because of expantionist). Evolving traits are too messy and complicated.

 

[General Porkins]

Ah yes, the method popularized by games such as Ogre Battle 64: Person of Lordly Caliber and Morrowind III: The Elder Scrolls. This seems like quite a good idea, much simpler than any equation regarding random factors and the properties of surrounding tiles (as I spent a full day of classes trying to conceive), and I always enjoyed it in the aforementioned game. But my consent means nothing, so I will leave it to Judgement to refute the idea.

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Stefanskantine

We might argue all day about which of 1 and 2 are better for gameplay, realism, etc. But the supporters of 3 have as a primary concern that they want to have some choice and control over their civ for either strategic or enjoyment reasons ,before the start of the game.

Yes, exactly. I guess "strategic" reasons would include things like picking an island map and a seafaring civ to give yourself an edge - personally, I want it for the "enjoyment" reason of provided game-to-game variety via a simple choice at the outset.

What if your start location (and, if you like, start traits) were determined by some sort of question process. For instance, before the map generated your Nomand Tribal Council might ask you, "Chief, in your infinite wisdom, should the choice be forced upon you, would you choose to have us settle upon the dry desert or upon the fetid swamp?" OR "Chief, we have to make a decision here. Do we follow the Buffalo north, or hang around here by the Equator?" Answers to these kinds of questions could determine where your nomads wander to. Of course, you shouldn't be able to say "settle there by those 5 cattle and 3 hills with grapes." But you could provide some vague input about whether you'd prefer to start on the coast, in a hilly region, near the equator, etc. For now, I'll call it the "Ogre Battle Plan," after another of my favorite games that determined start by a questionaire."

While this is a very cool sounding idea, I think I still prefer the more straitforward picking of traits. Sure, if I want different style games, I could always answer the "OGP" questions differently, but it might be tougher to keep track of which answers I'd given and which choices I hadn't tried yet. Its easier to say "I've never played as militaristic and commercial yet, maybe I'll try the Romans."

 

[Shyrramar]

I agree with judgement. The idea sounds fascinating, but I hardly see the need for it.
@judgement: I went to a course about proper criticism. The lecturer said, that "just agree with judgement, rephrase his points for a personal, intelligent touch, and you'll be fine!" How am I doing?
EDIT: Oh yeah, judgement, this is as good a place as any to ask you to check the "Unified Economy Theory"-thread somewhere here. I would love to hear your opinions/comments about that. But be warned: it is quite long, so remember to grab some popcorns and coke before you get on with it!

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by capslock
I propose that 2 civ traits are picked before hand by the player. They can be the ones assigned to the civ by Firaxis, or you can change them. Then, play like civ3 with the 2 traits fixed. Then I can play as my favourite civ every time without playing the same game everytime.

In civ 1 and 2, it was easier to "customize" your civ in the sense of choosing a name, gender, etc. IIRC, Civ 2 even let you alter the titles that you had under each form of government: you could be "your splendiferous King-ness" instead of "Your majesty" if you really wanted. My point is, they could have the same sort of startup screens they do now, but after the screen where you pick a civ, another screen could show up where you can customize if you want. It would list Leader Name, gender, title under each gov't form, default traits, and possibly even default starting techs and default UU. Then, before clicking "okay", you could edit any of those things that you wanted to change.

Evolving traits are too messy and complicated.

It is somewhat messy and complicated, but on the other hand, there are some good ideas being suggested here, and I think it's worth exploring this sort of thing. Maybe a simple, elegant method can be developed... who knows?