sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Makes for some actual use of Privateer navies!
Ideas for New Civilization Abilities
- Thread starter whb
- Start date
Makes for some actual use of Privateer navies!Originally posted by allhailIndia
3 out of 8-9 may be a good idea, but may make the player more confused as to what the advantages really are.
I've wanted 3 of 8 for a while. I don't know that it will add to confusion too much - the advantages would still be listed seperately and it would allow you to "create" new civs by assigning combos not available.
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
I disagree with all of you and still say pre-defined attributes are a bad idea! 
Why would my civ by "militaristic" if it hasn't yet fought a single war? Or "religious" if it hardly bothers with temples and religious wonders?
Attributes and their benefits should be earned, not assigned to you on the setup screen. For example if in a certain game i happen to be involved in a lot of wars and field a large military, then over time my civ becomes "militaristic" and the people develop a higher tolerance for war weariness.
This sort in-game cause & effect is far better than setup-screen decisions. What you build and how you act are more meaningful
If the AI wants to play the Zulu as militaristic or the Babs as religious then fine, go ahead. The traits of those civs will evolve from their decisions.
I like the idea too and don't want to turn them off. I just don't like how they're implemented.
Why would my civ by "militaristic" if it hasn't yet fought a single war? Or "religious" if it hardly bothers with temples and religious wonders?
Attributes and their benefits should be earned, not assigned to you on the setup screen. For example if in a certain game i happen to be involved in a lot of wars and field a large military, then over time my civ becomes "militaristic" and the people develop a higher tolerance for war weariness.
This sort in-game cause & effect is far better than setup-screen decisions. What you build and how you act are more meaningful
If the AI wants to play the Zulu as militaristic or the Babs as religious then fine, go ahead. The traits of those civs will evolve from their decisions.
I like the idea too and don't want to turn them off. I just don't like how they're implemented.
Daaraa
King
I really like the idea of martime and diplomatic traits. I tend to favour the archepeligo maps so maritime would be a REAL advantage. But, would it be too much of an advantage?
Caranamrta
Warlord
Originally posted by Heffalump
I disagree with all of you and still say pre-defined attributes are a bad idea!
Why would my civ by "militaristic" if it hasn't yet fought a single war? Or "religious" if it hardly bothers with temples and religious wonders?
Attributes and their benefits should be earned, not assigned to you on the setup screen. For example if in a certain game i happen to be involved in a lot of wars and field a large military, then over time my civ becomes "militaristic" and the people develop a higher tolerance for war weariness.
It's my thought also. These abilities should change, as they do in the real history.
kring
Asst Cook & Bottle Washer
Makes a lot of sense to me, as well as being extremely reasonable.
Exsanguination
No longer here
IMHO, we dont need anymore. Maritime/diplomatic/Conservationist are all commercial/expansionist related and dominating is obviously militaristic. The 6 descriptors used are perfect, I couldn't of don't it better myself.
what I'd like to see are a few more benefits to each characteristic - ie militaristic get one extra UU, workers cheaper for industrious... etc
what I'd like to see are a few more benefits to each characteristic - ie militaristic get one extra UU, workers cheaper for industrious... etc
