An important point to be noted first.
It is going to happen. It was not my idea but I think it's a good idea.
Naturally, the comparison I'm using is between two civs which act in similar ways. Yes a non-imperialistic civ that wars more than an imperialistic civ could get an earlier great general but nobody would claim that industrious is weak because an industrious civ might not try to build the wonders that other civs get. As for the definiton of 'long', that's undetermined at the moment. Certainly it's not too long under current settings.
No. I have not once in this thread compared imperialistic to other traits. I am quite clearly trying to show that imperialistic will be made stronger than it currently is by the proposed change. I am not trying to show that it will be made as strong as other traits.
For the record, while I think that the imperialistic is a weak trait I also think that it is under rated and that it doesn't need a huge improvement - a small one will do. You don't think the iminent change is a strong enough improvement. I suspect that it may be.
You could say the same thing about my favourite trait; creative. The culture it provides early on is nothing in the second half of the game. The other bonuses it provides don't add much (if any) advantage by that stage either.
Watiggi:
And with your proposed model, it would make GG's even more scarce.
It is going to happen. It was not my idea but I think it's a good idea.
Bonafide11:
Getting the first Great General earlier is definitely a nice bonus, but other traits will also get that first Great General after a little more combat, which is why I suggest another addition to Imperialist to make it a more unique trait. Otherwise, the trait almost disappears after AD.
Watiggi:
First, it's not 'long' before your rivals: That depends totally on when you go to war. What it means is that it will get GG's quicker once it goes to war. A different thing all together.
Naturally, the comparison I'm using is between two civs which act in similar ways. Yes a non-imperialistic civ that wars more than an imperialistic civ could get an earlier great general but nobody would claim that industrious is weak because an industrious civ might not try to build the wonders that other civs get. As for the definiton of 'long', that's undetermined at the moment. Certainly it's not too long under current settings.
Second, are you actually trying to compare getting a GG earlier to having a bonus commerce for every tile, for every turn in the game, or having your cultural borders expand without intervention, or being able to build wonders 50% faster all through the game, or to get free promotions for every type of unit built? If that's so, then Imp is in dire need of a boost because they are in no way comparable.
No. I have not once in this thread compared imperialistic to other traits. I am quite clearly trying to show that imperialistic will be made stronger than it currently is by the proposed change. I am not trying to show that it will be made as strong as other traits.
For the record, while I think that the imperialistic is a weak trait I also think that it is under rated and that it doesn't need a huge improvement - a small one will do. You don't think the iminent change is a strong enough improvement. I suspect that it may be.
You seem to just think in the short term. The Imperialistic trait right now is built to be a short term trait - get settlers out there early; get GG's put into place early. After that, there's nothing. That's the problem: there's nothing. There's no ongoing bonus for Imp to work on, not like the other traits. And that - and the fact that a leader can only have two traits - make each one of those leaders loose a whole combination of ongoing bonuses that the other leaders have. This brings down that leader.
You could say the same thing about my favourite trait; creative. The culture it provides early on is nothing in the second half of the game. The other bonuses it provides don't add much (if any) advantage by that stage either.