Imperialistic trait

[BYC]

I was thinking maybe Imperialistic can add either an extra trade route per city, or possibly a +n bonus from a trade route. Imperalism isn't not always from the military.

 

[kniteowl]

For me personally I think Imp is strong during the Ancient Age where you're expanding with Settlers and the Renaissance Age where you're peaking at GGs Production (about 4-5).

The other Ages inbetween and After for me is when it's weakest.

The Classical and Middle Ages where you're still accumulating XP for GGs, and the Industrial Age onwards where diminishing returns occurs for GGs.

So a cheap building during the Classical/Middle Age and a cheap building after the Renaissance Age Ends would be a nice balance I believe.

My personal choice would be cheap Stables and Airports.

I know some of you believe cheap stables would should go to Aggressive but Imperialistic is the trait we're trying to improve, and it probably needs it more then Aggressive.

Plus Airports for a nice late game boost when GGs are harder to come by (unless you play advanced start)

Cheap Jails and Custom Houses are also very nice options but they come around the time where Imp is at it's strongest in terms of GG production and it's usefulness will probably die off once you hit the industrial age and onwards.

 

[scy12]

For me personally I think Imp is strong during the Ancient Age where you're expanding with Settlers and the Renaissance Age where you're peaking at GGs Production (about 4-5).

The other Ages inbetween and After for me is when it's weakest.

The Classical and Middle Ages where you're still accumulating XP for GGs, and the Industrial Age onwards where diminishing returns occurs for GGs.

So a cheap building during the Classical/Middle Age and a cheap building after the Renaissance Age Ends would be a nice balance I believe.

My personal choice would be cheap Stables and Airports.

I know some of you believe cheap stables would should go to Aggressive but Imperialistic is the trait we're trying to improve, and it probably needs it more then Aggressive.

Plus Airports for a nice late game boost when GGs are harder to come by (unless you play advanced start)

Cheap Jails and Custom Houses are also very nice options but they come around the time where Imp is at it's strongest in terms of GG production and it's usefulness will probably die off once you hit the industrial age and onwards.

Some nice suggestions there regarding cheapper buildings.

The more i look at it , the more i think i have found the answer. And the more i like it.Simply , reduce GG emergence for not imperialistic Civs and increase it further (or don't increase it) for imperialistic Civs.

You can , get two or three GG classical to medieval age , By warring a lot but your GG will few be compared to imperialistic Civ GG. That way imperialistic bonus is also more unique.

And of course traits like expansive doesn't have to be nerfed.

It is so simple i wonder why didn't Firaxis do it.

 

[kniteowl]

Some nice suggestions there regarding cheapper buildings.

The more i look at it , the more i think i have found the answer. And the more i like it.Simply , reduce GG emergence for not imperialistic Civs and increase it further (or don't increase it) for imperialistic Civs.

You can , get two or three GG classical to medieval age , By warring a lot but your GG will few be compared to imperialistic Civ GG. That way imperialistic bonus is also more unique.

And of course traits like expansive doesn't have to be nerfed.

It is so simple i wonder why didn't Firaxis do it.

Yeah with the Imp trait I generally save my GGs (apart from my 1st one for a level 6 Medic) for a Super military city combined with WP and XP buildings and Civics for highly Promoted units (Level 5 = 17XP, 13Xp for Cha) and WP doesn't appear until the Renaissance Age.

If I'm neither Imp or Cha I'd do the usual, 2GGs + Heroic Epic in one city and WP in a separate city while my 1st city pumps out level 4 units.

With Cyrus (Cha/Imp) I can get 20XP fresh Cavalry units if I play my cards right for a level 6 units that can get Commando and if I rush early enough, I can build a stack of cavalry and rush an AI Capital if it's close enough or Keep a stack of combat 5 Cavalry, both are very nice lol!

 

[Watiggi]

At the end of a game 30% extra great generals doesn't mean much at all. Reason? By that statge there are so many other ways to get the bonuses offered by great generals. So many ways for non-imperialistic civs to dilute the advantages offered to imperialistic civs. West Point, the Pentagon, heroic epic, dry docks, factory, power plant, ironworks, theocracy, vassalage, police state. It's even more diluted by the fact that successive promotions require more and more XP so that non-imperialistic civs can easily reach a point where they produce units of the same experience level despite having less military instructors. Imperialistic's bonus to great general production gets more and more dilute as the game goes on

Imperialistic's bonus to great general production is at its strongest relative to the great general production of non-imperialistic civs - or, in short, it's at its strongest - with that first early great general. A whole extra promotion more to every unit you build (except mounted) at a time when your rivals have no means of making up for it in other ways other than actual combat. The change lengthens that time difference - gives imperialistic civs more time to make use of the best advantage in great generals they will ever have over non-imperialistic civs who war to an equal extent.

That's my point: It isn't very strong. Getting the first GG doesn't rank that much when compared to the bonuses of the other traits. It needs something more.

Charismatic in itself outdoes Imperialistic's first GG right from the begining, for all units, all game long! Normal leaders get promotion 3 at 10xp. Charismatic gets it at 8xp. That's a 2xp difference - essentially the equivalent of building something from a city that gives +2xp (ie, Imperialistic's GG) - except this is with every unit, built from every city, throughout the entire game. And on top of that, Charismatic will eventually get their own GG.

Aggressive gives a free Combat I promotion too, plus allows you to build a Barracks quickly which results in 2 promotions. This puts it ahead of Imperialistic.

Protective gives units 2 free promotions. And remember that all leaders can still get a GG aswell as these bonuses.

So, no. The Imperialistic is seriously being left behind. It has absolutely no staying power in its bonuses. There needs to be something more.

I'm still gobsmacked by the fact that you still seem to think that making GG's rarer will actually benefit Imperialistic. If getting an early GG is all you think Imp's about, then it is in dire need of another bonus. Because that extra 2xp for a short while is nothing when compared to what Agg/Cha/Pro has to offer.

I guess one could say that the idea of the first GG is for it to be a Warlord. That would result in 20xp for all units who are fighting (not to mention a Warlord). That's a distinct advantage, but I dunno. It doesn't last long and has no real staying power.

 

[Thedrin]

Watiggi:
That's my point: It isn't very strong. Getting the first GG doesn't rank that much when compared to the bonuses of the other traits. It needs something more.

...

I'm still gobsmacked by the fact that you still seem to think that making GG's rarer will actually benefit Imperialistic. If getting an early GG is all you think Imp's about, then it is in dire need of another bonus. Because that extra 2xp for a short while is nothing when compared to what Agg/Cha/Pro has to offer.

As I have said I'm not arguing that it's a strong trait. I'm arguing that the change will make it stronger to some degree. Now maybe you don't think that it will make the trait strong enough but I don't understand how you can think that the change will not make imperialistic stronger at all (and I don't mean compared to other theoretical changes).

I'll concede that the change doesn't benefit imperialistic if you can explain to me how the two paragraphs you quoted above are inaccurate in showing that imperialistic will be made stronger than it is in its current form.

If you simply think that it's not a strong enough change then there's no point in us having this arguement because I'm not getting into a comparison of the relative merits of each trait in here - that would go beyond what I'm trying to say; that the change will benefit imperialistic to some degree. I've already said that I think that imperialistic is a weak trait. I won't be going any further than that here.

I guess one could say that the idea of the first GG is for it to be a Warlord. That would result in 20xp for all units who are fighting (not to mention a Warlord). That's a distinct advantage, but I dunno. It doesn't last long and has no real staying power.

The greatest myth of great generals is that the first one should be used to create a warlord so that West Point is unlocked. It's not at all difficult to include in your plan for a war the minor task of getting a level 6 unit. Even in my peaceful games I'll accept the request from an AI to go to war just so that I can get a level 6 unit.

 

[bonafide11]

The greatest myth of great generals is that the first one should be used to create a warlord so that West Point is unlocked. It's not at all difficult to include in your plan for a war the minor task of getting a level 6 unit. Even in my peaceful games I'll accept the request from an AI to go to war just so that I can get a level 6 unit.

I have to agree with you there. I see no reason to make your first Great General a Warlord. Medic III is nice, but not that great. I would much prefer my axemen coming out of my main military city with CRII. Getting a unit with level 6 experience is pretty easy by the time of West Point.

 

[Peachrocks]

Someone said it earlier... The trait becomes virtually useless as soon as it hits 0 AD. Every other trait is useful for the entire game.

The settler bonus only really helps you get cities spots before other players which sure is a valuable ability, but if you think about what you don't get if you had another trait, getting that city spot kinda goes out. Not to mention that it only boosts hammers anyway so you aren't going to gain a whole lot out of it compared to non imperialistic leaders. Faster settler also have a very limited lifespam of usefulness and the fact your money situation can go down the toilet if you try to go from this trait too much. You know a trait is bad if you have to stop yourself making the most out of it.

Great generals? IMO they aren't good enough to be useful and require you to be at war for the bonus to do anything. Meaning it might not even help you win the war until its over or the victor is decided unlike aggressive or charismitic which helps you as you are going to war, not during.

I always use my great generals for instructors, almost never as warlords unless I sense a real oppturnity or want West point mid game, but these options are open for all civs, it just takes longer.

It's definately a weak trait, it has use but its early game use has to be limited if you dont want your money to go down the toilet and its mid game use isn't that good either. I'd take protective over imperialistic for sure. Protective upgraded crossbows or rifles aren't bad.

 

[winddbourne]

The early settlers help because you can claim ideal city locations and resources before your rivals. It also helps a lot to get those first cities built earlier so they can begin working on the granary/barracks/archer/monument or whatever you want for it. I do not think anything is wrong with the settler bonus and I hope Firaxis leaves it as it is. Still though, I hope Imperialist provides a cheaper building or two...

I still think imperialistic is undervalued, but I will admit it is weaker than the other traits.

The problem with putting out your first settlers more quickly is that Firaxis did such a good job getting rid of "Infinite city Sleaze", those early cities cost a lot and building them as quickly as possible can bankrupt an "Imperialistic" player rather than helping him.

Cheap settlers would be a useful bonus if it also cut in half, or eliminated the cost of your first three cities, so you could build them quickly and actually benefit from them. But it also might be TOO powerful then.

The bonus definitely needs to be rebalanced from they way it works now though, since using it effectively can actually harm your civilization by making you over-extend yourself.

I'd prefer to get rid of the bonus to settlers altogether, and instead give you a bonus to production and commerce in your Capital City. That way you could produce whatever you wanted more quickly in your first few turns, and perhaps have an easier time supporting your second city.

A more productive Capital City would also be a useful bonus throughout the game. It would have very good synergy with the "beaurocracy" civic making that more useful. Plus it wouldn't copy the bonus' of any other leader.

If you used your bonus production and commerce to build and support a large early army instead of a second city it would also help you produce early great generals.

Honestly you could make the capital city bonus the ONLY bonus for the "imperialistic" trait, and still have it be one of the better traits in the game for both war and peace. Though a few cheaper buildings would still be nice.

 

[Antilogic]

I disagree with boosting the capital city because the bonus doesn't "scale" with regards to the map size or the size of your empire. On smaller maps with 2-5 cities per civilization, the bonus will have a greater impact than on much larger maps with ~10 or more cities per civilization. The other traits scale with your civilization--cheap buildings in every city, for example, or Financial's "tile-based" ability--the more tiles you work, the greater the bonus.

Personally, it always struck me as odd that Imperialistic got the Settler bonus and Expansive got a Worker bonus. I'm working on a mod that, amongst other things, flips these bonuses. We'll see whether or not it seems worthwhile.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

The greatest myth of great generals is that the first one should be used to create a warlord so that West Point is unlocked. It's not at all difficult to include in your plan for a war the minor task of getting a level 6 unit. Even in my peaceful games I'll accept the request from an AI to go to war just so that I can get a level 6 unit.

But you absolutely cannot possibly guarantee doing this. Lets say typically you're most experienced unit from an early extensive war is a sword with 16 xp. Now even if the sword isn't outdated by now (say its medieval times), its got to find ten choice battles to win (at 90%+ odds) to get it to lvl 6. If its a newly built knight (even from a military instructor city) then it needs to win even more battles. Even then, it only takes one nasty random number roll, and you have to start all over again with a new unit. Unless that is, you just save before every combat with said intended unit, which is a bit bogus to me....

If you're going to go to war just for this purpose, then its probably more efficient to have a super mace/knight whatever, with combat 5 and leadership(from the first gg) who travels exclusively with a medic and takes on all the tougher battles, and thus gets you even quicker xp towards the 2nd GG.

 

[Thedrin]

Lets say typically you're most experienced unit from an early extensive war is a sword with 16 xp.

That does not sound like me. My first extensive war will always have the goal of obtaining a level 6 unit, dragging out the war longer than it has to be if necessary. If I fail it's because I have problems big enough that I might not get to military tradition at all.

And I've never fought a war where the only advantage in doing so was a possible level 6 unit. But sometimes that is the reason to go to war in the first place. Also you can't get that warlord-knight without going to war anyway. Use that war to get the level 6 unit and use the resulting great general for a military instructor.

 

[Watiggi]

As I have said I'm not arguing that it's a strong trait. I'm arguing that the change will make it stronger to some degree. Now maybe you don't think that it will make the trait strong enough but I don't understand how you can think that the change will not make imperialistic stronger at all (and I don't mean compared to other theoretical changes).

I'll concede that the change doesn't benefit imperialistic if you can explain to me how the two paragraphs you quoted above are inaccurate in showing that imperialistic will be made stronger than it is in its current form.

If you simply think that it's not a strong enough change then there's no point in us having this arguement because I'm not getting into a comparison of the relative merits of each trait in here - that would go beyond what I'm trying to say; that the change will benefit imperialistic to some degree. I've already said that I think that imperialistic is a weak trait. I won't be going any further than that here.

I still believe that the extra 30% gives it some long term viability and IS a plus for the trait. Making the change may 'boost' the begining, but it'll kill that longterm viability by reducing the overall number of GG's that Imp is capable of getting. I don't believe that the change is in Imperialistic's favour - especially with the other xp generating wonders and what not that are available. Letting Imp capable of accessing more GG's than non Imp leaders helps it to get those extra xp plus have a shot at the wonders. Again this change makes it more short term and kills it's longterm capability. Overall, it's a nerf - NOT an improvement.

You seriously underestimate the '30%'. I go to war right from the word go... well after 5 or so warriors anyway... and stay at war in one form or another all game. The extra GG's add up after a while. I've had nearly 9 GG's (18xp away) - and that was still with a good 110 turns to go. They're worthwhile, but this change will kill all that and nerf it significantly.

Trust me, giving it a little more boost at the begining, at the cost of the overall number of GG's that Imp can get, will be a detriment to it. But I'm getting the feeling now that I'm talking to an Imp player who doesn't start war until West Point.... If that's the case, then I can see why you think it's an improvement.... and why I'm wasting my time justifying my argument. When I was refering to using the first GG as a Warlord, I meant for the Warriors and/or Axemen, not for a level 6 unit that's for a building that's eons away. Instant CRIII Warriors/Axemen go a long way at the begining.

 

[bonafide11]

Watiggi: What do you think should be done to improve the Imperialist trait?

 

[Watiggi]

Keeping it simple, first off, I'd work on altering the GG frequency and capability so that the extra GG's the Imperialistic leader gets, competes with the bonuses of the other traits. Right now, it's way below par.

Other creative ideas are fun to explore, but the fundermental concept of the GG bonus and settler bonus is good enough I think... it's just that it's currently not strong enough to compete with the other traits bonuses.

An actual 100% Great General Emergence would be a good start. Then work on improving the scale in itself: The current scale is the same as GP's, except that GP's have much greater access to GPP's via specialists and wonders, whereas the GG's don't. Then, if needed, I'd work on the GG itself and what it has to offer.

 

[Olleus]

Thats all very vague. Give us numbers. Instead of +100% GG points would you change it to +200%? more?

 

[Robotron 2084]

Let Imperialistic cities grow while producing settlers & workers!

+200% GG emergence.

 

[Watiggi]

Thats all very vague. Give us numbers. Instead of +100% GG points would you change it to +200%? more?

Huh? I said an actual 100% Great General Emergence. I can't get more numeric than that.

As for being vague, I left it vague in areas because I don't know the actual values. That would require play testing and revising in order to reach an appropriate balance (which was for Imperialistic's extra GG's effectiveness to rival other traits bonuses. That would be the goal).

 

[bonafide11]

What is the difference between an "actual" 100% Great General emergence, and the 100% Great General emergence that we have now? In other words, how is it not an actual 100% Great General emergence as it is now?

Still, I think Imperialist needs cheaper buildings, most likely cheaper jails to make up for the high war weariness.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

"Actual" +100% would mean you'll get twice as many Great Generals as without the trait, but instead you just get double experience and the required exp for the next General is always increasing.