Imperialistic trait

[Thedrin]

Bonafide11:
Anyone care to speculate on how, or if, Firaxis intends on improving the Imperialist trait?

I suppose they could increase the amount of XP required to generate great generals.That would enhance its power - the more XP required for a great general, the greater the bonus from imperislistic.

 

[Brentimus]

Joao II imperialistic?

Did I miss something from my history. . .better wiki it again. . .

 

[bonafide11]

I suppose they could increase the amount of XP required to generate great generals.That would enhance its power - the more XP required for a great general, the greater the bonus from imperislistic.

Thedrin: Didn't they have it like that prior to Warlords 2.08, and they increased it because it was not generating enough Great Generals? I think they should offer the trait another peace-time bonus because after your first two settlers, the trait requires you to be at war to even take advantage of the trait's bonus. Now I am a warmonger, so I personally do not mind and I enjoy the Imperialist trait, but I expected Beyond the Sword to make the game less dependent on war. I really feel Imperialism needs to be reflected in another area besides the warring.

At the very least, double production of jails makes sense because the Imperialist trait requires you to be at war for the whole game, so your war weariness will likely be high in the late game. It would make sense for Imperialist to get cheaper jails to help with the war weariness.

 

[Phoenix1595]

Actually this is one of the better balanced traits. It allows you to get out a number of cheap settlers and set up a decent empire, without crippling your growth, and then later you can use that empire to attack someone else and get great generals to improve your military might, and production of military units.

What it is weak for is "pure agression" players that, as stated somewhere else, build two cities and send a rush to take the rest of their empire from somebody else.

It also has great synergy with the Great Wall. So you throw up your first four or five cities, build the great wall to keep the barbarians out, and when your victim tries to counter attack your defenders get another 100% bonus to cranking out those generals.

I think the trait is under valued mostly because a lot of people either play total war, or total peace. For a balanced, non rush, strategy the trait is actually fairly powerful.

I agree with you, Windbourne. I do tend for more cultural victories, but as Augustus the ROMAN, I can't help but start a few wars every once in awhile to appease my praets (hey, they've KILLED other emperors for less!). I don't mind imperialist-- it's a strong trait for a player who wants the full experience of the game.

That being said, I don't think Augustus fits the Imperialist that well-- he wasn't a great general, nor did he wish to expand the Roman Empire infinitely. He fit far better with his Organized trait (he was renown for drastically reducing the corruption and bureaucracy the Empire experienced under the Republic). However, I can live with the change. I'll just pretend that Agrippa is behind the curtain calling the shots on my military...

 

[scooter]

It's definitely separate from the Great Person system.

In one of Alex's interviews he basically said it's definitely in the Great Person system, in other words, they work like prophets and merchants, not like generals.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Thedrin: Didn't they have it like that prior to Warlords 2.08, and they increased it because it was not generating enough Great Generals? I think they should offer the trait another peace-time bonus because after your first two settlers, the trait requires you to be at war to even take advantage of the trait's bonus. Now I am a warmonger, so I personally do not mind and I enjoy the Imperialist trait, but I expected Beyond the Sword to make the game less dependent on war. I really feel Imperialism needs to be reflected in another area besides the warring.

At the very least, double production of jails makes sense because the Imperialist trait requires you to be at war for the whole game, so your war weariness will likely be high in the late game. It would make sense for Imperialist to get cheaper jails to help with the war weariness.

Also Jails will probably help the espionage. so they might give the Imperialists a Peace time bonus

 

[bonafide11]

Good point Krikkitone

 

[Thedrin]

Bonafide11:
Thedrin: Didn't they have it like that prior to Warlords 2.08, and they increased it because it was not generating enough Great Generals?

No.

Before 2.08 great general production scaled with time rather than with ability to produce units and engage in warfare. This meant that epic and marathon games produced fewer great generals than normal games. 2.08 did not change the requirements for a great general at normal speed. It only changed the requirements for epic and marathon (and maybe quick) so that games at these speed would produce roughly the same number as at normal speed.

So increasing the requirements for a great general at all speeds will not undo a previously made change.

 

[bonafide11]

Okay, my mistake, but I still do not think the Great General is powerful enough to make Imperialist an effective trait simply by requiring more Experience to generate the Generals.

 

[Watiggi]

I suppose they could increase the amount of XP required to generate great generals.That would enhance its power - the more XP required for a great general, the greater the bonus from imperislistic.

No it wouldn't. Half the problem with the under performing Imp trait is that Great Generals aren't that numerous and effective as it is when comparing to the bonuses of Charismatic and what not (and the fact that Charismatic can get GG's as well as it's bonuses).

Making it harder to get a GG would just make Imp get less GG's - and considering that having 2-3 more GG's isn't really that great as it is, it will be even less effective. You have to compare what a +100% GG 'emergence' gives and compare that with the other traits: Charismatic, with -25% promotions and GG's or Imperialistic with just 30% (2-3) more GG's. That's essentially the difference and that's a big difference.

I too would like a spy bonus, but I dare say that ain't happening. If Phi gets a bonus to spys, then this game is heading in a strange direction as it'll mean that Phi gets a big boost, while traits like Imp fall behind.

But, to be honest, I've given up with Firaxis.

 

[Thedrin]

Watiggi, in all fairness you're comparing one of the weakest traits with one of the strongest - charismatic. It'd be a lot fairer if you compared it to a more average trait.

Watiggi:
Making it harder to get a GG would just make Imp get less GG's

Of course. But that's not the point. The point is to make imperialistic a stronger trait. You do this by giving imperialistic civs a greater advantage in a particular area of the game than non-imperialistic civs:

Imperialistic civs already get quicker great generals than non imperialistic civs. Increasing the number of great general points required means that the time difference between an imperialistic civ obtaining a great general and a non-imperialistic civ obtaining a great general will be even greater - that an imperialistic civ's bonus over non-imperialistic civs is even greater.

 

[marioflag]

I think that Imperialistic will be a lot weaker if Philosophical trait also applies to Great Spies.Philosophical even for a warmonger would be a lot more useful than Imperialistic, because espionage could make more damage to enemy than a Great Commander potentially.
An Espionage bonus like a bonus of +25% to espionage point or Great Spy points would be really fit for Imperialistic trait.
I assume that in any case they don't balance single traits but the combination of trait with UU and UB, so Imperialistic would be just the weak point of an overall combination......if you just see at the chart of all Imperialistic leaders, there are some of the most powerful leaders/civs Genghis Khan,Cyrus,Victoria, the 2 Romans leaders,Charlemagne and Justinian, so it's not a case that Imperialistic is paired with civs that have the most powerful UU Pretorians,Landschnekt,Cataphract,Immortal,Redcoat.

 

[bonafide11]

Although I'd like to see Imperialist get an Espionage bonus or a bonus to Great Spies, I would be surprised if it happened. Still though, I expect Firaxis to do something to improve Imperialist.

Thedrin: You're right, you can't compare Charismatic to Imperialist, but people always compared Imperialist and Protective and they are both considered to be the weakest traits in the game. But consider what we know of BTS, Protective seems to be way stronger than Imperialist now. They've significantly improved Protective by allowing gunpowder units to promote upto Drill IV and providing Walls/Castles with an espionage bonus. Both of these additions make Protective more useful for military AND for espionage.
If Protective receives such an upgrade, I think Firaxis will have to AT LEAST grant Imperialist a cheaper building or two (jail and/or customs house), if not an espionage bonus.

If the only improvements that Imperialist receives is to reduce Expansive's bonus for worker production and to reduce the amount of Great Generals for everyone, I think Firaxis is missing the point. In my opinion, Firaxis needs to make the Imperialist trait more useful throughout the entire game.

Also, I am not saying I dislike the Imperialist trait, it is definitely one of the most fun traits to play with, but as far as game balance goes, it is significantly weaker than any other trait, now including Protective. I still think Firaxis will improve this...

 

[Watiggi]

Of course. But that's not the point. The point is to make imperialistic a stronger trait. You do this by giving imperialistic civs a greater advantage in a particular area of the game than non-imperialistic civs:

Imperialistic civs already get quicker great generals than non imperialistic civs. Increasing the number of great general points required means that the time difference between an imperialistic civ obtaining a great general and a non-imperialistic civ obtaining a great general will be even greater - that an imperialistic civ's bonus over non-imperialistic civs is even greater.

You're missing a very big point that actually contradicts that supposed strength you're suggesting: The fact is, the real strength of Imp's GG bonus is totally dependant on what the GG actually offers... And even that was nerfed in the latest patch with MA being taken away until Education. The extra GG's that Imp gives is the bonus.

Simply put: A normal leader might produce x GG's. An Imp leader will produce x+2 or so GG's. Does the extra 2 GG's compare with the other trait bonuses? No. Not by a long shot.

Making it harder to get GG's will just result in less GG's overall, and although it'll make the GG bonus look stronger - in that it'll be able to get more of something that'll be harder for the rest to get - the Imp trait will suffer overall because when push comes to shove, the GG benefit simply doesn't have the scope and influence that the other trait's bonuses have. That's why the Imp trait underperforms.

 

[bonafide11]

Watigi: I couldn't agree more. Increasing the amount experience needed for Great Generals does not improve Imperialist because the GG itself is not a powerful enough Great Person. Imperialist needs to be given something that will provide it with a more unique ability that will separate it from the other traits. If not an espionage or Great Spy bonus, they definitely deserve cheaper buildings...

 

[Thedrin]

Watiggi:
You're missing a very big point that actually contradicts that supposed strength you're suggesting: The fact is, the real strength of Imp's GG bonus is totally dependant on what the GG actually offers...

I disagree with that very big point so, while it may contradict what I said, I don't find its contradictory nature important.

The real strength of imperialistic lies in;
1) the bonus to settler production,
2) the turn advantage that come with getting quicker great generals, e.g. having access to 5XP melee units long before your rivals.

The proposed change will increase the advantage offered by 2).

Incidentally,

And even that was nerfed in the latest patch with MA being taken away until Education.

Few built military academies (25% extra production back then) before the patch. Or, at least, few people built them twice. The patch did not nerf the most productive use of great generals - military instructors - so I think bringing military academies into it is kind of irrelevant.

 

[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]

2) the turn advantage that come with getting quicker great generals, e.g. having access to 5XP melee units long before your rivals.

The proposed change will increase the advantage offered by 2).

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.

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.

Few built military academies (25% extra production back then) before the patch. Or, at least, few people built them twice. The patch did not nerf the most productive use of great generals - military instructors - so I think bringing military academies into it is kind of irrelevant.

No it's not. The MA had it's place and was usable, especially in conjunction with the use of MI's. The thing here is that GG's are so hard to come by anyway, that priorities come into play and the MA became second best. The solution: Remove it until later in the game but make it more powerful. Sorry, that is a nerf, not a solution. Why? An Imp leader who can produce more GG's earlier could afford to use one or two of them as MA's. Now they can't. Again, that's a nerf. And with your proposed model, it would make GG's even more scarce.

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 - makes each one of those leaders loose a whole combination of ongoing bonuses that the other leaders have. This brings down that leader.... So much for being 'imperialistic'!

 

[Auren]

I think that the Imperialistic trait could really use an economic bonus instead of the GG production bonus. I find that when I am Imperialistic I often that the extra settlers just slow me down through the effect of new cities on my economy.

I would suggest replacing GG with 20%-30% lower maitinence costs for each city. It would then help support the "large imperial" empire concept better.

 

[Thedrin]

An important point to be noted first.

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.