Imperialistic trait

[kniteowl]

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.

I don't see how that improves the Imp Trait. Wouldn't the ratio between the number of GGs an Imp Leader gets compared to a Non-Imp leader be more or less the same?

If both a Imp and a non-imp leader accumulated 400XP towards getting GGs

an Imp leader would get 5 GGs and have 85XP on getting it's 6th GG
a non Imp leader would get 4 GGs exactly.

Imp (15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105)
Non-Imp (30, 60, 90, 120)

If we were to double the amount of XP required to produce a GG then

an Imp leader would get exactly 4 GGs
while the non-Imp leader would get 3 GGs and have 40XP towards it's 4th one.

Imp (30, 60, 90, 120)
Non-Imp (60, 120, 180, 240)

Now assuming both Leaders accumulated 800XP for the sake of comparing, not that I've ever accumulated that many XP before.

An Imp Civ would get 6 GGs and have 170XP towards it's 7th GG
A non-Imp Civ would get 4 GGs and have 200XP towards it's 5th GG

Imp (30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210.)
Non-Imp (60, 120, 180, 240, 300.)

So the Ratio isn't the same I guess, but from my point of view the advantage is still very marginal.

Sure I get a lot more GGs if I accumulate a high amount of XP for the Imp leader but by that point in the game, it's more or less over. I've either conquered half the world and won domination in which case I'd be better off using other Warmonger traits or there aren't enough turns to accumulated that many XP towards GGs.

 

[bluedevil99]

Really imperialistic would be fine, even possibly among the better traits, if the production bonus to settlers applied to food and not just hammers. Otherwise, a cheap building would make it suck less, but it would still likely be among the worst traits.

 

[Thedrin]

KniteOwl:
I don't see how that improves the Imp Trait. Wouldn't the ratio between the number of GGs an Imp Leader gets compared to a Non-Imp leader be more or less the same?

Yes, it would.

The real strength of imperialistic lies in;
1) the bonus to settler production,
2) the turn advantage that come with getting quicker great generals

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

 

[bonafide11]

Thedrin, if this is the only "bonus" given to Imperialist, surely you can agree that it is significantly weaker than any other trait in the game. Imperialist deserves cheaper jails (and/or customs house, or some sort of espionage building) at the very least. Jails will help with the war weariness that accompanies Imperialist and provide an espionage bonus.

Someone mentioned cheaper stables, but I would prefer to see Aggressive get the cheaper stables.

Everyone can stop talking about lowering the maintence cost for imperialist. Organized already does it, and there's no sense in having two traits lower the maintence costs, even if they're two different types of maintence costs. Clearly that would make Imperialist way too overpowered. Imagine how powerful Julius would be if they provided Imperialist with a lower maintence cost. Let's stick to proposing solutions that Firaxis will actually consider implementing.

 

[Auren]

The change in the production of great generals, while an improvement, is not even close to significant change to make one reassess the trait as a whole. The trait needs an addition to improve it.

Everyone can stop talking about lowering the maintence cost for imperialist. Organized already does it, and there's no sense in having two traits lower the maintence costs, even if they're two different types of maintence costs. Clearly that would make Imperialist way too overpowered. Imagine how powerful Julius would be if they provided Imperialist with a lower maintence cost. Let's stick to proposing solutions that Firaxis will actually consider implementing.

I think the idea behind a maintence bonus is a suggestion for the type of bonus to be one the can help the player early and economicly. It does not help much to make extra settlers if those extra settlers would just slow you down at a time when the player's economy is not large enough to support the addition of more cities.

 

[bonafide11]

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...

 

[sydhe]

Imperialism should have some sort of bonus related to vassal states, including colonies.

 

[scy12]

As previously stated by reducing the GG any leader will get you are practically reducing the effectiveness of Imperialistic since not imperialistic Leaders GG is not a necessary element of their strategy. Personally i would increase the rate of GG , only for the imperialistic trait while leaving the rate of GG for other traits the same as it is now. Half priced buildings such as Jails would also be appreciated.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well Ideas about what it could do

1. +50% bonus applies to food as well as production (this is a Really good change because otherwise chopping/whipping Imperial Settlers or Expansive Workers is a necessity... a game mechanics exploit, that the change would make unnecessary.)

2. Improve the GG Bonus, by making GG Better (+3xp MI, Military Academy gives 1 GG point per unit produced, Leaders give more experience to all and free promotion to those they join.), or giving a bigger bonus

NEW bonuses
3. Buildings: Jails (good for WW+possible espionage), Custom House (really depends if Vassals count as 'Foreign' for this purpose.)

4. something reducing cost of Vassals or # of Cities maintenance (which is affected by Vassals).

# 1 is the best in my opinion as it gives Imperials a good generic start.

 

[Thedrin]

Bonafide11:
Thedrin, if this is the only "bonus" given to Imperialist, surely you can agree that it is significantly weaker than any other trait in the game.

Pre-BtS I would say that protective is the weakest trait but that imperialistic is the second weakest. Imperialistic does look like it will be the weakest trait in BtS. However, I don't think it is too weak;

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.

I actually meant to say (but won't change it now) 'it doesn't need a huge improvement if any but a small one is okay'.

 

[Watiggi]

Thedrin, I am absolutely floored by your shortsightedness on this.

Making it so that Imperialistic's GG bonus really only gives an early GG is not much of a bonus, especially considering what a GG has to offer. I'm sorry. The change you suggested would diminish the other bonus which it currently has, which is for Imperialistic to get about 30% more GG's for the same amount of war. That trade of, to me, is a nerf - NOT an improvement. Making GG's rarer in the process will also bring down Imp because of the Imp traits reliance on GG's. If the changes you suggest are done, then there needs to be another bonus or two. Heck, I would expect there to be such an addition.

It is going to happen. It was not my idea but I think it's a good idea.

What are you talking about? Are you telling me they are making this change? Where was this stated?

2. Improve the GG Bonus, by making GG Better (+3xp MI, Military Academy gives 1 GG point per unit produced, Leaders give more experience to all and free promotion to those they join.), or giving a bigger bonus

+3xp will benefit Charismatic far too much. I do like the idea of allowing MA to have some sort of influence in getting GG's though. That way, putting more into making MA military infrastructure can improve the rate of getting more GG's.

Maybe make the MA loose it's increased production bonus and give it a +25% GG experience bonus instead. That'll be interesting. The Imp leader getting one early would make good use of it and be able to accelerate away with building more. Thinking about it, that actually makes a lot of sense. +25% might be a little too much though.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

If you play huge maps, then 80% of the time, the settler bonus is completely useless, unless you are playing many more civs than the map is designed for. Ok maybe a few times, there is a really choice site for a 2nd city AND there is another civ close enough to possibly want that site too, but if they are that close, then you're probably going to have to fight them anyways sooner or later, so just let them build you a free city and find another good site, then kill em later

Watiggi I know has done a lot of work / research on the Imp trait, and I agree that it needs some kind of boost. I still think it needs a cheap building or 2, as even compared with a "fairly" weak trait like exp, the 50% worker bonus to me is far more powerful than 50% settlers.

And yes, I can see that on a "normal" sized map, sometimes its of utmost importance to grab a city site before the ai does, but that just doen't really happen on huge maps, and especially with marathon, bombing out 2 or 3 cities absolutely kills, and I mean kills your science if you don't have pottery first and plenty of workers.

 

[Titus001]

Fix imperialistic trait please!! Anyone know why they changed Augustus Caesar's traits? I liked having creative trait with him.

 

[SkUlLSmAsHeR]

5 leaders will take on this trait in BTS: Augustus, Justinian, Suleiman, Charlemagne and Joao II. Previously, underused, this will be a very common trait now.

What do you guys think about this trait now? Is it still underpowered? Why do you think they haven't given it more?

Personally, it still remains a favourite of mine through Victoria and now Augustus.

I think its one of my favorite traits. Works good for those who like to use military forces or those who arent good at it yet. It gives a major boost in military, It doesnt cause a problem since only a few civs use it. Its not like half of the civs use it mainly just the civs who are war mongers.

 

[Thedrin]

Watiggi:
What are you talking about? Are you telling me they are making this change? Where was this stated?

Sorry. I'm sure someone (like Bonafide11) can back me up or, at least, confirm that it's very likely to happen, but there is no defintive statement here (or at Apolyton) that it will happen. But it almost certainly will happen.

If it's of any consolation to you imperialistic wasn't mentioned at all in relation to the change. So you could still argue that it's not being made to improve the imperialistic trait - that it's being made for an entirely different reason.

Making it so that Imperialistic's GG bonus really only gives an early GG is not much of a bonus, especially considering what a GG has to offer. I'm sorry. The change you suggested would diminish the other bonus which it currently has, which is for Imperialistic to get about 30% more GG's for the same amount of war. That trade of, to me, is a nerf - NOT an improvement. Making GG's rarer in the process will also bring down Imp because of the Imp traits reliance on GG's. If the changes you suggest are done, then there needs to be another bonus or two. Heck, I would expect there to be such an addition.

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.

DrewBledsoe:
compared with a "fairly" weak trait like exp, the 50% worker bonus to me is far more powerful than 50% settlers.

This is being changed to a +25% worker bonus so it's no longer a good enough reason for requesting a change to the imperialistic trait (it did used to be).

 

[bonafide11]

Yes, I will support Thedrin on this one. It seems rather likely that Firaxis is increasing the amount of experience needed to produce successive great generals. However, I do not think that will improve the Imperialist trait. Likewise, the other supposed improvement to Imperialist is the nerfing of Expansive's worker production. I do not think, however, that either of these "improvements" actually improves Imperialist.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Yes, I will support Thedrin on this one. It seems rather likely that Firaxis is increasing the amount of experience needed to produce successive great generals. However, I do not think that will improve the Imperialist trait. Likewise, the other supposed improvement to Imperialist is the nerfing of Expansive's worker production. I do not think, however, that either of these "improvements" actually improves Imperialist.

I already use a smaller GG scale for marathon :-45,67,90,112, it absolutely doesn't need to be made any longer a scale. If they change it, personally I'll change it back the seconds I install the game. I personally have never had more than 4 GG (from combat)in one single game, which isn't really over the top. Even using my scale, the 5th GG (sorry these are all non imperialistic btw) would need 135 xp. Thats probably at least 65 won battles on offence, which is a hell of a lot, at 50/50 odds it would take 130 combats on average...

Edit: Unless that is, the ai now produces ridiculous nos of troops, as in some versions of Blake's mod, which only forces the player to do the same..I really hope this isn't the case, but that would be a completely valid reason for making GG's more expensive.

 

[bonafide11]

Edit: Unless that is, the ai now produces ridiculous nos of troops, as in some versions of Blake's mod, which only forces the player to do the same..I really hope this isn't the case, but that would be a completely valid reason for making GG's more expensive.

That is a good point. In some of Blake's Better AI mod, the AI had way more troops, which made it easier to gain more experience for more Great Generals. Still though, I don't think that such a change will improve Imperialist.

If not a bonus to Espionage or to the Great Spies, I think a cheaper building or two will be a necessity for the Imperialist trait.

 

[Phoenix1595]

Didn't they say in the chat or some article that the civics and traits in general were going to be reworked anyway, in consideration of the new features in corporations and espionage? I wouldn't be surprised if a trait got some sort of espionage bonus. Here's hoping for imperialist...

 

[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.