Watiggi:
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.
I'm aware that imperialistic will be capable of less great generals overall. But, as I've said, by the end game I don't really see that imperialistic is getting much value out of those extra great generals.
This has been split into two parts but the wording remains unchanged (except for one typo):
1) At the end of a game 30% extra great generals doesn't mean much at all. Reason? By that stage 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.
2)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.
I am merely stating here why I don't think that imperialistic currently offers much of a late game advantage to a civ anyway - why maintaining that aspect of imperialistic trait is not all that important to the overall value of the trait. Why reducing the total number of extra great generals at the end of the game that an imperialistic civ has over a non-imperialistic civ is not seriously detrimental to the trait's worth.
Watiggi:
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.
No, I don't believe it will be to the detriment of imperialistic since I don't think the late game extra great generals are all that significant and I do think that getting great generals earlier than your opponents is much more significant.
Your suspicions about my prefered timing of warfare are innaccurate (and somewhat bizarre since I've made a point of saying that earlier great generals are one of the big advantages of imperialistic). I find gunpowder warfare boring and predictable compared to the earlier eras. I would usually choose multiple city raider II units over two or three city raider III units.
Watiggi:
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.
Do you get any use out of the cheap settlers?
Also are you looking at imperialistic's late game value as being the total number of great generals generated or the extra great generals generated as a result of playing as an imperialistic civ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
New point:
The difference in great generals between imperialistic civs and non-imperialistic civs after the change won't even be altered by very much anyway (though I would maintain that the extra great generals are not all that important by that stage).
I did a check using the ridiculous assumption that the extra points required for each great general would double from 30 (at normal or epic) to 60. Typically the reduction in the difference is only a single great general (1). Quite often there is no reduction and occassionally there is actually an increase (2).
(1) Even if a player managed to put a total of between 1365 and 1574 XP towards great generals the total difference in great generals produced reduces by just one. Currently that is the thirteenth great general for an imperialistic civ and the ninth for a non-imperialistic civ giving the imperialistic civ 4 extra great generals. Doubling the points required for each great general would mean that an imperialistic civ would get nine great generals and a non-imperialistic civ would get six giving the imperialistic civ 3 extra great generals. That's a total change of just one great general.
(2) Doesn't happen often but take the case where a total of between 300 and 314 XP are put towards great generals. that's five and four great generals for an imperialistic civ and a non-imperialistic civ respectively under current rules giving a difference of just one great general. Doubling the points required for each great general would mean four and two great generals for an imperialistic civ and a non-imperialistic civ giving a difference of two great generals.
(so even if opponent close borders, your own trades routes to your other cities still work).
is already done via Creative trait, so I was thinking of some sort of resistance to another civ's culture growth).
(like monuments and broadcast towers adds +1
to Custom House and/or +50%
