Imperialistic trait

[Ikael]

Imperialistic is a trait that can be upgraded trough lots of many means:

a) Extra bonuses for the capital.
Every tile in your capital that produces 2 or more hammers produces an extra one
Every tile in your capital that produces 3 or more of commerce produces an extra one

b) Increases the Great general effects by a 50% (they give more experience to units, the accademies have an increased effect, etc).

c) +50% to the generation of spy points, -50% to the spyionage expenses.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I also like the idea of making the Warlords more powerful. Why should they only receive 20 experience points? That's so insignificant for how difficult it is to receive the Great General. Unless the leader is charismatic, 20 experience points is only four promotions.

In actual game terms, if you are using a GG to produce a lvl 6 unit, then its probably only 2 promotions.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Destroying another civilization starts a Golden Age.

OR:

Make it easier for Imperialist civs to get and to keep Vassals.

 

[Watiggi]

I agree with bonafide on the +3xp issue benefiting Charismatic too much. The big problem I see with improving Imp - and Firaxis doing something about it - is the Romans and Cyrus. They are both very powerful and improving the trait will result in them getting more powerful.

Firaxis should never have gone down the line of intentionally creating imbalanced civs - especially by using traits that define many leaders. They should have either used individual bonuses and then intentionally made them biased or have kept them balanced and able to be used across the board. Right now, the Roman's being how powerful they are puts down the other Imp leaders. I [sadly] can't see this changing and it's the one reason why I get put off from playing this game.

....

What would happen if the MA gave a bonus to GG xp? So that building the MA would allow the civ to get more GG's with less effort. It would require more work in order to build it up, but may result in a steadier flow of GG's. If Imp's bonus allowed it to be able to use a spare GG as a MA, then it could improve its ability to generate GG's.

Another issue with not making GG's too popular in game is being able to stack the MI's together and create a city producing 20xp units. I have never liked that idea myself and would prefer a limit placed on MI's per city allowed. Imperialistic leaders would generally end up with more cities than anything else - hence my preference for more GG's: more MA's in more cities, slowly working to build an imperial look and feel.

 

[bonafide11]

I don't like the idea of Imperialism affecting vassals because it would make the trait different for multiplayer than for single player.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I don't like the idea of Imperialism affecting vassals because it would make the trait different for multiplayer than for single player.

True enough. Maybe just the Golden Age then

 

[bonafide11]

I think the Golden Age sounds like a good idea, anything to increase the amount of Golden Ages.

 

[Watiggi]

off topic: Would be interesting if they made a button that can just give you a golden age (well, maybe it'll take a few turns to activate). Then, once the golden age finishes, you go into a slump (depression or something) which counter balances the golden age.

Would then have to time it to use it.

 

[bonafide11]

off topic: Would be interesting if they made a button that can just give you a golden age (well, maybe it'll take a few turns to activate). Then, once the golden age finishes, you go into a slump (depression or something) which counter balances the golden age.

Would then have to time it to use it.

Watiggi: That's actually a really interesting idea! It would make Golden Ages more frequent, but they would have a major downside as well. It also would make sense too. For example, it'd be like the Roaring Twenties preceding the Great Depression.

 

[Phoenix1595]

Right now, the Roman's being how powerful they are puts down the other Imp leaders.

Augustus was not Imp UNTIL BtS-- his Cre/Org combo was extremely powerful, but they actually nerfed him with Imp.

Anyway, in regards to improving Imp: I agree that a capital city bonus would be nice-- I think a strong cultural/commerce bonus could re-enact the influence of an imperial capital quite well. It would replicate the cultural and economic expansion that are indicative of most "empires."

It would also help distance Imp. from the more militaristic traits of Agg and Exp, because I find that most "Imperalistic" civs in the game seem to have a strong cultural presence in RW history. As Imp. stands now, it seems to be half "aggressive" with its GG bonus (for the warmonger), and half "expansive" with the settler bonus (which can reflect most playing styles). If you are not a warmonger, you are left with a faster settler bonus, but that's it. I would be happy with Imperialistic if it reflected some sort of cultural bonus, even a small one. Imp. could be a broader "jack-of-all-trades" trait that isn't strong in one area, but avg. in many. I think this addition would help Imp. the most without radically changing everything about this trait completely.

 

[Watiggi]

Augustus was not Imp UNTIL BtS-- his Cre/Org combo was extremely powerful, but they actually nerfed him with Imp.

I know. I was refering to the Romans post BtS. Now that both of them are Imp's with Praetorians, I can't see the Imp trait being made more competitive in any future patch.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, all of the "Roman" leaders are Imperialist,
Julius, Augustus, Justinian, and Charlemagne

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Imperialistic should get half-priced unit upgrades.

 

[civzombie]

I think the most fun change to imperialistic would be to double the amount of EXP they produce by attaching a great leader to a unit. The trait still wouldn't be as powerful as say financial, but it would sure be fun to play with some really good warlord units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

well I think rearranging the benefits of a Great General would be one of the best bonuses (once the fixed the bug of food not getting the Settler/worker bonuses)

I'd say
Military Instructor= keep as is, maybe give +1 espionage point

Military Academy= +25% military production but available to begin with (or very early like Writing) and +25% MORE once you get something like Education/Military Science, etc.
[Also to make MAs better, make Heroic Epic +50%, instead of +100%, Military production but give it the benefit of +1 GG point every time you build a unit from that city.]

Warlord/Leader=+30 stack exp (instead of +20) and the Leader gets 1 or 2 free promotion(s)

 

[civzombie]

"... and the Leader gets 1 or 2 free promotion(s)"

Yea, how about any unit with an attached warlord automatically gets the leadership promotion.


Another way of fixing attached great generals (which would indirectly improve imperialistic), is to give units with an attached warlord access to a promotion similar to the balista elephant promotion. Call it a favored opponent promotion that lets them face a certain type of unit in a stack regardless of whether that unit type is the best defender. I've been saying this for a while, but if you were to let warlord units sometimes circumvent the best defender rule, it would add a new tactical dimension to combat and let warlords have a dramatic effect on combat.

For example, say you had an axeman warlord unit with a elephant army approaching a town defended by archers and a spearman. As it stands now, the axeman warlord would face the best archer and the elephants would face the spearman, resulting in some potentially heavy losses. My change would be to give the warlord unit access to a promotion that would let him attack any melee units in the stack first. Then he could pick off the spearmen and "clear the way" for the elephants to face the archers.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

"... and the Leader gets 1 or 2 free promotion(s)"

Yea, how about any unit with an attached warlord automatically gets the leadership promotion.


Another way of fixing attached great generals (which would indirectly improve imperialistic), is to give units with an attached warlord access to a promotion similar to the balista elephant promotion. Call it a favored opponent promotion that lets them face a certain type of unit in a stack regardless of whether that unit type is the best defender. I've been saying this for a while, but if you were to let warlord units sometimes circumvent the best defender rule, it would add a new tactical dimension to combat and let warlords have a dramatic effect on combat.

For example, say you had an axeman warlord unit with a elephant army approaching a town defended by archers and a spearman. As it stands now, the axeman warlord would face the best archer and the elephants would face the spearman, resulting in some potentially heavy losses. My change would be to give the warlord unit access to a promotion that would let him attack any melee units in the stack first. Then he could pick off the spearmen and "clear the way" for the elephants to face the archers.

Been suggested before, and its still a nice idea

 

[Antilogic]

I am favorable to the additional stack experience point bonus for warlord units, mostly because my meager modding ability will be able to easily implement it.

 

[Peachrocks]

I find it incredibly stupid that they are nerfing Augutus by giving him inferior traits when his traits are not the problem. Cre/Org is good, but there are better combinations out there. Just nerf those stupid prats for crying out loud or boost every other unique unit to their usefulness and boost Imperialistic either way, which in reality is silly because then you'd have civs with late uniques getting wiped out well before they can use them, so its better to nerf the overpowered ones.

Nerfing Persia by giving them Imperalistic Cyrus doesn't cut it now because Darius has Org/Fin, which is ridiculously powerful with any unique in the game, take Washington in vanilla. Another example of 'nerf the unit please'.

 

[Antilogic]

Frankly, I like a little imbalance in the game. And besides, what of the other leaders? Victoria, say, with the Imp/Fin combo. Or Catherine with Cre/Imp.

Personally, I'd rather see the UU, UB, and starting techs balance. Then, assign the traits as best as possible, trying to keep a little with the historical personalities that we are representing. Then, let the cards fall as they may. Persia and Rome may be a little bit stronger, but that's not a major issue--sometimes, I want a challenging civ, and if I'm going up a difficulty level, I may want a strong civ. Or, at least I'm sure there are people out there who may appreciate this.

I'm wondering if Firaxis is going to surprise us with a fix in BtS. They haven't posted anything, to my knowledge, of changing around the Imperialistic trait, but I could see them throwing in a little change and not telling us about it until the game is shipped.