Improve the Protective trait???

Ever gotten a regular archer with an experience of 58? This protective one won a war for me while playing Churchill.

To my experience: when I encounter a non-protective AI civilization my first reaction is: that is an easy target! I don't like it when I have protective neighbours. They have strong archers and those cities have early walls.

When I think of the worst neighbour I could meet it would be a creative and protective one.
 
@kristopherb: Can you say overpowered? All archery and gunpowder units getting +40% or so city defense (or is it 45?) and 1-2 first strikes and reduced collateral damage? Please!

the reason why i asked is because i cooked a small mod increasing the power of traits
 
I don't know whether giving all siege units including machine guns free drill I and city garrison promotions might make a difference in every epic games.
 
Protective is definitely underpowered in multiplayer. No-one in their sane mind will lead a group of archers out to conquer, and sitting 2 archers per city aren't the best defensive system out there either. The oracle-forge-engineer-machinery gambit with Qin is about the only use for protective really, and he'll need defense from his team before CKN's can rule the fields.

Out of all the suggestions, I believe the best one is walls giving +1 hapiness for protective civs. It's not something I would build automatically even with that bonus. Actually, a better solution is the option for the player to build a castle without building a wall, also costing 75 hammers (halved from 150), and give the +1 hapiness to the castle. If they have stone it becomes a castle in every city for a small boast, and gives that civ some flavour.
 
Protective is definitely underpowered in multiplayer. No-one in their sane mind will lead a group of archers out to conquer, and sitting 2 archers per city aren't the best defensive system out there either. The oracle-forge-engineer-machinery gambit with Qin is about the only use for protective really, and he'll need defense from his team before CKN's can rule the fields.

Out of all the suggestions, I believe the best one is walls giving +1 hapiness for protective civs. It's not something I would build automatically even with that bonus. Actually, a better solution is the option for the player to build a castle without building a wall, also costing 75 hammers (halved from 150), and give the +1 hapiness to the castle. If they have stone it becomes a castle in every city for a small boast, and gives that civ some flavour.

+1 Happiness to Walls may work, but not +1 Happiness to Castles as by that point in time you should have many methods of increasing your hapiness cap, eg- Luxuries, Culture Slider, Temples from Religion, Hereditary Rule Civic etc so the Extra happiness from castles is Negligible but my idea of giving Siege units an extra 2XP from castles, would definitely be useful in the game although it obsoletes quite quickly with economics.

The Idea of building castles without a wall requirement is an interesting idea, but I think the wall requirement was put in place, so you can reach 100% city defence when you build castles. Although I guess you can seperate walls and castles giving you 50% city defence each.
 
Protective is an exceptionally boring and weak trait. The huge flaw in the Protective trait is that if your opponent isn't attacking your cities, Protective effectively does nothing. When are any of the other traits ever not useful? Financial will always earn you extra commerce. Creative will always give extra culture. Organized will always save you money on civic upkeep.

"Well, if I'm never at war, then Aggressive isn't useful."
"Or if I never use specialists, then Philosophical isn't useful."
"If I never build wonders, then Industrial isn't useful."

This is the thing though. Even for those "situational" traits, you can always push their advantages. Aggressive isn't useful if you aren't at war, but you can actively pursue war. Philosophical isn't useful if you don't prioritize great people, but you can if you wanted to. I’ve never really thought of these traits as genuinely situational because I could always play to their advantages. I could even say the same for Imperialistic (a trait I thought would be super broken until I remembered that settler spam doesn’t work in CivIV), but the idea of playing to Protective’s advantages is mind boggling…

“I’m going to wait for my opponent to declare war on me and then sit around in my cities, waiting for him to attack me.”

If you can even call that playing to your advantages. Even supposing you instigated the war, you’d still have to hole up in your cities and wait for your enemy to attack to “benefit” from the trait. Whether or not the trait is useful depends almost entirely on what your opponent chooses to do. The hilarious irony of the Protective trait is that the situations in which it’s most useful are generally the ones that you want to avoid in the first place. Do you really want to fortify in your city while the enemy lays waste to your countryside? Do you really want a trait that shines out when your cities are at risk of being captured?

Now defense is a good thing; I wouldn’t train City Garrison II longbowmen if I didn’t believe that to be true. But actual city defenders are only half (if even that) of an effective defense. City defenders help ensure that only dedicated attacks will take your cities, but you’re in serious trouble if you can’t actually force the attackers off your territory. Walling up in your cities isn’t an ideal strategy, and it’s certainly not something I want to devote a trait to. This is also why Aggressive is just as useful, if not more so, on defense as Protective. Archers and longbowmen don’t have the base strength to fight effectively outside of cities, so melee units are essential even when defending. Aggressive’s free Combat I promotion is useful here, but it’s doubly useful when it provides easy access to promotions like Shock and Pinch. After gunpowder enters play, this disadvantage is somewhat lessened since gunpowder units are good attackers and defenders, but that’s far too long to wait for this glaring shortcoming to go away.

The funny thing is, even if I didn't use specialists or build wonders, I would at least get use out of the building production bonus (university and forge) for the Philosophical and Industrial traits. Protective gets a production bonus for walls and castles, which is bad for a trait because it again relies on a city being attacked to come into play. Aside from that, walls and castles are bad buildings for bonuses because you only want to build them in border cities. As a Creative leader, I could build libraries in most, maybe all, of my cities, if not for the research bonus, then for the culture and scientist slots. How many cities am I going to want to build walls in? Not many, maybe even none. Then to add insult to injury (or maybe the other way around, I forget), THEY GO OBSOLETE. I’m laughing as I’m typing this right now; it’s just reason on top of reason on top of reason why Protective’s fast walls/castles is such a miserable bonus.

So yes, Protective could definitely use a rehaul. Here are some suggestions to improve it (mix and match these as you choose, I don’t mean to say that Protective get all of these bonuses):
• Units receive a small strength bonus (10%-20%) when in combat inside your cultural borders, whether attacking or defending. Archery and gunpowder units get fewer and/or different promotions to balance this effect out (ex: free Combat I instead of City Garrison I or Drill I).
• You can draft a small number of units per turn.
• Units suffer less collateral damage (20%-33% less).
• In addition to +100% production for walls and castles, +100% production for bunkers and bomb shelters.
• +25% production for archery units (NOT gunpowder units).
 
Actually, Protective really can be an offensive trait. I can't think of why free Drill 1 would not always be useful in a war, even when you're going on the offensive. And the free CG1 would help you hold cities you just conquered, which can make a lot of difference if your opponent is not much weaker than you. Granted, early on, it might not be very applicable unless you're using crossbows (there's not much love for archery units, is there?). Once you hit gunpowder units, however, this trait might be giving practically your entire standing army free promotions.

Although I wouldn't call it one of the better traits, I'm beginning to think that Protective is really underrated.
 
Although DigitalBoy brings up a solid argument, I am in Aelf's camp--Protective can be used offensively. I agree the building bonus is less than useful, but holding those new cities you just captured, especially with your garrison/drill gunpowder units later in the game, is essential. The AI can counterattack pretty viciously, and I like having that free 20% on all my rifles, grenadiers, and infantrymen (I rarely get to Mech. Infantry), not to mention the first strike chance.

It can make the difference in an offensive war...not as strongly as Aggressive or Charismatic, I think, but it still makes a difference.
 
So, it's not useless, just the least useful of any trait that could be used...

However, after scrolling down the choose leader screen, most of the protective civs aren't that bad: noone's ever complained about Toku, Churchhill or Wang Kon as being "weaker" civs (tangent - but Toku was SO much better as organized!). The only protective leaders that aren't really good civs, IMO, are Saladin and Mao, and even they aren't that bad. It seems the developers already took into account the lackluster appeal of the trait when pairing them with the leader's other trait, UB + UU, and starting tech.

I agree that, on paper, when isolating the trait, it doesn't stand up to most others. But leaders with the trait are OK, so I guess it's fine. Still, if we impulsively need to balance every aspect of the game, even those that are made up for elsewhere, my ideas would be either:
1.)land inside of a protective civ's cultural borders cannot be pillaged by other civs, or
2.) Protective civ's units don't take collateral damage - WHAT? But half of my stack in EVERY SINGLE GAME are catapults? What will I ever do? - Gee, you may have to actually implement a strategy rather than following the same recipe every single time...

Sorry, had to vent :)
 
1.)land inside of a protective civ's cultural borders cannot be pillaged by other civs, or
I like this idea but we shouldn't forbid pillaging as it will be too overpowered and it will remove an effective strategy off the game. But we can have it to take two turns to pillage instead of one. Pillage is still a viable strategy but it can now be easier countered .

One problem though , Ranged units aren't the faster so the protective player won't be using the unit's that are boosted by his trait. Still i like this idea.

Also Walls should give a 20% production boost to archery units and that is good enough i believe.

Chu-ku-nu (spelling) , Crossbowmen don't have anything to be jealous from other units really . So Protective can be used effectively with offensive troops . With no(reduced) pillaging and with faster production the protective civilization can easier prepare for war and fight war on his own territory.

Idea 3) Taken from a mod . Add an archery unit with the ability marksmanship . These units can select to attack the weaker unit from the enemy's stack.
 
WHAT? But half of my stack in EVERY SINGLE GAME are catapults? What will I ever do? - Gee, you may have to actually implement a strategy rather than following the same recipe every single time...

Sorry, had to vent :)

Not that collateral damage isn't extremely annoying sometimes, but if you buy what the game developers say, collateral damage is a necessary aspect of CivIV's combat. The stack of doom is powerful enough even with its implementation (is that even a word?). Reduction in collateral damage sure, but eliminate it entirely, even for a single trait?
 
The "build forts faster" comment was awesome. Way too many people don't see humour when it's there.

About the walls and castles thing: how about a free wall in every city that was founded (as in, not captured)? If they decide to give Far Eastern civs protective, well, are there Asian cities without walls?
 
on his own territory.

Idea 3) Taken from a mod . Add an archery unit with the ability marksmanship . These units can select to attack the weaker unit from the enemy's stack.

which mod?
 
I think immunity from collateral damage is questionable...and, in fact, the free drill promotion puts you closer to Drill 2 that reduces collateral damage. Instead of this, I could see a reduction in collateral damage taken, but not its elimination completely.
 
what if protective trait stayed as it is but included something like forts having a -1 to enemy adjacent square's movement? effectively making forts useful only for them and rare circumstances? maybe this could be applied to ANY fort a protective leader builds, including allied and enemy territory, and determined by who controls it? THAT would be scary, but useful, and make a protective leader essential for teamwork, even if not on front.

maybe take out the cheap walls, for balance. Protective seems useless unless you can also "protect" your land. maybe make forts barrage-able at the same time, and the city garrison promo working in forts. Also, a full depletion of barrage destroys the improvement altogether.

I can imagine nasty games where all the protective leader's units are protecting the perimeter of their fat crosses and not stacking in their cities.

Maybe the great wall wonder turns into a line of forts just outside of the current borders, but dissolves when in a enemies' territory? Perhaps that's too much. But, certainly more great wall-like.

ALSO:
I see a lot of posts about improving seige for protective, but no posts refuting this and mentioning that Firaxis DID think of that. If you look back at the Warlords previews, you'll find that Firaxis was advertising this as a Protective trait, but mysteriously axed it 6 weeks or so before Gold. My guess is they tested it in beta and found too many players were using it to attack with cata stacks, and not be "protective".
 
Protective trait does not need to be improved, toned down maybe, but not improved, archers re really good at defending, with the free CG promotion, they can advance easier, and really make their cities a pain to take down. Comparing to agressive, it gives a free combat 1 (+10% effectiveness) whereas protective gives City Garrison (+20% when defending a city). Imo, if you use your archers for city defense, which I honestly hope you do, protective is more than good enough.

What's wrong with that lone warrier defending my 5 cities until 1500AD :confused:
 
Alright, I've done some thinkings, watch out.

I'm in the camp that thinks Protective is in need of a little boost. If I was in charge of improving the protective trait here's what I'd consider:

1. The spirit/context of protective. This has led me to consider a couple new things that I don't think have been suggested so far. I'm no history buff by any means, but it seems that protective nations could have some sort of bonus regarding vassal states or diplomatic bonuses. Protective maybe should extend beyond defending one's own land, to protecting neighbors or vassals (think Churchill). If procective is about defense, why should promotions be given that increase seige units? (Other than machine guns, which I agree should be included w/ protective bonuses) or other promotions which could be used offensively? Recon could be used to better anticipate attacks; line of sight improvements for explorers? Decreasing draft penalties would help you better prepare but that's very specific, you have to be in a certain civic, etc.

2. Any bonus should be minimal and simple. Many of the suggestions in this thread would probably flip Protective from being a less-useful trait to the strongest. If you want some balance, you probably don't have to do much. Also it can't be too complex, or outside of the context of other traits. It might be cool to have a cheap hospital that heals units twice as fast but that would give protective leaders essential a unique building. No other traits grants all those civs a unique building, so it should be avoided. Tinkering with specific combat mechanics for protective civs does even more; it changes the whole mechanics of combat. It takes me about 2 seconds to think of ways to exploit it; Increase combat odds in my borders, exp gained in my borders, no pillaging, etc I think it would change the dynamics of the game too much. Plus I don't think it's the spirit of the procective leaders of the world to just lure people into fighing wars on their home turf.

3. Pillage problem. I've made a point to play at least one game with each leader. I think protective can be used nicely and agree that they give you some nice military flexibility, but I've run into this frustration several times. My cities are so nicely defended that any wars I get into result exclusively in countryside plunder. "Please, just come attack my cities" I find myself pleeding, but they don't. (Please no lecture on repelling pillagers b/c I can do it) I find myself feeling like I've defend my cities but not my civilization, and I don't like it. I do like the idea of giving protective 100% vs barbarians (or limited to 100% within cultural borders). This seems to be totally in like with the spirit of protective (and may be why China ended up with two protective leaders, thinking historically).

4. Indirectly improving. If you improved castles/walls that would indirectly improve protective traits. If I polled how many people build castles I'm guessing it would be pretty low, but if you improved them for everyone, well you get the point. How to do that? Probably subject for another thread, but I wish they didn't go obsolete so quick. What do castles give to their civs today? Tourism, commerce, culture? What if you couldn't build them anymore, but the effect of that one trade route remained? Bet a lot more people would build them then.

So that's what I think, sorry it was in so many words. Summary:

+100% vs barbs (testing to show if it should only be within cultural borders)
Improve castles for everyone
Possibly some vassal bonus

I just don't think they need much to level the playing field.
 
Whatever people say, it is underpowered. That's said, I really don't think protective trait need a major overhaul. My suggestions:

Direct improvement:
  • +10% bonus (both attack and defence) fighting within cultural border. This compensates for the lack of ability to "protect" your people from pillaging.

Indirect improvements (choose one or more):
  • Boost up wall by giving a +1 happiness (people feeling more secure, that's reasonable).
  • Boost up castle by taking away that extra trade route (castle improves trade? I just scratch my head) but giving +2 commerce at the city tile (symbolize increased tax). This bonus will not expire even after gunpowder discovery (castles attract tourists, right?). +2 culture instead of +1. Another possibility is +15% GPP production.
  • Increase the cost of catapults. They are currently too cheap to produce. Seige weapons were very expensive to produce, and they wore out very easily.
 
To: Quetzal513

Some of your ideas for improvements are interesting, but I perfer something not to exclusive or specific (Eg - decreased drafting penalty) and I'd like something that wouln't obsolete too qucikly, like 100% vs Barbs, I wonder if Players would exploit this by capturing/Razing Barb Cites easily, Imagine yourself with an axeman attack an archer defended City.

You basically have 10 Str vs 3 Str + Promotions & Fortify and Culture Defence. It would be good on Raging Barbarians I guess.

The Vassal Bonus is again maybe too Specific and more likely to better represent the Imperialist trait. I Mean how many times have you gotten a Peaceful Vassal?

To: gettingfat

The +1 Happiness from Walls to the Protective Leader appears too similar to the Charismatic Traits, I personally like to keep all the traits Unique and different. Maybe -25% Warweariness to a Protective Leader who builds Walls in their Cities but I've already included that in my improved Imperialist Trait Improvemnt Mod... :S ah well..

About the cost of Catapults, thats a History vs Game Balance Arguement, I personally think Cats are at a balanced cost already

If Either of you guys are interested

There's already a Protective Trait Improvement Mod loaded onto this thread, it's on Post number 114, the Imrpovements are Castles give +2XP to Seige units (never obsoletes) Gunpowder units can promote down the Drill Promotion line (only available to Protective leaders)

I Might Change that Mod a little and make Castles Obsolete with Artillery, Doesn't make sense that Artillery are gaining experience from a Castle :S...

Cannons get the bonus for game balance purposes, it'd be stupid if it obsoleted with Steel because then whats the point when only Treb and Cats benefit with a later middle age tech? it'd be a waste of hammers to build, even for a Protective leader with Stone.
 
Back
Top Bottom