1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Leader Trait Changes

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by supersoulty, Jul 25, 2006.

  1. supersoulty

    supersoulty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Wait a second...

    I have a big beef with some of these leader trait changes.

    The big one is for the Ameircans: Why in the Heck is Washington charismatic and FDR organized? Shouldn't it be the other way around? There was nothing organized about the New Deal. Roosevelt was just guessing. And he was far more charismatic than was Washington.

    Second, why all the changes for leaders from what set of charicteristics that already existed, to another set of traits that already existed?

    Both of these reak to me like attempts to better balance the game. That should not be the criteria for picking leader traits... the acctual traits of the leaders should be.

    Anyway, everything looks great, but for this one problem. We are not amused.
     
  2. DigitalBoy

    DigitalBoy Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,346
    I didn't like how so many of the old leaders had their traits changed, but I think everything works out in the end.

    For example, one of my favorites was Saladin with spiritual + philosophical. Now he's protective instead of philosophical, but that's OK because now Ghandi is spiritual/philosophical. And Ramses (sp?) is filling in the gap for spiritual + industrious.
     
  3. supersoulty

    supersoulty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    I don't mind them changing some of the leaders to the new traits, if they make sense, but changing them to ones that already exist, I'm not a fan of that.
     
  4. Araqiel

    Araqiel Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    461
    Location:
    Omaha
    I think Washington is a perfect fit for Charismatic. While FDR used radio to great effect and was a good campaigner he didn't have the same personal effect on his country that Washington did.

    Washington personally kept the colonial main army in being despite awful conditions, foiled a possible military revolt against the young government, etc. The country was smaller and everything depended on a smaller number of people.

    The main reason for the change remains game balance though. The designers obviously wanted to remove the synergy of Financial/Organized from the game. He was my favorite leader before, but change is good it refreshes an old game.
     
  5. moggydave

    moggydave Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    154
    Perhaps when making vanilla Ghandi and Saladin were contenders for Spi/Phi, and for whatever reason, Saladin got it (heads or tails.....). Now Saladin has been changed Gandhi can be that combination.

    Of course gameplay should be priority, it is a PC GAME none the less, but I think there is a case for each leader having traits X and Y (except Mao, why is he protective when he killed millions of his own people?????)
     
  6. supersoulty

    supersoulty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Yeah, I understand balance, but still... anyway, I suppose that Rameses is gonna be my new favorite leader. That should be interesting, at least.

    As for the Protective trait, its kinda odd. It sounds like something that would go for xenophobic leaders, so both Chinese leaders make sense. Churchill was more Imperialistic, acctually, but since he is remembered for opposing Nazism and Communism, that would be a good trait for him due to circumstances.
     
  7. WoolyWoolwine83

    WoolyWoolwine83 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Messages:
    64
    Mao was a little TOO protective. This resulted in the deaths of millions.
     
  8. supersoulty

    supersoulty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Kinda like a boyfriend who "loves" his girlfriend so muchthat if she talks to another guy, he will kill her.
     
  9. methane

    methane Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    215
    Location:
    Planet Earth, mostly
    Well, compare the size of the United States in 1790 to the United States in 1940. I think that's why Roosevelt gets 'organized'.

    Washington wasn't the politician inspiring the masses that Roosevelt was, but he was a great inspiration to the troops who followed him into battle. He led by example rather than by words.

    I certainly can see an argument for them being reversed, but I don't have a problem with what they are.

    Some changes have certainly been made because they fit better. You didn't think Expansive really fit Ghenghis, did you? Also, it seems they tried to spread out the traits somewhat. If they didn't each of the new traits wouldn't be in the game nearly as much as any of the old ones.
     
  10. opticaljim

    opticaljim Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    san Antonio, Texas
    I'm pretty sure it has something to do with balance.

    For example, with the Incan agreesive trait they were getting free promotions, cheap barracks and drydocks. Combine that with the financial trait and I think you would have a Great General factory early with an agressive Che-Qua move. So they swithed the Incans from aggressive to industrious.
     
  11. Columbkille

    Columbkille Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    The change in Frederick's traits is really getting me annoyed. I loved the Phi/Cre combination.
     
  12. Sullla

    Sullla Patrician Roman Dictator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,833
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Baltimore MD
    My least favorite thing about Warlords is the changes made to the leaders. Yes, some shuffling of traits was going to be unavoidable, but 14 of the 26 original leaders ended up getting shuffled. That's more than half! Surely that wasn't entirely necessary. For example, Qin goes from Financial/Industrious to Industrious/Protective, while Huayna drops Aggressive/Financial and becomes Financial/Industrious, Qin's old traits. Was it really necessary to change BOTH of them, instead of just the one? (I can assure you, game balance had nothing to do with it.)

    Even worse, several trait combos have disappeared from the game entirely. :( Here are the trait combos which simply no longer exist:

    Financial/Organized (Washington)
    Expansive/Financial (Victoria)
    Creative/Philosophical (Frederick)
    Aggressive/Organized (Tokugawa)
    Expansive/Creative (Cyrus)
    Creative/Financial (Cathy)

    If you liked any of these trait combos, I guess you're out of luck. Regardless of whether the new traits are any good, Warlords screwed things up and made the game unnecessarily confusing for those used to Civ4 with all these changes. And no expansion should REMOVE trait combos that existed in the main game.
     
  13. Araqiel

    Araqiel Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    461
    Location:
    Omaha
    Sulla while I agree that its irritating to have trait combinations removed, what else would you have them do? Would you limit the three new traits to just the 10 new leaders?

    Also given the massive number of increased combinations that three additional traits creates you'll have to leave out a lot of possible combinations. Why should the all involve the new traits, which if you protected more existing combinations you'd have to?

    Besides nothing is preventing you from playing the vanilla game by simply clicking on your Civ4 icon rather than the Warlords one.
     
  14. snipafist

    snipafist Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    376
    Everyone always says Mao killed millions, and they're always full of ****e. If it was Hitler/Stalinesque death camps you'd have a point. But do you actually know how those millions died? A combination of bad planning, a drought, and poor communication sabotaged by incompotent party cadres in the Great Leap Forward led to millions starving (not to mention countless elderly dying from the heat alone, regardless of food shortages). Mao thought things were going swimmingly (he believed the messages he got) and started selling grain on the world market to get China some much-needed cash. As soon as he found out the truth, he immediately began buying back as much food as he could to feed the starving people.

    Did he screw up? Yes. Did lots of people die? Also yes. Was he just like Hitler? No. So stop being idiots already.

    On the topic of Mao, I hate what they did to his traits. Absolutely hate. I used to love playing as Mao when he was philosophical/organized. It was a combination I thouroughly enjoyed, and my love of Chinese history and grudging respect for the Cho-Ko-Nu unit made China a front-runner. Now I doubt I'll ever bother picking either Chinese leader, as Qin doesn't do it for me, and Mao's traits make no sense and aren't very good to boot. Phil/Org was a perect fit for Mao. Absolutely perfect. Then they chose this seemingly random mish-mash and it bugs me more than any of the other seemingly random trait changes they slapped on other leaders.
     
  15. lordofcivs

    lordofcivs Lord of The Civilizations

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    Civland
    I don't think Protective is a trait that should even be in the game. All the Leaders given this Protective Trait are just messed and they are no more qualified to be played by human (just AI). I don't know why they did this. All the Leaders in the game should be eligible enough to be picked by different people to play with different strategies. You can watch easily that a Protective trait with any combination is just not good enough to be played by any one on med/high level games. I even doubt if some newbies find it worth enough to play with those leaders in bigginers' levels.
     
  16. gettingfat

    gettingfat Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,417
    Qin is nothing xenophobic. Please do not assume ancient Chinese to be automatically xenophobic. Chinese before the mid-era of Ming dynasty were far from xenophobic. In Han dynasty many XiongNu tribes were living within Han's border and their armies consisted of substantial number of warriors from minority tribes. Tang's capital was essentially a super cosmopolitan city like New York today, with roughly half a million immigrants living there. Mongols and Sung Chinese were allies before the Mongols invaded China. Buddhism was imported from India and fluorished in China. There were substantial number of Muslims living in Beijing since Yuan dynasty. In early Ming probably the largest fleet of ships were sent to South East Asia and as far as Arabia for diplomatic trip. Even in early Qing their first few emperors had Catholic priests as their advisors of diplomacy and technology.

    Xenophobia means fear of foreign people and refusal to interact with them. Qin conquered other parts in China does not mean he was afraid of non-Qin people. Many of his high-ranked officials were people from the other 6 countries he later conquered. The Great Wall he built was to defend against the armies of the nomadic tribes, not to isolate his people from them.

    Even Mao was not necessarily Xenophobic. He refused to befriend with American and many western European leaders mainly because of the difference in idealogy, right or wrong or not. He considered Russians, Koreans, Vietnameses as his friends, which all betrayed him to a certain extent later.

    At least Chinese don't try to criminalize Mexican illegal immigrants. That's a more accurate example of xenophobia.
     
  17. gettingfat

    gettingfat Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,417
    I'd rather keep Qin's or Mao's old traits, particularly Qin. The loss of financial or organized for protective is just too much. True, the Drill III Cho-Ku-Nu are fun, but without money the empire reaches the point of overexpansion easily. Half-priced wall and castle? Who build castle in the first place? I think Chinese were further tuned down in the expansion.

    (edit: suddenly I realized Castle gives +1 trade route in Warlord. Maybe my opinion will change)
     
  18. King Jason

    King Jason Fleece-bearer

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,027
    If anyone is interested in changing their leader traits back.. It's very easy to mod. I'm not saying the decisions are right or wrong. But You guys do have the option. If some of you are bothered terribly by the loss of one of your favorite trait combos applied to X leader, it's incredibly easy to mod back in. You don't even need modding experiance. It's as easy as typing a few words.

    It won't transfer over to Multiplayer games. But atleast you'll have your guy for Single player.

    :king:
     
  19. MookieNJ

    MookieNJ Noob

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    Randolph, NJ
    I'm not happy about a lot of the leader trait changes myself, but George Washington is a perfect fit for the new Charasmatic trait. He inspired his troops to remain in the Continental Army despite the fact that they had poor or sometimes no equipment, rarely were paid, faced defeats against the British Regulars, and had to deal with very harsh winters.
     
  20. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,180
    Location:
    STL
    I think Washington again has one of the best combinations for leader traits. Before he was so powerful because of the financial + organized traits, which worked pretty well together, but now his charismatic and expansive traits both help cities grow before the health and unhappiness kick in. The Civ guys got a thing for Washington I think. And Julius Caesar too.
     

Share This Page