Ankenaton
"The Heretic"
Roosevelt was Secretary of the Navy prior to his entering politics. Prior to the reformulation of the Presidential cabinet after WWII you had the Secretary of War (in charge of the Army - land warfare) and the Secretary of the Navy (The Navy and the Marines; and during wartime the Coast Guard). Those who held these positions formulated policy, helped to define what were the strategic interests, and also were integral contributers to the overall strategies of the two services during wartime. So Roosevelt in my opinion should have a modicum of aggression as one of his "traits". Today each service has its own secretary (the Marines do not as they are part of the Navy) who fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense.rumbold said:I think this might just confuse people, swapping the effects of the traits. I'm sure you realize too many people don't read any readme file or the thread or even the pedia, so when a player selects a leader with one of these traits, they will expect vanilla only to find out they've been switched.
Instead of changing the effects of the traits, why not just switch which ones go with which leader? I know it'd be odd seeing Tokugawa with Expansive, but I think it'd be more intuitive for players to see that than seeing him with Organized but getting Expansive traits.
I never said he didn't know anything about it or even that he didn't want to fight in WWII, because I think he did. But do you think if there wasn't a WWII he was the kind of leader that would go out looking to start one?
To me, that is the difference between an Aggressive leader and a non-Aggressive leader. All leaders will go to war when needed, but it is a Nappy/Genghis/Alex who are the types that seem to go looking for a fight. And I think such leaders are appropriately given the Aggressive trait.
But I'm not strong in history. I know many civers are, so I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh, and one last thing - the reason I think Washington could be Aggressive, though, is simply because he made his name/career in the military (at least, before becoming President) and because I don't understand why he would be considered Financial (did the US have great economic growth under Washington? Or is the trait suppose to be more reflective of US tendencies?). I don't think in necessarily fits (i.e., he's wasn't a Nappy/Genghis/Alex kind of leader), but I fail to see how Financial fits either.
Just my two cents.
And - of course - always appreciate the teams work on the mod. I've tried to do some modding on my own, I know it can be very time consuming and I appreciate the dedication you've all shown. My computer just died, so haven't been able to try 2.0 yet, but look forward to doing so once I'm up and running again.