New leader traits. What will they be?

[futurehermit]

i hope they keep each leader unique and don't change any of the current ones!

i also hope that the new traits are unique. i think many of the suggestions here are too close to what is already there.

i like the idea of the productive trait (+1h if >= 2h) but it's sorta similar to industrius maybe?

i think the most reasonable ones suggested so far are defensive (similar to but opposite aggressive) and exploratory.

 

[troytheface]

i' have to agree with the one poster that mentioned seafaring and scientific.
(or perhaps agricultural) They 've had em afor- and they fit nicely- and the game makers are not seemingly going for something new ...

Nomadic? Isn't that kinda anti city/civ? (although a creative idea mind u)

Maybe some kind of travel/diplo trait is doable - i like that Exploratory idea

How about an ecology based trait that can make the best of Environmentalism to beef up that Civic and maybe have some non chop strategy for such a Leader/Civ. (No Babylon this time but that would be a good trait for that Civ ..ie Hanging Gardens,,,or maybe the Iroquios or some North American tribe.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well Agricultural and Scientific are already in (Expansionst and Philosophical)

 

[Watiggi]

Nomadic? Isn't that kinda anti city/civ? (although a creative idea mind u)

troytheface, the Nomadic trait would help the cities grow in the more inhospitable areas of the game and be able to allow special units to build other units while on the move. You would still need cities to do the research, build wonders and improvements, generate commerce, etc. So its implementation wont be anti city/civ, so to speak.

I like the idea of being able to live in inhospitable lands like the tundra, ice, desert and jungle. It would be cool to be able to live well there.

Maybe make a Nomadic trait that allows the civ to live in inhospitable territory and allows it to build (and/or get from conquest) that settler camp unit.

[...]

The obvious issue is balance, but I really don't see an issue with it if this bonus only affects the civ while they are in these inhospitable areas. In civ3, the agricultural trait also benefited the civ even when they were not in these inhospitable areas, making it a little too effective in my mind. So I think it should only allow a civ to live there and give no other growth advantage in normal terrain. I don't think that is unbalanced and it can exist in a civ game quite well.

As to the unit that builds other units, I don't see that it would be hard to balance it. Maybe it could generate maintanence as a normal city would (a fixed, smaller, more appropriate and balanced amount) but it would have say a fixed production where a few of them could stack to increase the hammer yeild. Being able to build a unit near the area of war is the only advantage here. The disadvantage would be the maintanence, which would be an opposing force on how many you could have and that they wouldn't grow or output research or commerce.

To be honest the idea wasn't original, it was my imagination expanding on the Genghis Khan scenario which has the 'settler camp unit' in it. I don't see it as being anti civ though. Cities would still be required to bring in the commerce, research, build wonders and units and what not.

Watiggi

 

[dalamb]

For empire building -- how about reduced costs for being far from the capital?

 

[jimbob27]

Religious : extra happiness from state religion, cheaper monastaries and missionaries.

Militaristic: 25% reduction in upgrade costs, cheaper walls + castles.

Scientific: 1 free scientist in every city, cheaper librarys + observatories.

Fantatical: reduced cost and no unhappiness from drafting or whipping military units, + reduced military support.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Religious : extra happiness from state religion, cheaper monastaries and missionaries.

Well, they already have the spiritual trait, so I think you might be out of luck there.

Militaristic: 25% reduction in upgrade costs, cheaper walls + castles.

Again, we already have an aggressive trait, so I doubt we will get a seperate militaristic trait.

Scientific: 1 free scientist in every city, cheaper librarys + observatories.

Yet again, we have the philosophical trait-BUT I do agree that this one might at least be sufficiently different to warrant a new trait.

Please note, this is just my opinion, and I could be very wrong at the end of the day. I guess we will see in August (or sooner if they release more teaser info )

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Watiggi]

For empire building -- how about reduced costs for being far from the capital?

The Conqueror trait: -50% War Wariness. -50% City Maintenance.

 

[sand]

good but would obselte with state property.

 

[Watiggi]

No it wouldn't, State Property would eliminte the distance factor and the Conqueror trait would then reduce what's left by 50%. State Property would just lessen the effect/bonus of it, that's all. By that time you really wouldn't need the bonus anyway.

I just thought of something though: What if you build a courthouse (-50%) in the city also. Would that mean that the city would get -100% city maintenance? If so then that would be a little too much (or too little, depending on your point of view).

I guess to compensate, it could be -25% city maintenance or something. Imagine if someone got the Conqueror/Organised trait. Yakes.

Watiggi

 

[Gumbolt]

I dont remember the 25% reduction in upgrade cost. Must have missed something.

A plus on seafaring trait could allow attacking from sea with no penalty. Then you have a interesting trait. Move troops in quickly to AI cities Im sure an extra sea movement would be just as interesting. Perhaps +1 food or trade on sea tiles?

 

[Gumbolt]

I could see some rejigging on what the traits do or achieve. It would be interesting to link walls and castles half cost. Would nicely link in with China and the great wall. The english who classically built castles. Perhaps a link in with time peace deals last perhaps 15 turns instead of 10. Perhaps new units could be given one free defensive bonus on archer/ gunpowder units. Defensive trait

Hmmm protective/ defensive same thing. Defensive sounded better. I wonder if firaxis added protective trait at last minute after reading my post. Thats it im calling my lawyer the ideas far too similar! (joking) We should be paid for all the ideas we have.


Im just glad seafaring never got light of day.

 

[Truronian]

Hmmm protective/ defensive same thing. Defensive sounded better. I wonder if firaxis added protective trait at last minute after reading my post. Thats it im calling my lawyer the ideas far too similar! (joking) We should be paid for all the ideas we have.

Some of us were suggesting this back in post 1 . I agree, defensive sounds better than protective. Maybe Firaxis thought protective wouldn't meld with the artillery bonus.

I think Firaxis should try to rejig the current leaders traits to eliminate trait overlap (eg. Both Mongol leaders aggressive) to provide different player styles a chance with each civ

 

[Gumbolt]

Doh I missed that. Okay im happy to share the royalties and call it a team effort . Just dont tell my lawyers

If you think about it castle normally used catapults and archers for defence. Im thinking back to the film El cid and the final battle scene.

I think certain civs like mongols are agressive by nature anyway so its not too crazy to make them aggressive. When you think of Mongols you think of a nation on horseback that after infighting went on to conquer huge parts of the map. I agree that its good to have a mix on traits where a civ has more than one leader but its good the game sticks to the traditions of each civ nation/ leader.

 

[Truronian]

I think certain civs like mongols are agressive by nature anyway so its not too crazy to make them aggressive. When you think of Mongols you think of a nation on horseback that after infighting went on to conquer huge parts of the map. I agree that its good to have a mix on traits where a civ has more than one leader but its good the game sticks to the traditions of each civ nation/ leader.

Hopefully the addition of new traits will allow civilzation traits (in this case militarism) to expressed in different ways, eg I expect Genghis will become Imperialistic/Expansionist after the patch.

 

[Watiggi]

... maybe all of the real conquerors might get the Imperialism trait. Alex, Julius, Napolean and Genghis? I got to say though that I am surprised that the trait gives a bonus to settler production. I certainly hope that the AI knows how to use that advantage and expand quickly instead of remaining conservative.

I would imagine Isabella will get Imperialism as well.

Ha. I wonder if there will be an Aggressive/Imperialism combination. *That* would be powerful. Maybe Genghis might get that.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, I would have given Imperialism a bonus to the city maintainance costs-especially based on distance-to account for the far flung empires these guys were able to maintain. Possibly also a higher rate of assimilation (assuming we can EVER find the section of code relating to assimilation )

Aussie_Lurker.