No civilisationtraits?

[Loppan Torkel]

Will all differences between the different civilisations in Civ5 be connected to the leaders? No room for nationalistic pride or prejudice?!

What do you think? Will it be this way? Would it be for the best, just another example of unnecessary pc making the game less involving or is it totally irrelevant?

Not sure if it's because of traits, but it felt like I hated the mongols more in civ3 than when playing them in civ4. Isn't it relevant to make the civilisations recognisable and fairly consistent to build emotions toward civilisations in a longer perspective.

 

[Sian]

as there weren't traits in civ I or II i don't think it would have a major impact ... it would still be a question about each speficic AI is coded to act (which have absulutely nothing to do with traits)

 

[EMT]

I'm fairly sure that what was stated was that Civilizations/Leaders wouldn't have generic traits but leader-specific traits. Which I think is freaking great! If every civilization received it's own unique bonus in addition to leader bonuses, it'd make unrestricted leaders INCREDIBLY fun.

Infact, I'm going to brainstorm. But it's going to be in archaic civ4 terms of tile improvement and mechanics

First the Confirmed:
America: All grassland and sea tiles give +1 commerce(I can already hear the screams of broken!)
-Washington: All units receive the equivalent of the Morale and Leadership promotion

Germany: All German units automatically have the equivalent of the commando promotion, ALL tiles provide +1 hammers
-Bismark: All nations automatically have a +2 hidden modifier with Bismark, Bismark can declare war without the negative diplomacy penalties with other nations

Then the most Likely:
Arabia: No maintainance costs for units outside of borders, no war weariness when declaring war on a nation of a different religion, Capital produce 25% more beakers
-Saladin: No diplomatic penalties of war(or minimal), can draft from cities with state religion

Aztecs: No unhappiness from using slave labor or draft
-Montezuma: All units start with combat 1 and city raider 1

China: No barbarians can enter borders, cities start at size 2
-Mao: Can work more tiles than population, but will lose -3 food for every tile worked in addition per turn

Egypt: +2 culture in all cities, 50% wonder production (yes, I combined 2 traits)
-Hatshepsut: Starts with hereditary rule by default, 20% worker production

English: +1 commerce on all tiles, +2 commerce on all water tiles
-Elizabeth: Can swap civics without revolt, all naval units receive 20% bonus against other naval units

France: All units start with the leadership promotion, can draft from the start
-Napoleon: Charismatic trait, all units receive +2 exp., start the game with a Great General

Greeks: +2 trade routes in all coastal cities, +2 culture in all cities
-Pericles: Cities are immune to cultural revolt, naval units receive +1 movement

Inca Empire: +1 food from mountain tiles, +2 food from hill tiles
-Pachacutec: No resistance in captured cities, charismatic trait of Civ IV, roads can be built in half the time normally

Indian Empire: Starts in Caste System by default, starts with writing
-Ashoka: No anarchy, state religion spreads 3 times faster in cities throughout empire, river tiles produce +2 commerce

Japanese Empire: Starts in Mercentalism, triple production of work boats, galleys, and +1 food from tiles that produce more than 3 food
-Tokugawa: All units start with combat 1, city garrison 1, drill 1, and double commerce from internal trade routes

Mongol Empire: Starts with Animal Husbandry, Horseback riding, and the Wheel
-Genghis Khan: All units start with Shock, +2 food from pastures, no terrain movement handicaps unless in another civ's cultural borders

Ottoman Empire: All cities with a different state religion generate 2x the gold, Capital can be moved at will
-Mehmed II: All cities start with wall and a barrack, all units start with city raider 1, +1 culture p/turn in all cities

Persian Empire: -50% maintainance costs, no penalty from distance to palace
-Cyrus the Great: Starts with Free religion, all mounted units receive a 10% withdrawal bonus

Roman Empire: Barbarian cities have no resistance, Cities with under 40% cultural bonus receive 0% defense bonus, all cities start with a barracks and a colosseum
-Caesar Augustus: Farms provide +1 food, can draft once per turn with no unhappiness penalties, all captured cities become 5% more Roman every turn

Russian Empire: +1 hammer bonus on all tiles, no maintainance cost from distance to palace
-Stalin: Starts with police state, capital receives 25% production bonus, can make demands with no diplomatic penalty

Spanish Empire: Galleons available at optics, can remove a religion from a city at a population cost, gunpowder units start with shock and cover
-Isabella: No non-state religion spread unless by choice, no former culture in captured cities

That's as much creativity as I feel like posting at all. Rate/hate/post your own ideas(this).

 

[Tusked]

I like the ideas behind those, EMT, though some of them would be utterly overpowered, at least if we go by how things work in Civ 4 - Germany gets +1 prod on EVERY tile? I like the Chinese starting with size 2 cities - seems like a really fun bonus. Anyway, that's probably the type of thing they're gonna do. CivRev style.

 

[Desert-Fox]

The bonuses/negatives system would work better. With traits it is very hard to balance the game... because if for example Romans would be too powerful and you try to change a trait then the others fellows get unbalanced.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

as there weren't traits in civ I or II i don't think it would have a major impact ... it would still be a question about each speficic AI is coded to act (which have absulutely nothing to do with traits)

Nothing at all? I hope that if the Aztecs are given some bonus to their military, they also make use of it by being more aggressive. What I'd like to see is some consistency and personality in the civilisations, not just leaders. Even if multiple leaders generally is a good idea, the civs became a little more diluted in civ4 imo, possibly also because of vaguer leader characteristics.

@EMT: That's a nice list of ideas there but I can't say I like all those small and general bonuses. Although I wasn't too fond of those or promotions in civ4 either. Some civs have units with drill, combat 1 or shock, some have +2 commerce in coastal cities or faster workers... I'd rather see some historical events and bonuses tied to the civs. A cultural and scientific bonus for the Arabs during a middle age expansion or a nice bonus to German subs during a war taken part of in the 20th century. Just something distinct you can relate to the various civs and something to fear or take advantage of.

 

[EMT]

Nothing at all? I hope that if the Aztecs are given some bonus to their military, they also make use of it by being more aggressive. What I'd like to see is some consistency and personality in the civilisations, not just leaders. Even if multiple leaders generally is a good idea, the civs became a little more diluted in civ4 imo, possibly also because of vaguer leader characteristics.

@EMT: That's a nice list of ideas there but I can't say I like all those small and general bonuses. Although I wasn't too fond of those or promotions in civ4 either. Some civs have units with drill, combat 1 or shock, some have +2 commerce in coastal cities or faster workers... I'd rather see some historical events and bonuses tied to the civs. A cultural and scientific bonus for the Arabs during a middle age expansion or a nice bonus to German subs during a war taken part of in the 20th century. Just something distinct you can relate to the various civs and something to fear or take advantage of.

I actually did base most of those on historical though, but not on historical timeframes actually. For example, Bismark's bonuses all revolve around the idea of his master diplmacy in real life. Mao can make people work in the countryside, but he kills off more population(See Cultural Revolution), the Ottomans receive more gold from cities without their state religion(the Ottoman tax system that famously made them have large amounts of funds for war), the Egyptians start with monarchy(one of the oldest recorded monarchies in history), the Greeks are coastal trade whores(see all the greek colonies throughout the med.), India starts with Caste System(the caste system imposed by Aryans[not the type you're thinking of] when they invaded northern India), Cyrus gets free religion by default(one of the first empires to offer religious freedom).

Most of these trait ideas aren't generic

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I actually did base most of those on historical though, but not on historical timeframes actually. For example, Bismark's bonuses all revolve around the idea of his master diplmacy in real life. Mao can make people work in the countryside, but he kills off more population(See Cultural Revolution), the Ottomans receive more gold from cities without their state religion(the Ottoman tax system that famously made them have large amounts of funds for war), the Egyptians start with monarchy(one of the oldest recorded monarchies in history), the Greeks are coastal trade whores(see all the greek colonies throughout the med.), India starts with Caste System(the caste system imposed by Aryans[not the type you're thinking of] when they invaded northern India), Cyrus gets free religion by default(one of the first empires to offer religious freedom).

Most of these trait ideas aren't generic

I didn't mean you didn't make a good historical connection, some, like Bismark's, could be quite good, but I would never enjoy 2 extra commerce from sea in Greek cities even if it would be suitable for the Greeks, it's just not very exciting. I'd build land cities too with the Greeks and get a bit of extra commerce from those near the sea.
Napoleon's units getting 2 exp might be valuable, but it's not exciting, I'd build units either way.
Pushing for a large, elite submarine fleet as Germany during the 20th century before declaring war sounds fun imo.

Larger, distinct, but in time limited bonuses or perhaps even penalties is probably what I'd like to see. Not +1 food for farming...

 

[Seventh Child]

I'm fairly sure that what was stated was that Civilizations/Leaders wouldn't have generic traits but leader-specific traits. Which I think is freaking great!

I think it would be great as well, something more like SMAC, Rise of Nations or Age of Empires 2. Though I would still be happy with the current traits system, so long as it could be rebalanced appropriately.

 

[MrBanana]

EMT, I hope you realize that England`s bonus is pretty much the same as America`s, only better.

 

[EMT]

I didn't really try too hard, I only thought about characteristics of each country in general. Maybe give the Americans +1 hammers on sea and grassland tiles too, I guess. Americans are a fairly industrious people.

 

[Cashew]

I'm glad you're not working on the development team for Civ V. :O

 

[sumit1207]

Do we know if there even will be multiple leaders? If not, this won't be an issue.

 

[Tusked]

Do we know if there even will be multiple leaders? If not, this won't be an issue.

We don't know either way. Personally, I hope there will be - it lends the game more diversity when you can be playing against either Bismarck OR Freddy when right next to Germany.

 

[EMT]

I'm glad you're not working on the development team for Civ V. :O

It's not like I considered balance or anything I was thinking if they're going to have civ or leader-specific bonuses, then that it should be historically based. Civ rev style brokenness though. If anyone wants to come up with balanced revisions, I'd love to see them.

 

[jeejeep]

I tried for slightly more balance based on EMT's traits. I went with 1 trait per civ since its harder to tell what leaders might be included. My list:

America: Free granary in all cities, free forge in cities size 10 or greater, free university in cities size 18 or greater

Germany: All units start with commando, +1 hammer on tiles with at least 2 base hammers

Arabia: +50% beakers in capital, can draft with no unhappiness from cities with state religion

Aztecs: No unhappiness from slavery or draft, units start with combat I

China: Barbarians cannot enter borders, cities start at size two

Egypt: Free obelisk in every city, +50% wonder production speed

English: +1 commerce on tiles with two or more (current financial trait)

France: +50% production speed of theatre, library, university. 2 free artist or scientist specialists in cities size 10 or greater.

Greece: +75% great person generation speed, +1 trade route in coastal cities

Inca: hill tiles give +1 food, mountain tiles are 2 food 2 hammers.

India: Starts with caste system, no upkeep for caste system. Starts with agriculture and a worker.

Japan: Starts with mercantilism, no upkeep for mercantilism. +1 culture per mountain or lake tile in a city’s cultural radius.

Mongols: Start with animal husbandry and the wheel. Free stable in every city. Mounted units have movement 3.

Ottomans: +25% commerce per non-state religion in a city. Palace costs 1 hammer.

Persia: No maintenance costs from distance to palace. Workers work 50% faster.

Rome: No maintenance costs from number of cities. All cities start with barracks.

Russia: +75% espionage. Tundra is 2 food 0 hammers, ice is 1 food 0 hammers.

Spanish: Galleons available at optics. +2 happiness for cities with only the state religion (there would need to be a mechanism for removing non-state religions.)

I know some of these are probably still ridiculously overpowered. Making such powerful traits is hard because you never know how people would exploit them if they were actually in the game. For example, the ottomans +25% commerce per non-state religion seems weak from a normal perspective of 1 or 2 religions per city, but I know if a human player had that trait they would make sure to end up with 5 religions in every city at the least.

 

[Danger Bird]

Will all differences between the different civilisations in Civ5 be connected to the leaders? No room for nationalistic pride or prejudice?!

What do you think? Will it be this way? Would it be for the best, just another example of unnecessary pc making the game less involving or is it totally irrelevant?

Not sure if it's because of traits, but it felt like I hated the mongols more in civ3 than when playing them in civ4. Isn't it relevant to make the civilisations recognisable and fairly consistent to build emotions toward civilisations in a longer perspective.

What I've often wished for is a game where civilisation traits grow organically, rather than being decided from the beginning. For example, if in the first 100 turns you build a lot of cottages by a river, you might develop the 'Financial' trait; if you spend the first part of the game doing a lot of defending in forts and cities, you might get the 'protective' trait.

This could also apply to UUs. If you have a large number of successful attacks using mounted units, you might get a beefed up mounted unit, similar to a keshik. (This would end oddities like archipelagic Mongols with no horse resource yet having the keshik UU).

Sorry if this is derailing the intention of the thread, but your thread title just brought it to mind.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

What I've often wished for is a game where civilisation traits grow organically, rather than being decided from the beginning. For example, if in the first 100 turns you build a lot of cottages by a river, you might develop the 'Financial' trait; if you spend the first part of the game doing a lot of defending in forts and cities, you might get the 'protective' trait.

This could also apply to UUs. If you have a large number of successful attacks using mounted units, you might get a beefed up mounted unit, similar to a keshik. (This would end oddities like archipelagic Mongols with no horse resource yet having the keshik UU).

Sorry if this is derailing the intention of the thread, but your thread title just brought it to mind.

It's no derailing.
I want unique and distinctive civs and if possible different leaders that add another level of personality to the civs. What you're proposing would lead to the opposite. I don't think they'll do what you suggest but I think they'll only make minor differences between civs and instead keep the larger differences between leaders, like they did in civ4.

 

[SamuraiProgramr]

What I've often wished for is a game where civilisation traits grow organically, rather than being decided from the beginning. For example, if in the first 100 turns you build a lot of cottages by a river, you might develop the 'Financial' trait; if you spend the first part of the game doing a lot of defending in forts and cities, you might get the 'protective' trait.

That is an intriguing idea

 

[Double A]

Ok in Colonization (only PC civ game I have) there were 2 leaders for each nation, so does that mean there can be more than one leader for countries in Civ V (and were in Civ IV)? Because if there aren't it seems like extra work to give leaders bonuses and not just add them to the national bonus.