Roman Traits

[Nate128]

Am I the only one who thinks the Romans being called Commercial and Militaristic is totally inaccurate. Well at least the commercial part. Why aren't the Romans Militaristic/Industrious. I mean, who hasn't heard the Phrase "All roads lead to rome". Look at the great industrial feats the Romans acheieved, such as Hadrian's wall and their acqueducts. Then again this is just my opinion so if you have a different opinion, feel free.

-Nate

 

[Tomoyo]

They were Militaristic/Industrious originally, but somehow they got commercial. The Persians, Chinese, and Romans could have done a little swapping of traits to make things more accurate.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

This brings up the question whether the civs should have the traits that are most appropriate at all times or sacrifice some historical accuracy in favor for diversity between the civs when it comes to traits.

I'm not sure myself, but if you're able to give each trait a depth of two it would be easier to combine historical accuracy and diversity.

 

[Trade-peror]

I prefer a more flexible system in which traits are not predetermined ahead of time, and are developed over the course of the game.

 

[Warman17]

Well if you think about italy during the middle ages it was a center for trad. Venice and all. Rome does represent Italy too i suppose.

 

[tig3001]

The republic; militaristic and industrious
The empire; militaristic and expanionist
Hopefully it will be more realistic and flexible in CivIV

 

[eddie_verdde]

I prefer a more flexible system in which traits are not predetermined ahead of time, and are developed over the course of the game.

don't we all do? If you choose Rome to play with, and you start in a island what's the point of being militaristic? how can a civ with no enemies nearby develop military skills?...Or if you choose the Scandinavian and you start in the middle of the desert what's the point of having "seafaring"?...I say that's pure nonsense...traits OUGHT TO be developed over the course of the game, depending on a variety of factors, such as starting location, resources available, neighbouring civs, etc...

 

[GoodGame]

Totally agreed!

They should be part of the tech-tree instead. Do the Romans need to have one of the world's largest empires, every single game, or even try for one every time?

Trade-peror
UET Economist

Trade-peror's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California, US
Posts: 392

I prefer a more flexible system in which traits are not predetermined ahead of time, and are developed over the course of the game.
__________________
The Unified Economic Theory, 2nd Edition (UET II)
The Fundamental Cause of Civ Micromanagement
The Unified Economic Theory, 1st Edition
Integrated Interface/Urban Sprawl
Trade-peror is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

 

[rhialto]

If the traits are part of the tech tree, a powerhouse civ can easily scoop them all up.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I want predetermined traits!

There's always water somewhere so there shouldn't be a problem putting the Scandinavians next to it...

 

[Kayak]

In that case the Scandinavians should always begin close to poles as well. If they started in a jungle how likley would they have developed longships and steel axe weilding wariors?

The problem is that in real life civ traits flow from the surroundings the civ started in to a great extant, and they change over time as well.

 

[Trade-peror]

If the traits are part of the tech tree, a powerhouse civ can easily scoop them all up.

True, which is why I would rather see traits developed due, perhaps, to factors such as the types and proportions of terrain used.

 

[GoodGame]

In other posts I was thinking they'd be gradually acquired in portions. Perhaps it'd take 2-3 techs to fully have Commercial, put a Civ would get bits and pieces of it over those techs.
I was also wondering if maybe they could be limited by age---either expirable, or because of pre-requisites for advancing, everyone gets them, so a Civ has to research the next version in the next era to get an advantage again.

As they are now, I don't quite like them---now they're kind of like genetics/race. Expansionistic, Militaristic, and Industrious are about the only ones I can see like this.

rhialto
Prince

rhialto's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: right behind you
Posts: 582

If the traits are part of the tech tree, a powerhouse civ can easily scoop them all up.
__________________
Let's wiki our ideas!
rhialto is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

True, which is why I would rather see traits developed due, perhaps, to factors such as the types and proportions of terrain used.

That'd be an interesting method for some traits, like an adaption that comes over time. Militaristic, Seafaring would probably work that way.

Scientific and Religious based on relative % cities with those improvements.

There could be new traits as well---Tropic, Desert, and Nordic. And perhaps Mountainous (like the Inca in the C3C mezoamerica scenario).


I still prefer attaching it all to the tech tree, but one a Civ puts it into significant practice, a 'trait' bonus might then come online. People still need to learn by understanding, not just exposure, unless it's genetics.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I definitely feel that civ traits should evolve over time-mostly as a result of player strategy and starting position. After all, an island civ with no neighbours and surrounded by ocean, is going to make use of a LOT of sea and ocean squares, and pursue a large number of nautical technologies as a means of breaking their isolation. Even if said civ began the game as industrial/militaristic, it would almost certainly lose the second trait in favour of seafaring. The former trait would depend very much on the islands terrain. If it is covered in forests, hills and mountains, then the civ will almost certainly retain its industrial trait, wheras if its covered in plains and jungles, then an agricultural trait will probably come about instead.
The only issue is, how OFTEN should traits evolve. Once, twice per age?? Or even more often than that? What do you guys think?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

One thing I like about traits is that, say Im scientific, I can oncentrate LESS on scientific improvements, knowing that my trait will compensate for not having so many libararies. In a model where improvements drive your traits, that isnt possible.

 

[microbe]

I mean, who hasn't heard the Phrase "All roads lead to rome".

Road brings commerce in CIV.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ahhh, but Rhialto, you have also exposed the exploitability of the existing trait system. A warmongering player could, theoretically, choose a scientific civ, then abandon science in favour of world conquest-knowing all along that he/she will be doing a lot better than any non-scientific civ in a similar position. Also, keeping a trait shouldn't be about maintaining very high levels of 'appropriate funding'. Instead, it is about 'punishing' neglect of a trait in favour of other activities, and 'rewarding' players who purposely adopt a different play strategy, according to their needs or desires.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

Well, all bonuses are exploitable. Even basic techs. You get tanks and teh enemy is still defending with muskets, so you find you can concentrate less on building tanks than if he had rifles. It seems unbalancing to me to automatically reward someone who is doing a certain thing a lot by making him even better in that field.

The only reasonable system where traits can evolve that I have seen so far is one where a player must spend [N]% of his total [gold] income over a long period.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I never said automatic, Rhialto-not even CLOSE. My point is that-as so many others here have pointed out-why should a player suffer from having a trait (or both traits) which are totally useless thanks to their location/situation. Instead the system ought to be more flexible, reflecting both starting position AND player actions. It should have to result, though, from consistent action over quite a long period of time. The only thing I am unsure of is HOW long a period it should be.
So, for instance, if you end up in a war for 10 turns-and are forced to redirect your resources away from agriculture, for instance, you shouldn't neccessarily lose your agricultural trait. However, if you have been neglecting agriculture-deliberately or from neccessity-and have focussed all of your resources into warfare for the bulk of the age, then it seems realistic to me that this players civ will see an 'evolution' from agricultural to militaristic!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[Loppan Torkel]

What about giving each civ a limited preset pool of traits based on their real history.
Say Germany could have slots for:
Militaristic OO
Scientific OO
Industrial OO
Religious O

While the Scandinavians could have slots for:
Militaristic OO
Seafaring O
Religious O
Commercial O
Industrial O

...for example, and then you pick one at the time at the entering of a new era.