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

Should Traits be rebalanced?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by kristopherb, Jul 22, 2009.

  1. kristopherb

    kristopherb Protective/Charismatic

    May 23, 2006
    British Empire Soul:Tesco
    I was looking though the old CIV manual i remebered that Fin had cut price banks. and rememerbed i loved that in my early civ career. So i thought i wish they brought that back but fin is powerfull as it is. Then i remembered that some Traits are underpowered IE Protective and Imp to an extent.
    So i'm asking do you think the traits need to be reblanced?
    Either though imporving all traits to a state of ballancement(is that a word?) or just improving the bad ones or conversely, downgrading the good ones?

    I think that we should Improve all traits to equlibreium (better word) because one of the main differences between leaders is the traits and how the traits play so, being able to milk them is good and milking more out of the triats makes for an intresting game.
  2. xchen08

    xchen08 King

    Jan 16, 2009
    I disagree. I think some traits should be more powerful than others, and some trait combos should be more powerful than other combos as long as there is some way to leverage every trait combo. Civs should be balanced, but that balance should come from a combination of their traits, UU/UB, and starting techs. The HRE for example has weakish traits and starting techs, but a good UU and a very good UB, while Roosevelt has a very powerful trait combo and starting techs, but relatively weak UU/UB.
  3. zyphyr

    zyphyr Prince

    Oct 30, 2005
    I'm with xchen08 - it isn't the relative power of individual traits that matters, it is the balance between Civs as a whole.
  4. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Jan 26, 2008
    It's hard to gain a good feel for what traits are superior in general due to contextual strengths (difficulty, map type, civ they aide, ability to deal with certain neighbors).

    Also, IMP isn't even remotely weak.
  5. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Oct 10, 2008
    There's good and bad. Protective sucks to play, but it's horrible to play against. Make it too much stronger and people complain more about the AI.

    And each one is situational. Imperialist can suck if you don't need to rex fast or war at all, but in some games where you need to expand, and will end up fighting wars, it can be a game saver.
  6. DigitalBoy

    DigitalBoy Emperor

    Jun 29, 2006
    If this were a new game (hint hint), I wouldn't mind rebalancing of the traits, but CivIV is way past the point of rebuilding the game to address trait imbalances. Even if someone found the time to do it, changing them seems somehow unnatural to me.

    UU/UB also needs to be taken into consideration of what balances out a leader, although having strong traits is more important I think.
  7. ianfuture

    ianfuture Chieftain

    Sep 27, 2006
    I agree about the overall balance for a nation, leader, UU and UB.

    However I think some UU are a bit pants compared to others and sort of make the nation less appealing as there is no moment when you can go "yeah got my UU now. Let other nations fear me!"

    I've been playing on Random leader recently, and I've only restarted when I've been given India, because I think the fast worker is useless.

    Been the Sumerians, which initally seemed pants, but actually very good, although their UU is not great against other UU of the era, particularly the Phlanx of Greece (which seems very powerful when on the recieving end). It does however hold its own pretty well.

  8. Iranon

    Iranon Deity Whipping Boy

    Nov 14, 2007
    I think the traits are quite well balanced... for the highest 2 difficulties on default settings.

    On lower levels, there is little use for military traits; the ability to pay the bills for your ill-gotten gains and to get superior units more quickly is much more relevant. Someone like Gilgamesh (more breathing room early on, but his advantages fade quickly) is only good if establishing a solid position in the early game would e difficult without that edge.
  9. dannythefool

    dannythefool King

    Jul 15, 2009
    I think you are making a good point against the need for rebalancing anything here with your India example. You think the fast worker is useless, but elsewhere in this forum I've seen discussions on whether it is too powerful...

    Note that the fast worker loses more of its appeal when you play on the slower speed settings because he doesn't actually work faster, he just moves faster. So on Normal speed or even on Quick you can save a good amount of turns in the early game, where they do count the most, but on Marathon you'd probably prefer one of the traits that is stronger there, i.e. the ones that let you fight early wars efficiently.

    In any case, the game lets you pick your leader and even your opponents if you always want the same odds. For me, the point in random games is that they aren't always the same... there has to be some variance, and I like P&P RPGs, so rolling a "bad" leader isn't a dealbreaker for me, it makes the game more interesting...
  10. Unconquered Sun

    Unconquered Sun Emperor

    Dec 20, 2006
    There's the high v low level balance, the quick v marathon balance, the SP v MP balance, etc. Those who play niche and miss the big picture are prone to wrong assumptions.
  11. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Jan 17, 2007
    Excellent point!

    My gut reaction to the original post is no. CIV 3.19 is reasonably balanced as is. In my limited exprience, attempts to tweak the traits often result in improving that which they intended, but at the same time unbalancing the game.
  12. cracked

    cracked Wierdo.

    Aug 28, 2008
    I happen to quite like protective. protective gunpowder units are, in my humble opinion, just as strong if not stronger than aggresive gunpowder units.

    I particularly like upgradin crossbows to machine guns (city garrison I,II,III, +50% against gunpowder units and a first strike. You really shouldn't expect to loose that city.)

    The trick is to upgrade archery units, while being quite happy to let melee units die in due course.
  13. AutomatedTeller

    AutomatedTeller Frequent poster

    Jan 25, 2006
    Medford, MA
    well, I think they are much better balanced than in Civ III, where scientific would allow half priced libs and unis AND a free tech at every age change - or agri, which allowed extra food in each city.

    Protective is pretty underrated, in my opinion. a CG II archer behind walls has the advantage vs. anything below maces and will give praets, maces and elephants a problem. Put them on a hill and you have a really cheap and near invincible city.

    To be honest, I think they are all outstanding traits.
  14. phungus420

    phungus420 Deity

    Mar 1, 2003
    Yeah, the traits are balanced for MP and Emperor+ difficulty. Protective and Organized no longer apear weak in such contexts. Though I contend Charismatic and Financial are slightly stronger then all the other traits, this is probably more an oppinion formed by my playstyle, rather then an actual disparity in trait strength.

Share This Page