Should Traits be rebalanced?

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Ian

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.