Suggested New Civ Traits

[dh_epic]

"Superstitious" could be a flaw. Although I think it's a little unfair to the French that we keep dissing their military. Before Napoleon came along, they had numerous victories and very rare defeats.

That doesn't mean I won't stop making fun of them though.

 

[Teabeard]

I think flaws should be limited to the leader traits. Saying a nationality has certain flaws would be quite offensive to that nationality, for example if you say Germans are brutal warmongers then you will offend lots of Germans. But if you give those traits to a Hitler ruler saying Hitler is a Brutal Warmonger then you are only trashing Hitler and not Germans as a whole. See what I mean?

Hitler would be a good ruler for world conquest games, but if you wanted a more peaceful game you might pick Frederick the Great, or someone else, whose traits might be more suited for such a style of gameplay.

 

[dh_epic]

I agree, I forgot that important sensitive note I'd definitely support leader flaws (but less so national flaws).

 

[Guagle]

But there's probably not much sense in focusing on the semantic game -- what kind of benefits do you see from the isolationist bonus anyway, Civ wise?

What kind of bonus? like maybe being less subject to cultural flips or less war unhappiness if your are attacked.

Regarding the 'nomadic' trait maybe we could have travelling 'cities', ie. groups of travelling population that would be treated as units. they would grow in size like normal cities and would move (albeit very slowly, say a square every 5 turns or something) and produce things. I know the idea sounds weird but i think it could be managed without too much trouble...

 

[dh_epic]

Less subject to culture flips and less war unhappiness, you could try "patriotic" as a trait instead. Less negative than "isolationist", in my humble opinion. A patriotic nation would be harder to "flip" and get behind a war much more enthusiastically.

Nomadic sounds less like a trait and more like a new gameplay concept altogether. Not sure it's worth it for a new trait. Nomads are a neat idea, but there are dozens of things I'd rather see in Civ 4 before that.

 

[rhialto]

If we just say that nomad has +1 move for horse and camel cavalry, that would still make it an interesting trait.

 

[Teabeard]

If we just say that nomad has +1 move for horse and camel cavalry, that would still make it an interesting trait.

That plus they don't need horses to build horse units (just like with war elephants). The movement bonus plus no need for horse resources alone would make it a powerful trait.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm at a crossroads. On one hand, to be a nomad is pretty much to not be civilized. It's to not manage your own agriculture but live off of whatever lies about.

On the other hand, the Sioux and the Iroquois are technically not civilizations by this definition, and yet are included in Civilization the game. I even read a world history book which (perhaps unfairly) devotes a page or two to Native Americans but then says "but they're not really civilizations so it's not worth going into too much detail" and devotes the remainder of the chapter towards the Incas and Mayans and Aztecs.

I'm leaning towards "no" on a nomadic trait. Maybe the same bonuses by a different name. "Wandering" maybe?

 

[Teabeard]

Well the the Mongols were certainly not known for agricuture. They were nomadic and yet are included as a Civ.

 

[dh_epic]

Nomadic relatively speaking, but they had cities at a certain point, no? I guess it's to what degree you consider a civilization nomadic.

 

[Teabeard]

Nomadic relatively speaking, but they had cities at a certain point, no? I guess it's to what degree you consider a civilization nomadic.

You can call the trait anything you want, but the mongols really need a trait which gives them an advantage with horse units. It's like the seafaring trait except with fast land units instead of ships... I guess you could call it horsemanship or whatever. Nothing sounds as good as Nomadic, IMHO, though...

 

[dh_epic]

Maybe expansionist needs to have a slight movement bonus as well?

 

[rhialto]

Just occurred to me...

Land exploration already occurs way too fast in civ. Speeding up horses - espcially if you have modded in move 3 scout outriders - will make map exploration ridiculous. It might be better simply to 1) let them not need horses to build riders, and 2) give a small discount on building cavalry units.

 

[Keirador]

dh epic: The Iroquois not an agricultural civ?? ARE YOU MAD? The Iroquois understood the principles of field fertilization, crop rotation, and selective breeding before Europeans did! If you'll recall, Squanto taught the pilgrims a thing or two about planting.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Keirador is right, the Mississippian Indian cultures were very advanced agriculturally. It is a common stereotype to think of American Indians as nomadic, warlike tribes, who hunted buffalo and scalped settlers as a pastime, but in many instances this was simply not the case. Some anthropologists beleive there is a connection between Mississippian culture and Aztec culture, i.e. some of the Aztec ideas about agriculture may have filtered north before the Europeans arrived.

Another idea for a civ trait might be "Monumental" or "Architectural", this would reflect civilizations like the Romans and Greeks, who excelled at building grand temples, Colisseums, etc., not sure how you would implement it though.

One thing that might work is when a Civ gets to a tech in the area it really excels at, they get it for free, this could apply to at most 1 or 2 techs in whatever era their time of greatness ocurred. Need a few more techs in the tree, though, to keep worldwide research at a proper pace.

 

[mitsho]

@ivan the kulak, bonusses for monumentalistic?
-They can build wonders easier.
(-They need no ressources to build wonders, [If - in civ4 - you need some ressources (stone, some metalls, special wood, etc...) to build certain wonders]
-rushing (only with people?) costs less.

These are some major (good) bonusses you could give them. Monumentalistic civs: Egypt, China (?), Khmer (?), Rome (?), Aztecs/Mayans/Toltecs (?), ...

mfG mitsho

 

[Teabeard]

I think the Industrious trait already covers this...

 

[mitsho]

There's a difference between industrious and monumentalisitc. The first likes to build and do things to get better situation for themselves (better job, situation, luxury, etc.), the second likes to build and do things for religious, artificial and scientific reasons.

mfG mitsho

 

[dh_epic]

I gracefully retract, I was more reciting something I had read. For whatever reason, the author was audacious enough to imply that none or almost none of the native American peoples were actually civilizations. Maybe he didn't actually say that, and was more referring to their lack of written history, relying more on oral traditions.

At any rate, I'm not sure the nomadic benefit is compatible with a game called "civilization". If we want to make Mongols less dependent on horses, we could allow their UU's to be built without them (not sure which that is, since I've never played as the mongols come to think of it).

I think that if you go specifically "monumental" then all the traits need to go to a new level of depth. That kind of trait is pretty specific compared to the way it's been in Civ so far.

 

[Teabeard]

Maybe my suggestions for the Nomadic trait could be merged into the Expansionist trait? I think making expansionist a stronger trait is a good idea anyway because to me it seems to be the weakest of all. It's only good for exploration and barb/goody huts. Later in the game it's utterly useless. But if you add a movement bonus to fast units plus a no horse requirement I think it could be a worthy trait.

dh_epic, do you really think the Mongols themselves deserve to be in a game called Civilization? The are the quintessential barbarians.