Suggestion to improve 'Imperialistic' trait

[Thyrwyn]

The "Expansive can produce faster settlers the Imperialistic" argument is depends heavily on the following conditions:

• Leveraging the +50% Worker production bonus by working a high hammer tile to get that first worker built, and
• The ability to start chopping as soon the first worker is built.

While this seems fairly straight forward, there are a lot of underlying assumption to these conditions, namely:

• The Expansionist Civ needs to research Bronze Working by the time their first Worker is built.
• Since this Worker is produced more quickly, Bronze Working needs to be researched quickly, too. So a high commerce tile would help, too. How many unimproved, high commerce, high hammer tiles have you seen?
• The Expansionist Leader needs to start with Mining (which only Peter and Bismarck do)
• Game speed, difficulty level, and Map size will affect Beakers needed, chop time and build time.

Expansionist Leaders can build Workers roughly 33% faster than Imperialist ones, but, assuming (which is a big assumption) you are chopping out Settlers, Imperialist Leaders get 33% more hammers from each chop. Further, there are more Imperialist Leaders (Victoria, Catherine, and Julius) that start with Mining than there are Expansionist ones.

 

[Antilogic]

Thyrwyn is right there...there are more factors to consider.

I haven't tried to re-balance the traits in awhile, but before I was considering giving Expansive the settler bonus and giving Imperialistic a free March promotion for melee and gunpowder units. Then, they posted the Warlords v2.08 patch and I decided to wait until I started modding again.

 

[Watiggi]

I haven't tried to re-balance the traits in awhile, but before I was considering giving Expansive the settler bonus and giving Imperialistic a free March promotion for melee and gunpowder units. Then, they posted the Warlords v2.08 patch and I decided to wait until I started modding again.

Wow, what a nice idea. I thought about giving seige units a free City Raider or giving some military and sea units a production bonus or something.

I made a mod before that gives Expansionist the settler bonus; Industrious the Worker bonus; and Imperialistic a military production bonus to melee and gunpowder units. The military production bonus was a bit much though, but I cannot find anything else. A free March for melee and gunpowder units would be cool. Mind if I whack that in and have that replace the military production bonus? I wouldn't mind trying that.

Expansionist Leaders can build Workers roughly 33% faster than Imperialist ones, but, assuming (which is a big assumption) you are chopping out Settlers, Imperialist Leaders get 33% more hammers from each chop. Further, there are more Imperialist Leaders (Victoria, Catherine, and Julius) that start with Mining than there are Expansionist ones.

The best I have done is to get a settler out within 12 turns (with Imp). I think that's for normal speed. Hmm. 3 hammers for stone flatground and 3 hammers for forested plain hill boosted by 50% = 9 hammers = 100 / 9 = 12. Yeah, close enough. Planting a city on either a plains hill with another forested plains hill nearby or on a stone/marble resource with a forested plains hill nearby gives quite a lot of production for the first city when building settlers for Imp. The thing is though, Expansive may be equal or loose out a little, but Expansive ends up with both a settler, worker and Bronze Working - ready to go for either worker #2, settler #2 or a (cheap) Granary, which can give it a good production boost with Slavery, which it already has. That's a lot of advantages for Expansive. For Imp to beat Exp at building a settler, it would ultimately be at a high cost as it would miss out on all those things (it might have Bronze Working, but wont be able to do anything about it).

All in all though, I love these Imp trait boost ideas that are coming out.

How about the Imp having priority over acquiring land through culture so that if a plot is contested by 2 civs, the Imp leader gains a bonus to getting it. Having a vassal bonus would be really neat.

I think though, that if GG's were actually of great benefit for Imp, it wouldn't be that much of a problem. What if Imp leaders actually did give 100% more GG's? So if a non-Imp leader kept waring and ended up with 5 GG's, an Imp leader would end up (with the same amount of war) with 10 GG's. A 30% increase isn't much right now - it certainly doesn't compete with Charismatic or what not. I would love to tweak the GG side of it a bit.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

How about the Imp having priority over acquiring land through culture so that if a plot is contested by 2 civs, the Imp leader gains a bonus to getting it. Having a vassal bonus would be really neat.

Vassal bonus would be great, if it were some kind of economic one. Maybe a blanket bonus of cash based on the size or score of the civ you vassal. Like a Great Merchant.

I think though, that if GG's were actually of great benefit for Imp, it wouldn't be that much of a problem. What if Imp leaders actually did give 100% more GG's? So if a non-Imp leader kept waring and ended up with 5 GG's, an Imp leader would end up (with the same amount of war) with 10 GG's. A 30% increase isn't much right now - it certainly doesn't compete with Charismatic or what not.

Yeah I wish it was 100% more. With the changes to acadamies needing education, imp is definately lagging behind the other military traits. And assuming the charismatic civ and my civ both fight the same, by the time I get to education, his elite army would roll over mine. If it was a genuine 100% increase, I think it would make a decided difference. It would be more exciting too...I know when Im fighting a charismatic civ and I lose some battles, or I see a charismatic civ winning alot against another civ, it puts pressure on me...I better do something about it now because soon he'll be unstoppable. The same could be true for someone playing against an imp. leader...I better do something now before he gets all those gg's and can produce very strong troops. Lets say I could get 5 or 6 GGs before education as opposed to the 3 I got in my previous game...I could have one warlord and one city that produces troops with 11-13 xp. Even then I dont know if I'd have the edge on charismatic, as it would take me time to leverage this because its only one city.

Another thing to consider in improving imp is the balancing effect (or unbalancing) it might have on our friends Cyrus and Julius Caesar. Those advisors are more potent for charismatic leaders, while that early praet run would be that much scarier.

 

[Watiggi]

Vassal bonus would be great, if it were some kind of economic one. Maybe a blanket bonus of cash based on the size or score of the civ you vassal. Like a Great Merchant.

Awesome! An economic one would be perfect - especially if it came from the Vassals. Maybe a +x gold per turn amount of something for each vassal of the empire, taken from the vassals. That would both be asserting control over other nations and acquiring an economic bonus (which can pay for a bigger military). I like it. Vicky (Fin/Imp) would have a field trip with it

Yeah I wish it was 100% more. With the changes to acadamies needing education, imp is definately lagging behind the other military traits. And assuming the charismatic civ and my civ both fight the same, by the time I get to education, his elite army would roll over mine. If it was a genuine 100% increase, I think it would make a decided difference. It would be more exciting too...I know when Im fighting a charismatic civ and I lose some battles, or I see a charismatic civ winning alot against another civ, it puts pressure on me...I better do something about it now because soon he'll be unstoppable. The same could be true for someone playing against an imp. leader...I better do something now before he gets all those gg's and can produce very strong troops. Lets say I could get 5 or 6 GGs before education as opposed to the 3 I got in my previous game...I could have one warlord and one city that produces troops with 11-13 xp. Even then I dont know if I'd have the edge on charismatic, as it would take me time to leverage this because its only one city.

Yeah, I concur. I am trying to alter the algorithm that calculates it to make the algorithm more XML friendly (as per this thread), but no one is interested in helping. The more I read this thread, the more I would like to see what having 100% more GG's actually does for Imp and see whether it balances it out more. How does one get the modders interest exactly? I need SDK support and lack that myself.

Another thing to consider in improving imp is the balancing effect (or unbalancing) it might have on our friends Cyrus and Julius Caesar. Those advisors are more potent for charismatic leaders, while that early praet run would be that much scarier.

....didn't think about that one. Julius getting a boost doesn't really bother me that much. For Imp to get a true +100% GG emergence, the GG threshold will have to remain constant for each GG (a bit like 60/60/60/60). This means that it will take longer to get the first GG and when the Praetorians become obsolete, his bonuses disappear.

Cyrus though... His trait combo lasts right throughout the game. Hehe, that reminds me, I played a game recently where Cyrus got the Great Wall and Genghis (his neighbour) decided to attack Cyrus. The thing is, Genghis had nothing but Archers - no strategic resources. Genghis attacking Cyrus within Cyrus's borders (with the Great Wall), with Archers spat out 3 GG's for Cyrus in quick succession. It was funny. Genghis got cained. But yeah, boosting Imp would also boost Cyrus too... don't know how to get around that one. I have always thought of Cyrus as being rather over the top in Warlords myself. It isn't just the trait combination, add to that the UU and how powerful it is too. Maybe Cyrus would have to be nerfed a little if I can get this mod made. Thanks for pointing that out.

...

Maayybbee it should be the other way around: can build Warlords and Military Academy right from the begining and make the Instructor (+2xp) available only after Education. That would both help the aggressors (having to make Military Academy for production or Warlords for xp), 'help' balance out Cyrus and Julius if they had a true +100% GG emergence and balance out Cyrus's Charismatic effect on the Imp trait. One wonders why they didn't do that in the first place. It's the instructors that unbalance the early game - particularly for Aggressive leaders (who loose out) and Charismatic leaders (who win out).

 

[Judge Dee]

I like the -25% war weariness. Helps with the sense of imperialist nations being proud to conquer others. One thing, though, if you were running police state (-50% WW), had the Mt. Rushmore nat. wonder built (-25% WW), and had jails (-25% WW) in a bunch of your cities, would you then get negative war weariness (war enthusiasm?), or ...?

 

[Watiggi]

The more I think of it, the more a bonus that gives results once the civ is conquered/submitted. What if the bonuses were:

+x gold per turn from vassals (capitulated or choice)
+y research per turn from vassals (capitulated or by choice).

 

[Drake007]

imo more profitable vassals are definitely a good idea. beefed up GG emergence is not bad either. maybe some half-price building? i cant think of any that would be logical with "imperialistic" though, maybe market. reduced distance maintenance (not # of cities) would be nice too.

 

[Antilogic]

I don't think beefing up vassals is a good route to go with Imperialistic--you can turn them off in the options menu, and thus deprive Imperialistic of a bonus for the entire game, and vassals are very situation dependent.

Relating to the war weariness...you know how cities have so many turns of unproductive anarchy when you capture them? How about reducing or eliminating that time, so that newly conquered cities are productive more quickly?

That's a unique bonus that makes sense and is more likely to come into play than a vassal bonus.

 

[Panda]

Of those ideas sugegsted, I like the Vassal bonus the best.

 

[Antilogic]

Why, though? Why add a bonus that can simply be negated by turning off the Vassal state option in the starting options menu? I realize you can negate Aggressive by turning on "Always Peace" but seriously, more people are likely to play with "No Vassals" than "Always Peace". But even the warmongering traits like Charismatic and Imperialistic have a non-military bonus that can be used despite having "Always Peace" on...

 

[Watiggi]

Another could be that the Market/Grocer can be captured when capturing a city (so that instead of having to build them again, they are there when the city is captured).

I don't think beefing up vassals is a good route to go with Imperialistic--you can turn them off in the options menu, and thus deprive Imperialistic of a bonus for the entire game, and vassals are very situation dependent.

True, but the Great General bonus is rather situation dependant too. The trait is meant to encourage expansion into other nations. That is rather situation dependent on it's own. I don't think it should be of any bonus to the player if the player (AI or human) cannot 'imperialise'.

Relating to the war weariness...you know how cities have so many turns of unproductive anarchy when you capture them? How about reducing or eliminating that time, so that newly conquered cities are productive more quickly?

That's a unique bonus that makes sense and is more likely to come into play than a vassal bonus.

I dunno, I have always had an issue with this one. I think Aussie_Lurker is making tags for this so that Imp can have this ability. I have no doubt it would be very effective for an empire that is constantly expanding, but I have always had a problem with it.

... maybe cities and/or rival military units have a chance of surrendering or something. Might be a little outside the box, but sounds interesting.

Then there's the one I came up with a long time ago: +50% inflated power rating. I would be very interested in seeing what sort of effect this has on the game (for both the AI and human).

 

[mjs0]

I'm inclined to agree with AntiLogic that vassals are not a good area for a trait-based bonus.

When I think of Imperialistic I think of a combination of expansive, organized and aggressive characterized by ready assimilation of new cities from conquered territories and good management of an extended empire even when it consists of discrete territories.
Based on this mental impression I really like these overlapping suggestions from Kniteowl and Antilogic:

I forgotten what it's called when you recently caputre a city that isn't yours and and it goes into civil disorder or a riot. To Improve the Imp Trait We could Half the time it takes for a City to Assimilate into your civilization?

Relating to the war weariness...you know how cities have so many turns of unproductive anarchy when you capture them? How about reducing or eliminating that time, so that newly conquered cities are productive more quickly?

I hate having +3 Unhappiness We Want to Join and Return to our Mother country Modifier Especially if I can't eliminate the Civ Becuase they Planted a City on the other Side of the Continent. Maybe with the Imp Trait they Could Remove or decrease this Modifier.

And to represent improved empire management...rather than a blanket percentage improvement in city maintenance costs...perhaps imperialistic could have improved access to the forbidden palace in some way, such as some combination of... double production speed, reducing the number of courthouses needed to qualify or even making it possible to to build two or three of them instead of just one.

 

[Watiggi]

There are several problems I have with Imperialism being associated with the managing of a big empire as well as shorter civil disorder, reduced motherland unhappiness and reduced city maintanence (and the variations) is the fact that it isn't Imperialism. Did France have a reduced civil disorder because an Imperialistic leader conquered them? Do you think the cities that Genghis conquered went "Yippy! We just got our asses kicked! Let get working sooner and help these guys"? I doubt it. I would give a reduced civil disorder length or a reduce motherland unhappiness to Charismatic before giving it to Imperialistic.

As for the reduced city maintanence or easier to build Forbidden Palace's, Imperialism isn't about having a big empire either. Germany in WWII was an Imperialist. It wasn't big in terms of large empires. It's much like Expansive not being Organised. Expansive is about expanding more quickly than normal - not about having a large empire; Organised is about managing an empire more effeciently - regardless of size. Likewise, Imperialist isn't about managing a large empire, it's about expanding its own influence over other empires. Ending up with a large, well organised empire is outside of the imperialist agenda. Imperialism is about developing power and influence and then using it on other nations.

 

[Antilogic]

I don't think adding a completely new system to the game would be a good idea--the notion of leaders with traits is that they do something better, not something completely different, than other leaders with different traits. Therefore, I'm against the unit surrender thing.

However, I think reduced anarchy or "want to rejoin the motherland" unhappiness or something along those lines would be good. Even reduced war weariness would adequately represent the Imperialistic nature.

I second what Watiggi said about the concept of Imperialism, but I think the best way to implement this in the game is to use one of the methods above...my preference is to reduced anarchy when cities are captured (because that's annoying) and to reduced war weariness (because that makes sense--honestly, if I had to pick one to support, I'd say that is the best here).

I find it funny that anyone would say "Hey, he wants to influence us! Let's revolt and join them!" No bonus to city conversion, please.



EDIT: I forgot to mention the March promotion idea I gave above...anyone else think Imperialistic leaders should have military units that receive a free March promotion? Some people liked the idea, but discussion around it didn't really take off.

 

[mjs0]

Watiggi, we must be looking at different definitions of imperialism .

Actually I wouldn't argue for excluding your definition, I just think it is a little narrow, focusing on one end of the spectrum of imperialism, whereas I was focusing on the other end of the spectrum. To be more specific I was focusing on the acquisition of remote colonies and territories (think British Empire) rather than conquering immediate neighbours. I think the British experience in Ireland is more similar to your example of the German/French case and it highlights the difference very well between the relatively stable remote colonies (the 2nd and larger British Empire learnt from the debacle in the US) and the perpetual unrest in neighbouring Ireland.

When I look up imperialism (using Google and searching for define:imperialism) it comes back with a bunch of answers that I perceive as including both of our definitions.

I focused on the forbidden palace as a way to facilitiate the colonial feel of outlying branches of an empire without crippling the economy of the central core. I don't think Civ4 has a good model for colonies and territories, you have a stark choice...conquer all and suffer economically or accept capitulation and lose much control, neither of these represent well the actual situation in the age of imperialism when colonies and territories were under the direct rule of the imperial owner and were of enormous economic benefit to that owner.

I would be very excited to see extensions to Civ4 that allowed for more diplomacy and influencing of other Civs. Imperialism through diplomacy or economic domination would be interesting to play but the game is a long way from being a good platform for modeling that form of imperialism.

So, I simply felt that for the average player a bonus that focused on a core component of the game would be more useful than one that enhances vassal states which appear (again my opinion) to be a potentially useful but currently immature feature.

But hey, my opinion is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[Antilogic]

So, I simply felt that for the average player a bonus that focused on a core component of the game would be more useful than one that enhances vassal states which appear (again my opinion) to be a potentially useful but currently immature feature.

I agree 100%--that is what I was trying to say earlier, but you have crafted it into a more succinct and clear statement.

I suppose we just disagree with what exactly that bonus should be...

 

[mjs0]

I suppose we just disagree with what exactly that bonus should be...

Let's be optimistic and say instead "we have yet to agree on what exactly that bonus should be..."

 

[KrikkitTwo]

There are several problems I have with Imperialism being associated with the managing of a big empire as well as shorter civil disorder, reduced motherland unhappiness and reduced city maintanence (and the variations) is the fact that it isn't Imperialism. Did France have a reduced civil disorder because an Imperialistic leader conquered them? Do you think the cities that Genghis conquered went "Yippy! We just got our asses kicked! Let get working sooner and help these guys"? I doubt it. I would give a reduced civil disorder length or a reduce motherland unhappiness to Charismatic before giving it to Imperialistic.

Actually I think that is to some degree what it was, a Truly Imperialistic leader didn't conquer France, a Nationalistic Leader did... and that is where I see the distinction, Romans, Mongols, and Persians all essentially tried to exert political control much more than cultural control over their conquests. This is less true with the British and Much less true with the Russians (although Catherine may not have been such a rabid Russifier, I don't know much about her in detail) but they can be held up as exceptions.

A 1/2 Anarchy period for Conquests would fit very well (probably better than reduced homeland unhappiness)

March promotions would be good (perhaps for Mounted and Naval Units)

Decreased War Weariness (direct or from 1/2 price Jails) would also work (since War Weariness is strictly from "Foreign" combat)

The fact is right now Imperialism is a military and settling bonus, it really should be a conquest bonus, (as opposed to just a defense), and I think any one of those would do.

Probably adding on 1/2 Price Jails and some tweaks to GG to make them a bit more common/useful would be best (I like the idea of moving Instructors to Education and dropping it for Academies (maybe even require Literature/another early tech for Mil.Academies, so that Early GGs Have to be Leaders) That way an Imperialist will have More Military cities rather than just better trained units.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

I don't think beefing up vassals is a good route to go with Imperialistic--you can turn them off in the options menu, and thus deprive Imperialistic of a bonus for the entire game, and vassals are very situation dependent.

But you can say that about a lot of things. I can turn off barbarians, there goes the great wall. I can play on a map with no water...bye vikings. I can play a "peace only" game...aggresive is completely wasted, so is imperialistic's GG bonus. Heck, I can play noble and lower and there are ALOT of traits that arent worth nearly as much...expansive's +health, organized discount on civic cost. And so on. I think Firaxis goes with the idea of someone playing with the "base" rules, and thats what we should go by as well.