Suggestion to improve 'Imperialistic' trait
- Thread starter spiffamoo
- Start date
kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
Another would be to give them double production of national wonders like Hermitage/ Heroic Epic/National Epic. I think these changes fit in well with the idea of an 'Imperialistic' civilization, one that tries to expand and build an empire.
i like this idea but i think it whould be cool having 3 nat wonders per city
That's cool
..........
I have also just made a 'No Revolt Imperialistic' mod. It has:
+100% GG Emergence (as is in Warlords)
+50% faster settler production (as is in Warlords)
no revolt period for captured cities.
I believe someone wanted something like this, so here it is:
No Revolt Imperialistic
No revolt? As in if I captured a Enemy City, they won't resist me?... well That Makes a Great Artist even more useless for the Imperialistic Leader, the the usage for war sense. It could possibly be overpowered for the Warmonger combinations... I acn't think of any currently but I probably would of rpefered, Revolt Times cut in half but ah well it's for the purpose of testing so who knows it might give Imperialistic that edge on the other warmonger traits it so desperate needs.
I don't agree with the no revolt period either, but I remember someone, somewhere in this thread (or maybe another thread, not sure) that liked the idea. I just found that the solution was a simple 'if' statement added in, so I made it 
Finding a combination that both captures Imperialistic and allows for competitive gameplay with the other traits isn't proving to be that easy. It's fun though.
EDIT: I just realised you wanted the real 100% GG bonus. I can do that part.
Finding a combination that both captures Imperialistic and allows for competitive gameplay with the other traits isn't proving to be that easy. It's fun though.
That's outside my capability. I have no idea of how to integrate the WW bonus... but I guess your post wasn't aimed at me.scy12 said:
EDIT: I just realised you wanted the real 100% GG bonus. I can do that part.
I don't agree with the no revolt period either, but I remember someone, somewhere in this thread (or maybe another thread, not sure) that liked the idea. I just found that the solution was a simple 'if' statement added in, so I made it
Finding a combination that both captures Imperialistic and allows for competitive gameplay with the other traits isn't proving to be that easy. It's fun though.
That's outside my capability. I have no idea of how to integrate the WW bonus... but I guess your post wasn't aimed at me.
EDIT: I just realised you wanted the real 100% GG bonus. I can do that part.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207938
You can download the SDK with the War Weariness Code Integrated from here and just add in the real 100% GG in the SDK, plus add tags in the Traits Info XML <iWarWearinessModifier> to all traits and it should be fine.
wouldn't that more likely represent the creative trait then the Imperialist trait?
Robotron 2084
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 21
You are all wrong: immunity to culture flips is the way to go! 
Maybe the ability to get GG's from hunting animals and killing Barbarians. It would be appropriate for Julius (well, the Romans anyway), Genghis, Victoria, probably the Persians (I would imagine they would have had to defend themselves from Barbarians).
Hmm. The funny thing about that idea is that it would encourage people to not be imperialistic
The vassal commerce bonus is a good idea though, as it is taken from a conquered (or more appropriately "apart of our empire") empire, but the foreign commerce would just encourage the player to not conquer and/or expand in order to get the extra commerce.
In my opinion, for it to represent Imperialism, if anything, the bonuses should encourage the player to want to gain control over other empires. So the bonuses could be to a) get the player into a position where it could capitalise on it and b) gain continious rewards to encourage the player to do it. If you think about it, the settler bonus helps a) and the GG bonus helps b). I think the GG bonus should be a -25% GG xp needed (just like Cha is for unit xp) as the GG scale climbs too steeply and thus runs the b) aspect dry too quickly. The GG bonus is also only a war based solution.
With still using your idea, I would prehaps keep the vassal trade routes and add a +100% bonus to domestic trade routes. This would encourage capitulation/vassalising or otherwise assimilation of other nations. This doesn't however help the person into a better position to be imperialistic. I would also suspect that the new BtS spy system might include more ways of gaining control of foreign territories in different ways that may better suit Imperialistic. Corporations too would better allow for modern Imperialism (but not older versions).
Imperialistic as a whole though, it's more than just exploiting a foreign economy. The marxist perspective tends to want to place a rather big emphasis on the economy aspect. Imperialism tends to 'want to have it all if they want to' when it comes to everything that is not theirs. That's a rather lame perspective, but prehaps useful nonetheless. They essentially want control and have the ability to maintain that control.
Nice idea though Puts a few ideas in my head...
The vassal commerce bonus is a good idea though, as it is taken from a conquered (or more appropriately "apart of our empire") empire, but the foreign commerce would just encourage the player to not conquer and/or expand in order to get the extra commerce.
In my opinion, for it to represent Imperialism, if anything, the bonuses should encourage the player to want to gain control over other empires. So the bonuses could be to a) get the player into a position where it could capitalise on it and b) gain continious rewards to encourage the player to do it. If you think about it, the settler bonus helps a) and the GG bonus helps b). I think the GG bonus should be a -25% GG xp needed (just like Cha is for unit xp) as the GG scale climbs too steeply and thus runs the b) aspect dry too quickly. The GG bonus is also only a war based solution.
With still using your idea, I would prehaps keep the vassal trade routes and add a +100% bonus to domestic trade routes. This would encourage capitulation/vassalising or otherwise assimilation of other nations. This doesn't however help the person into a better position to be imperialistic. I would also suspect that the new BtS spy system might include more ways of gaining control of foreign territories in different ways that may better suit Imperialistic. Corporations too would better allow for modern Imperialism (but not older versions).
Imperialistic as a whole though, it's more than just exploiting a foreign economy. The marxist perspective tends to want to place a rather big emphasis on the economy aspect. Imperialism tends to 'want to have it all if they want to' when it comes to everything that is not theirs. That's a rather lame perspective, but prehaps useful nonetheless. They essentially want control and have the ability to maintain that control.
Nice idea though
Puts a few ideas in my head...So to clarify, I think Imperialism should:
a) have an ability that helps them into a position to gain more control over other nations
b) receive rewards to encourage the player to keep doing it.
I think that'll be a good model for building an Imperialistic trait from.
maybe:
+1 gold per turn in the capital city (taxes) for every city captured/razed.
+100% commerce from Vassal trade routes.
GG bonus of some sort (either +100% or -25% GG cost).
a) have an ability that helps them into a position to gain more control over other nations
b) receive rewards to encourage the player to keep doing it.
I think that'll be a good model for building an Imperialistic trait from.
maybe:
+1 gold per turn in the capital city (taxes) for every city captured/razed.
+100% commerce from Vassal trade routes.
GG bonus of some sort (either +100% or -25% GG cost).
I was thinking when you have a vassal, you also take on extra maintenance from the vassal and therefore it kind of cancels out the bonus from vassal trade routes.
So I was thinking with Imp, when you have a Vassal you don't carry the extra maintenance, so another bonus would be Zero Maintenance from Vassal or (If that's overpowered) A decrease in maintenance from vassals by -50%.
I'm a little confused about this bonus
How does that represent Imp???
I think the -25% GG cost is weaker then the 100% Xp to GGs.
100% = 15XP (to 1st GG) 30XP, 45XP, 60XP Etc
-25% = 22XP, 45XP... etc
maybe 1/3 Cheaper GG cost would be better having easier number to caculate
=1/3 (33%) = 20XP, 40XP, 60XP...
So yeah the Cheap GGs would be weaker unless you combined both Cheap GG and 100XP or the Cheaper GG were cheap by more then 50%.
So I was thinking with Imp, when you have a Vassal you don't carry the extra maintenance, so another bonus would be Zero Maintenance from Vassal or (If that's overpowered) A decrease in maintenance from vassals by -50%.
I'm a little confused about this bonus
How does that represent Imp???
I think the -25% GG cost is weaker then the 100% Xp to GGs.
100% = 15XP (to 1st GG) 30XP, 45XP, 60XP Etc
-25% = 22XP, 45XP... etc
maybe 1/3 Cheaper GG cost would be better having easier number to caculate
=1/3 (33%) = 20XP, 40XP, 60XP...
So yeah the Cheap GGs would be weaker unless you combined both Cheap GG and 100XP or the Cheaper GG were cheap by more then 50%.
Taxes/tribute from rival cities (once captured/razed).
It's both a motivator in a gameplay sense and motivator in the real imperialistic sense: being able to take from others. It's what generally drives imperialism anyway; the imperialistic leader has some sense of perceiving themselves as being better than their neighbours and when they acquire or gain control - they take.
If shines get 1 gold per turn from each city that has their religion, then it makes sense for an Imperialistic leader to get 1 gold per turn from every captured city in the form of taxes/tribute.
The whole idea is rather symbolic of reality and is also there to help with gameplay motivation - much like shrines.
EDIT: I guess tribute would be a better word than taxes. Basically it receives tribute from conquered territory.
I dont see how trade revenues directly couple to imperialistic, seems more of a financial trait..
How about less war weariness and, say and extra 1 or 2 gold per city (just like creative gives culture)
The extra gold per city would represent the more efficient taxation and exploitation thats going on and the lowered war weariness would represent the imperialistic mindset..
This would lead to
a) Make player inclined to wage big campaigns and not quit so quickly
b) Keep all conquests and thus have a large empire
c) Utilize the +100% settler emergence even more, getting a larger empire in the beginning.
BTW. One strategy I like with imperialistic leaders is to found my first city on a plains hill (preferably with marble/stone for an extra hammer) and build settler/settler as my first units in the capital. This is a great strategy with Catherine and really makes that +100 settler emergence shine..
How about less war weariness and, say and extra 1 or 2 gold per city (just like creative gives culture)
The extra gold per city would represent the more efficient taxation and exploitation thats going on and the lowered war weariness would represent the imperialistic mindset..
This would lead to
a) Make player inclined to wage big campaigns and not quit so quickly
b) Keep all conquests and thus have a large empire
c) Utilize the +100% settler emergence even more, getting a larger empire in the beginning.
BTW. One strategy I like with imperialistic leaders is to found my first city on a plains hill (preferably with marble/stone for an extra hammer) and build settler/settler as my first units in the capital. This is a great strategy with Catherine and really makes that +100 settler emergence shine..
Agreed! I love this strategy too. It also benefits a military build up with this strategy. I tend to put quite a few Imp cities on plain hills - especially my first few - and then use them to quickly build up a military.
Hmm. Doesn't Copper and Iron give +2 hammers when settled on? Maybe on plains or something, I can't remember. If it does, then it would go for a rapid military buildup too.
DrewBledsoe
Veteran QB
What I'm actually thinking atm, is that Imp needs a cheap building or 2, to balance it out. If you play huge maps and marathon for example, the settler bonus is often utterly pointless, in that there is no rush at all to build those first few cities, and in fact by rushing them out you are doing more harm than good (there's no rush for land, and they're only costing you money / science)...
Most Imp leaders in the game, are ones who irl ruled over empires mostly taken by force, but sustained by commerce and trade. Maybe half price markets is a thought. Some (not all) also kept law and order through military presence, so maybe +1 happiness from barracks, is another...
Not particularly inspired I agree, but they would make Imp a more rounded trait.
I'm sure the trait though, will get a bump in BTS, we'll have to wait and see...........
Most Imp leaders in the game, are ones who irl ruled over empires mostly taken by force, but sustained by commerce and trade. Maybe half price markets is a thought. Some (not all) also kept law and order through military presence, so maybe +1 happiness from barracks, is another...
Not particularly inspired I agree, but they would make Imp a more rounded trait.
I'm sure the trait though, will get a bump in BTS, we'll have to wait and see...........
ac196nataku
Noob
I just had a BRILLIANT idea for Imperialistic trait... Well actually you decide.
What is Imp gave -25% to distance maintenance. Wouldn't be too game-breaking (you can nerf it down a bit if you think its too high) and it fits the theme of Imperialistic I think. I mean... it's supposed to encourage larger more sprawling empires right? What better way to accomplish this is there? The Settler bonus is a joke. I usually build about 3-4 Settlers a game, and almost none after 1AD.
What is Imp gave -25% to distance maintenance. Wouldn't be too game-breaking (you can nerf it down a bit if you think its too high) and it fits the theme of Imperialistic I think. I mean... it's supposed to encourage larger more sprawling empires right? What better way to accomplish this is there? The Settler bonus is a joke. I usually build about 3-4 Settlers a game, and almost none after 1AD.
King Jason
Fleece-bearer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,095
I haven't read this entire thread. But I'd be amazed if this idea hadn't popped up already. So kudos to you if you're the first to pitch it. Distance maintenance was the first idea to pop into my head in regards to this topic, I would say it makes sense.
Similar threads
