Thoughts on Imperialistic and Expansive traits?

[Spearthrower]

Apologies.... it was never meant to be!

Now we're back on track....

What do people think about 2 move Imperialistic Settlers? Would this to anything to redress some of the balance?

 

[Bast]

See that's the inherent problem of imperialistic. No matter how powerful you make the colonialism and conquest part of the trait (which is great btw), you're not going to get a complete trait because you simply can't keep up financially. Now if you're Victoria with the financial trait and stock exchanges that's fine. But what about others? Their economies will be in ruins if they expanded too quickly and followed by conquests as they should to leverage their traits.

Which is why there really needs to be an economic advantage to imperialistic. This would make Victoria way overpowered. But hey we have Elizabeth and Boudica and Hannibal and other overpowered combinations in the game too right?

 

[Antilogic]

Which is why there really needs to be an economic advantage to imperialistic. This would make Victoria way overpowered. But hey we have Elizabeth and Boudica and Hannibal and other overpowered combinations in the game too right?

Funny you didn't mention the other "obvious" one--Darius I's Fin/Org combo.

I'm not in favor of special "units" for each trait, like a different settler for Imperialistic Civs. You could always give their settlers the "Morale" promotion for free, which would have a +1 movement effect, but I don't think that is really what they need.

I've suggested doubling the production on monuments combined with improving the value of great generals--maybe giving them an attachment experience boost of 30 XP over 20 XP. If great generals are more tempting overall, then the Imperialistic trait will be bettered indirectly. The alternative to this is to increase the number of great generals for Imperialistic Civs: +150% great general emergence will give them even more great generals.

 

[Bast]

I think settlers and generals are fine. I'll say it again, not all imperialism involves founding new cities and taking the current ones. There can be imperialism in trade too. If Imperialistic gets a boost it should be an economic one. That's my final thoughts. From a game play perspective it makes sense too. There's no use having quicker settlers if you can't keep up financially.

 

[Quueg]

I love threads like this. For every person who says X trait is worthless, someone else comes along and explains how to use it more effectively. That's perhaps the best thing about the game; that there are a multitude of ways to play it.

 

[bovinespy]

Not that Firaxis (or you guys) really care what I think but...

I agree that Imperialistic definitely needs a bump. It is my least favorite trait - by far.

I think it needs a cheap building (Charismatic and Financial are the only other traits that don't have cheap buildings, and the consensus is that those two traits are much better than Imperialistic). And I think it also needs a peace-time benefit (as has been already argued at length, it's a pretty decent war-monger trait as is).

My proposal:

1/2-price Customs Houses
no Colonial maintenance


As I see it, Imperialistic should be all about putting together a big empire. Of course, there are 2 methods for growing an empire (once all the good land has been claimed on your continent): war or colonial expansion. As it stands now, BtS basically forces you to release colonial vassals once your overseas holdings get large enough. By abolishing colonial maintenance, an Imperialistic civ gets a unique advantage (which is kind of the point behind traits in the first place). It wouldn't be overpowering, because you would still be limited by the total number of cities your empire could support, but you would have an edge over non-Imperialistic civs once you start putting Settlers on boats.

This way, Imperialistic would be a decent trait no matter the map. Playing a crowded Pangea map? Use your GG edge to crush your foes with force. Playing a Terra or Big and Small map? Make sure that you get all the best overseas real estate first, without necessarily crippling your economy.

I think the cheap Customs House would nicely dove-tail with this, as well. Customs Houses come late enough that it's not overpowering in the early going, and yet they're quite expensive and show up long before Factories. Getting them early in all your coastal cities will also greatly help you support your overseas empire - even under Mercantilism or not having Open Borders with any neighbors, I think the 50% trade route boost would make even domestic trade routes attractive.

With these ideas in place, I think Joao II would become a very interesting leader. As it stands now, I'm putting him last on my list of leaders to win with before moving up a level, as I think he is the weakest right now.

What do you guys think?

 

[BYC]

Not that Firaxis (or you guys) really care what I think but...

I agree that Imperialistic definitely needs a bump. It is my least favorite trait - by far.

I think it needs a cheap building (Charismatic and Financial are the only other traits that don't have cheap buildings, and the consensus is that those two traits are much better than Imperialistic). And I think it also needs a peace-time benefit (as has been already argued at length, it's a pretty decent war-monger trait as is).

My proposal:

1/2-price Customs Houses
no Colonial maintenance


As I see it, Imperialistic should be all about putting together a big empire. Of course, there are 2 methods for growing an empire (once all the good land has been claimed on your continent): war or colonial expansion. As it stands now, BtS basically forces you to release colonial vassals once your overseas holdings get large enough. By abolishing colonial maintenance, an Imperialistic civ gets a unique advantage (which is kind of the point behind traits in the first place). It wouldn't be overpowering, because you would still be limited by the total number of cities your empire could support, but you would have an edge over non-Imperialistic civs once you start putting Settlers on boats.

This way, Imperialistic would be a decent trait no matter the map. Playing a crowded Pangea map? Use your GG edge to crush your foes with force. Playing a Terra or Big and Small map? Make sure that you get all the best overseas real estate first, without necessarily crippling your economy.

I think the cheap Customs House would nicely dove-tail with this, as well. Customs Houses come late enough that it's not overpowering in the early going, and yet they're quite expensive and show up long before Factories. Getting them early in all your coastal cities will also greatly help you support your overseas empire - even under Mercantilism or not having Open Borders with any neighbors, I think the 50% trade route boost would make even domestic trade routes attractive.

With these ideas in place, I think Joao II would become a very interesting leader. As it stands now, I'm putting him last on my list of leaders to win with before moving up a level, as I think he is the weakest right now.

What do you guys think?

Traits shouldn't have to rely on map choice in order to be good. On a Pangaea map, there's probably not gonna be any land for colonies, making the trait worse than worthless. Cheap custom houses also suffers from the problem if you have nobody to trade with, it's a completely worthless building.

My suggestion of having +1 trade routes with non-foreign cities is probably still too weak, but it's much more useful since it doesn't rely on having the map choice making my trait strong.

Player just don't get enough Great Generals for the Imperialistic trait to really shine on that, not to mention many players (myself included) believe GGs are still too weak. Now, if they really increase the power of GGs, then maybe things will change.

 

[bovinespy]

Traits shouldn't have to rely on map choice in order to be good.

I agree. Which is why I suggested to modify a trait that is definitely better on land-heavy maps to also be better on water-heavy maps.

On a Pangaea map, there's probably not gonna be any land for colonies, making the trait worse than worthless.

Right. A I said, there are 2 ways to expand: war and overseas colonization. On a Pangaea map, you expand with war, using your GG bonus. As I said.

Cheap custom houses also suffers from the problem if you have nobody to trade with, it's a completely worthless building.

I don't know how many Customs Houses you're building in your games, but I know in mine, they usually make a significant difference. Besides, there's no building in the game that's "completely worthless". It all comes down to costs and benefits. And slashing the cost of an expensive building in half certainly does a lot to increase its net utility. Moreover, as I said, if you have plenty of overseas holdings (which you should, not having to pay extra for colonial maintenance), then even domestic trade routes become worthwhile with a 50% boost. Another added plus would be that, if you took Mercantilism for the free specialist, this would broadly reflect the reality of how Europeans actually set up huge mercantile empires in the 15th-18th centuries. Each European power tended to try and restrict trade flows to a strictly home country / colonial pattern, blocking as best they could colonial trade with their European rivals.

My suggestion of having +1 trade routes with non-foreign cities is probably still too weak, but it's much more useful since it doesn't rely on having the map choice making my trait strong.

As I've said, I think my proposal is fairly balanced for map type. However, I wouldn't argue if Firaxis gave Imperialistic +1 trade routes. It's better than nothing.

Player just don't get enough Great Generals for the Imperialistic trait to really shine on that, not to mention many players (myself included) believe GGs are still too weak. Now, if they really increase the power of GGs, then maybe things will change.

Now here, you and I are in full agreement. I totally agree that GGs themselves could also use a little bump.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Here are some things I can think of the beef the Imperialist trait.

Can relocate buildings.

Double production speed of Customs House, Jail, Airport.

Free promotion (Morale) for Melee and Gunpowder units.

-20% Maintenance costs.

 

[bovinespy]

Here are some things I can think of the beef the Imperialist trait.

Can relocate buildings.

Double production speed of Customs House, Jail, Airport.

Free promotion (Morale) for Melee and Gunpowder units.

-20% Maintenance costs.

Do you mean all 4 of these, or just one (or two) of them?

Also, the building relocation idea sounds interesting. Could you please explain more of what you mean?

 

[kniteowl]

LOL another improve the traits thread... these never get old ...

Creative and Expansive are great traits but I think they need a late game buff because they kinda die down by the modern age in my opinion

For Creative myabe replace cheap theaters with cheap broadcast towers (Theater's are already cheap in my opinion. I never build Colossiums though unless I'm creative or it's my UB) and for Expansive replace cheap Habours with cheap Hospitals, and possibly and another health point (From +2 to +3)

Protective is ALOT better now then it was back in Warlords but if it needed a boost I'd give it an indirect boost like give Castles (Protective cheap building) +2XP towards Siege units, because those units have a harder time getting XP since the nerf to not kill. Of course I'd remove the extra Trade route from castles.

For Imp I think GGs should be easier to generate.

Compared to normal Great People, GGs are very hard to generate.

I mean you have so many different boost to GP generation you have Civics like Caste system, Pacifism and Mercantalism, you have National and World Wonders like National Epic, Pathenon and Statute or Liberaty and you have Golden Ages.

How else can you increase GG generation? The only thing I can think of is the GW and that within your own boarders. I Think The Game needs more easier methods of producing GGs. Especially later in the game when GGs are harder to come by because the GG threshold increases.

Maybe a Civic that increases GG generation... I'll just pick a random military civics... maybe Theocracy if that's too early then definitely Police State.

Special Buildings is a bit harder becasue you don't generate GGs like normal GPs so how about a special GG generation Promotion. The Special Promotion allows you +100 GG points to the Unit that has that Promotion. (I wouldn't know what kind of name the promotion should have)

The Special building could give that Promotion for free like the Red Cross National wonder. I'd also make it so that you can only get that promotion once you've teched Military Science.

If we can't find any particular national Wonder that would suit giving that Promotion for free then the Military Academy should be fine enough, makes those GGs even more valuable.

Of course we need better World wonders to produce more GGs, the GW is kinda sad I've hadn't many wars within my own boarders and the ones that I did were becuase I'd declare war and wait for the AI to come to me.

Maybe another World Wonder that gives +100% GGs points to XP gained outside your own boarders (doesn't work within your own boarders), The Wonder I'd pick would be Pentagon (no real reason just becuase it's a military wonder)

and last but not least, Golden ages should Increase GG generation by 100% and GGs should be able to start golden ages, not sure about light bulbing techs... if they did the final tech should light bulb would be Military Science (with the exception of Future Tech which all GPs should bulb)

and if People still think Imp is underpowered after that... I dunno... we'll have to see. Maybe -50% unit upgrades lol.

 

[Jabarto]

...domestic trade routes become worthwhile with a 50% boost...

I thought Customs Houses only applied to foreign trade routes?

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Getting enough health to not be bogged down by sickness with just resources and buildings was easy in vanilla and warlords, but BtS added so goddamn much unhealthiness to the late game that you can't do that anymore. There are now resource based health penalties from factories, inherent unhealthiness penalties just from having power, and brand new buildings that give a benefit in exchange for a loss of health, all for Expansive's bonus to help fight. The trait's fine.

Imperialistic blows. They oughtta fix it by making that Settler production bonus work on food and hammers, not just hammers. Settler speeding bonus that actually matters = easy time beating opponents to sexy city sites = good. (Doing this with expansive's worker bonus would help stop people from crying about how that trait is underpowered, too...)

Regarding creative: Normally in the early game you have to make a choice when founding cities: is it worth it to sacrifice a lot of a city's long term potential by placing it in a spot where the strategic resource you'd be getting from it is right next to the city? If you say no, that resource will take a long time to get harvested, since most early cities have to do actual work to get a second border pop. This is why creative is worthwhile. With it, you can get vital resources early without throwing down cities that turn into lategame duds from being placed sub-optimally just so they could inner-ring a resource.

Organized is financial on tranquilizers. Only take it if the leader has some great unique to make up for being Organized instead of Financial. Or if he's Darius.

 

[kniteowl]

For anyone interested the Leadership Promotion does not further increase GG point Accumulation.

I just did a test on WB...

So basically if you have a unit with the leadership Promotion and that unit wins a battle and gains a base XP of 1XP the XP accumulated by that unit is 2XP, but if you're playing an Imp Leader, the +100 GG point accumulation only calculate GG point from the base XP (1XP in this case) and not the XP after leadership promotion... if that makes sense... lol

 

[Bast]

For anyone interested the Leadership Promotion does not further increase GG point Accumulation.

I just did a test on WB...

So basically if you have a unit with the leadership Promotion and that unit wins a battle and gains a base XP of 1XP the XP accumulated by that unit is 2XP, but if you're playing an Imp Leader, the +100 GG point accumulation only calculate GG point from the base XP (1XP in this case) and not the XP after leadership promotion... if that makes sense... lol

Yes that's why this trait sucks. It's like 100% GG emergence but only from the base XP. Faster settler production but only for hammers.

How come other traits aren't handicapped like this?

 

[kniteowl]

Yes that's why this trait sucks. It's like 100% GG emergence but only from the base XP. Faster settler production but only for hammers.

How come other traits aren't handicapped like this?

I agree that's why I suggested some changes in post 51, I don't see the problem of a hammer ONLY bonus to Settlers because you can easily convert food to hammers by whipping with slavery, instead of 2Pop producing 60H for a settler, it's 90H for the Imp leader, the difference is about 2-5 turns between an Imp and Non-imp Leader depending on the city's output, I generally like to find a high food 2nd city with Imp and use that city as a Settler producer by whipping while my capital works commerce or produces wonders so I can expand with delay.

 

[Nay]

Imperialistic is not about building 200 settlers at +50%.
Its about the first 1-3.
Founding your second city while your opponent still needs 20 turns for his settler will give you an edge over anyone, since you now have twice as many cities.

You should be able to grind out 4 cities when they have 2, then slow progress to develop.

Also, together with great wall wonder thats +200% general emerge.
A general in every city makes 5 XP with barracks.

 

[DeathMan2000]

Hey, first post here.

I must disagree with Nay, by the time your building your first settler you can usually chop wood for the production bonus - after all its one of the first techs to be researched in most games. So if your really eager to pump out settlers this is a far more effective way to do so.

I whole heartedly concur with Monkeyfinger, creativity is great at the start. Especially for positioning your cities to grab resources and to block the expansion of neighbouring civs. You get a border ump in 5 turns!

Anyway, that just my opinion.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

If you have enough points to get 5 GGs normally, then you would get 7 with Imperialistic. Because of the increasing costs of GGs, you don't end up with anywhere near twice as many.

Increasing costs of GG is in effect without the Imperialistic bonus as well, so yes, it takes half the points for each GG that you receive. Experience speaks for itself, buddy, I received 8 GGs in my last game where I probably would have only gotten 4.

 

[Spearthrower]

At least half the value of the 100% GG points is that you receive each GG in half the time.