Thoughts on Imperialistic and Expansive traits?
- Thread starter Goodgimp
- Start date
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
I really find comments like this absurd! How can you tell people that they are wrong at what they witness in their games?
+100% GG points is a LOT more whichever way you look at it
crazyeye: )... and when you have this trait you should play to it.... if you don't then you shouldn't have selected it in the first place or are just not leveraging your strengths.Furthermore, where's this "2 or 3" extra come from? I am guessing from the setting you personally choose to play on because in my marathon, huge maps, I get a lot of GG in ANY game and double the points ends up with me having a very large number of GGs by the end of the game. Last time with Justinian I had 12 GG's.
I do agree however, that Imperialistic is one of the least useful traits.
snipafist
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2005
- Messages
- 376
Right. Remember that the points threshold increases for each subsequent great general or other great person. So while Philosophical or Imperialistic might initially suggest twice as many of these types of persons, in reality they provide about 50% more. This can still be quite good, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're getting something you're not.
Jabarto
Emperor
I like the Expansive trait since it helps me crank out cities in the early game, and since I usually avoid war like the plague, that's my best shot at getting a huge empire.
Do you realize what that would do to the Holy Roman Empire? Charlemagne is Imperialistic, and the Rathaus lowers city maintanence by 75%. That would add up to -95% city maintanence.
I agree with the last bit, though; I really can't think of a better idea.
Do you realize what that would do to the Holy Roman Empire? Charlemagne is Imperialistic, and the Rathaus lowers city maintanence by 75%. That would add up to -95% city maintanence.
I agree with the last bit, though; I really can't think of a better idea.
Underdawg
King
I'm digging the -50% Colony Costs for Imperialistic (but really only a "fluff" sort of buff). Expansive.... is meh. Even if it was bumped up to +3 health again it would still be meh, maybe set it back to +50% worker production?
anonymous4402
Chieftain
-50% Colony costs would be awesome, but wouldn't be very useful on a Pangaea map.
Bast
Protector of Cats
Anyone who complains about 'creative' just doesn't know what they're doing with the trait. It's incredible for saving hammers in connecting cities and getting resources under control. And cheap theatres and libraries?
Imperialistic needs help. Right now, the only imperialistic leader I play is Victoria. I cottage spam and constantly go to war with her now which is great. It works for her and go for conquest or domination victory with a big and advanced tech. But could still get help.
How about no maintenance costs for corporations? This would mean only a slight boost but an important one. It would make imperialistic civilizations more inclined to want to found corporations and would introduce a non-militaristic side of imperialism.
Imperialistic needs help. Right now, the only imperialistic leader I play is Victoria. I cottage spam and constantly go to war with her now which is great. It works for her and go for conquest or domination victory with a big and advanced tech. But could still get help.
How about no maintenance costs for corporations? This would mean only a slight boost but an important one. It would make imperialistic civilizations more inclined to want to found corporations and would introduce a non-militaristic side of imperialism.
No, it is completely different from Organized. To everybody who is confused on how the Organized trait works: look at your civics screen, at the bottom for your civic maintenance cost. Organized takes off half of that number. It does not, under any circumstance, affect your number of cities maintenance or your distance from palace maintenance. The real strength of an Organized leader is their ability to run the high-cost Civics, like Police State, Vassalage, Bureaucracy, and Organized Religion, much more cheaply than other leaders can. An Organized leader running Civics like Nationhood or Pacifism receive no benefit over any other leader, because the civic maintenance cost is so low.
I'm modding Expansive back up to +50% worker production. I thought the trait was fine before the nerfing. Organized really only needs the cheap factories and courthouses with its Civic Upkeep reducing power...the lighthouses are just excessive.
I always figured the best way to improve Imperialistic was to give more experience for attaching generals as warlords (+30 XP, anyone?), or in some other way giving it an "indirect" boosting. Double production on monuments works as well--seems fitting for the theme, but that building has limited utility.
BYC
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 206
Creative has been good ever since they did cheap Libraries with it.
Expansive's nerf came because in multiplayer, Shaka was far too brutal with cheap workers fueling everything. It's kinda like the Jaguar change, since the Woodsman change really buffed MP instead of SP.
Imperialistic is still too weak. There's been endless amounts of discussion on it. Anything from cheap buildings, to more trade routes, to more commerce, to cheaper colonies, etc.. I definitely believe it needs something to help non-warmongering since Imperialism means establishing a large empire. I definitely think it should do something with improving trade as well as another ability so if trade wasn't possible, the trait wouldn't be totally worthless. Maybe the trait should give +1 non-foreign trait routers. That way, the commerce boost wouldn't be way too much, and the larger the empire, the more useful the trait would be without your rivals being able to affect it.
Unfortunately, the traits have different usefulness depending on what level of play.
Expansive's nerf came because in multiplayer, Shaka was far too brutal with cheap workers fueling everything. It's kinda like the Jaguar change, since the Woodsman change really buffed MP instead of SP.
Imperialistic is still too weak. There's been endless amounts of discussion on it. Anything from cheap buildings, to more trade routes, to more commerce, to cheaper colonies, etc.. I definitely believe it needs something to help non-warmongering since Imperialism means establishing a large empire. I definitely think it should do something with improving trade as well as another ability so if trade wasn't possible, the trait wouldn't be totally worthless. Maybe the trait should give +1 non-foreign trait routers. That way, the commerce boost wouldn't be way too much, and the larger the empire, the more useful the trait would be without your rivals being able to affect it.
Unfortunately, the traits have different usefulness depending on what level of play.
No-one has really discussed protective, I find this as weak as imperialistic, or weaker. I am generlly a war monger but rarely find I get attacked in any meaningfull way. If you get unknowingly attacked you are doing something wrong, The AI's should always be so buisy defending their attacks are easy to counter with a few extra troops in your boarder cities. I generally don't find the free unit promo's very usefull either, they are OK but in comparison to the stuff you get with other traits like charismatic and creative there is just no competition.
yes the combo with cho-co-nu and samuri can be good but that is really specific stuff with very limited usefullness as both troops are quickly out of date.
or am I wrong?
yes the combo with cho-co-nu and samuri can be good but that is really specific stuff with very limited usefullness as both troops are quickly out of date.
or am I wrong?
Elros
Paranoid Android
I was aware of that. I was implying that 2 traits to reduce maintenance costs might make it a bit redundant, not that they'd do exactly the same thing.
How about a happiness boost for having colonies?
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
By my reckoning it is 4 more.... and ALL of them were received a lot quicker than they would have been without Imperialistic.
How about giving Imperialist settlers 2 move points?
Another minor addition, but fitting with the general idea of spreading your nation rapidly.
I really find comments like this absurd! How can you tell people that they are wrong at what they witness in their games?
+100% GG points is a LOT more whichever way you look at it
Furthermore, where's this "2 or 3" extra come from? I am guessing from the setting you personally choose to play on because in my marathon, huge maps, I get a lot of GG in ANY game and double the points ends up with me having a very large number of GGs by the end of the game. Last time with Justinian I had 12 GG's.
I do agree however, that Imperialistic is one of the least useful traits.
Ok deep breath, since you obviously dont understand simple math
lets spell it out.4 GG requires a total of 450XP (45+90+135+180)
Imperialistic = 100% bonus, so you will have 900XP since you earn double
900XP = 1 more although your second will be close to popping out
After the 180 XP GG, XP required for the next one is 225, then 270 add that to 450 = 945
Roughly speaking you seem to get 20/30% more GG, so if you would have had 4 you get 5, if you would have had 8 you get 11
Hence my 2 to 3 more point!
So in responce to your comments my statement is not absurd but rather closer to the truth than whatever theorycraft you seem to be working from, an more over 100% GG points is not a lot more in real terms (More simple minded 100% must be lots theroycrafting
) down to the way the point system for getting GG scales up
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Ok deep breath, since you obviously dont understand simple math
4 GG requires a total of 450XP (45+90+135+180)
Imperialistic = 100% bonus, so you will have 900XP since you earn double
900XP = 1 more although your second will be close to popping out
After the 180 XP GG, XP required for the next one is 225, then 270 add that to 450 = 945
Roughly speaking you seem to get 20/30% more GG, so if you would have had 4 you get 5, if you would have had 8 you get 11
Hence my 2 to 3 more point!
So in responce to your comments my statement is not absurd but rather closer to the truth than whatever theorycraft you seem to be working from, an more over 100% GG points is not a lot more in real terms (More simple minded 100% must be lots theroycrafting
And even with your "higher understanding" of maths, you are still basing it on your settings.... it's not "2 or 3" more as I am sure you are very aware.... perhaps if you had initially suggested a percentage rather than a hard number it would have been more appropriate (and more mathematically realistic).
Of course 100% more is a lot more
it's double what you would have had pointwise - double is always "a lot more" even though it doesn't translate to double the Great Generals, something I never said nor argued for. My argument was that "2 or 3" more was pulled out of your... hat! 
Further to that, you are totally ignoring the concept of getting those GG's twice as fast as a non Imperialist civ.
Aside from that, "as you obviously don't understand simple" civility "
let me spell it out": We can call each other "simple" all day... if you had made your point civilly initially, I would have responded in kind and now we wouldn't be arguing over shades of grey.One final piece of logic you failed to address (oh the ivory towers of mathematicians!
) is that when you play as an Imperialistic you are naturally going to be working to leverage your trait... you will be looking to build on those GG's in much the same way as a Financial civ is going to be looking to cottage a lot, or be happier placing coastal cities - the result is you play to get more commerce than you would in a game without the Financial trait thereby snowballing the effect. By having the Imperialistic focus, you are warping the outcome in favour of even more GG's than the simple mathematical breakpoints suggest.Grimz101
King
having settled great generals giving +3xp instead of +2xp would be nice !
So thats why Britain had the best navy for a while, all the settled GGs
!So thats why Britain had the best navy for a while, all the settled GGs
And even with your "higher understanding" of maths, you are still basing it on your settings.... it's not "2 or 3" more as I am sure you are very aware.... perhaps if you had initially suggested a percentage rather than a hard number it would have been more appropriate (and more mathematically realistic).
Of course 100% more is a lot more
Further to that, you are totally ignoring the concept of getting those GG's twice as fast as a non Imperialist civ.
Aside from that, "as you obviously don't understand simple" civility "
One final piece of logic you failed to address (oh the ivory towers of mathematicians!
Oh FFS you really are hard work, the 2 to 3 figure was just a general ballpark figure based around getting 4 to 8 GG in a game, (note i used the word normally get, as in usually not always
) sure there are extremes at both ends of getting more or less, yes i could have quoted a rough % maybe i should have, i didnt think it would be such a huge issue frankly.You can make pointless wise cracks to cover a weak argument all day long, yes 100% is a lot more XP, but who cares? XP is simply a means to an end, it's how many GG you get from it thats important.
I'm not ignoring the extra speed at which you get them, my initial point was simply (and it has not changed) is that you do not get double the number of GG, that is all i said. Why are you trying to cloud the waters by throwing in a point thats got nothing to do with my original or subsequent post?
Sorry but what rubbish, my initial post was not rude ot uncivil I simply stated that the idea that you get double the number of GG for imperialistic is plain wrong, And it is wrong, no name calling, no individuals named, no other persons posts quoted, & no sarcastic comments made..... it was simply a statment of fact for information purposes.
Cue a sarcastic responce from you, that was both uncivil, rude and arguing a point of facts with some theory craft, which i responded to with the base facts behind the argument, to which your responce is one of you were rude to me boo hoo, ignoring the simple fact (your good at that) that it was your post that made things personal and of a sarcastic tone which was frankly totaly unnecessary
Your final piece of logic is spot on but it's yet another thing that has nothing to do with what i said which is that you do not get double the number of GG with the IMP trait.
So perhaps you should take some of your own advice on civility an politeness, i'l leave you to argue the various other points you raised with yourself since there nothing to do with what i said, an see little point in further debate with someone so intransient to a point that is so obvious, even after a clear explanation
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Oh FFS you really are hard work, the 2 to 3 figure was just a general ballpark figure based around getting 4 to 8 GG in a game, (note i used the word normally get, as in usually not always
So now it is a ballpark figure... before it was fact!
This is exactly the point I made, so why aren't you agreeing with me?
And do calm down, disagreement isn't a cause to get so wound up.
What wisecrack remarks? Further, what weak argument? You made a statement that was wrong and have since modified it.... I agree with what you are now saying.... nothing more to the story.
You may well note that I never said anything about doubling your GG's... so you are also clouding the waters by implying that was my argument.
You took others to task over an incorrect point and I took you to task about your "2 to 3" which was and is wrong.
What sarcastic response? I was as serious as you.... the figure you gave was no more factual than the thing you were arguing against. This "boo hoo" business is surely a far more sarcastic response?
I didn't criticise you at all, there was nothing personal in there... I said that the statement was absurd - it entirely depends on the game settings... that's neither "theory craft", "rude" nor "uncivil". If you took it as a personal attack then I apologise, but perhaps you read too much into it? I'm a lot more direct than that if I have something to say to you. I made a comment about your comment.... not about your character, ethics, suitability for prime minister!
But it is a factor in GG point accumulation.... quantity over time is surely part of the equasion?
I was no more or less civil than you.... your second post was far from civil indicting me with stupidity and I simply quoted the parts and modified them to my argument?
Again, as you seem to either be missing what I said (or be covering the trail, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).... it wasn't your point about not doubling actual GG's - I never for a moment disagreed with that, so why do you describe me as "intransient" to it - I wholly accept it and have never questioned that.... it was the "fact" you offered of 2 - 3 extra generals which was wrong. That is also such an obvious point, that we are clearly at loggerheads here to understand where the other is coming from.
Shall we call it a mutual misunderstanding and move on?
That way you can come back into the debate about the latter ideas and whether they add genuine value to the Imperialistic trait?
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Holy! We have a full blown talk war that would put the 2004 elections to shame!
Similar threads
