JujuLautre
Deity
I love it
. After all, Civ is all about re-creating history, not repeating it For what you want, you should try Rhye's and fall mod, which is all about repeating the history of the earth.
weakest triats
- Thread starter kristopherb
- Start date
I love it
. After all, Civ is all about re-creating history, not repeating it For what you want, you should try Rhye's and fall mod, which is all about repeating the history of the earth.
I honestly prefer it the way it is now. The game isn't really all that historically accurate anyway since the US civ starts at 4000 BC and the Incas can roll tanks all over the world. I just feel that if civs had a wonder advantage it would play towards making some civs too much better than others. For example, if Egypt got a break on the pyramids that could be more useful than some of the other wonders that other civs get. Also, I also feel it would force me to go for my civs wonder and discourage me for even trying for some other civs wonders if they are in the game which could influence my research path and thereby somewhat forcing a certain play style on each civ.
It's not that I disagree with you on principle, but I don't think we need another method of distinguishing civilizations and leaders. Right now, we have starting techs, UUs, UBs, and leader traits to give variety. Any more would be overkill. There are going to be 52 leaders in civilization, and the fact that I can figure out exactly what my strengths and weaknesses are based on knowing 11 leader traits is pretty amazing. I wouldn't want to see a whole bunch of different bonuses because then I would be lost in trying to figure out how to play my civilization. Right now, you have a lot of variety given a fairly simple set of methods to distinguish your civilization. That idea, I think, would work better in a game with fewer civilizations/players, and thus fewer benefits that I would have to learn.
Personally, I just want the combat to be more realistic. Phalanxes historically were routed by cavalry on their flanks. The rise of gunpowder units is done quite poorly--musket technology, in one form or another, was used alongside rifles, not replaced by them. Muskets also should be a little cheaper to reflect the ease of training a musket soldier over a longbowman. Why do tanks have City Raider when they are most vulnerable to ambushes in difficult terrain like cities, and stronger in the open field where enemy infantry don't have as much cover? Foot infantry should get City Raider, not tanks. I could go on and on, but I just want a more realistic system. As for wonders being built by civilizations that didn't even exist at the time, and the seemingly anachronistic conflicts the game creates...that's Civilization. This is the game for weird matchups like Hannibal and Napoleon v. Genghis Khan and Stalin. I just want the system used to determine the outcome more accurately reflect history, not the matchup.
RandomLeader
Chieftain
More realistic battles would be better of course but that isn't so easy. There is so many oppinions conserning that. For example tank city raiding bonus is realistic from WWII. Tanks were very efficient because they had power to dismantle whole buildings, including the defensive force in them. Biggest tanks did simply by riding in to towns or cities and pre-bombered buildings started to collapse. Sometimes they didn't need to bomb the city first that to happend.
I also wonder how strong infantry and marines etc. are when they are fortified. Normally without special equipment they wouldn't be any match to tanks no matter what is the terrain. So that's for realistic.
Everything must be developt over time but it's not so easy. Every change is not for the better.
Antilogic:
If you're going to be more realistic, then Crossbows ought to be draftable. The main reason dynastic Chinese armies used these troops was the same reason European used guns later on - the archers weren't inferior, but they were much harder to get a hold of.
If muskets are going to be cheaper than longbowmen, then Crossbowmen should enjoy the same advantage, for much the same reasons.
Furthermore, European nations must be like every other nation when it comes to Horse Archery - one of the main reasons China developed horse archers and the subsequent logical crossbow was because it had big horn sheep or cattle - a strategic resource available to many nations in history, except for the westernmost of European nations.
So not every nation ought to be able to make horse archers, and horse archers, in turn ought to be more powerful in the game, to reflect the profound impact they have had on military thinking for much of history.
If you're going to be more realistic, then Crossbows ought to be draftable. The main reason dynastic Chinese armies used these troops was the same reason European used guns later on - the archers weren't inferior, but they were much harder to get a hold of.
If muskets are going to be cheaper than longbowmen, then Crossbowmen should enjoy the same advantage, for much the same reasons.
Furthermore, European nations must be like every other nation when it comes to Horse Archery - one of the main reasons China developed horse archers and the subsequent logical crossbow was because it had big horn sheep or cattle - a strategic resource available to many nations in history, except for the westernmost of European nations.
So not every nation ought to be able to make horse archers, and horse archers, in turn ought to be more powerful in the game, to reflect the profound impact they have had on military thinking for much of history.
The Navy Seal
Emperor
Agressive is the best. Yipee
budweiser
King of the Beers
Protective. I cant see how it helps you win.
salty mud
Deity
I think protective is a decent trait. It makes your cities almost impossible to take with a few archers/guns in them. It helps you win if there is an Aggresive leader on the map - he will have difficulty taking your cities, while an army is rasied to assimilate theirs.
I've been playing for about a month now. When I play, I usually play random....It is kind-a fun just seeing who you are going to be.
I've probably played about a dozen games...ancient with a standard map. Most of these have been on Noble level. I think between these games I have had just about all the traits...except Charismatic for whatever reason.
My worst game I was Ind/Creat. It's the only game I just gave up. Part of it was starting possition, but mostly I couldn't keep up with the jones. My long-bowman were getting smacked around by rifleman and cavarly.
My best games I've had a variety of traits. I love fiancial, expansive, and spirtual. I absolutely kicked but as Ragnar (Fia/agr).
I would have to vote creative...just too many other ways to accomplish the same thing.
I've probably played about a dozen games...ancient with a standard map. Most of these have been on Noble level. I think between these games I have had just about all the traits...except Charismatic for whatever reason.
My worst game I was Ind/Creat. It's the only game I just gave up. Part of it was starting possition, but mostly I couldn't keep up with the jones. My long-bowman were getting smacked around by rifleman and cavarly.
My best games I've had a variety of traits. I love fiancial, expansive, and spirtual. I absolutely kicked but as Ragnar (Fia/agr).
I would have to vote creative...just too many other ways to accomplish the same thing.
The strength of Creative is the three cheap buildings (including the all-important library, an essential early-game building) in addition to the culture. The culture lets you start with a granary, ideally, and then move on to building other stuff. You don't ever need to build monuments (because there is no Cre/Cha leader, to my knowledge).
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
I can't believe anyone would say that Protective is useless! I would have agreed a week ago, but in my last game, I was proven completely wrong. I was Saladin (Spiritual/Protective) because I wanted to try for a peaceful victory (diplo/cultural/space/time[hate this one]). I always turn on the Aggressive AI because I feel that without it, the AI is to wussy. Anyway, I had one of the smallest armies in the game. Out of 12 civs, I believe I was 10th in power. I had my own continent which always helps for defensive purposes, but Napoleon, Isabella, and Mehmed III all declared war on me at separate times. I've never seen a longbowman hold out so well against muskets.
Check it: automatically, you have 0-1 first strikes and +20% city defense. With 2 upgrades, your city defenders can have 0-1 first strikes and +75% city defense plus the inherent defense traits of a Longbowman. Napoleon never knew what hit him. He was able to destroy a couple mines and a farm. WTG Napoleon.
After realizing the diplomatic and technological prowess of a Mansa Musa with his own continent (the 2nd largest one in the game), I decided I had to militarize and attack Brennus (he held the other vote option for the UN besides Mansa). Landing marines directly into coastal cities has always been my forte, however, now they include an automatic city defense and 1st strike upgrade which means I can strike cities, and hold them with the same troops.
I love this trait.
Check it: automatically, you have 0-1 first strikes and +20% city defense. With 2 upgrades, your city defenders can have 0-1 first strikes and +75% city defense plus the inherent defense traits of a Longbowman. Napoleon never knew what hit him. He was able to destroy a couple mines and a farm. WTG Napoleon.
After realizing the diplomatic and technological prowess of a Mansa Musa with his own continent (the 2nd largest one in the game), I decided I had to militarize and attack Brennus (he held the other vote option for the UN besides Mansa). Landing marines directly into coastal cities has always been my forte, however, now they include an automatic city defense and 1st strike upgrade which means I can strike cities, and hold them with the same troops.
I love this trait.
Obviously I cannot read! Justs succedeed to read whne you have Great Wall all the home battles generate twice "general" points (I was wondered a lot of time why sometimes my points are twice and sometimes not!).
So presuming if you play with barbarians the Great Wall is a must an imperialistic leader and assuming yearly in the game you will have a lot of battles on the home turf, will get 4 times more "general" points. Which means about 5 generals before the gunpowder. Enough for a military academy and to churn out lvl 4 units. Later in the game with fascism (for unknow reason the AI neglect this tech) you will get 9-10 generals. So you will have an ubertown which will produce uberunits - you need just 9 generals for an academy and lvl 6 units. And they are next to invincible.
So presuming if you play with barbarians the Great Wall is a must an imperialistic leader and assuming yearly in the game you will have a lot of battles on the home turf, will get 4 times more "general" points. Which means about 5 generals before the gunpowder. Enough for a military academy and to churn out lvl 4 units. Later in the game with fascism (for unknow reason the AI neglect this tech) you will get 9-10 generals. So you will have an ubertown which will produce uberunits - you need just 9 generals for an academy and lvl 6 units. And they are next to invincible.
leo.
Monkey Monster
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 85
I really don't understand why so much people dislike the pro and imp traits.
Pro is a lot better in BTS because siege weapons aren't that important anymore and however it reduces collateral damages if you promote them with drill.
But what i wonder most about is people like agg but dislike pro. If you look a bit closer there is no real difference except you can build barracks faster.
It's even better after medieval era because you get bonus on each unit.
And with Japan it has a nice synergy effect.
But what i really can't understand why ppl dislike the imp trait. Since the worker production bonus is only 25% in BTS i think imp is even better then exp. You save not only hammers, you save also food for the city and you can take the city spots you really need earlier and build a worker there
- so no difference for me for an expansive strategy. In the later eras of the game it's often useless.
Creative isn't that bad i think. Or do you never build libraries or Colosseums? You can take the ressources faster and if you take a city you get the defensive bonus back and don't need to build culture if you don't have stonehenge. At least you have the cultural advantage what is especially good on tiny maps. Only powerful in the beginning.
It's hard to say what is the best trait. I think it always depends on the opponent traits and the game style.
But the really most useless trait ever in all games is ORGANIZED. There is no real benefit you can get from it except building courts faster and save a little amount of money. Even the fin trait is more powerful.
And i don't like the praised CHM trait. If my units fight they die or stay alive, so i think its useless for promotion in most cases. The happiness is useless too unless it gives you only +1 bonus.
Pro is a lot better in BTS because siege weapons aren't that important anymore and however it reduces collateral damages if you promote them with drill.
But what i wonder most about is people like agg but dislike pro. If you look a bit closer there is no real difference except you can build barracks faster.
It's even better after medieval era because you get bonus on each unit.
And with Japan it has a nice synergy effect.
But what i really can't understand why ppl dislike the imp trait. Since the worker production bonus is only 25% in BTS i think imp is even better then exp. You save not only hammers, you save also food for the city and you can take the city spots you really need earlier and build a worker there
- so no difference for me for an expansive strategy. In the later eras of the game it's often useless.Creative isn't that bad i think. Or do you never build libraries or Colosseums? You can take the ressources faster and if you take a city you get the defensive bonus back and don't need to build culture if you don't have stonehenge. At least you have the cultural advantage what is especially good on tiny maps. Only powerful in the beginning.
It's hard to say what is the best trait. I think it always depends on the opponent traits and the game style.
But the really most useless trait ever in all games is ORGANIZED. There is no real benefit you can get from it except building courts faster and save a little amount of money. Even the fin trait is more powerful.
And i don't like the praised CHM trait. If my units fight they die or stay alive, so i think its useless for promotion in most cases. The happiness is useless too unless it gives you only +1 bonus.
gettingfat
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,417
It just proves how opinions can be so different from one person to another.
Rex rgis of Ter
Me I'm a Creator
I don't think Spiratual is that useful, now that the CRist Redentor exists. On a related note, Creative is my favourite trait.
Actually much of the usefullnes of some traits depends on the kind of game AND on the kind of player you are. Spiritual can be useful only of you know how to use it AN you use it. The AI don't use it. It just changes the civics when needed. This way it almost useless (saves about 20 turns for a very long game). On the other hand the AI benefits most from the financial trait - it build cotteges at 3/4 for its land, so the financial is really usefull to it...
Edit: About the spiritual - I notice in my games (I play long games) Hapshetsut always is going very well in the begining and then slowly but surely starts to sink.
Edit: About the spiritual - I notice in my games (I play long games) Hapshetsut always is going very well in the begining and then slowly but surely starts to sink.
Silence101
King
I think Creative is probably one of the weakest - it may have some value in the very early game when you're trying to claim land, but there's plenty of other ways to expand your boarders, and by the time you discover drama and can build culture, Creative is basically useless - even the little extra culture it adds to your cities is pretty insignificant to a cultural win.
I'm honestly not a big fan of protective either - I know there's a lot of people who are, but I think it's main value is if you're hiding inside your city when someone attacks. I'd much rather have Aggresive and send my army out of the city to meet the enemy and prevent pillaging.
As I remember, imperialistic doesn't give any building discounts, which I don't like - it would be much stronger if it gave some sort of reduced building cost.
I think my favorites are Aggresive, Organized, Industrious, Philosophical, and I used to really like Spiritual before BTS - They dumbed in down in BTS now that a golden age basically gives you the spiritual trait temporarily.
I'm honestly not a big fan of protective either - I know there's a lot of people who are, but I think it's main value is if you're hiding inside your city when someone attacks. I'd much rather have Aggresive and send my army out of the city to meet the enemy and prevent pillaging.
As I remember, imperialistic doesn't give any building discounts, which I don't like - it would be much stronger if it gave some sort of reduced building cost.
I think my favorites are Aggresive, Organized, Industrious, Philosophical, and I used to really like Spiritual before BTS - They dumbed in down in BTS now that a golden age basically gives you the spiritual trait temporarily.
