When to apply each trait to each civilization

[Lucius Sulla]

Nobody will deny the importance of the two starting traits for each civilization. This feature has made each civilizaton unique, while not unbalancing significatively the game in one way or another.

But... one thing that has always worried me is the fact that one civilization would have two specific traits and not other. I think I have read usually in these forums that sometimes a pair of traits do not sound "right" for the civ in question. Being historically inclined, this of course worried me.

But, why would a civ have a trait? Let's examine first each trait:

* Industrious:

Well, this one has two aspects. First the halved time for map improvements. Thus, a civ that would be famous for it's road building and public works should have this trait. Second, its shield bonus. Thus, a civ famous for being able to build massive and expensive buildings should have it too.

* Commercial:

I think this should go to civs who should have at some point the reputation of good traders, or that had trade and/or money as its main drive. Civilizations with reputation or developing important commercial facilities or that dominated some aspect of trade at one given point should also have this merit. And another important fact... efficient use of money and taxes, since the effect of this trait is lowered corruption. Civilizations with efficient goverments (considering the mean) for big empires should be awarded this trait, too.

* Militaristic:

This is easy enough. Civilizations known by their martial prowess in a general way (Roman legions, Spanish tercios, German panzer divisions) or which had truly and famous Legendary militar leaders (Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Napoleon, Zhukov...) should get this trait.

* Expansionist:

Expansionist is not a trait that would represent military might or expansionist in it's most common connotation. It's real effect is diplomacy and exploration. Civilizations famous for being friednly to new cultures or had famous land explorers should get this trait.

* Religious:

This trait should be awarded with cilizations with a religious drive behind them. And not only specific religions, but also with elaborated and innovative mistique traditions.

* Scientific:

This trait should be awarded to civilizations that generated famous scientists, philosophers and thinkers, and those who could be said to be the most advanced of its era.

Now, with the conquest traits:

* Seafaring:

This is simple enough. Civilizations known by its military dominion of the sea (famous admirals or famous naval victories) or by having explored the seas, should get this trait.

* Agricultural:

Ah, one of the most difficult traits, and one with the most varied interpretations. Let's center in the game benefits to see how we can interpret them for historic performance. First, the additional food, second the halved aqueduct cost, third additional desert irrigation. Well, one way to award agricultural trait should be because of agricultural overperformance in a poor area, achieving what would have been overpopulation. A second way is for agricultural development, being able to come up with new and creative forms of developing agriculture in their area.

Now, we have examined the meaning of the traits. In my next post I will examine current civs and check which trait is really right for each one.

 

[Berrern]

Nice summary!

I agree that some of the traits seems a bit misplaced - I'm excited to see what you come up with!

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I will consider which trait is ellegible for each civilization, given my previous considerations, and then I will have to opt for two... let's see.

Another thing before starting. This guide is intended both as a help to modders and as a general discussion about the nature and historical repressentation of the game progression.


Americans:

The 'conquest' of the west certainly feels right for a expansionist trait... although it is a quite minor success compared with other explorations. Industrious would be awarded by an extensive and early railroad system, and some recognized public works (as the hoover dam). Scientific would also be applicable given their spearhead developments in the modern era, and the development of new technology.

I don't feel they could be named seafaring (the seas were already explored when they started), agricultural (agriculture has always been more complex and effective in Europe), religious, militaristic (always have had more size, supplies than specific quality or fame, and USA is not a militarized society).

This leaves us with expansionist, scientific, industrious.

I quite think the expansion was more a matter of colonization than of sheer and pure exploration. Thus, I would choose for them scientific and industrious.

Aztecs:

Let's start now with what the are not... and that would be Commercial (their government was not even efficient), Expansionistic (no exploration), Scientific (their science was based in that of the mayans), Agricultural (same as before... the mayans were there), and Seafaring (obviously).

They certainly were Religious people, and religion and the need of human sacrifices were a big drive behind this civilization. Industrious... well, we have those square piramids. But yet, I would not consider this as a major one, since it was not even an original thing, having first the mayans did that. Finally we find they had a clear militaristic bend... so we have to reach the conclusion that their original traits are just right. Aztecs are religious and militaristic.

Babylonians:

They certainly can be considered industrious, not out their public works, but of standing feats of engineering for their age (city walls, wonder achievement). Scientific with clear ancient age discoveries (code of laws). Religious... well... just a bit. I would not consider them outright religious, at least not more than any other civ of their age, and certainly less than some of their neighbours. Militaristic... nope. Not a militar society or specially famous leaders. No exploration, so not expansionistic. Certainly not seafaring. But I would yet qualify them for the agricultural trait, given their good explotation of the two rivers. Thus, we would get at the end as ellegible traits Scientific, Religious, Industrious and Agricultural. The first one is just right for them... but the other three have pros and cons. Thus, I will settle, for the sake of continuity, with the two traits they already have and let them continue being the culture kings, Scientific and Religious.

Chinese:

Ah, this will be a difficult one. Let's go one by one.

First, industrious. They certainly built (specially in the north) a good road system, and they indeed perform feats of engineering, and there is the great wall. Commercial. Ah, this is I feel one of the best traits for them. Managing such a huge territory with a system of incredibly good (for the age) bureaucracy indicates a very good managing of corruption, and tax gathering... and then there is the silk route, too. Militaristic. Well... not really. They rather qualify with the Egyptians as rather swallowing culturally invaders (mongols) rather than military. Yes, they had the sun tzu thing... but that qualifies more as scientific than as military. Expansionist... well, not really either. Seafaring they yet would qualify, since in the XV century they performed a series of naval explorations around India, East Africa... there is even some especulation about the possibility of them having reached (if briefly, America). Religious could yet be elligible given the weight of confuncianism in their early and middle ages, but would not be a big one. Agricultural should be elligible too, given the sheer explotation of agricultural resources to keep a big population. Scientific they could be named too, given their discoveries of paper, gunpowder and printing press.

Thus we would have they could be Commercial, Industrious, Religious, Scientific and Agricultural. Phew... not bad. But we have to stay with two. I would settle for Commercial and Agricultural, since I feel that low corruption and big population are their biggest things. But any combination of Commercial, Industrious and Agricultural would yet feel right for them.

Egyptians:

Let's start as usually with what they not are. Not commercial, not militaristic (Qadesh was really a hittite victory), not expansionist, not seafaring. Let's see what is big for them in the rest.

They were certainly industrious... but not in a whole way. Certainly they were big in wonders... and the piramids are big engineering feats. But yet their lack of public works and the feat that their big wonders could be rather explained out of religious reasons, lessen the apparent sheer weight of this trait for them. Religious, alright, this is a major obvious issue for them. Agricultural... well, this should be a major issue with them. Egypt was always during the ancient and middle ages one of the biggest if not the biggest wheat producer. Their technique to control and take profit of the floods was... pretty awesome, and they could suppport an unbelievable population for a single band of fertile terrain surrounded by desert. They also had scientific feats... but yet, I feel their big two are yet Religious and Agricultural.

English:

Certainly and without a doubt Seafaring. This single trait is so clear for them (both in naval military and exploration) that we will study which would be the other remaining one. Let's see the candidates.

Their development of railroad certainly qualifies them for the industrious trait. Still the lack of any huge wonder hampers this trait a bit. Commercial will probably be the winner, since it fits perfectly. Both trade fame, with manage of a large empire with relatively few corruption, with trade achievements (stock exchange, etc...). Although Im tempted to stop here, I don't want to do so without mentioning their eligibility for militaristic (Henry V, Marlborough, Clive, Wellington) and expansionistic (clear explorers, diplomatic bend). Scientific wise they also have a great deal of scientists (Newton) and thinkers should it could be their 'third' trait.

But yet, it's clear the English will stay with Seafaring and Commercial.

French:

Ah, another tricky one.

Industrious... well... no, not really. Not particularly impressive public works, considering their neighbours at any given time. Commercial... mmm... well, it could be eligible... but only out of diplomatic fame. Not a particularly big and efficient managed empire. Militaristic. A big yes. Middle age french knights, feudal militaristic society, and world wide fame leaders such as La Turenne and Napoleon. Scientific would be another possibility for them, big scientifics (Pascal...) and thinkers (Russeau, Rene Descartes) really qualifies them for this trait. Also they could be eligible as religious, given their impressive cathedrals, and the crusader period (the majority of the crusaders were french. Finally we could very well say they would be Agricultural. France was without a doubt during a big part of Europe's history one of the most extensively irrigated terrain and usually the most populated country. They could also qualify as expansionistic and seafaring, since they had explorers in both areas.

Given what I observed as their biggest as their biggest traits, I would say that France is Militaristic and Agricultural

Germans:

Certainly industrious. Their road system, build during the nazi period was truly a wonder, and all modern autoways are based in their model, and that's just the tip of it. Militaristic... well, a big yes, in both elite troops, militaristic society during their history and great leaders. No major explorers, so not seafaring or expansionistic. Neither religious, and only marginally agricultural (french achievements in that area were more impressive and extensive). Certainly with a scientific bend, with both big thinkers (Nietzche) and scientists. It's clear that the original traits are right, being Militaristic and Scientific.

Phew... this is long... I will go with the next half of the initial Civ III civilizations in the next post.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

Ok, let's go with the next half.

Greeks:

Not industrious for certain, they never tried huge engineering feats, being surpassed in this by Romans and Egyptians by far. They indeed qualify as commercial, given the commercial empires of Athenes and the drive for commerce and money that thalassocracy had. Which leads us to the fact that Greece indeed desserves the Seafaring trait. Their naval victories, the fact they had the first documented rule by the sea, and their early naval explorations in the black sea, makes them qualify for this.

They also qualify big time as militaristic, given their militarized society (hoplites were citizens, and Sparta was a completely militarized society) and their big militar leaders (¡Alexander the great!, but also Epanominondas, Philipus, Pirrus...) make them qualify clearly for this trait. But yet their true shine is for the scientic trait. Great part of our modern science and philosophy is directly based in greek thinkers and scientists. They even could qualify for expansionist, since they have explorers and cartographers like Strabo and indeed tried to discover the world around them. Religious was also a thing to consider, but not a major one, given the time and development they dedicated to their religion.

So we have that the Greek were Scientific mainly, and big in Military, Seafaring, Commercial. When in doubt, I tend to stick with the current traits, so I will remain with the original traits, Scientific and Commercial.

Indians:

Another tricky one I feel, specially since I feel they don't desserve the commercial trait at all, since they are not famous for their trading (at least compared to other civs) and did not have extensive and well managed empires (in a speed of communication for the time - size measure). Their philosophical background certainly qualifies them as Religious, being the home and origin of a such important religion as buddhism.

But again, we have to discard expansionistic, seafaring and militaristic... I can't think right now a good example of why they should be industrious, either. And that leaves us with Agricultural. And there is indeed a part of the things I suggested to award agricultural, and that would be the big population this civ always had. Thus, we have to stay again with Religious and Agricultural.

Iroquois:

Well, again a difficult one, but not because of having too many traits... but just the opposite case. Let's discard the most clear things.

Not Industrious, Expansionistic, Scientific, Seafaring and Agricultural for sure, we have to settle to choose from Commercial, Militaristic and Religious. The trouble is that this remaining traits in the degree developed by them would yet not be enough for practically any other civilization...

Since they were not a truely militarized society (not certainly more than any other stone age civ) and did not produce any militar leader of world fame, even when having some militar victories (minor at best), I have to set by elimination that they are commercial and religious. Out of their minor trading fame, and given the mystique bacground of the native american societies. Not really good reasons, but hey, I had to stick with two.

Japanese:

Ah, the land of the rising sun. Clearly Militaristic, both for their specialized middle ages society and their reknowned leaders (Tokugawa) and fighters (Miyamoto Mushashi). The second trait is a bit more tricky. Certainly not industrious, commercial, expansionistic, scientific or seafaring, they really qualify for Agricultural given their big population considering their small islands. They also qualify for religious given their undeniable mystique of their society, their very hardcore and well stablished tradition. As usually, when in doubt I will stay with the traits in the original Civ... so we can well say that they are Militaristic and Religious.

Persians:

I have to fully disagree with the original traits of this civ. They were not industrious... no public works of note, no big wonders, no engineering. And they were not scientific. They had no research of their own, having taken all from Babylonian, Summerian and then Greek and Roman tradition (considering the Parthians and the modern persians/Iran). A claim to a religious trait would be weak at best too, since they would not have a truely religious drive, or a religious infraestructure. We can forget about seafaring right out of the way, since they were continually bested by the Greeks in that area. Neither we can consider them agricultural, no reason can come to my mind to justify this, or expansionist, since they did not do any true exploring.

Thus, what does it remain? Well, militaristic and commercial. They were indeed a power based in military might, and created out of conquest. They did have militar leaders of reknown, as Cirus himself. And their claim to commercial comes from their privileged possition and clear route of trade between the east and the west, and then the complex system of regional system that was the satrapies, which lessened corruption to a very good degree. Thus I nominate the persians as (EDITED thanks to new input, see posts below for the reasons) Industrial and commercial.

Romans:

Ah, one of the most renoknowned civilizations of history.

They absolutely desserve the industrious trait. Their works in engineering and in public words (the roads, aqueducts, bridges) make this trait a must for them. And they were clearly a military power and til the middle republic a militarized society (military service was full part of their political system, for example), apart from probably the most famous leaders in world history (Caesar!) and one of the most succesful and elite units of the history (the legion). Thus, they clearly, above all else, desserve to be Industrious and Militaristic.

They also, of course, desserve other traits. They produced thinkers and advanced practical science, thus scientific. They had a good reputation as traders and mantained a big empire with certain efficiency. But commercial and science wise the greeks outweighed them. They considered religion important and built temples... but again greeks and egyptians dwarf them in this aspect. They did a bit of exploration both land and sea... but nothing really of great note, and usually just part of their conquests.

Russians:

I fully agree with the expansionistic trait. Their exploration and colonization of Asia/Siberia, truely makes them desserve this trait. But I can't fully agree with the scientific trait.

Yes, in the modern era they researched quite a bit... but to be honest, always to help with the arms or space race, and they yet failed at that. And if we look back further we found that Russia was usually underdeveloped, both culturally and scientifically. They neither desserve the industrious trait given the underdevelopment of infraestructure. They would qualify, though, for the commercial trait, given the fact they did manage to govern a big continous (during quite some time) empire.

But, I have to bend for military. Even when the famous T-34 tanks come to my mind, the fame of the elite siberian guard and the name of Zhukov, we still can find military prowess for the russian empire looking back in time, from the time of the overthrow of the Golden Horde to Suvorov, and many other russian generals of note.

Thus, I would say the russians are Militaristic and Expansionist.

Zulus:

Ah, another difficult one, as the Iroquois... the usual trouble of giving traits to civilizations that were crushed just too early. Let's again discard automatically what never could be given to them.

We can discard automatically industrious, commercial, scientific, seafaring and agricultural. Only religious, militaristic and expansionist remains, then.

Given their military fame we will keep military. But now comes the big question. ¿Expansionist or religious? It can't be said that they specially desserve either of this traits. They had no explorers of reknowned and showed no particular interest in their surroundings... and religious wise they were just base animistic and chamanistic. As always, in case of doubt I will stick with the original traits... Militaristic and Expansionist.


Ok... next chapter will be the PTW civs.

 

[philippe]

nice additions.man but remember the proggramers also thought at civ balance. (there is a civ for each trait combination)

 

[Rammstein]

I don't think your definitions of the traits differ so much from the game's. Maybe there are some traits that should be a bit different, but mostly they work.

I think your definition of the expansionistic trait is plain wrong, though. There is no way you can exclude conquest and domination from this trait. If sheer exploration should define it, not many civs could be awarded the trait in the first place - as you said yourself, Americans would fall out of this category, which for me doesn't work - USA was aggressively expansionistic, to the point of committing genocide. The Spanish didn't merely explore a new continent, they also almost wiped out the indigenous population. And what about the Mongols? Phoa!

Some of your ideas on the real-life civs falter: I wouldn't dream of calling the French militaristic, robbing them of their scientific trait. Scientific is the first thing I would say about the French, militaristic a measly third or fourth.

I wouldn't call the Americans anything else than expansionist, but industrious could be replaced by something else. Building that kind of might in less than 200 years (AND with a civil war in the middle) is astonishing - but as I said above, it couldn't have been done without extreme expansion. The scientific might of the US is today very impressive, but so is the military might. If I had to chose something else than industrious (which I won't), it would be militaristic.

Naah, I like it the way it is. You could easily replace or add traits at will among the civs, but I don't think there a trait that is clearly misplaced. Perhaps the Persians could undergo a slight overhaul, but I don't know enough about them to say for sure.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I must say that I thought quite a lot about expansionistic.

I know that the trait is 'ideally' associated with conquest and militar and territorial expansion. But the whole idea behind my look at the traits is the fact that the effects of the expansionistic trait are nowhere near the military!

Let's reconsider the advantages. Starting with a scout, be able to produce scouts and getting better goodies from huts.

Where do you see military agressiveness in this effects? Under this light, things can be seen in a much different light.

About game balance, I understand fully, and I share the idea... I just wanted to propose an optional more historical approach.

And, by the way, French are not scientific in unmodded civ III . So not much of a robbery.

American could indeed go expansionist... as I said that would be a third option for them, and a right one. But yet, I think their current tech and science edge (from WW II) and their public works capacity are more significative.

I quite think you are giving to the traits moral issues and values, which I am not applying. Expansionistic is not 'evil', while scientific is not 'good'. They just are.

About the military might, I quite thing that they have a big quantity. But not a specially reknowned command or quality. And I'm judging this way by their non-civil major wars. Which would be WWI and WWII. In both those wars there were far superior troops and generals in other countries involved in the war. Still the industrial capacity of the US made them possible to send a big quantity of well supplied troops. So, it's not about militar tradition, but about of sheer production capacity. Thus, industrious, not militaristic.

As I said, this is intended to be a help for historical minded modders, and for 'base of the game' discussion ideas, rather than to apply them directly to the standard Civ III play.

I think that indeed the lack of connection between the expansionistic concept and its effects can be confusing, and maybe it should be discussed wether expansionistic should change to represent better the general idea the people assume it has behind. If it was even just a reduction cost in population and/or shields to settlers (as marking the mobility of the civ, and its capacity to emigrate and expand their culture) I would for sure named as expansionist other civs.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

PTW civs, here we go...

Arabs:

Well, religious is an obvious first for them. A must, in fact, considering their foundation as a civ and their period of expansion regarding to Islam. Let's see then what would be our second choice for them.

Industrious would not have anything special to point to. Commercial could be a temptation, since the islamic empire indeed managed a sizeable expansion. Still it could be more becuase of religious zeal than of actually compentent administration. Millistaristic... yes, that would be a good one for them. The concept of holy war certainly promotes the idea of a military oriented society, and we have middle age notorious generals as Baybars and Saladdin. The arabs indeed had explorers which digged into Africa and towards Asia... so they still could be nominated for this trait. And again, they could get the scientific trait, given the big quantity of middle ages scientists and advances they gave to the world (specially in the field of mathmatics). Seafaring and Agricultural could also be argued in their favour (considering they had naval explorers also, in the indian ocean, and the advances they carried from China in agriculture, via muslim Spain). But I think I will settle, as always I have a doubt, with their current trait, expansionist.

Thus, I think they are alright with Religious and Expansionist.

Carthaginians:

This one is easy. First and foremost the bases of the republic of Carthage were its naval power and its trade. Thus, it's easy to see they should get the Seafaring and Commercial traits. About the exploring side of Seafaring, it is said that Carthaginians reached very far south into Africa, and there is even especulation they could have reached America, near Brasil.

Industrious is just not right for them. What did they do to achieve this? The infraestructure in africa was light years behind that of the romans, and they did not managed any engineering feat. Millitaristic could be a choice, just for the Barca family (which would be Anibal and Hamilcar), which gave one of the most famous generals in history. But the carthagininians were not military people 'per se' as the romans were. They relied in mercenaries mainly, and the native troops usually performed in a mediocre way at best. Expansionist though is something that could seriously be their third choice, considering their exploration of Africa and of Iberia. Nothing special to note in religious and agricultural, so even when it would not be completely alien for them to have those traits, they are yet dwarved by their main ones.

Celts:

Another civilization in which I have to disagree deeply in one of their traits. Agricultural... why? I know that agricultural has been awarded to civs that are supposed to have a theorical connection to 'nature'. But I prefer a more objective approach. Thus, agricultural is outright out.

Celt mythology and religion, though is reach enough to fully award them the religious trait, and it did had enough impact in their traditions and life-style. Thus, let's see what else we have. Industrious... not. Commercial... not!. Expansionist though would be a possibility, given their social mobility and the usual migration of their people, which could qualify as explorers, considering their ressults. Not scientific, except perhaps in some obscure cultural areas. Certainly not seafaring, even with the British thing.

Militaristic is I feel the most definitive trait that goes with them. Their warlike nature and society makes up enough for them, but their early successes against the initial Rome and their succesful raids into Greece also make up for them to take this trait. Thus, I would say that celts are Militaristic and Religious.

Koreans:

I don't have the faintest idea of Korean history, so I will pass into this one, and let them remain Commercial and Scientific. I would thank any help regarding this one.

The Mongols:

Not industrious, scientific (well, actually, they invented paper currency, but we could say that was when they were already culturally assimilated by the chinese), commercial (they indeed had a big empire... which quickly fractured into smaller pieces out of being unmanageable), Religious (basic animistic beliefs, they only imported later foreign religions), Seafaring and Agricultural (they considered turning China into pasture grounds...). Thus leaving us obviously with Militaristic, which I fully agree, considering their incredible military prowess and the fact they have one of the best generals of all time, Gengis Khan. Oddly enough, expansionist also fits quite well for them. Not out of outright direct scouts and explorers... but because of the fact they were probably the people on the middle ages that had more direct knowledge of the map of the world, stretching from Hungary to Korea, down to the indic ocean, north to the steppes.

I have to conclude then they truely and fully desserve being Militaristic and Expansionist.

Spanish:

Finally we reach my own 'civ' . I have to say that in Conquests they quite pinned what the Spanish civ has been about, that being seafaring (Columbus, Magellain, all were Spanish sponsored), and Religious being a big, huge I would say, drive in Spanish history, motivating countless wars and explorations.

Still as 'second choices', I would like to point to the military might of their renassaince armies (being the first world power 1525-1625) and the fame of the Spanish 'tercios' and conquistadors, making them desserve also militaristic trait. Another trait that could be argued could be Expansionistic, given their big share of explorerers... but since it was mainly overseas exploration we can settle with seafaring. Finally commercial could be understood in it's good administration of Spanish big overseas empire.

But still, I will settle with Seafaring and Religious.

Ottomans:

Here I have to disagree with their traits. I don't see reasons for them to be scientific or industrious. I can't see any major scientifical advance on their part that was not out of practical military need, neither I can see big public works or engineering feats during their domain. Let's examine then the other traits.

Commercial would be a good one, considering how well they holded an extensive empire, and the weight trade had in their empire, thanks mainly to their privileged possition. Militaristic is also a big thing with Ottomans. They acquired their empire out of conquest and bloodshed, not out of natural and peaceful expansion, or out of cultural assimilation. They did not explore a lot... earth wise. But their naval might and their naval explorations (Piri Reis naval charts are famous) make them eligible for this trait.

So many possible combinations... but I will stick with what I think is their two main traits Militaristic and Commercial.

Vikings:

This is also a no brainer. Both naval might and exploration make them prime and main targets for seafaring. Their military prowess and successes also make them clearly a militaristic civ.

Only if we forget about the initial northern people, the vikings, and we look at their descendants we can find new chances for other traits. If we look at Sweden, Denmark and Norway, the words Commercial and Industrious could fly easily to our head (public works in Denmark during the 1700s were quite impressive). But since when we hear the word 'vikings' we think of the original 'terror of the north', I will stick with militaristic and seafaring.

 

[troytheface]

The greeks shoiuld be seafaring/commercial and there is no mention of the hittites who have nice traits if u ask me....

 

[ummmm........]

I don't think he's gotten to the conquest civs yet.

 

[biggamer132]

Persians:

I have to fully disagree with the original traits of this civ. They were not industrious... no public works of note, no big wonders, no engineering.

I have to disagree here. The old Perisan Empire had a Great Road built by Darius the Great, along with many other improvements. This road connected much of the Empire, as well as being well-organized so that imperial servants and messengers could travel quickly, with rest stops located along the entire way. Also, Darius made many other improvements for increased production and efficiency, including alot of irrigation. Therefore, Persia was industrious. Not to mention the fact Persia is where the original design for domes (like on mosques or other buildings) came from.

Scientific, however, is something I have to partly agree with you on. Although Persia isn't reknowned for it's scientific prowess, it did make some discoveries; just not enough for that to be a trait.

Also, expansionist could work for the Persians. They had the largest empire of their day, and constantly sought to expand it.

Religious could work as well, as the old shah-an-shahs were close followers of the Iranian prophet Zoraster's teachings (called Zorastrianism) which was the first major monothestic religion, with one main god. Zorastrianism also influenced Jewish teachings, and in turn Christian ones, as Jewish scholars (who referred to Cyrus/Khouroush as the Persian Messiah for his resue of them from Babylon) who were re-writings the teachings of the Torah heard alot about the Persian religion. In fact, Zorastrianism, most famous for it's view of fire as sacred and of it's temples with never-dying flames, is still practiced in parts of Iran and other parts of the region today. The car company Mazda is even named after the god. His name? Ahura Mazda. This was openly stated in an encyclopedia article I once read about the company.

Finally, (and this is a little-known fact): Cyrus and Xerxes are both names given by Greeks for Persian kings, as well as the name for Persepolis (which means Persian City). In reality, Cyrus's name was Khouroush, I'm not sure of Xerxes's, and Persepolis is actually Takht-eh-Jamshid (Jamshid is a mythical Persian king).

Sorry, I just thought I had to clear up those misconceptions.

Therefore, Persia would have been better as either Industrious and Religious or Industrious and Expansionist.

 

[Rammstein]

I must say that I thought quite a lot about expansionistic.

I know that the trait is 'ideally' associated with conquest and militar and territorial expansion. But the whole idea behind my look at the traits is the fact that the effects of the expansionistic trait are nowhere near the military!

Let's reconsider the advantages. Starting with a scout, be able to produce scouts and getting better goodies from huts.

Where do you see military agressiveness in this effects? Under this light, things can be seen in a much different light.

It's good to ponder on things

But now you're going about it the wrong way - you set out to explore the real life civs and compare them to the game civs, now you want to do it the other way around? I don't get it.

Anyway: expansion early on in the game is naturally pretty peaceful - until you run into your first civ. When you do, don't you feel an urge to immediately try to hinder that civ's expansion? And later in the game, is it possible to deny that expansion of your civ means the conquest of others?

No, an expansionist civ needs to be one that is both very explorative AND/OR dominative. Civs that IRL were peaceful explorers (who would that be I wonder) can be expansionist. Civs that IRL were great conquerors can be expansionist.

I assure you that I'm not applying moral values here. I just wouldn't place militaristic before scientific in the case of the French.

But hey, no matter. I like reading your thoughts on this. But if the french could be considered militaristic rather than scientific, then the Vikings would be a lot better off with seafaring and commercial, since the main part of the viking culture wasn't conquest - it was trade

 

[Lucius Sulla]

It's good to ponder on things

But now you're going about it the wrong way - you set out to explore the real life civs and compare them to the game civs, now you want to do it the other way around? I don't get it.

The reasoning behind my arguments is as follows. There are objective and noticeable effects in-game in the traits. That is the way they are really going to affect the play of that civ. Thus, I wanted to find what a trait means, not out of the general meaning the word that names it has, but out of its specific effects. One isolated what the effects would mean in historic terms, I'm awarding them to the civs, in that basis. I hope I'm making myself clear.

Anyway: expansion early on in the game is naturally pretty peaceful - until you run into your first civ. When you do, don't you feel an urge to immediately try to hinder that civ's expansion? And later in the game, is it possible to deny that expansion of your civ means the conquest of others?

No, an expansionist civ needs to be one that is both very explorative AND/OR dominative. Civs that IRL were peaceful explorers (who would that be I wonder) can be expansionist. Civs that IRL were great conquerors can be expansionist.

I assure you that I'm not applying moral values here. I just wouldn't place militaristic before scientific in the case of the French.

But hey, no matter. I like reading your thoughts on this. But if the french could be considered militaristic rather than scientific, then the Vikings would be a lot better off with seafaring and commercial, since the main part of the viking culture wasn't conquest - it was trade

I know things are quite open to many interpretations. I still think that the expansionist trait should tweaked a bit to match more with the 'domination' theme. But that is not quite in my hands.

As I said again, there are very good reasons to give scientific to the french... but the fame of Napoleon and his first Empire, united with their big militar leaders, both in the Middle ages and the 1700s and 1800s made me opt for that trait. France has always been a big militar and agressive potence, from the times of the capetians (think of Bouvines) to François I and then Louis XIV and Napoleon. The fact they are not since their defeat in WW II is just a detail in their history.

I thank greatly your points, by the way, this is what this thread is about, after all . And as you can see in the PtW civs I'm adjusting things a bit in that way, awarding expansionistic a touch more easily (I recognize I was too restrictive for it, and now I'm awarding big migratory and poblational movements as explorers... since scout is about knowing the map of the world more than your neighbours, then nations that knew about their map like the mongols did desserve expansionistic... even if it was by conquest).

 

[Lucius Sulla]

@biggamer132:

Thanks, you are completely right, and I had overloooked completely those facts. Those achievements qualify completely for the Industrious trait.

It's just that when I thought of Persia, I rather thought of the Medic Wars, but under this new light, I rather think that they indeed would be better off as Industrious and Commercial. Industrious for they now obvious and big public works, Commercial for their efficient manage of a big for the time empire. Millitaristic and Scientific would be the following traits that could apply, then.

I agree that Zoroastrianism has had a big influence in the history of religion... but more in a cultural way than in a truely mystique and religious way. And it was not quite a drive for them... at least comparred to other civs of their age.

About expansionistic, as you can see, I'm not adjusting it under the light of "domination" but of "exploration", so you will understand why I'm not awarding it to them .

 

[Lucius Sulla]

The greeks shoiuld be seafaring/commercial and there is no mention of the hittites who have nice traits if u ask me....

It's impossible, in my opinion, to ignore the scientific (both in philosophy and natural science) achievements of the greeks, since it has been a world-wide defining topic in world history. I agree, though, that seafaring is an absolute third, even second trait, for them.

Yes, I hope to go soon into the Conquests civs .

 

[Jaca]

I think getting roads built quicker might be part of the Militaristic and possibly the Expansionist traid as well. This and/or a fast UU is IMO the only thing that really supports this trait or these traits. And both traits might get a little upgrade anyway, no?

It's all about infrastructure for expansion and about speed of the troops. In both cases a good road network supports this. A side effect is that commerce is generated quicker. For Expansionist, two examples: the Americans have built a RR network and together with it a Telegraph network (important for commerce...) in a very short period, allowing them to expand realtively quickly from east to west in North-America. The Incans forged their empire thanks to an impressive good road network. For Militaristic, the faster your troops move, the greater the advantage. Two examples: the Germans and the Romans for their road networks.

Some examples in the game for Militaristic are : the Jaguar Warrior, Impi, Chinese Rider (3MPs!), Samurai, Keshik (costs less, ignores mountain cost, but might ignore all terrain cost and personally I find could get 3MPs as well), and of course the Panzer (3MPs).

Some examples in the game for Expansionist are: Impi, Chasqui Scout (ignore hills & mountain cost), Three-Man Chariot, the Answar Warrior (3MPs!), Carrack (doesn't sink in Ocean) and Cossack (Blitz ability).

Some exceptions : Gallic Swordsman (Celts are now Agricultural and Religious and have an awesome UU), Berserk (but he's strong now as a amphibious unit combined with the Seafaring trait) and ...the Legionary !

Yes, how come the Romans are so unfavouvered in traits???? I agree, the Romans should be Militaristic and Industrious. And their UU is a good general purpose unit, but not terrible, certainly not for attacking purposes, and especially slow (!!), which does not combine well with the Militaristic trait. I agree further with Lucius Sulla making the Romans Militaristic and Industrious (instead of the Chinese indeed, and then having the Ottomans and/or Persians beging Militaristic and Commercial). And as far as the Legionary is concerned, I think he might deserve just a little extra somewhere.

Regards,
Jaca

 

[Lucius Sulla]

@Jaca

Real effect of the traits in the game... that's what I'm talking about.

Expansionistic does not help to build roads faster, or to build workers or settlers faster or cheaper. Expansionistic will not make your troops go faster, except for a better knowledge of the terrain (a very marginal help at best). That's why I'm not seeing it under that light and can't share in such a scenerio your point of view.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

Finally we arrive to the Conquest civilizations.

Byzantines:

Apart from the obvious good looking and cute trait their leaderhead has, let's check what other traits they desserve.

Industrious is a trait that would be a possibility for them, but just a minor one. They kept the engineering techniques of the romans, but did not make impressive advances of their own. Commercial is certainly a trait that could be awarded to them, not out of their topical corrupt bureaucracy, but because of their trading reputation. Militaristic wise, we have one of the best generals of history in their ranks, Belisarius... but I must say that would be the only thing that would make desserve the trait, the byzantine empire being the classical "decadent empire" but perhaps with the exception of the brief Justinian ambition.

I would disregard thus completely expanisonist, and agricultural has not any big appeal for this civ, either.

Seafaring is again a trait that can be applied in one of its sides... even when we can't say that the byzantines had big naval exploreres, they indeed had a considerable naval might, and a clear naval orientation, apart from their inventions in that sense.

Scientific is a trait I feel they don't quite desserve. True, they were advanced considering the high middle ages. But it was more due to their greek and roman heritage, lost because of barbarian raids and conquest in the rest of Europe, rather than of their own merit. And later the arabs, and then the Ottomans showed during the later middle ages a better grasp at research. When Constantinople was taken the most advanced weapons, cannons and the rest, were in the outside of the walls, not inside.

Religious, though, shines greatly for this civ. Religion was a BIG motivation for the byzantines. The orthodox church was well integrated in the imperial system, and religious issues were a hot and active debate (think of the iconoclast debate). Resources were poured to the construction of temples and cathedral-equivalents (Hagia Sophia).

So, I think the best traits for the Byzantine are Religious and Seafaring.

Dutch:

An easy choice, and a seemingly natural one, the dutch are clearly recognizeable as Commercial and Seafaring. Trading impulse, overseas colonization, naval explorers and one of the best admirals in history (De Ruyter), qualifies them greatly for both of these traits.

Still, there are also good choices for them in Militaristic (Maurice of Nassau himself), Industrial (great public works, specially in the damming sector), agricultural (good and intensive use of the agriculture in Holland and Flanders, big population density), scientific (quite a good deal of dutch origined scientists and thinkers) and even religious (reformed religion a big drive behind their civ, specially in their war of independence against Spain). But yet their two main traits shine so brightly they are the only natural choice.

Hittites:

Another tough nut to crack, specially since this civilization is not as well known as other ones. The winners of Kadesh (don't ever believe in Egyptian propaganda, and look at the sheer facts, C.W. Ceram has a good analysis for this battle) and the inventors of iron working, certainly desserve the Militaristic trait.

I don't believe they can be considered a expansionistic civilization by domination standards. They never tried to push their limits, and when they reached them they truely recognized their federation was enough. But they clearly had a diplomatic drive... Their good management of the federation of people that the Hittite empire was, though, truely qualifies them for the Commercial trait, though... and the way they easily contacted the surrounding tribes and incorporate them to their confederacy was quite impressive, thus there are yet eligible to expansionist (in the getting good results from huts way).

Scientifically wise, we have already mentioned their refinement of iron working, and their achievements in code of laws and writing are something to behold. The remains found of their palaces in hattusas are impressive... but yet not as near impressive as those of the egyptians. They did not build a clear and surviving road infraestructure. Thus, not probably industrious. Unfortunately, I don't have enough data to consider them agricultural or not... and their religious motivation is frankly not bigger than any other people of their tech level.

Thus we have as possible traits Commercial, Expansionist, Scientific, Militaristic as options... which to choose? I think Scientific would rather be a third or fourth choice, having in the area people like the summerians, the greeks, the babylonians... Personally, I would rather feel more for them as Commercial and Militaristic. I know, I usually stay with their current civ traits when in doubt... but this combo strikes me just a bit better than commercial and expansionistic, for some reason.

Incans:

Industrious clearly. An impressive road in the high mountains of South America, and the Machu Pichu (however that is really spelled) make them desserve this trait.

Expansionist... well, they don't fit in my definition of expansionist for normal unmodded civ, since they did not have a good knowledge of the outer world beyond their frontiers. Problem is that if they don't get this, I feel they would be left out without their UU, the Chasqui Scout (I might be wrong in this), which would be rather a courier than a scout, by the way... Anyway we can consider them to have explored as much as it was physically possible for them, considering natural borders, so we can yet consider expansionistic can apply.

They certainly had an aztec like militaristic bend, but not as pronnounced as this civ. And the same could be said religious wise.

Their agricultural techniques would be quite inventive, but... well, from my part I think they would not make the cut to get the trait.

Still, out of UU mandatory considerations and because of their impressive Imperial road system (its quality justified by the fact the Chasqui scouts indeed could run in places that would be mountains in a civ map) I think that they should be Industrious and Expansionistic.

Mayans:

The first word that really gets into my mind for them is scientist... the first thing I think of them usually being the mayan calendar. Their own piramidal temples and palaces (damn, the word for them still escapes me... I have it in the tip of my tongue) are quite impressive too, and only the lack of a good road system (difficult to develop in a Jungle, I admit, but yet...) making them not desserve immediately the industrious trait.

Agricultural wise they developed very innovative systems of clearing jungle and taking profit of it... yet, that system utterly failed, ressulting in the well known Mayan big migration. We can discard commercial and seafaring... and I think expansionistic too, not having a dominating or exploring bend.

Religious could be also applied, in the same way than the aztecs (in fact they probably inherited this from the Mayans).

Having to choose a pair of traits, I would finally stick with Industrious and Scientific.

Portuguese:

Ah, my dear neighbours. Seafaring is the most clear trait for them. With famous sea explorers, and the first ones that started the european age of exploration they truly desserve this trait, more than any other civ in the game. Expansionist wise they are also quite good, their explorations in Brasil, Africa and Asia, inland-wise too, are pretty impressive. So, clearly Seafaring and Expansionistic.

If they would desserve another traits, that would probably be commercial, trade and far colony management a big drive for them. In the other traits, I think they are a bit unremarkable.

Summerians:

With the Egyptians and the first Chinese, one of the cradles of the civilization, the true developers of the first techs, they desserve greatly the scientific trait. Their development and improvement of irrigation systems in the Tigris and Eufrates also make them desserve the agricultural trait fully. All these inherited and barely improved by their successor civs in the area, babylonians, persians...

Considering how old is this civ, it's difficult to stat how much they desserve the rest of the traits... they would probably desserve all of them, age comparison wise. So I will stick with their current traits Scientific and Agricultural.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I hope you have liked the series. It has been fun certainly writing it. I recognize that I have applied several times my own unique and personal view of the traits. It may be a bit confusion the mix I do to support it between in-game concepts (the real effects of the traits in the game) and historical background to justify the choices, but I wanted to give a different view than just the 'conceptual' approach to "trait giving".

Some (or probably a lot) of my reasonings will be flawed or plain wrong, so feel free to comment or critizice them .

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I think it may be interesting to see who and how many gets each trait:

Industrious (5): American, Persians, Romans, Incas, Mayans

Commercial (10): Chinese, English, Greek, Iroquais, Persians, Carthaginians, Korean, Ottomans, Dutch, Hittites

Militaristic (12): Aztecs, French, Germans, Japanese, Romans, Russian, Zulus, Celts, Mongols, Ottomans, Vikings, Hittites

Expansionistic (6): Russian, Zulus, Arabs, Mongols, Incas, Portuguese

Religious (10): Aztecs, Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, Iroquais, Japanese, Arabs, Celts, Spanish, Byzantines

Scientific (7): American, Babylonians, Germans, Greek, Korean, Mayans, Summerians

Seafaring (7): English, Carthaginians, Spanish, Vikings, Byzantines, Dutch, Portuguese

Agricultural (5): Chinese, Egyptians, French, Indians, Summerians

We can see that the most common trait is Militaristic, followed by Religious and Commercial, and the least common the so ever desired and hooking Agricultural and Industrious.