Given all the years of negative feedback and dislike of these traits from the community, one would think that they would have listened.
AGG should get a hammer multiplier on military units
That seems better, but adding +100% GG emergence inside borders is just a weaker IMP.
Then AGG would be the ultimate trait for every game, because the fastest way to win a map is to conquer the maximum territory once Currency is complete.
IMO everything doesn't have to be 100% equal. The little wrinkles within an otherwise well balanced system give you different things to try out. Different directions to probe the game systems from and increase replayability.
But re. AGG, if you think about the meaning of the word it does make most sense as a bonus to the grunt troops who would benefit from aggression. If combat 1 (effectively 2XP) wasn't considered enough the simplest and likely least disruptive buff would be to up it to 3XP. Or up to 4 from 3 or whatever it is
combat 1 (effectively 2XP)
It's effectively worth the price of your next combat-line promotion, not a mere 2XP. For a 10XP unit AGG is worth 7XP, assuming you want combat IV. A plain initial XP bonus would be much worse in comparison.
For you doubters of both Protective and forts.
I picked a fight with the most powerful nation because I saw a stack go by a few turns before i got grenadiers... so I knew she had some close. Shaka seeing that I was at war with the most "powerful" nation, being number two (acording to Livy!~) thought I was ripe for the taking... and sends his stack.
Load up the save, hit end turn. Enjoy the carnage.
Here's how my Leonidus ended up after that stack.
Spoiler :
That was fun, complete carnage! Took 20 minutes to go through the motions
Should be said that you have tech advantage here, and very profitable terrain, but that was very, very impressive. By my count, the attacking stack had 149 units, though a great deal of those were knights and elephants. Leonidas killed 94 of them, and a handful more withdrew. One rifle died. One. Leonidas ended up with slightly more XP, 355. Fun stuff.
Saw something similar in one of my games once, though at a much smaller scale (normal map and speed). A bunch of Cho-ko-nus with topped first strikes were upgraded to MGs, and landed on a hill next to an AI's capital. Some died in the end, but it was mass slaughter of the attacking AI stack.
As for the discussion, I don't much like protective either, but I do reckon that a lot of the good traits (and UU/UB) are seen as good due to how we play the game. Early-ish warfare and expansion is how we mostly play, so civs with advantages there will be seen as better. Play differently, and the picture might have been different, like the mention by some of multiplayer.
Personally I'm glad everything isn't 100% balanced (not that anything ever will be). It sort of adds another difficulty layer by playing 'worse' leaders, civs and traits, and adds more spice to the game. I also think it's important that they're loosely based on real leaders and civilizations, so you can't exactly give a big boost to England or America in the ancient era, nor a boost to Incas in the industrial era. It has to somewhat mirror the historical situation.