 |
|  |
 |
|
Dimension
|
 |
Columbus OH
Feb 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
I would argue that Militaristic, Religious & Industrious are the three best traits in the game, so it would be very difficult to balance a civ with all three. An expensive UU isn't going to help. Egypt has a near-useless UU, and they're still great just because they're the only civ with both Religious & Industrious.
Carthage has a great UU, but that's basically making up for Commercial not being worth much. Same with the Zulus. There are several civs with bad UU's, though.
Not getting any starting techs would hurt, but the big problem is that you don't need Warrior Code to build a Barracks. The only limitation to the civ would be that you need to have a little warrior rush and extort Ceremonial Burial. In practice, that would make things even easier, because you're forced to get a good start. Once you've got Ceremonial Burial, you've got the Uber-Civ with fast roads, fast barracks and fast temples.
Then again, expensive horses might slow you down a little. You'd probably end up just using swordsmen.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ducki
|
|
I think if you want to add a 3rd trait to give yourself a slight advantage, give Expansionist or maybe Scientific.
Mil/Rel/Ind is far too powerful if you don't also give extra "good" traits to the AI civs.
Actually, I think Industrious should only ever be paired with 1 other trait. I think you could give any 3 of the others as long as you don't give Industrious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BRC
|
|
quote: Anyone else tried to make this kind of civ? |
Ok. I confess. My first game ever, on Chieftain, was with the Americans, who were Religious, Industrious, and Militaristic.
After that game I felt bad for cheating like that, and since have not changed Civs attributes.
As for the game, it was on Chieftain. I didn't understand how this game worked very well. I don't think that I even finished the game. I really can't tell you whether it would be unbalancing, but think of it as giving China the power of Religious. Sorry I can't be of more help.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002 time: 23:24
|
|
A 3 civ-trait is inhertently imbalancing in a 2 civ trait world, even if two of the three traights are Commerical and Expansionist. I dought it can be fixed without giving all the civs a 3rd trait.
quote: Originally posted by aaglo
I was wondering (and currently I'm trying out) a civilization with 3 civ-specific traits. But I'm not sure if it is a bit unbalancing.
It had 3 traits (militaristic, religious, industrious), quite expensive UU (upgraded horseman 3,2,2, requires iron & horses, base cost 5 (?)), and zero starting techs.
Is this civ unbalancing or not? If it is unbalancing, should I give other civs some other advantages?
Any comments? |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
One_Brow
|
|
One thought on balancing this three-trait civ:
No unique unit (or at least, no UU that triggers a Golden Age). If you want a GA, you have to get it through Wonders.
Actually, you could also balance by a whole slew of "negative" UUs. They all have tghe same stats as normal units, but have an extra requirement or cost more.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
One_Brow
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Calc II
TO start off, everyone having 3 traits actually DECREASES the variety. theres only 6 possible traits. i calculated possibilities long time ago, its considerably less than 2 combos. |
Then you need to revise your calcultions. There are fiften possible combinations of two traits, and twenty possible combinations of three traits.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ducki
|
|
quote: Originally posted by One_Brow
Then you need to revise your calcultions. There are fiften possible combinations of two traits, and twenty possible combinations of three traits. |
Only if order matters, like Mil/Rel/Ind would be "different" from Rel/Ind/Mil.
Which it is not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zero-Tau
|
|
Elsewhere
Aug 2002 time: 06:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ducki
Only if order matters, like Mil/Rel/Ind would be "different" from Rel/Ind/Mil.
Which it is not. |
Wrong. We have 6 traits: Militaristic, Industrious, Religious, Scientific, Commercial, Expansionist.
With two traits, we have 15 combinations:
MI, MR, MS, MC, ME, IR, IS, IC, IE, RS, RC, RE, SC, SE, CE.
With three, we have 20 combinations:
MIR, MIS, MIC, MIE, MRS, MRC, MRE, MSC, MSE, MCE, IRS, IRC, IRE, ISC, ISE, ICE, RSC, RSE, RCE, SCE.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
I'm playing a mod where all the civs have three traits and all of the civs have the religious trait. I did this because:
a) It is generally conceded that religious is the most powerful trait
b) When playing a non-religious civ, I though that the period of anarchy when changing governments was too long and religious improvements were too expensive.
A few people on these forums have even said that the religious trait is so powerful in relation to the others, it is broken, and it is hard to deny it. IMO, if you want to handicap yourself against the AI, play a non-religious civ. Your culture is very likely to be second rate without a lot of extra effort on your part, and each 5 turn period of anarchy when changing governments is a crushing blow to your development. If you have a well devloped 20-25 city civ, then each period of anarchy means that you will lose out on most of one tech advance and enough production to build an invasion force powerful enough to destroy one of your weaker rivals. What is more, you absolutely have to to switch governments at least twice with a minimum of three times being optimal, and you will probably want to do it at least one or two more times depending on what your strategy is.
I haven't seen a way to shorten the period of anarchy in the editor, or I probably would have just done that. I tried changing the transition government type to despotism to nerf the effect of switching governments, but like some other things I have tried in the editor, just because you can do it doesn't mean it works. In this case, I got weird behavior at the very start of the game saying I was having a revolution and I didn't know any other government types to switch to. This was probably due to having the default type and transition type flagged at the same time for despotism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DaveMcW
|
|
On a purely economic basis, industrious beats religious.
But while fighting wars on deity level with a black reputation, I really appreciate the instant switching from Democracy to Monarchy and back.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SuperSlinky
|
|
Actually, I have never played a game without the industrious trait. It just seems like a natural choice for the player, although it seems like the AI doesn't do as much with it. I am playing a game now with my two nearest neighbors both being industrious and they don't have anything near my level of development. Likewise, we are all religious, but my cultural development is far beyond any of my rivals. I seem to be running away with this one (regent level, heavily modded), but you should have seen my last game. I was sandwiched between the Germans and the Zulu with a huge border with both of them. Ouch. I could only get about 15 cities built (large map) before I had to stop expanding and concentrate on defense. Needless to say, that was a stressful game, although I never finished it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sheik
|
|
quote:
I haven't seen a way to shorten the period of anarchy in the editor
|
Go under the difficulty levels tab and then adjust the value that states "Max. government transition time"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sheik
|
|
quote:
I thought that only applied to the AI Civs.....
|
You might be right. I will test it and see.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|