02-08-2003 02:22									#1
	Who should get these traits ? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

wtf

	02-08-2003 02:25									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, I lost the connection after pressing the "create thread" button. Here is what I wrote:

The new traits open wild room for speculation. Now that Firaxis announced all existing Civ traits will be reworked, we can expect what traits will match what Civ
While some new combos are obvious (agricultural-religious could go either to Egypt or India; seafaring-commercial could go either to England or Carthage), some others are not.

For example, who should be agricultural expansionistic ? The Americans or the Russians may qualify, but one could argue the Russians aren't that agricultural, and a case can be made for all traits for the Americans.

Who should be agricultural seafaring ? Most often, Seafaring Civs did so because of small landmass or poor soils. Maybe a Civ that was deeply connected with Fishing could get these traits (if agricultural applies to sea food as well as land food).

Who should be agricultural commercial ? These traits wouldn't be absurd for some peaceful Civs (France, India), but I can't think of a Civ that is perfectly matched with them.

Who should be seafaring religious ? I can't think of any Civ with these traits. I also wonder what Civ can be considered as seafaring scientific. Maybe the Spaniards and the Portuguese will get such traits ?

	02-08-2003 02:30									#3
	Support Apolyton

Ah... that's quite funny, actually

You're right about the new trait combos... they just don't seem to mesh.

	02-08-2003 03:41									#4
	Got spare money?

I would prefer to see Egypt stay Industrious.

I am still wondering exactly what these traits will do. I would like to see many civs stay as they are (with some minor changes). Assuming the Dutch and Potrugeese (spelling?) are in they would both be Seafaring.

Would the Phonecians (again assuming they are in) qualify for Seafaring, commercial? or maybe some island civ could get religious, seafaring.

	02-08-2003 03:43									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sheik I would prefer to see Egypt stay Industrious. I am still wondering exactly what these traits will do. I would like to see many civs stay as they are (with some minor changes). Assuming the Dutch and Potrugeese (spelling?) are in they would both be Seafaring. Would the Phonecians (again assuming they are in) qualify for Seafaring, commercial? or maybe some island civ could get religious, seafaring.

hi ,

nah , they should change , they where not THAT industrious , .....

have a nice day

	02-08-2003 05:54									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think it was said at Gamespot that the Phoenicians were scenario-only

Here are a few ideas.

England: Commercial, Seafaring
Carthage: The same
Vikings: Sea, Exp
Japan: Mil, Sea (I think the Vikings should have this trait, but Japan is likely Seafaring)
Spain: Rel, Sea
Greeks: Sci, Sea
Sumer: Sci, Agr
Iroquois: Rel, Agr
Incas: Agr, Exp
China: Mil, Agr (or Agr, Ind)

More to come when I think of it, feel free to argue with what I have now

	02-08-2003 17:37									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

Okay, how could the Vikings not be militaristic? Also I don't see the Japanese as being seafaring. I think the Vikings would do better with sea, mil and leave the Japs as they were.

BigD

	02-08-2003 18:26									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Most often, Seafaring Civs did so because of small landmass or poor soils. Maybe a Civ that was deeply connected with Fishing could get these traits.........

I think you've Hit the mother load with that very statement, The "TRAIT" of a civ should NOT BE DEFINED prior to the game, but instead chosen by the player AFTER At or After the game has started. A Seafaring Civ should be so, when the Civ is On a small Island and Needs to use the Sea as its travel and food basis, The Same can be said Of ALL the traits.... Start the player with No Traits and No bonuses, Heck Start them with No fixed UU, and when the player So decides, he/she assigns him/herself with the Trait that they choose for themself.

Start in the middle of the plains, Cool, ok I choose agricultural, 'DING' Get bonus Agr. Tech, ..... Later on Build the Collossus, ok good idea to choose the Science Trait.... DING, Science Tech bonus..... Of course you'd have to have some limit, maybe if you wait too long the bonus tech is allready in your tech tree and you get no further bonus...

Also, Who says I want an F-15 if I'm the americans.... Mid game I decide It'd be great if I could devote some extra research the KNIGHTS and have a bonus knight type.... Click... Choose Samuri.... DING, UU is chosen,

Each of these would not only be locked in place when the trait / UU is chosen, and you couldn't change it after... the game code could also allow you to 'Trade Unit Abilities', Trouncing the English.. they offer you MAN-O-War abilities, for a Forced Game Alliance, this follows that thread on alliances... where certain alliance breaking will split your empire under civil war where some of your cities may change over to the victim of the alliance break... Cool, now you can have Samuri and Man-o-war, and a long term ally/servant empire...

	02-08-2003 20:12									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

All I know is, there's gonna be a lot of restarting if I decide to use a seafaring civ on continents and pangeas.



I'm curious as to what techs each of the new traits will start with. will be interesting to see what they do.

	02-08-2003 20:15									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I've been looking at China, i'd prefer it to be presented more realistically..
China - Scientific , Agricultural.

Because: it should have scientific , because it invented gunpowder, paper , printing press and the magnetic compass well before anyone else.. but they shouldn't build ships or at least not many, as they were isolationist, though evidence points towards them having explored most of the world before the west.
it should have agricultural, as china has second in population size , a vast amount of people, at least 4 times as much as the USA.

It could have industrial/agric, but I disagree with them being millitaristic, they rarely try to get into wars historically, its only recently they have become a millitary dictatorship.. conqeuring tibet. At the time of the mongols and most o f their history they've been pretty unmillitaristic.
This will stop the Great wall triggering their Golden Age.. maybe the Hanging gardens will trigger it if this is made Agricultural.


I do hope they beef up the Scientific trait, maybe it could give 4 science points to every city, 8 to every metropolis as well its old traits.

Does anyone know anything else about these new traits? i don't know about them - whats seafaring likely to do, reduce harbor / sea building costs?.

Maybe indonesia could be a civ with Expansionist/agricultural. It populated right across the indian ocean to Madagascar(the large island off of africa)
or perhaps the Seafaring trait instead of expansion.
Indonesia is the most populated land on earth, so ought to have a civ.

Australia /New zealand could have a civ, just call it australia. commercial / agricultural perhaps, maybe it could be industrial /agricultural though it shouldn't be too powerful.

	02-08-2003 20:31									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It would be nice to have traits start or change mid game.
As i was saying the Chinese became more millitaristic with communism , perhaps in game they could choose millitaristic at the beginning of the industrial era.

An idea could be that at the beginning of each new era - or when you've researched your first tech in a new era, you can select new Civ ability traits(religous,commercial etc) .
You would need to stop all civs being Millitaristic/industrious or religious/commercial.. this would make them all to powerful and too similar.
You would have 10 trait points to choose your traits.. millitaristic would be powerful so take up 6 of your trait points, expansionist would be only 3 points.. and maybe the 1 point remaining would be added onto your next eras traits, so you could have a better set next era and allow you to start conquering everybody.

There would need to be some way to stop everybody having the same traits, maybe you could only select trait combinations that no one else had.. this would make the first civ into a new era have an advantage as it can choose nearly any trait it wishes.

I suppose some traits would only be unlocked when you had the right Advance.. How can a civ be commercial when it hasn't even discovered Currency yet?

I may try this with the game i'm coding myself, you can take on the abilities of conquered or allied nations in this, its like capturing a german nation would allow you to use their industrious ability there..

I don't know of any game thats used varying abilities, BOTF came close by allowing conquered aliens to give you special wonde bonuses to your whole galactic nation.

	02-08-2003 20:58									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Traits picked midgame?

There is no possibility of that in ANY civ3 XP. It would require a fundamental change in the entire game. Maybe they'd put it in Civ4, but it sounds like it would be very difficult to do.

	02-08-2003 21:50									#13
	Got spare money?

Actually, I'd too would love it if the traits evolved with the game. Such as a Civ becoming militaristic after many turns of heavy military preparations & actions, or a Civ becoming seafaring when it has built many ports and many boats, etc.

I'm less sure for the UU. It would be quite strange to have Zulu Samurai or Aztec Enkidu warriors.

	03-08-2003 10:01									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Actually game code wise is easy, I did it for Civ2.. You assign each civ with a tech based on its 'trait' and as the game progresses, some techs are only available with that 'trait' tech as a pre-requisite..

Non- tech wise you can have it with buildings ATM, there are flags that allows only 1 of any building type to be built, if you assign a building that is trait specific style, and check that flag, then each civ can build only 1 of that type of building, and none of the others... If this building is a requirement for other buildings... then you have In Game Trait choices... This how My fantasy mod is working... I have Magic, Warfare, Nature and Religeon as my 4 'area's and if you follow the research path of one of these, you negate the use of the other.. Ok The Editor makes this extra hard to achieve and I had to bend some rules that the AI wont handle, But I'm making this as a multi-player game anyways.

	03-08-2003 20:22									#15
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Traits picked midgame? There is no possibility of that in ANY civ3 XP. It would require a fundamental change in the entire game. Maybe they'd put it in Civ4, but it sounds like it would be very difficult to do.

hi ,

, why not go a bit further and let some civs change while they move from era to era , .......

have a nice day

	03-08-2003 22:00									#16
	Support Apolyton

Bane Star :
I didn't try your mod. Is the AI proficient with these "trait buildings" ? I was under the impression the AI was quite crappy with the ordinary replacing buildings already...

	04-08-2003 08:45									#17
	AI.... hmmm Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

well my AI has a rough time, It tends to build the buildings that its Trait is ticked in the building list, But one of my Races is the GM Race, which has no tech tree atm, but has access to over 30 types of UU creatures, In the scenario it has these pre-placed, But in a random generated game, It builds only 3 types of troops.

so no the AI sucks...

	04-08-2003 08:56									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh crap
Maybe when the tech tress and the like will be finished, there will be room for some AI optimization ?

	04-08-2003 17:12									#19
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Oh crap Maybe when the tech tress and the like will be finished, there will be room for some AI optimization ?

hi ,

there is always room for that , but at what cost , .....

two disk's and load's of ram maybe , ......

have a nice day

	16-08-2003 08:22									#20
	Increase Your PM Length

The SCANDINAVIANS (not Vikings Vikings were the seafaring warriors, not the common people) should definitly be seafaring, but I am torn in whether the other trait should be millitaristic or comercial. They were both great warriors and traders.

	16-08-2003 16:52									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ones I definitely believe should be:

Vikings: Militaristic/Seafaring
Americans: Expansionist/Agricultural
England: Commercial/Seafaring
Spain: Religious/Seafaring
Greeks: Scientific/Seafaring


Ones I might, or might not believe should be:

India: Agricultural/Religious
China: Agricultural/Scientific
Iroquois: Agricultual/Religious
Carthage: Commercial/Seafaring


I'm unsure as to what the Ottomons should be (since Sci/Ind doesn't really suit them anyway), and the new civs since I haven't had time to really think (plus I have no idea as to who is in other than Sumer, the Incas and the Maya). As for the rest of the existing civs, I think they should remain as they are.

	17-08-2003 01:24									#22
	Put an end to popups!

I would think that with the new traights there would be no need to have 2 civs share the same traight combos.

	17-08-2003 04:45									#23
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by BigDork Okay, how could the Vikings not be militaristic? Also I don't see the Japanese as being seafaring. I think the Vikings would do better with sea, mil and leave the Japs as they were. BigD

You're right about the Vikings.

I was trying to fit all the traits in (I can't think of anyone to be Sea, Exp).

I wanted to change Japan so there wouldn't be 3 Mil, Rel civs (I don't think there will be). I found every civ with "Build often: Navy" flag and made them Seafaring.

I could think of Japan as Seafaring, anyway

	17-08-2003 14:05									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Louis XXIV I was trying to fit all the traits in (I can't think of anyone to be Sea, Exp).

You can have the British doing that (the Carthaginians could be the ones beaing seafaring/commercial), or maybe the Portuguese.

quote: I could think of Japan as Seafaring, anyway

Well, not me. Japan was very much oriented on its own islands, and most of its seafaring history in the old times was about piracy and disruption of Chinese sea trade. Fishing was also important, but the Japanese aren't "seafaring" in the sense they didn't crossed large areas of water nor made a huge navy in their history.
Only during the imperial period of 1905-1945 did Japan build a huge fleet. At this rate, they may be "airfaring" as well

There was sure many traffic between the Japanese islands, but I don't think this can be considered as a seafering tradition though.
You can make North-African Arabs seafaring as well by such standrads.

	17-08-2003 20:16									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I guess I was mainly thinking about Japan's fishing tradition, which is huge. They didn't really have a large navy until the 20th Century, so I guess they might not be Seafarring.

But there can't be 3 Mil, Rel civs. Can you think of one of the 3 (Aztecs, Celts, Japanese) that can be something else?

	17-08-2003 21:24									#26
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Louis XXIV I guess I was mainly thinking about Japan's fishing tradition, which is huge. They didn't really have a large navy until the 20th Century, so I guess they might not be Seafarring. But there can't be 3 Mil, Rel civs. Can you think of one of the 3 (Aztecs, Celts, Japanese) that can be something else?

The Celts could be expansionist. They historically spread from the black sea to Ireland.

	17-08-2003 21:57									#27
	Support Apolyton

there are 28 (=8*7/2) combinations, if every civ has exactly 2 traits.

that means that in the ideal case of being able to give every civ a matching pair of traits, there will be only 3 combinations which more that 1 civ has.
but if we look at ptw, there were some combinations which 3 (or even 4?) had and some for just 1 civ... so i don't think everything will be evenly spread.

if each civ gets 3 traits, there are 56 possible combinations (=8!/5!/3!) {the exclamation mark means 'faculty' for those who's math lessons are too far back }. this could make sence, because even similar civs (e.g. spanish and english were both seafaring and expansionist at there peaks) could have a difference (e.g. spanish religious or militaristic, english commercial).

maybe there are even some civs with 3 and some with 2 traits... if my calculations are correct: 75 combos (= 9!/6!/3! - 9) (the -9 come from the highly unlikely case that a civ would have just 1 or even 0 traits!)

	17-08-2003 22:11									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by LordAzreal Ones I definitely believe should be: Americans: Expansionist/Agricultural England: Commercial/Seafaring Spain: Religious/Seafaring

i disagree that these are definate.

americans could just as well get industrious or commercial, depending on which era is represented.

english (as i said in the post before) could also be expansionist (1/2 the world map was coloured red.... which btw should be their colour in the game, but that's not the topic here ).
spain could have militaristic and aswell expansionist (they grabbed most of south america and the majority of central america)

quote: Ones I might, or might not believe should be: India: Agricultural/Religious China: Agricultural/Scientific Iroquois: Agricultual/Religious Carthage: Commercial/Seafaring

basicly, it looks like you've taken away the expansionist of all civs

i think expansionist fits quite well to: english, spanish, portuguese, celts, russian, mongols, americans. possibly also vikings, china. i don't know enough about iroquois and zulu history to be able to judge if they really were expansionistic...

	17-08-2003 22:12									#29
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf there are 28 (=8*7/2) combinations, if every civ has exactly 2 traits. that means that in the ideal case of being able to give every civ a matching pair of traits, there will be only 3 combinations which more that 1 civ has. but if we look at ptw, there were some combinations which 3 (or even 4?) had and some for just 1 civ... so i don't think everything will be evenly spread. if each civ gets 3 traits, there are 56 possible combinations (=8!/5!/3!) {the exclamation mark means 'faculty' for those who's math lessons are too far back }. this could make sence, because even similar civs (e.g. spanish and english were both seafaring and expansionist at there peaks) could have a difference (e.g. spanish religious or militaristic, english commercial). maybe there are even some civs with 3 and some with 2 traits... if my calculations are correct: 75 combos (= 9!/6!/3! - 9) (the -9 come from the highly unlikely case that a civ would have just 1 or even 0 traits!)

quoting myself... but the more i think of it, the more i like the idea of 3 traits

	18-08-2003 00:22									#30
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf quoting myself... but the more i think of it, the more i like the idea of 3 traits

hi ,

yes for some civs , others should get only two or even one , your idea sounds great

have a nice day