The Traits

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

For those of us who can't join the party today online, and can't afford to buy Conquests for the time being , can someone please list all the new traits?

I know the traits for the new civs, obviously. I want all the others... apparently the Celts and Iroquois are Agricultural now? Please, PLEASE list all the traits, one of you compassionate people, have mercy on us who must wait.

Starting techs would be nice too...

[OPD]

copied from CFC

Old Civs, new traits :

English commercial & seafaring
Aztecs : militaristic & agricultural
Iroquois : commercial & agricultural
Scandinavia : militaristic & seafaring
Celts : religious & agricultural
Carthage : industrious & seafaring
Spain : religious & seafaring

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

So, it would seem as though the only trait combinations that are repeated twice would be:

Persia, Ottomans - Scientific & Industrious

Zulu, Mongols - Expanionist & Militaristic

Greece, Korea - Scientific & Commercial

Can this be right? Some of the traits don't seem realistic at all! Sure hope the gameplay's good...

[Harovan]

3 is the minimum (31 civs, 28 possible trait combos). I hope there are not more duplicates.

[Arrian]

Iroquois : commercial & agricultural

Wow, changed both traits (fine by me, makes more sense this way).

Looks like the only Rel/Mil civ left is Japan. Interesting they left China alone... I would have figured them for a change.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
3 is the minimum (31 civs, 28 possible trait combos). I hope there are not more duplicates.

Well, I laid 'em all out in a spreadsheet, avoiding duplicates and putting in old civ trait values for the ones I haven't heard about (I saw the CFC post this morning) and that's what I got, those 3 combos.

I must say, I hope the gameplay is right. I thought Carthage was waaaaay too "hardcore" in PTW... this time around, the Mayas, a civilization that is now in the "dustbin of history," got a pretty hardcore trait combo... I hope this doesn't always make them a superpower...

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Arrian
Looks like the only Rel/Mil civ left is Japan. Interesting they left China alone... I would have figured them for a change.

-Arrian

Yeah, dangit! Agricultural and Industrious!

Sorry, I need to blow off a little steam here. Please note, all you reading this: I am NOT dissing Conquests. I haven't even played it; I assume that it is, as all reviews indicate, VERY, VERY GOOD. However, I must say that some of the traits make no damn sense whatsoever. Why, why, WHY are China and India not Agricultural? Lordy! Why does Carthage remain Industrious? Shouldn't one of the duplicates be Seafaring and Commercial - Carthage and England? Man oh man.

Many of the traits are spot on - the Vikings, for example. Many aren't spot-on, but still very good - the Iroquois and Celtic change, for example, isn't totally "historically accurate" but is still fairly so. How about the Seafaring and Agricultural Dutch, though? Agricultural? Where do they get that from? yarrrrgh... you'll definitely be seeing a mod from me, that's for sure... though I won't be a pisser and just play my mod... I want the solid advice of everyone here, so I'll keep the game as it is released, with patches of course.

Still! Mr. History is pissy.

ps: China = Industrious and Agricultural! Or Scientific! Make the damn persians Militaristic and Industrious if you must!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Ok, I've calmed down now. Sorry about that, everyone. No more nasty comments from me.

Now... let's have the traits.

[mimi]

The Iroquois are WHAT??? That's just plain silly. An aboriginal commercial society is just silly. Especially the Iroquois who were more "war-like" than some other native tribes in NA. (Say, the Maliseet for example... ) But, still... you can't have a native peoples as commercial... they weren't commercial. Europeans brought the concept of money for money's sake.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Arrian
Looks like the only Rel/Mil civ left is Japan. Interesting they left China alone... I would have figured them for a change.

-Arrian

I guess the main reason for China being Ind/Mil is the Great Wall. Building this wonder definitely should trigger their Golden Age.

[Saint Marcus]

The Iroquois are WHAT??? That's just plain silly. An aboriginal commercial society is just silly. Especially the Iroquois who were more "war-like" than some other native tribes in NA. (Say, the Maliseet for example... ) But, still... you can't have a native peoples as commercial... they weren't commercial. Europeans brought the concept of money for money's sake.

they were quite commercial. they tried to dominate the fur trade...thus it seems that they indeed have a good commercial sense.

[mimi]

There was no fur trade until the Europeans arrived. Prior to that, fur was only used as needed, not really "commercially" traded (ie for profit only).

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by mimi
The Iroquois are WHAT??? That's just plain silly. An aboriginal commercial society is just silly. Especially the Iroquois who were more "war-like" than some other native tribes in NA. (Say, the Maliseet for example... ) But, still... you can't have a native peoples as commercial... they weren't commercial. Europeans brought the concept of money for money's sake.

Ah yes, but "commercial" in civ represents a whole sleiugh of things, including cohesiveness of society... hence, the "empire spanners" logically have commercial as one of their traits... the Iroquois might not have built a huge empire, but they were one of the only confederacies of tribes in North America... their federalism alone dictates the Commercial trait.

I agree with you, it's not perfectly, but it's much better than religious. Who can remember the Iroquois religious system?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by lockstep
I guess the main reason for China being Ind/Mil is the Great Wall. Building this wonder definitely should trigger their Golden Age.

...eh... the Chinese Golden Age is widely accredited to the Tang dynasty, thousands of years after the largely ineffective - though pretty - Great Wall was built.

Of course, like some of the other civs featured in the game, China's been around a long time and has had multiple "golden ages," so I guess it makes sense. But I hope China's growth priorities are changed, at least. In both vanilla Civ and PTW China was not a big settler, which is fairly ridiculous... consistently one of the largest civilizations of all time (population and territory-wise).

But, I digress.

[lockstep]

In earlier beta versions of Civ3, when there wasn't a peaceful method to trigger a Golden Age, China was Industrious and Scientific. Firaxis only changed it to Ind/Mil when they introduced the wonder GA trigger. I agree that Scientific and/or Agricultural would be adequate traits for China, but they wouldn't match to the Great Wall.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by lockstep
In earlier beta versions of Civ3, when there wasn't a peaceful method to trigger a Golden Age, China was Industrious and Scientific. Firaxis only changed it to Ind/Mil when they introduced the wonder GA trigger. I agree that Scientific and/or Agricultural would be adequate traits for China, but they wouldn't match to the Great Wall.

But both agricultural and scientific are muuuuch more appropriate for China.

Maybe no one cares about this that much, but I certainly do. I love the Chinese UU and Mil/Ind is a great trait combo. But above all I am a sinophile; I'm Irish-American and China is sort of my adopted homeland; I feel very strongly that a civilization that has often led the world in terms of science, developed philosophies unlike anything the West has known, and has always been both large and populous - except when fragmented, of course - should be well reflected in Civ.

Ind/Sci would be a great combo... give Ind/Mil to Persia, to reflect it's greatness (in it's day) as a military power. Agi/Ind and Agr/Sci would also be good combos.

I'm sure the gameplay in C3C will be solid. But very, very Eurocentric. The West is on top now but this a very new development and not necessarily one that will last forever...

...still, all griping aside, I am very excited to have these new Civs in the game, especially the Hittites and the new Americans... I wish something could be done about the hardcoding! I'd buy a PTW-style expansion for this (yes, I'm talking about a 3rd expanion for Civ3 here) just to get more African, Asian, American and Middle Eastern/Mesopotamian civs. They deserve to be there...

[Saint Marcus]

There was no fur trade until the Europeans arrived. Prior to that, fur was only used as needed, not really "commercially" traded (ie for profit only).

So? there was a time in history during which the Iroquis were highly commercial. that period in history is also best known in the west (since we know very little of the pre-Columbian Iroquis). The Iroquis were very commercial for some period of time (from the arrival of the first Europeans to the American war for independence), and thus are rightly given the commercial trait.

[Saint Marcus]

I'm sure the gameplay in C3C will be solid. But very, very Eurocentric.

Name an additional African civ that has accomplished more than the dutch or portugese.

Or an additional American civ.

Or an additional oceanic civ.

One -could- argue for an extra Asian civ (like the Khmer), but even that is difficult to defend.

But then again, some Civ3 civs are just there for PC value, like the Zulu and Iroquis. What have they ever accomplished in history?

[Xorbon]

The Militaristic/Industrious combo should go to the Romans, not the Persians! I think industrious fits the Romans better than commercial does. I mean, they built colloseums, aqueducts, and roads all over the damned place! I don't think the Chinese should get that combo just because it allows the Great Wall to trigger their golden age.

As for whether or not the game is eurocentric, I think it is. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind having the Dutch or Portuguese added to the game. It's just that there's more to selecting civs, IMO, than world influence. I'd like to see more civs from different parts of the globe. There should be more cultural variety in the game. (I'm not talking about adding "civs" like the Inuit or Aborigines, I'm talking about actual civilizations.)

[sabrewolf]

ah... i'm really looking forward to these changes. not because they're historically more (or less) accurate, but because it will take

- several games to figure out which traits i now like most
- several games to find the best trade-off-combo between my favorite traits, good starting techs and a good (not too early) UU.

that's maybe already 15 games just to chose my first preferred civ... which already is more worth than the £15 for the game

currently i see
seafaring/commercial for alphabet starting tech,
agr/ind/rel as favorite traits and
early late ancient/early medieval UUs for a decent GA

edit: that still leaves me with my current favorite, the french, but now also the dutch. maybe even still the celts and chinese with their killer UUs.

[sabrewolf]

interesting... ALL aboriginal american civs have agricultural!

i agree with YS that iroquois having commercial isn't really the best choice. also, the hittities were a so early civ, commercial isn't ideal either.

i still don't like the american choice (the US GA is in the 20th century, expansionist was before... commercial would be a must, industrious is ok to me), but otherwise everything seems fair and square.

[sabrewolf]

sorry, 'nother post be me

here a graphical overview of the new trait distribution

edit: added the austrians (hidden civ)

[Inhalaattori]

Yeah. I have to say these traits are very stupid. Not all, but too many.

India should be acricultural/religious. Celts and Indians could chance places, Celts were indeed very commercial, (not so much in Britain)
Iroquois should not be commercial. No way!

[mimi]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


So? there was a time in history during which the Iroquis were highly commercial. that period in history is also best known in the west (since we know very little of the pre-Columbian Iroquis). The Iroquis were very commercial for some period of time (from the arrival of the first Europeans to the American war for independence), and thus are rightly given the commercial trait.

Well, there is some evidence that the aboriginal peoples of North America were here for over 4000 years. The period you're refering to (1600-1900 thereabouts) would be less than 1/10th of the history of the nation. And that's generous 'cause by the time the 1800s had rolled around, the aboriginals were not commercial by choice as much as by necessity... Europeans exterminated millions of natives within a century of arriving. What was left by the time you're refering to would be the remnants of a culture that had to assimilate or be destroyed. (They traded or they were killed...)

Anyway... this is neither here nor there... the game is what the game is, I just thought it was a very odd trait to give to a nation that was at the tail end of its existence by the time the concept of commercialism reached them...

I'm gonna play that scenario as a NA aboriginal tribe and see if I can hold off those darn Europeans!

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Name an additional African civ that has accomplished more than the dutch or portugese.

Or an additional American civ.

Or an additional oceanic civ.

One -could- argue for an extra Asian civ (like the Khmer), but even that is difficult to defend.

But then again, some Civ3 civs are just there for PC value, like the Zulu and Iroquis. What have they ever accomplished in history?

What do real world accomplishments have to do with the fictional world in the game? There may be some degree of coolness about all these high achieving European civs, but when you're surrounded by NOTHING BUT European civs, doesn't it get just a little bit boring? Even some times?

Historical achievement shouldn't really be the ONLY criteria used in determining who is in and who is not. Geographical distribution and cultural diversity should also play a role. Sure, the Zulu, the Indonesians, the Khmer or the Nubians didn't do much when compared with most of Europe, with America, or with the Chinese but they would add a bit more flavour, particularly if African and Oceanic culture groups were to be added to accomodate some new civs from outside the square. Not that I can see that happening at all any time soon though.

This is only a game. It is writing an entirely new timeline on a fictional world. It doesn't necessarily have to mirror the real world.

But then again, its good that there is the option to mod it to your own specifications. I know a couple of civs who will be replaced once I get to modding (when I get Conquests that is). There is also a few whose traits I will be changing.

[Jaybe]

Commercial: Half-price Marketplaces
(according to the SP strategy guide on the promo CD)

I wonder if it survived.

[Arrian]

That would be shockingly powerful, IMO. I doubt it.

-Arrian

[Fried-Psitalon]

I believe (but am not certain) that the information about marketplace pricing is incorrect. In any case I'll know in about 2-3 hours.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Name an additional African civ that has accomplished more than the dutch or portugese.

The Almoravids, who conquered Western Africa long before either the Dutch or Portugese set sail.

The Malinke, whose gold eventually ended up in the hands of Europeans, thus financing their expeditions.

The Berbers, who have been a problem for every occupier of Northern Africa from time immemorial and whose architecture has served them well for thousands of years.

Yes, the Portugese and Dutch conquered a bunch of lands, and held them - for a while. What ELSE have they done? Sure, they discovered much of the world, but they weren't the first to reach the "New World" by any means.

What are the Dutch and Portugese doing THESE DAYS? The Portugese economy ain't so hot. You hear a lot about the potential of Brazil, however...

Or an additional American civ.

The Comanches, the Nez Perce... sure, these Civilizations didn't accomplish a lot... but what the hell did the Hittites accomplish? What about the Carthaginians? Oh sure, "They had a very powerful trading empire in the Mediterranean for hundreds of years". Um, yes they did, along with numerous other civs. What makes them special, other than their failed wars with Italy?

How about the Koreans? What did they really do?

Or an additional oceanic civ.

The Polynesians had seafaring craft that would have put anything the Europeans had to shame hundreds of years before the Dutch and Portugese hit the scene.

They didn't go conquering with it, which I guess was a mistake for them strategically.

One -could- argue for an extra Asian civ (like the Khmer), but even that is difficult to defend.

Or the Tibetans, or the Vietnamese, or the Afghans, or the Turkmen, or the Khazars, or the Tamil, or the Malay...

Difficult to defend? Difficult to defend? What have the Europeans done INDIVIDUALLY that is so special? They all did some things in common: export Christianity and conquer other territories, and occasionally try to destroy each other. Why is "China" one big civ? There were numerous nations that eventually came to constitute China, just as there are numerous nations - England, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, to name just a few - that may eventually come to constitute "Europe".

But then again, some Civ3 civs are just there for PC value, like the Zulu and Iroquis. What have they ever accomplished in history?

The Iroquois didn't accomplish much... along with the Scandanavians, Carthaginians, Hittites, and Byzantines, they were mostly just "there".

The Zulu, like the Mongols, Dutch, and Portugese, are mostly in the game because they conquered an immense amount of land and didn't hold on to it for that long. There's an argument to be made for removing these civilizations I suppose; personally, I like them in.

[mimi]

Well... since history is written by those who "won" - I suppose that the Iroquois didn't do much in terms of history but, on the other hand, if the aboriginals had killed the original European arrivals instead of assisting them, especially farther north I think the history would've read very differently.

But then... woulda coulda shoulda, mean nothing 'cause what is, is.