Genetic traits!

[uplift17]

So as confirmed in Dev Diary #5, in addition to Ethos, species will have different genetic traits:

Keep in mind, though, that there is a clear difference between the empire you are playing and its founding race. Empires and individual population units ("Pops") have an Ethos, but a species as a whole does not. Instead, what defines a species is simply its initial name, home planet class, and portrait (and possibly certain backstory facts.) Each race also starts out with a number of genetic Traits. As with the empire Ethos, you get to spend points to invest in Traits when you create your founding species at the start of a new game.

It is natural for individual Pops to diverge in their Ethics, especially if they do not live in the core region of your empire. This has far reaching consequences for the internal dynamics of empires; how Pops react to your actions, and the creation and management of Factions, etc (more on that in a much later dev diary!) Traits are not as dynamic as ethics, but even they can change (or be changed - this is also something we will speak of more at a later date...)

So I thought it would be fun to start a discussion about what traits are probably in and what we might like to see - who knows, maybe we can even give the devs some ideas. I'm sure some are already in. I suspect (and hope!) that traits will be fairly distinct from ethos effects, but there might be some overlap. We can look at the screenshots in DD5, which tell us a little bit about what some of the modifiers may be in the game - we know there's xenophobia, happiness, war happiness, war tolerance, alien slavery tolerance, food, and influence.

Fertile:

++ to population growth.​

Naturally diverse:

-- to xenophobia​

Savage:

+ to war happiness
+ to war tolerance​

Fractious:

Species is more likely to form larger, more powerful factions​

Small:

+ to population capacity
Every pop produces/consumes .75 of normal resource production/consumption​

Large:

- to population capacity
Every pop produces/consumes 1.25 of normal resource production/consumption​

3D Thinking:

++ to accuracy in combat (for a race that grew up thinking more naturally about three dimensions, i.e. some avians and molluscoids)​

Subterranean:

++ to population capacity
​

There are plenty more possibilities out there like Low-G and High-G, biome preferences, and average intelligence, so I'm curious as to what people think!

 

[Pugmak]

This is fair standard to the space 4x genre. I like it.

But, I'd like to see the traits done in a manner that makes picking a rather difficult choice. All too often, the traits in games are made specific to a particular play style and the choices obvious to same.

I'd rather see genetic or cultural traits develop over time as the game progresses according to the stresses and particularities that pops are subjected to. Make it more of an evolutionary system.

 

[valergain]

I too wonder what kind of traits we will be allowed to play around with. Bet there will be a dev dairy on it eventually so not to worry! I just hope they don't lump clutural traits (like +happiness) with genetic traits (like long lived)

 

[TheGrinningMan]

We already know planet preference will be genetic, I'd wager on lifespan being set by species, and it's likely there will be some boring, but hopefully non-binding ethic-preference traits as well. (Something like "there is no species so inherently spiritualist they can't be made materialists, though fanatic materialists could be far beyond worth the effort".)

Lifespans could be a real double-edged sword. A monarchy with a thousand-year lifespan sounds great until you get the equivalent of a 0/1/0 (EU) or a Slothful, Arbitrary Drunkard Imbecile (CK) slouching on the Tentacled Throne for the next few centuries. Likewise, a thirty-year lifespan is great for getting those monarchs shuffled, but when your interstellar Napoleon of a general is celebrating their twenty-sixth...

 

[Chat]

Lifespans could be a real double-edged sword. A monarchy with a thousand-year lifespan sounds great until you get the equivalent of a 0/1/0 (EU) or a Slothful, Arbitrary Drunkard Imbecile (CK) slouching on the Tentacled Throne for the next few centuries. Likewise, a thirty-year lifespan is great for getting those monarchs shuffled, but when your interstellar Napoleon of a general is celebrating their twenty-sixth...

Make ruler an admiral, send them on a one ship crusade against the local star. No longer will our people be sunburnt by staying outside too long without protection! No longer will we spend days or weeks marred by skin flaking from their very bodies! No more shall perish from the horrors of DNA mutated by solar radiation, regardless of whether or not it has become completely curable! The sun shall pay for its insolence against our Glorious Empire!

Except we all know that only our greatest rulers would suffer from that kind of hunting accident...

 

[Vedinu]

Hibernation, which would have some negative effects, but if it works like in ck2, would allow for picking more good traits.

 

[Krajzen]

I think genetic traits should have upsides and downsides, definitely there shouldn't be such absurd traits as 'large' which give only penalty

Personally I'd organise them in two categories: Physical and Cognitive, where Physical are more impactful early game but can be modified late game via genetic engineering, while Cognitive are subtler but deeper and not possible/desirable to change.

For example, humans are very individualistic, to the core of genetics - it has been revealed that there is a constant 'genetic statistical minority' of a people with enormous creative potential but in a risk of emotional problems, you could imagine alien species where there are less disturbed individuals and more 'mentally healthy' population but far less creative etc.

Though I am not sure if that doesn't come to close to Ethos. But on the other hand, 'political' ethos is one thing and biological traits are something different - a race of sentient ants living in hives communicating with pheromones would be biologically inclined to collective society...

 

[GrafKeks]

I think genetic traits should have upsides and downsides, definitely there shouldn't be such absurd traits as 'large' which give only penalty

Personally I'd organise them in two categories: Physical and Cognitive, where Physical are more impactful early game but can be modified late game via genetic engineering, while Cognitive are subtler but deeper and not possible/desirable to change.

For example, humans are very individualistic, to the core of genetics - it has been revealed that there is a constant 'genetic statistical minority' of a people with enormous creative potential but in a risk of emotional problems, you could imagine alien species where there are less disturbed individuals and more 'mentally healthy' population but far less creative etc.

Though I am not sure if that doesn't come to close to Ethos. But on the other hand, 'political' ethos is one thing and biological traits are something different - a race of sentient ants living in hives communicating with pheromones would be biologically inclined to collective society...

Source for the genetic statistical minority unless you mean something like the upper 1% of the bell curve..........

 

[aitaituo]

Source for the genetic statistical minority unless you mean something like the upper 1% of the bell curve..........

Yeah, I don't think that claim can be substantiated. The only credible studies I've seen that suggest that have always been of people who are already famous for being geniuses, so the sample is inherently tainted by using only outliers, and generally even in those samples, the subjects tend to be borderline aberrant rather than flat out mentally ill. There's no objective criteria for creative genius either, which is probably why I've never heard of someone trying to measure it in a random sample of people with personality disorders or schizophrenia.

Also, humans are hierarchical herd or pack animals. Take a large group of children, lock them in a room, and in less than an hour they'll have established a caste system from kshatriya to untouchable.

 

[Atlantians]

For example, humans are very individualistic, to the core of genetics - it has been revealed that there is a constant 'genetic statistical minority' of a people with enormous creative potential but in a risk of emotional problems, you could imagine alien species where there are less disturbed individuals and more 'mentally healthy' population but far less creative etc.

Um, everything in this paragraph is entirely untrue.
These are purely your perceptions as a Westerner who grew up in Western Culture with a Western education and Western Values.

Many other cultures around the world are far more communal than you describe, and even Western society is fiercely communal at its core, though it is highly inconsistent about it.

There is also no correlation between emotional problems and intellect; as for creativity, that is not even quantifiable as a 'thing'.