Expansionistic trait should be dropped, it's a wasted trait

[Hail Caesar!]

I think the main issue is that some people only have one strategy for winning and anything that makes that one strategy difficult for them they think sucks. I guess you can win the game by backstabbing and being an ******* but it doesn't seem to be that fun. I wonder how it will pan out in MP.

[player1]

In fact there is difference between huge 16 player games and standard 8 players games.

Although there is simiala room to settle, there are more huts.

For example in some standard maps it happen to me to not find ANY HUTS (with exansionist).

Somethimes it was 2-3 huts in whole game.

With expansionist.

In those games, I just wondered why I have listed all those guys who say that exp. is great trait.

Maybe it is on larger maps, but not on standard (non-pangea) or smaller.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by player1
In fact there is difference between huge 16 player games and standard 8 players games.

Although there is simiala room to settle, there are more huts.

For example in some standard maps it happen to me to not find ANY HUTS (with exansionist).

Somethimes it was 2-3 huts in whole game.

With expansionist.

In those games, I just wondered why I have listed all those guys who say that exp. is great trait.

Maybe it is on larger maps, but not on standard (non-pangea) or smaller.

When you play at higher levels, you will understand how essential it is to make first contact.

[player1]

I always play at high levels (king - emperor).

[NeOmega]

Then how do you keep pace in the tech race if you are not expansionist?

If you've noticed, at least in emporer, the AI trades techs to eachother for dirt. The only way to keep pace is to be the one to make first contact, or else you'll find yourself w/o any techs, and the rest of the wrold set to enter the middle ages.

[player1]

Get 90% tax, buy tech, make markeplaces, WAR.

After renessance I again become first in tech.

Not being first in tech, is hardly "end of the world".

It's just one step before going back to greatness.

[NeOmega]

Ok, then you and I play differently, I trade tech, sell it, and WAR when I play expansionist.

I play emporer exclusively, and even when I have stacks of cash, most nations won't sell tech. I have to get it by waitign for it to fall to a cheap level in middle ages and early industrial, depending on the civ.

You should just wait for Multiplayer, and when you lose by 2000 B.C. online to an expansionist civ, you'll understand.

[Jack_www]

In Multiplay expansionistic trait will be usefull. If you want to take someone out early in the game. Like has been said a million times, you will see your eniemy, but they wont see you. If you are a builder and like to build up your civ and wait untill you have a good economy before attacking then expansionist wont work for you. It all depends on how you play the game. I could pick the greeks, since they got the 3 defense unit, and build up and wait to attack. Or you could be the Americans and use scouts to find other civ, then build a whole bunch of units once you find someone and rush them. I dont think that any trait is useless, you just have to know how to use them.

[LionQ]

Jack_www, you're absolutely right on that. In my opinion, Expansionist and Scientific are uselees, because I can't use them in my style of gameplay. But for others, these two CivAbilities are maybe their favorites and they can maybe use them very well.

You can use every CivAbility very well, it's depending on you style of gameplay! The one is useless for someone, but very usefúll for anyone else.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Artifex

Another reason why I hate expansionist, it is so map dependent. I hate Large/Huge maps (as does my processer). A trait that requires you to play huge maps to derive a benifit is broken.

Just about all the civ traits are map dependent. Larger map, more unit, more promotion(mil) Larger map more library more sci (sci) Rel - more temple, com - corruption (again map based) ind - more terrain more work needed... etc.

Also, to get it's benifit, you have to decrease your opponents and hand pick non expansionist civs so they don't take all the huts. (to me this is almost like cheating, at the very least very cheesy). The trait is a cheesy, broken trait.

How is that cheating? Even if you are not an expansionist civ you should be doing that. The part of the game is to be stronger than your competitor to WIN. That also includes possibility of weakening ur enemies. Expansionistics just have an advantage over such "cheesy" tactic that you describe as which should be mimiced by all civs whether exp or not!

When you have to fiddle around with the parameters so much to get a trait to be useful, to me thats a clear sign it is badly broken. Why not give yourself a few panzer tanks in 4000 bc while your at it?

Fiddle around with what parameters? You get a scout and a increased chance of getting better result in huts, is abusing that advantage considered "fiddling around"? How does "giving yourself a panzer" even compare to what your describing here?

[aaglo]

Before Civ3 came out, I thought that expansionistic trait means something like "less corruption in distant cities" (very much like the commercial trait). Essentially that's what makes it worthwhile to expand, you have less corruption in very distant cities.

If Expansionistic should become something like "25% less corruption due to the distance from capital", then it would be useful trait. It raises an interesting question: Is there a commercial/expansionistic civ? (I cannot remember - was it Americans)?

[Jethro83]

The commercial/expansionist civ is the English.

Quite a weak combination of traits though, thus making the English the most difficult civ to master.

[player1]

Although from 1.29f patch commercial is not so weak anymore.

Still UU is poor.

[WarpStorm]

I have to agree. The traits are pretty good, but they have a very weak UU. It can be outdated before you get one built.

[player1]

That why I moved Ironclads to Industralisation in my MOD (and gave them cost of 100).

That's should partialy fix Frigate and Man-O-War weakness probelms.

But that would just happen, in games when naval combat is importatnt.

[Jethro83]

True that Commercial has been a stronger trait since the 1.29 patch, but I hardly find it to go very well with the Expansionist trait (except on Archipelago maps where you'll want Map Making very quickly). Both traits are only really strong when combined with a stronger trait like Religous or Industrious.

I find Commercial to go better with Industrious, Sceintific or Militaristic.

Expansionist only seems strong to me when combined with Scientific (cheaper libraries + extra techs from goody hut can possibly guarantee a continual lead in technology) and Industrious (granaries + quick irrigation and mining + free settlers from goody huts lead to more settlers, and therefore more cities).

So basically, I find the best expansionist civs to be the Americans and Russians. Though the Zulu and Iroquois are also up there purely because of their UU.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
The commercial/expansionist civ is the English.

Quite a weak combination of traits though, thus making the English the most difficult civ to master.

I disagree. English have two wonders that can give them an early, but no tto early Golden Age. These wonders are the Collossus and The Lighthouse. Also because both are coastal wonders, there is less competition. The GA will fall at a very crititcal time, when 3- 6 cities have been built, and are harboring a small population.

[aaglo]

In another thread someone mentioned, that there is a new goody hut result. An advanced city (perhaps with a couple of population & a couple of buildings - I don't know)

So this makes the expansionistic trait a bit better.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I disagree. English have two wonders that can give them an early, but no tto early Golden Age. These wonders are the Collossus and The Lighthouse. Also because both are coastal wonders, there is less competition. The GA will fall at a very crititcal time, when 3- 6 cities have been built, and are harboring a small population.

I can see how the golden age from the Lighthouse could greatly benefit the English, however, the golden age doesn't guarantee victory, no matter how well timed, and well used it was.

The Expansionist trait is only useful at the beginning, when there are goody huts, and vast tracts of open land yet to be built upon. That means that this trait does nothing for you once everything has been built on. And the Commercial trait, while having been strengthened by the 1.29 patch is still too weak to use without a stronger trait to reinforce its effect (ie. Industrious or Scientific), and since Expansionist only affects the early game, it would be standing alone in the late game, when Militaristic, Industrious, Scientific, or even Religous would have been of more benefit.

Besides, 3-6 cities with a small population, under a despotic government isn't that significant as a golden age. A better one would be in the Middle Ages at the point where knights (or samurai, riders or elephants) are available, since there will be more cities, larger populations and more powerful wonders available to build.

That's just my opinion, and corresponds with how I play anyway. Of course, I am a bit too much of a warmonger to be able to build any of the earlier wonders (apart from the Great Library, and sometimes the Hanging Gardens) and such a strategy would hardly work for me.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by aaglo
In another thread someone mentioned, that there is a new goody hut result. An advanced city (perhaps with a couple of population & a couple of buildings - I don't know)

So this makes the expansionistic trait a bit better.

Indeed, thay would raise the popularity of Expansionist. I didn't know that is in PtW, but now you're talking about it, I'm remembering that that could happen in Civ2. You "walked in" a GoodyHut and sometimes you get a city with size 3 or 4, with some Improvements, like a Marketplace or a Temple, for example. It would be nice if this would return to Civ3 in PtW!

[notyoueither]

The City Result can be a draw back in elimination...

[NeOmega]

Well I have now played 6 MP games, in the middle of a co-op.

Expansionist is the best trait for MP.

If you have ever played RTS Multiplayer games, you would know, they are usually resolved in half hour or less, and a good game is when all the big stuff is built.

Well same goes for Civ III. Most competitive games end during the ancient age. Expansionist trait gives you a big advantage duirng this age.

[LionQ]

Could be. Never played MultiPlayer, so.....

[Wittlich]

I myself, prefer the expansionistic trait - especially when you also have the religious trait.

Expansion - better "goods" from goodie huts along with starting the game with a scout. (Great for the beginning of the game - which "sets the stage" for the rest of the game)

Religion - Cheaper temple/cathedrals along with only having a 1-turn arnarchy between government changes.

In my book, this is an EXCELLENT combination.

[LionQ]

Now we're all giving examples in which game style Expansionist is excellent or not. So I'm thinking this thread has reached is dead end.

[vmxa1]

I have to stick head out there to be whacked, but I dislike Exp and really do not care for the exp/rel combo.
First the goody hut stuff is not that great and helps the other civs as you add to the learned techs, making them cheaper. Once the hut phase is over it pays nothing in the way of dividends. (note I got nealy all he huts on my land and did not get a settler or a city). Rel was a fav of my until now. Cheap temples and the like is not bad, but will not win the day. Switch govs sounds good, but how often do you really need to do it? When combined as in the Arabs, it is a real anchor. To me the larger the map the less I want exp as the more I will miss Ind/Mil or even Com. The bigger the map the less I need the scouts as I will get plenty of huts anyway. The bigger the more roads and improvements I will need o make and the more Ind could help me and it last the whole game. Not getting promotions to elites, means no leaders as is my case now.

[LionQ]

Well, I dislike Exp too. IMO, every combination is good, excepting the ones with Exp. I prefer Mil+Ind, but Mil+Rel is good too, just like Comm+Ind and Mil+Comm. Those four are the best, according to me. Every combination with Exp is bad, imo.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Forgive me for disagreeing, but I think that the Expansionist trait can be very useful if in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Reconnaissance is very important, especially in the beginning of the game and even more especially in multiplayer. What the scout unit allows you is access to knowledge of land, resources, luxuries, and your enemies’ location before anyone else.

That's only true if you're playing with 2 or 3 players AND you're at a difficulty level that doesn't give the AI a decent chance. When you have a lot of competition, it's going to take a long time to win, so your early knowledge is not going to help much. Also, to trade luxuries, others need to know the path to your capital.

[LionQ]

And there has to be a Road, too.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by realpolitic

That's only true if you're playing with 2 or 3 players AND you're at a difficulty level that doesn't give the AI a decent chance. When you have a lot of competition, it's going to take a long time to win, so your early knowledge is not going to help much. Also, to trade luxuries, others need to know the path to your capital.

finding and building a city near a potential second source of luxuries can be agreat advantage throughout the game.