Commercial and Expansionist WHATS THE POINT?

[theDragon]

Maybe I just havent played as long, but is it just me that it seems that commercial and expansionist type civs just dont seem to be worth getting into? I mean, whats the point? Other than having a little lower corruption and a scout??? I would like someone to point out to me why to bother with a commerical or expansionist civ. Cuz i'd like to, but my better judgement tells me to put them on the opposing forces list instead.

[Kuciwalker]

Expansionist civs ROCK on larger maps. Can you say tech whore?

[Kloreep]

The smaller the number of civs on the map, the more the world shape is set towards Pangea, the smaller the ocean %, and the larger the map, the greater Expansionist rocks.

On a Huge, Pangea, 60% Ocean map, Expansionist will absolutely rock, especially if you have less than the maximum 16 civs. On such a map, your fast scouts will have even more land to scout in somewhere a little over half the time it would take simple warriors; and there'll be plenty of huts to pop and get goodies from.

Commercial depends on your style. If you're a raging warmonger who likes to finish a conquest of the world with Cavalry (or before if you can manage it), Commercial may not kick in enough. But if you're in the game till later, the reduced corruption of commerce, and the extra commerce on city squares, can give you a pretty large sum of commerce over the long run.

Shields can be a different matter; Commercial won't effect corruption and waste in the early game when you're trying to squeeze out every shield you can. So unless you like to micromanage later in the game when it will start to help fight waste of shields, you may not see much reduction in build times from the extra shields that Commercial will give you here and there. Still, the cash itself can be worth it.

[Firefly]

Commercial also gives you cheap marketplaces, banks and stock exchanges and if you can build Smith's you pay no maintenance on them. You can buy victory .

[player1]

There are no cheap buildings for Commercial.

[vmxa1]

I am not a fan of expansion trait at all. It is useful if you play at emperor or lower levels and have at least a large map.

Once you shrink the map or increase the number of civs or move above Demi, you could not give it to me. I am not going to pop huts and I do not need to scout the land much. If I have civs near me, I got big problems anyway and I will use my curragh to find the rest.

Commerce will never hurt you and is very powerful in large or huge maps. Also good in games where you play domination or conquest, as you will have lots of cities.

I really like it on Sid maps. You get the increased OCN and start with Alphabet. It lets you use a civ like Iroq that is so useful on a large or huge sid map. They have a great UU to use to bust those barb uprisings.

[player1]

I had nice sucess with Exp on Demigod games (max civs for map size and 60% Ocean).

Of course, if you don't get at least one Settler/City you can consider your trait wasted.

[vmxa1]

If I understand the odds correctly, you go from a 5% to a 14.3% chance to get a settler at Demi as an expansion civ. So yes, if you get one it was worth it, maybe, but since you will have such a low chance, it is not worth it.

I say maybe as you have to be able to get the settler some place it can be used or if it is an advanced city, you may have to abandon it.

Not to mention, if the next door civs are also expansionist, you will not get many shots at huts. Actually you won't have many shots anyway as they have so many extra units.

[Aeson]

Expansionist is the most interesting trait IMO. It's the most powerful in some limited circumstances, and useful in the widest array of applications. Huts are nice, not having to avoid them on higher difficulties is nicer, but Scouts are what makes the trait. Play with no huts and Expansionist is still a solid trait.

10 shield 2 move pillagers from day one. It's basically a second UU (akin to a Jag). You start with one for free.

Placing your capitol better. You get to view around 2x the tiles on the first turn. First time you miss a Cow, or fresh water with an Ag civ, it becomes apparent the difference this can make.

Earliest possible contacts and thus best and most trading opportunities. Increasingly useful the higher the difficulty. Think of your Scout as a mobile Great Library you start with. (Seafaring can cover this on a lot of maps too.) Ability to start a Granary from day one and still get into the trading loop because of the starting Scout.

Moving freely through AI territory. Only Settlers and Workers can do it (half as fast and at much greater expense/risk). Never have to deal with a 'blind' invasion. Map the AI's territory, find their resources or lack thereof. Disconnect the Iron/Horses before you fight, or better yet, time your invasion for before they can hook up their Iron/Horses. See the AI movement in their own territory. AI invasions are easy to spot coming and prepare for this way.

Overall, only Ag is generally more useful than Expansionist. It's certainly a trait that requires (and allows) very divergent playstyles to flourish though.

[player1]

Originally posted by vmxa1
If I understand the odds correctly, you go from a 5% to a 14.3% chance to get a settler at Demi as an expansion civ. So yes, if you get one it was worth it, maybe, but since you will have such a low chance, it is not worth it.

Actually, that's 14.3% chance to get settler and 14.3% to get a town, in total 28.6% chance.
The highest chance compared to any other difficulty level.

[theDragon]

Thanks guys! I normally play as a scientific civ like Persia or Germany because I use the tech advantage for world domination! But I am open to new types of games in Civ III so I now understand a bit more about these two civ types. Any more comments and / or opinions are still Very Welcome!!! But I think I'll give Russia a try and see where it takes me.

[spader]

I tend to play the americans alot, and I always build an additional scout in the beginning (so I have 2), and those two together can really boost your settler production (um... finding friendly barbarians I mean) as well as your techs... Expansionists are great on huge maps (and even better with huge maps that have huts). I would say, one of the 3 best feats you can have when the circumstances are right... the others would be industrious and militaristic... I love those 3

But commercial... I haven't played commercial civs alot so... but it doesnt look like a great mix...

/Spader

[Vince278]

For me, expansionist is a playing style, not a trait. I pick my traits to help cover my weaknesses in style.

[Jon Shafer]

COM can be very powerful. It's just that its effects are quite subtle and you don't really notice it unless you take the time to hunt it down. The differences can be large - in the mid-to-late Medieval it can save you 15-25 gold and shields PER TURN. And it only increases as the game goes on.

[ToeTruck]

Don't forget Alphabet...

Don't forget, Commercial also gets you Alphabet right off. That allow you to build Curraghs for early contact and a jump in tech trading.

Alphabet also gives you a huge jump towards the "Writing techs" - Philosophy, Literature, and Map Making. At the higher levels, researching Writing at 1 beaker/turn (even with it taking 50 turns) and then going for Literature (or Philosophy first) is a very viable strategy. Same with Map Making.

Or you can trade for Masonry and Mathematics and use the Philosophy freebie to get Currency - which has huge trade value. Or, you can try the early Republic ploy...lots of options.

The reduced corruption is a nice bonus, but I'd play Commercial just for Alphabet.

- TT