Proposal to improve Expansionist and Militaristic Civs

[monkspider]

After a couple weeks of good, solid playing I have found, as many others in this forum have, that being Expansionist and Militarisitc isn't *quite* as good as the having the other attributes. All in all, firaxis has done a better job balancing the game than I could have imagined. But I find Expansionist and Militaristic needing just a bit of tweaking. If this could be changed in the editor I gladly would, but it seems there is no way to do so at this time. Thus, I propse the following changes

Expansionist- Really quite a bit weaker than the other attributes, also, it is depressing to know that after the first few turns one of your attributes isn't going to do you jack squat. I think Expansionist could be balanced by adding one of the following abilities
-Less expensive Settlers (possibly cheaper workers as well)
-Easier to conquer foriegn cities, that is less of a chance for them to turn back to their former holder. (thus effectively, easier expansion.

Militaristic- Not too bad, better than expansionist probably, but still just a little bit worse than the others. Only being able to build barracks cheaper when other civs can build cheaper universities, temples, cathedrals, etc isn't very fair.
I suggest
-10% (or possibly even 20%) cheaper Military Units

I hope that Firaxis can implement this in a future patch

[Wolfgang76]

disagree

Actually I find the Millitary route a more than fair way to go. In most games when playing the Romans I get an average of 4-5 heros compared to 1-2 in other games. I normally turn one in to a army to get the wonders related to that and then "bank" the others so I can get a jump of wonders that are really killer in this game like the "workshop" or "sufferage".


2cents

[monkspider]

Perhaps you should re-read my post chum, I wasn't talking about being militarisitic vs. peaceful, but there is something called a "civ attribute" called militaristic that grants that particular civ cheaper barracks and a better chance of seeing promotions.

[monkspider]

Of course, if there is a way to modify this that I have somehow overlooked, please let me know!

[monkspider]

Shall I take it that we are in agreement then?

[kimmygibler]

I'm pretty sure wolfgang did read your post. He is saying that the increased chance of getting leaders with militaristic civs (eg. romans) compared to others is a good enough advantage. I would have to agree. Getting leaders is of major importance to many strategies. I personally have yet to get a leader with a non-militaristic civ. I consider the bonus to getting leaders good enough to make the "militaristic" civs powerful enough.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that expansionist is the worst atribute. I would agree with some minor culture bonus, or your idea of a slight reduction in the chance that captured cities will revolt. Also, what about the ability to make colonies without losing the worker? I bet they do somehting about this in the patch.

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by monkspider
Perhaps you should re-read my post chum, I wasn't talking about being militarisitic vs. peaceful, but there is something called a "civ attribute" called militaristic that grants that particular civ cheaper barracks and a better chance of seeing promotions.

militaristic civs have a greater chance at promotions and a greater chance of creating leaders. Just that makes them very powerful.

Thats not taking into account cheaper to build military related improvements. When I can build my barracks in the stone age in 5 turns, and pump out veteran archers by the mass, watch out neighboors cuz here I come

I think the cheaper building bonus also applies to stuff like airports, SAMs, costal fortress and walls, but to be honest the only bonus I've enjoyed was the cheaper barracks in the stone age...

For the expansionist civs I don't see what is wrong with them. I agree they should have cheaper settlers but when I start with an expansionist civ I immediately build two scouts in succession. This gives me a total of three. Within a few turns I discover lots of goody huts, and they are *good*. So right off the bat you can get free techs, money and free settlers.

not to forget that with your scouts you're gonna meet up with lot's of other civs. That gives you leverage in diplomacy with the AI... communication lines and techs.

Looking at my post though, it's easy to discern that all of these bonuses focus mainly in the ancient age, but I think that if you can create a strong base at the early game, you'll win it through to the end, unlike civ2 where the best way of winning hard levels was to stay quiet until a later age and then unleash your hordes.

[player1]

EXPANSIONISTIC ability isn't WEAK.
Extra free cities + techs on start can give you a much better start, difficult to catch up wich other civs.

But for best use you should use Pangea maps with less then maximum numer of players.

In game with 8 civs on Huge map, Expansinistc Ability is Excellent.

But, maybe 20 cost settlers could be interesting to add.
Anything more is just to much.


As for Militarictic civs, it depends of yours play style.
Maybe a little less expensive upgrades?

[uh Clem]

Expansionists ought to have less corruption due to empire size or distance from the capital, given that part of their survival strategy is out-breeding everybody else.

I hate saying this, as I rarely play as an Expansionist, and I think the AI does a sufficient job in that respect as it is.

[monkspider]

Actually Player, though once a fellow staunch defender of Expansionist, I have begun to see it's short-comings. My latest game with the Iroquois was on an 8 Civ Pangea map, which resulted in gaining a couple early techs and a map. Perhaps my experience is below average for expansionist, but I think that in any event, while useful in cases, expansionist simply doesn't offer as much as the other attributes.
By the way, I think Militaristic would be NEARLY good enough, but just some other small bonus would push it to optimization.

[mharmless]

If millitary got any better then people would be forced to play a millitary civ to compete =)

Cheap barracks, airports, harbors, walls, and SAM sites... couple this with rapid promotions and several times as many leaders and you have a recipie for building and holding on to an Empire.

I mean, jesus the walls only cost TEN SHEILDS with militaristic trait! Twenty for a barracks... Any city can become an asset to The Empire in nothing flat, quite sick realy.

[monkspider]

"Cheap barracks, airports, harbors, walls, and SAM sites.."

Oh really? Then that changes everything then! I was under the impression that they only got cheap barracks.
Welll then, Expansionist still needs improvement I see.

[Trifna]

Totally agreeing that militaristic and expansionist civilisations in History were better than that... They took better advantage from the specificity of their culture.


I propose that militaristic civs might get a bonus on experience of units. Maybe they'd start at the second point instead of starting at first one. Or maybe they'd advance faster at the beginning. So militaristic civs would get elite units a litte more easily.

[player1]

Militarisic & Expansionistic abilities are not weak, they are just usefull for some player styles.

If you wage wars oftet, militiaristic is better then other abilities, but if not then you better get something else.

If you KNOW rappidily to expansd at start of the game, expansonist is excellent ability. But, if you don't know that, then it is yours waste of time.

My brother (younger) played Americans at Emreror level, and had 5 cities while, AI had only 3. At the end it paid him off.
But, I don't know to do that kind of expansion, so that trait is not for me.

At the other way, rest of 4 traits are easy to use by any kind of player.

[brandon749]

You go...not far enough!

You're right militaristic and expanionist civs are at a disadvantage. Perhaps the less corruption attribute could be added to expanionist civs (whether commercial civs should still get it is another issue)

Military--I think a 10 percent reduction in cost would be nice. Moreover, cultures can be built around militarism...So I propose a small culture bonus for barracks (maybe 1 culture per turn) However people don't get attached to barrack so their culture value should either not increase at all or increase VERY slowly or maybe just increase with each successive age to symbolize the historic evolution towards nationalism. (so maybe their culture value doesn't start to grow until after you discover nationalism.