CivIII not balanced why?Expansionist Rubbish

[Nakar Gabab]

And how many expansionist wonders are there?

SETI?

[Fayadi]

Ok Expansionist is only good for newbies in my opnion,u can get 4/5 tech at early game thats good I know Expansionist is an attribute suited to Newbies!U know why?because ppl are too lazy to make full use of Industrious,Religious,Scientific,Militaristic,Comm ercial
These abilities requires micromanagement to reach the full potentials!
Experts (I am not one)know that these attributes could give advantage u in a long term.Although Scientific isnt my favourtie attribute ,i believe scientific is 1000% better than expansionist u know why? ppl normally discover 4 or 5 tech the most with scout !Scientific gives u 3 free tech the whole game but with cheaper library and university?U could advance faster in turns which could give u a total of 7 or 8 tech (including the 3 free advance every era)advantage for the whole game?Expansionist ability expires.
Smart ppl believes in suffer first,enjoy later(but what Industrious gives u obvious advantages throughout the game thats too good!)
greedy ppl believes in enjoy first,suffer later
so guys which u prefer

[Velociryx]

I would respectfully disagree.

While Expansionist is not my favorite Civ-Trait, on the right maps (non-archepelago), it is quite impressive.

Consider that with a fast-moving unit from 4000 BC, you are able to uncover more of the map more quickly.

This means you find all the best places to found future cities faster than you otherwise would.

This in turn, means better overall city placement, which yields faster growth, more early game pop-rushing to get more infrastructure in place more quickly, and more opportunities to choke off the growth of your rivals (consider the effect of finding that one-tile landbridge in 2500 bc and staffing it with a single warrior....limiting one of your rival civs to all of four cities. THAT's a powerful advantage.

The techs gained from goody huts are nice, but they are simply a bonus. The real power is in diplomacy and knowledge of the world around you.

With your scouts, you can fan out in all directions, meet all the civs early, keep them apart from each other by expanding in the proper directions, and control the flow of information on your continent, acting as middleman, keeping the other civs just flush enough with techs to grab their latest research efforts.

Expansionism takes finesse and control to master, but when you do, it can be every bit the equal of the other traits. Just know going in that Expansionist power is the inverse of Militarism. The bigger the world, the more powerful the ability.

-=Vel=-

[Fayadi]

the question is if u rnt expansionist u can always explore with warrior.i played with expansionist civ before and it sucks.Scout is better than warrior by one movement but it still can explore
Dont tell me u cant explore with warrior
Warrior are so easy to get (5 turns) and I respectfully says u r not using sense u think scout is the only choice to explore lands?Although slower it still can explore ,I do use warriors at times to explore in random maps ,its a great tactic!taking 5 turns to complete warrior is considered nothing when u see the greatness of Industrious, Commercial ,Militaristic
so it is really rubbish if u bother to look.Some of u might say why the hell i wanna waste time listing down the cons of expansionist? u know why ?I was unpleased with the unbalance of Civ III

[Velociryx]

I agree, and I DO use warriors to scout with anytime I'm not playing an Expansionist civ.

The point, however, is that while the scout is "only" one more move than a warrior, it's also twice as fast.

Speed is life in Civ.

-=Vel=-

[Fayadi]

Well IF u wanna trade the greatness of Commercial,Industrious,Militaristic with 1 extra move which u describe life which WOULD U CHOOSE???WHICH ONE?The answer is too obviois to be described

[Velociryx]

'k....well....it sounds like your mind is pretty well made up then. Recommend *against* you playing an Expansionist civ, but don't be terribly surprised if MP comes out and someone with an Expansionist civ hands your hind-end to ya....

-=Vel=-

[Fayadi]

well i believe strongly that i will lose more badly if that "particular" person use other civ ability!

[player1]

Originally posted by Fayadi
Ok Expansionist is only good for newbies in my opnion,u can get 4/5 tech at early game thats good I know Expansionist is an attribute suited to Newbies!U know why?because ppl are too lazy to make full use of Industrious,Religious,Scientific,Militaristic,Comm ercial
These abilities requires micromanagement to reach the full potentials!
Experts (I am not one)know that these attributes could give advantage u in a long term.Although Scientific isnt my favourtie attribute ,i believe scientific is 1000% better than expansionist u know why? ppl normally discover 4 or 5 tech the most with scout !Scientific gives u 3 free tech the whole game but with cheaper library and university?U could advance faster in turns which could give u a total of 7 or 8 tech (including the 3 free advance every era)advantage for the whole game?Expansionist ability expires.
Smart ppl believes in suffer first,enjoy later(but what Industrious gives u obvious advantages throughout the game thats too good!)
greedy ppl believes in enjoy first,suffer later
so guys which u prefer

Just the opposite.
To play Exp. for great benefits (after early ages) you MUST a a VERY GOOD player. To know how to exploit that early advantage.
Like getting most of iron & horse resources. Early tech trade, and later tech SELLING, so can still stay on top (newbies just can't do that).
And extra settler is cruial (Exp. often get one), although other civs can get settlers from hut, it is much rarer then for Exp. Still, if you prefer load/save playing you can get settler from huts without Exp. trait (like some Deity winners).

You must now how to SELL early advantege to get later ADVANTAGE.

NEWBIES don't know that.

This trait need more finnese then any other.

Diffculty of this trait is that exept expertise it needs some amount of LUCK.

With patch techs research is SLOWER.


I think it will be interesting in MP.


P.S.
My favorite Exp. are Iroques (ealy temples), or Americans (exp. & ind. in combo are good ealy advantages)

Never played English or Zulus.

Russans look interesting (huts + extra techs + science boost from cheap libraries)

I never play Exp. on lower then Empror level.


P.P.S
Is it just me or it is impossibile to get more then onece settlers from goody hut.

If it is the case, then I suggest Firaxis to move then limit to 2 settlers (from 2 goody hut) for Expansionistic civs. I that that would make them more balanced to other traits.

[BanastreTa]

When I bought the game and examined the civ traits, I too was among the hordes of people who claimed that expansionist was worthless. I held fast to that for some time.

Not anymore. After reading this thread yesterday, I started my first full-scale game with a focused attempt to exploit "expansionist" (my very first game was with the Americans, but I didn't really know the game well enough yet to really use the civ traits).

I chose to play as the Iroquois on a huge Pangaea. Hours later, I think I'm solidly in the camp of Vel et. al. who have been defending expansionism.

On the Pangaea map, the scouts were a major advantage. Through discovery of many goody huts, I built up a solid tech and treasury lead over all other civilizations in alarmingly quick fashion. Sending out several scouts, the extra move over a warrior allowed me to quickly explore, gaining a vast intelligence, and contact with all other civs.

Of course, I should probably offer one disclaimer as to why the current game may be so enjoyable in addition to the use of the expansionist trait. The Iroquois mounted warrior is an excellent early offensive unit. These things hit hard and move fast. Using a horde of about 15-20 mounted warriors, I've been able to overtake two large neighboring civilizations, the English and the French, and the Iroquois empire is by far the largest in the world. Through conquest and expansion I've built up by far the largest empire I've had by the AD/BC split in Civ 3.

Lest I be too glowing about expansionism, though, I think this still reveals one problem with the militaristic and expansionist traits that renders them, on the whole, less useful than the other ones. Neither trait is as "universal" as scientific, religious, commercial, or industrial, which can be of use in almost any game.

That is, expansionist is a LOT more useful on a huge pangaea map, arguably shooting to the top of the traits. For a game on a small archipelago, expansionist is almost useless. Also, expansionist is basically only a trait for the early part of the game, although it is arguable that if you build up a big early lead that counteracts any future advantages.

The same is true with militaristic--the value of the trait depends on what kind of map you are playing on. On a small map with constant warfare, it is great. On a large map where it takes a long time for things to develop, it isn't as good.

Scientific, Religious, Commercial, and Industrious, however, are useful on any size map, and arguably on any type of game. Even if you are a player who likes to win by conquest, you can still benefit from cheap buildings and fast workers. If you are a culture vulture, however, militaristic is hugely diminished.

Furthermore, it seems most games are being played on "Large Continents" maps, just from my observation. In this setup, neither militaristic nor expansionist traits are particularly useful, unless you get stuck on a small continent with 4 or 5 other civs.

This is also why IMHO the zulus are the worst civ, because their traits are contradictory. One or both will always be broken. If you play Zulu on a huge map, militaristic isn't helpful while expansionist is. If you play Zulu on a small map, militaristic is helpful but expansionist isn't. If you play them on a large map with continents, neither trait is particularly useful

Still, expansionism isn't as bad as I thought it was. If you have been bashing it, you ought to try using it skillfully, as it can produce a very enjoyable game.

BT

[Blackfish]

Originally posted by BanastreTa
When I bought the game and examined the civ traits, I too was among the hordes of people who claimed that expansionist was worthless. I held fast to that for some time.

Not anymore. After reading this thread yesterday, I started my first full-scale game with a focused attempt to exploit "expansionist" (my very first game was with the Americans, but I didn't really know the game well enough yet to really use the civ traits).

I chose to play as the Iroquois on a huge Pangaea. Hours later, I think I'm solidly in the camp of Vel et. al. who have been defending expansionism.

The Iroquois mounted warrior is an excellent early offensive unit. These things hit hard and move fast. Using a horde of about 15-20 mounted warriors, I've been able to overtake two large neighboring civilizations, the English and the French, and the Iroquois empire is by far the largest in the world. Through conquest and expansion I've built up by far the largest empire I've had by the AD/BC split in Civ 3.

Methinks you have been swayed by the:
[1] AI's retarded nature when it coes to mounted warrior rushes
[2] kick-ass strength of the Iroquois UU
[3] specific layout of the map you are playing on (pagena as opposed to archipelego)

I know you went into it in the bits I deleted - I just found it amusing that someone else fell prey to the same problem I had, in that I was wildly enthusiastic about the Aztecs. Until I took a better look at my successes with them and found that most of it came from digesting 3 other opposing civs in the ancient era, and having enough of a lead (tech, economy, size) that I was able to hold onto it into the modern era (not finished the game...).

Do you still think Exp is great? Do you think you would fare well against say... the Aztecs in MP (large or medium map, pagena)?

[Saint Marcus]

u can get 4/5 tech at early game

13 in my last game. Techs from goody huts that is. Not to mention 4 settlers, 400gc money, 7 warriors.

Monarch
16 civs
255x255
Pangea
Large landmass
Iroquis

13 free techs basically means you win the game. No other trait can do that.


Still I'm not a huge fan of exp as a civ attribute. It depends too much on the map you're playing.

[Whoha]

This is a non issue

look, if you think the traits are unbalanced, you can disable them(even without resorting to the editor for once!), problem solved. all the traits are unbalanced according to your logic, as there are instances(mostly revolving around the really easy way to win even on deity, the early game pop rush) where all the traits are useless(and for militaristic if you are a peaceful player) so of course, if you do not use a trait, its quite useless.

[rah]

Early techs from huts can be overcome through trading. And if you get that free settler too far from home, it sometimes isn't that valuable.

BUT I do predict that Exp will come into it's own for MP. Especially if the games are played at Deity. In Deity, huts are almost useless. But those expanionists that can snag 5 or 6 techs from huts will have a great advantage. There will be no AIs to trade rape to stuff the early tech stockings. And since most MP games rarely last more than one or two sessions, the games will not last long enough for the other traits to overcome that advantage. And an early settler will be an even bigger advantage. I think exp/rel civs will offer the best advantages in MP games.

RAH

[player1]

Originally posted by rah
Early techs from huts can be overcome through trading. And if you get that free settler too far from home, it sometimes isn't that valuable.
RAH

I fact, if you are expansionist. Trade techs (read: sell) can give you even better lead. On Deity, getting that extra Settler is cruical for better outcome of game.


As for MP, I think that exept exp/rel, also good one is exp/ind.

Personally I thnik that exp/mil is worst, but having Impis with ability to disalow retreat to enemy horse units can be powerfull.