Expansionistic Trait needs to be overhauled for conquests

[Artifex]

I hate expansionistic, lets face it expansion is weak unless you are playing on a larger maps. Now I never play on a huge map it takes way too long and it slows down most mid to low end PCs.

On the flip side on a huge map expansion may be TOO powerful.

My argument is this: Making a Map Dependent trait is just a bad idea. It leads to imbalance depending on map size.

The trait is just a ridiculous trait, it needs to be totally reworked.

The trait is too MAP dependent. Overly weak on small maps, overly powerful on huge maps. Pretty useless and weak on average maps (I play average maps mostly). Useless on island maps, useless on continent maps for the most part (unless huge..maybe so-so on large).. great large, huge pangea. Still poorly concieved on all maps.

Regardless of this traits power or lack therof depending on map..I just think it is a badly implemented trait.

I don't like it being a hut popping trait..that is basically all it is and you get a scout to explore plus cheaper scouts. I know you can find other civs and luxuries with your scouts but compared to the other traits and my playign this game for 2 years..it is not a good trait vs the others.

I think expansion should be totally reworked alltogether and have nothing to do with scouts or huts. Therefore it would have nothing to do with map size. Maybe you can give the civs certain bonuses or privaleges who are expansion. Totally different than what they are now. Remove huts and scouts form the equation or at least huts and then give expansion civs something else, rework the trait.

I can enjoy every other trait in civ 3. I play all the different civs and can enjoy each one...except the expansion trait..I have always disliked it..I play smaller and medium maps as well. Even if I played huge maps it would be too much of an advantage, so I still wouldn't like it.

Expansion needs to be made where it is valuable whatever map you like to play on. So players who like average maps and single play can play an expansionistic civ sometimes if they want to.

I think when the devs came to this trait it was an afterthought, they were kinda lazy..Just make scouts cheap and make it a hut popping trait. Bad idea.

I hope this trait gets reworked for Conquests.

[pauli]

i'm rather attached to it, myself... but i play on oversized maps.

[vmxa1]

I all for it, but they are not going to redo it and then face all the play testing needed to see if it was unbalanced or not.

[alexman]

Expansionist is one of my favorite traits on all map sizes, actually, especially in MP.

And while it's true that this trait is better on sparsely populated maps (huge maps with 16 civs have more tiles per civ than a standard map with 8 civs. Have you tried playing expanisonists on a smaller map with fewer than max civs?), many other traits are also dependent on game settings. For example, the Commercial is also better on sparsely-populated maps (more cities per civ), and Militaristic is better on larger land masses (more battles).

[Bleyn]

Personally I like expansionist. But I am one of those who prefers huge maps.

Though if it were to be modded, I can think of a couple of ways that it could be done without removing the current advantages while remaining true to the idea of "Expansionist"

1. Reduce their shield cost to build settlers. They are expansionists after all. Allowing them to build settlers faster would increase their expansionist abilities and of itself is not more than moderately tied to map size.

2. Maybe allow expansionists to settle new cities at size 2. That would be a major bonus to expansionists. Quite possibly too powerful I'm sure, given that it also pushes them back towards more potential for ICS abuse.

Combine one or both of these with the current expansionist traits, and they would definitely be more powerful. I don't know what else could be given to them as traits. And honestly, I suspect that just about anything someone could come up with for expansionist is going to have some corrolation to map-size in terms of utility. Ie. the more room there is to expand, the better expansionism will be.

Now can the Scenerio editor mod Civ-traits? Never seen the editor, so I have no clue if these are simple things to mod, or if they would require serious hard-code changes.

[Louis XXIV]

I like the expansionist trait, although it really doesn't help for expansion.

It seems that Agricultural might help you expand faster than expansionist ever did (By expand, I mena more cities).

Speaking of traits that are dependant on map, what about Seafaring. Seems like it will give you a huge bonus to navies, but at what price?

[WarpStorm]

Based on my experience, I think it is the second strongest trait already.

[Rhothaerill]

I'm not a huge fan of the expansionist trait, but it does have it's moments. I'm currently playing Apolyton University 209 and the use of the scout gave me quite a boost in the ancient age and allowed me to do something I wouldn't have been able to do without the expansionist trait.

[alexman]

Based on my experience, I think it is the second strongest trait already.

Speaking of the strongest trait, has anyone heard any rumors of any plans to weaken Industrious? I wonder if the C3C playtesters agree that the Industrious trait is currently a bit unbalancing for MP...

[G'Kar]

I think expansionist civs should get an advanced settler later in the game that has 3 moves and/or builds cities with a cultural improvment. Thus Expan civs can either scramble for free land after war faster or they can expand their borders faster in outlying, useless cities.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Defcon5
I think expansionist civs should get an advanced settler later in the game that has 3 moves and/or builds cities with a cultural improvment. Thus Expan civs can either scramble for free land after war faster or they can expand their borders faster in outlying, useless cities.

Now THAT would be unbalancing to the non-expansionistic civs...

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Wittlich
Now THAT would be unbalancing to the non-expansionistic civs...

Yes and no. It depends on how late in the game that the uber-settler would be available. Maybe in the mid-industrial age perhaps. Most of the world is usually settled by the middle ages so the only settlers that get built after that are to replace those cities that were razed.

I really don't think they should change expansionist though. It's not my favorite trait, but that doesn't mean it can't be a good trait. My main dislike is it's very random whether the trait will serve you well or not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Bleyn
1. Reduce their shield cost to build settlers. They are expansionists after all. Allowing them to build settlers faster would increase their expansionist abilities and of itself is not more than moderately tied to map size.

This would screw up settler farms.

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by skywalker


This would screw up settler farms.

Settler farms?

[WarpStorm]

Settler farms are cities whose whole point of existence is to crank out settlers. You get them so that they complete the building on the same turn as it grows.

Alexman, I agree that Industrious is unbalanced in MP (as is Expansionistic).