Uselessness of Expansionist Trait

[King of Rasslin]

Quite a few people have complained about the stupidity of the power graph. Most points come from territory. So, does that mean Russia is the world's most powerful country? Nope.

But it made me think. Although it could be an even match between a small but industrious country and a large but uncultured country, over time the large country will grow stronger. Eventually, the small country will hit a peak and will gradually lose power until the large country hits it's potential. Civ 3 is about potential, not immediate power. That's why territory is so valuable.

What about the people that claim that they are really the strongest, but they don't "waste their time" killing that tall, but weak giant of a country? Well, they aren't really on top. If you are as powerful as you think you are, then you should be able to defeat any country regardless of size.

I lost a game because I didn't see the power of land. Everything you are capable of doing is based on the land's resources and the roads you make on it. So, relax if you start on a small island or a desert peninsula. The scoring system of Civ 3 should be based on improvement, not starting on a river with 3 food tiles next to you.

Ironically, expansionist is the worst trait. It doesn't speed up the rate your settlers move or how much food you need to make them. Im my opinion, an expansionist civ should always start next to a grain tile in addition to what it would normally have. Or, perhaps it should have +1 food in cities bigger than size 4 (after size 6, the land rush is over.)

Expansionist needs more power if it should be taken seriously. Commercial gives you a little more trade, industrious gives you production, and expansionist gives you scouts. Expansionist should be a long-term benefit of having more land, but it doesn't accomplish this goal currently. Do you think the traits are balanced? I don't.

[Inverse Icarus]

no, expansionst is hardly useless, it's just limited, as many other abilities are.

the expansionist trait is for the early game, you can spot bottlenecks, plan future cities, and decide which way to colonize (you often want to colonize towards an AI to cut down their land).

the goody hut bonus they get is also for early game, infact in one game as the english ( ::shiver:: ) i got 3 settlers from huts within the first 10 turns.

recapping: the expansionist ability is for an early leap on the game, and the ability phases out over time. most other abilities (commercial, industrious) have factors that play better at the end of the game (ie extra trade for cities/metrolplis)

[King of Rasslin]

Yep, it does make for short-term benefits. But the free warriors, gold, and an occasional tech advance are just newb benefits. Compared to half priced temples or libraries, a reduction in corruption, or super fast workers, it isn't very good.

I like traits that can be useful in every game. Luck based traits like militaristic and expansionist can be a tremendous asset or a lame duck. Expansionist isn't worth it in most games.

[Pythagoras]

Ive noticed taht in civ 3 land is VERY important, moreso than many other strat games. So to give expansionist civs any more of an edge might really unbalance things. Nevertheless here's some ideas that might give them more of an edge:

Settlers: 2 movement. Originally I thought "move like every square is a road" but I think thats too powerful, with 2 movement they can still get slowed down by terrain.

Emmigration Cultural Conquests: Think Texas. If a city of yours is next to a neighboring city that has room for expansion (ie can feed more people) there is a chance that one of their new citizens they get on expansion is of your ethnicity. Then the chance of cultural flipping to you woud increase.

I hate having cool ideas only to realize they wont get put in the game this late

[Drefsab]

Find one settler in the early game goody hut and bam, double your growth. I usually get to at least 4-5 goody huts that I normally wouldn't have gotten on a normal map when I play an expansionist civ

[nato]

I agree with King of Rasslin. I think expansionistic is usually (though not always) much much weaker than the other traits. I thought this long before Civ3 came out.

Expansionistic is the gambler's trait. You might get settlers and lots of techs and get a huge lead ... or you might get nothing and be at a huge disadvantage to civs with two functioning traits.

The other traits give much more assured benefits. Only militaristic is near as variable as expansionistic. But it gets many more battles to "even out" than expansionistic gets huts or no huts.

I myself never choose expansionistic. I would like it changed to something more stable. Whether you get a huge advantage or no advantage at all, both unbalance the game compared to steady benefits. I would also like expansionistic to actually result in civs being more expansionistic, beyond a lucky settler.

Changing expansionistic would have to be very very careful though. Cities and population are the source of power, as King of Rasslin points out. Anything that increases the actual source of production, rather than just production itself, is a huge advantage. You don't want to end up like the Shang in AOE I ... they got cheaper peons (settlers kind of), and were basically unfair against all other civs.

Increasing Settler speed to 2 might be too powerful. Unfortunately, the numbers for Settlers are too low to be able to give an advantage without being overpowering. 1 movement, 2 pop points to build, 30 shields to build ... these numbers are too low to be able to increase/decrease without huge effects. The only possiblity would be decreasing shield cost to 20 shields ... but that might be too powerful.

I really like the idea of getting 1 extra food in the city. I like this because it so mirrors the extra coin and extra shield of commercial and industrious. Also it is in keeping with expansionistic being a boost in the early game, but less useful late game. Extra food will help early game, but later game, who cares if your city has 1 extra food? You still have to make aquaducts, and to a size 20 city 1 extra food is meaningless.

So I like very much the idea of 1 extra food in cities. Maybe cities get this bonus when they are at least size 2 (but not size 1), so that they can actually build settlers faster and expand like they are supposed to.

This might be too powerful, but it might be worth a try.

[BillChin]

I'll float my idea for Expansionist again. Give them a free Army at the end of each age. Firaxis has to be the one to do this as the editor does not have this kind of capability. On larger maps, one army means little, usually less than a free advance (Scientific). On smaller maps, where scouts and early granaries are junk, a free army is worth a lot. This balances out the trait for small maps.

A free Army opens up a lot of strategy options for single player and multiplayer. More options = more fun, and in this case, changes game balance just a little bit.

[delsolsi]

I really like the one extra food idea. An expansionist civ should have an advantage at growing. I also like the idea of cheeper settlers, this would be like the civs that get cheeper science improvements.

[PhoenixPhlame73]

I think that a good expansionist trait would be that your borders could expand faster, i.e., less culture is required for growing your borders. This almost sounds like an idea for another civ trait "cultural", but a valid case can be made for expanding borders (faster culture) to be for an expansionist civ.

[nato]

I'm thinking about cheaper settlers...

They have two costs, population (2) and shields (30). Like I said these are both low numbers, 2 and effectively 3. To give them a reduced cost on population, you would have to halve the cost, which is too much. To give them a reduced cost on shields, you would have to go to 20, a reduction of 1/3. This isn't as bad as reducing the population cost, but is probably still too much.

The one extra food in the city idea is great because it gets around this number-too-low-to-give-a-price-break issue. It basically reduces the Settler cost from of 2 population points, or 40 food ... but doesn't go all the way to reducing it by 50%. I think in an average city it will reduce the cost by 25% or so (I think it might vary depending on the city).

This would be a lot better than 50%, and somewhat better than 1/3. Still I'm worried it might be too powerful ... cheaper settlers would be so advantageous. An unintended side effect would be that population growth would be quicker even for non-Settler building purposes...

Still its an interesting idea.

[Harovan]

The power of the expansionist trait heavily depends on map settings. The smaller the initial landmass (your first continent or island) is, and the more civs live on it, the weaker is it. And vice versa! The bigger and thinner settled this landmass is, the more powerful is expansionist. Best setting: Huge pangea map, 60% water, 8-10 civs (less would be boring). Under these circumstances, expansionist is worth all other traits summed up!

It will:
- give you all ancient techs for free (just build enough scouts)
- lead you to the best spots of luxuries, resources and fertile land
- bless you with more free settlers (although the "skilled warriors" are worth 2 shields, not more)
- give you military advance, because your fast scouts will spot sneak attacks earlier and are predestined for fooling, misleading and blocking enemy forces
- make granaries available from the beginning, ensuring rapid growth; although a food bonus resource outweights a granary, but that's not always the case
- give you the opportunity, at least for a while to deny resources to your enemies

On maps larger than standard, I seldom play without expansionist. I think, most complains about its weakness come from people who play standard maps or even smaller. Play the Iroquois, Americans or Zulus once on a huge pangea map, and you'll see what I'm talking about. And remember: The power of expansionist may be limited to the ancient age, but who wins the ancient age, usually wins the game, because you'll keep the land, luxuries and resources, gained early, for the whole game.

Disclaimer: The expansionist trait is very poorly handled by the AI, so my statements are limited to the human player.

[King of Rasslin]

I play on standard sized maps. I don't have a state of the art computer or a lot of time. I would play huge maps if I spent more time playing than waiting for the computer to move 50 cavalry around its border every turn.

[Ijuin]

I think that the best thing to strengthen the Expansionist trait without making it overpowered would be for Expansionist civs to be able to build Granaries at half cost (30 shields). This would give Expansionist civs a growth bonus to add to their exploration bonus, without letting them expand so quickly that they overwhelm the other civs in the game.

[Solver]

While all dependant on map settings, Expansionist is the only trait that is *only* viable in the early game. All the others have some, even though, possible, minimal uses for the entire game. Say, you will be building scientific buildings both in the Ancient and Modern Ages. And Industrious works since turn 1 till the finish of the game. Expansionist only works as long as there are huts, you'll explore it all anyway.

Yes, Expansionist could be made stronger by giving them better Settlers, let's say, a bit cheaper. Not 50% though!

[TheEvilCheater]

i think they should get Granaries, aquaducts (spelled wrong) and hospitals at half price or soemthing. Dont think that would imbalance it to much