Expansionistic trait should be dropped, it's a wasted trait

[Artifex]

I hate that useless trait. They should get rid of it altogether. It is a wasted trait.

It saddens me that the mongols are gonna be saddled with a wasted trait. They were my favorite civ in civ2.

They should drop expansionistic and give every civ a choice of 2 out of 3 possible traits. That way you could play some cool civs without having to be weakened by a useless trait.

It has kept me from playing some neat civs that should be enjoyable just because they are saddled with a useless trait. (Russians for instance).

Like russia could start with 3 possible traits "Militaristic, scientific, expansionist". You pick 2 of the three before you start the game.

Better yet Expansionistic should be replaced with a more uselful trait.

[Artifex]

Some are gonna say "Hey! It's fun on a Huge or Giga map!"

My response is..if you have to play a giga map to make a trait useful then that trait is badly broken to begin with.

[Terser]

Expansionistic civs suck so hard because the usefullness of one of their traits is intrinsically linked to the size and geography of the map played on. On maps that are small and/or filled with islands expansionistic is essentially worthless. So you pop a goody hut one turn earlier and get a settler instead of some gold. If you're on an island that settler probably isn't going to do much good, anyway.

Anyone who plays an expansionistic civ in multiplayer--especially on an island or archipelago map--can and will be targeted for extermination by the obviously more experienced players. The expasionistic civs will be clubbed like dewey-eyed, downy-furred baby Harp Seals. The only difference is, the Harp Seal can crawl away...

Possible solutions to improving the expansionistic trait (I don't pretend to be the first person to think or post these, so please, no accusations of plagiarism):

--Bonus to population growth. Decrease the amount of food needed to produce a new citizen by a fourth or even a third for expansonistic civs.
--Make the scout stronger (of course, anyone can do this with the editor). Give it an attack of one, or even boost its movement to three.
--Somehow give the cities of expansionistic civs additional "bonus" squares in their radii. This would allow them quicker and easier access to luxury/strategic resources. It probably would be overly powerful later in the game, but if you coupled this with the lame scout and goody hut bonuses they currently possess the expansionistic civs would probably still just be breaking even.

[WarpStorm]

I humbly disagree.

The thing that's interesting is that the guys at Firaxis and the beta testers swear that it is the absolute best trait in multiplay.

I have to agree with them. Early knowledge is very, very important in multiplay (and important in SP). Have you considered that you haven't learned how to use expansionistic yet? I think it a toss up between industrious for the best trait. Yes, very rarely, I've gotten a map where the bonus was minimal. No, I don't usually play Pangaeas.

[N. Machiavelli]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I think that the Expansionist trait can be very useful if in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Reconnaissance is very important, especially in the beginning of the game and even more especially in multiplayer. What the scout unit allows you is access to knowledge of land, resources, luxuries, and your enemies’ location before anyone else. Considering that a majority of multiplayer Civ3 games are going to be played on the smaller maps, knowledge and subsequent access to the very limited resources is going to be key. The non-negative Goodie Huts are a decent bonus as well.

Is the Expansionist trait the most powerful? Not really. That title belongs to either Militaristic or Religious. Is Expansionistic the least useful? Not at all. IMHO, that belongs to Scientific. Don’t get me wrong, the trait could certainly do with some boosting, but with the correct application and skill, Expansionistic can be a very powerful tool. I’d much rather be a crack shot with a pistol than a new recruit with a bazooka.

[brianshapiro]

renconaissance? i play expansionist and use scouts to uncover goody huts in many games i discover all ancient techs just by scouting

[N. Machiavelli]

Yes, reconnaissance. Discovering where your opponant's cities are located, how many he has, how far he is, how advanced are his troops, things like that. If I can find out where he is long before he discovers the same about me, then I hold a significant advantage. The scout can help me achieve that.

[brianshapiro]

no yes i just dont use it primarily for reconaissance. to the people in the forum: i, almost ALWAYS use expansionistic. my strategy in civ2 was the same strategy the AI is using in civ3, settler diahrea and exploration. my game playing has been upset now that the AI uses my strategy.

anyway in civ3 i use it mainly to see what direction i should start building cities in (makes my expansion and gameplay more efficient) and getting goody huts

[N. Machiavelli]

I imagine that PtW is (at least for the first few months) is going to be played a bit differently.

[asleepathewheel]

I totally disagree that expansionist trait should be eliminated.

already been stated but here's my reasons

1. great goody huts- can get all the ancient techs for free! can sell basic techs to get off quickly. maybe strike gold on that first hut and get another settler. Don't have to worry about popping a hut with a settler/worker/city.

2. learn location of enemies quickly

3. learn location of luxuries quickly, send settler to claim

4. more explored, world map is more valuable

I play giga maps, pangea, so they are even more useful.

a strong early start usually wins the game, and I find that if I can build a 3-4 tech lead early, I can sustain my drives a lot longer.

Each trait is useful, if you know how to use it effectively.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Artifex
Some are gonna say "Hey! It's fun on a Huge or Giga map!"

My response is..if you have to play a giga map to make a trait useful then that trait is badly broken to begin with.

I find it to be useful on standard maps.

I don't find any traits to be useful on tiny maps, if that is your point. Scientific? I don't find this useful on any map size. Industrious? Theres not much territory to work on. etc. etc. I find your reasoning to be unfounded.

[Inverse Icarus]

i added a second wheeled settler unit with 2 moves for expansionist civs (costs 50 shilds, as compared to 30).

havent seen the AI use it too often though

[Kingof the Apes]

Expansionistic is one of my favorite, because, as stated, you get many of the ancient techs for free.
In the beggining of the game, set your slider to 0 and just watch the cashand techs roll in!

[Slax]

Firaxis is probably just defending a poor decision. In multiplay, I'll bet we'll see that the expansionist trait does indeed suck.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Slax
Firaxis is probably just defending a poor decision. In multiplay, I'll bet we'll see that the expansionist trait does indeed suck.

I wouldn't bet on it, think on this:

Imagine getting Iron working or, Horseback riding, getting the first Uber units in your first couple of turns, or early settlers, even gold helps, however non expansionist players will pop barbarians at times.

Getting swordsmen in just a couple of turns would be a HUGE advantage.