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

[Hail Caesar!]

Oh, even though Scientific never suits my strategy, I must say that the free techs they get for new eras is really aggravating. And they never ever trade it!



Many brave Persian Immortals have perished as a result of Xerxes' senseless stinginess.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Hail Caesar!
Oh, even though Scientific never suits my strategy, I must say that the free techs they get for new eras is really aggravating. And they never ever trade it!



Many brave Persian Immortals have perished as a result of Xerxes' senseless stinginess.

nationalism seems particularly difficult to get out of the AI, maybe its just me.

[SpencerH]

Its probably been said before but expansionist will be an important trait for MP. Mike B said in the last chat that expansionist and miltarist (I think) were the most popular in testing.

[player1]

I just don't get it.

I played with expansionist trait a lot, but in more them 50% of cases it was just wasted trait (no realy benefit at all).

Still, in those other 40% it was OK, and in lucky 10% cases it was great.

Maybe that has something to do with me playing normal Standard sized maps?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by player1

Maybe that has something to do with me playing normal Standard sized maps?

Yes, probably so. I play huge and giga maps, thus more territory and more huts and therefore more valuable. Thats where the value increases tremendously. On standard it is more likely to not be as valuable. It may be, but you have to be lucky. In all honesty, I would probably pick another trait if I was playing standard and smaller maps.

[WarpStorm]

I usually play the default map settings and in almost all cases expansionistic is good. The only times when it isn't is when I get stuck on a small island (rare on the default map type). I almost always get a few techs and a settler or even an advanced city. But these bonuses while great are incidental to the true value of expansionistic.

Knowledge of your surroundings.

The expansionistic players have much better idea of where to put their second and third cities. I can usually grab up all the good spots very quickly. In addition, on occasion I've wiped out or strangled rivals before they ever found my fledgling empire.

[SpencerH]

For MP, where the games are much much shorter, one extra settler and a few other goodies in the early game can make the difference between winning and losing.

[Hail Caesar!]

I play gigantic map but not because I'm always America, and thus it benefits me to be Expansionist. I play gigantic map because it's so boring having one, maybe two neighbors in the whole world.

Anyway if you play gigantic with 16 neighbors Expansionist doesn't really give you an advantage. Especially when you're on a continent with Liz and Cathy and Hiawatha and everyone else is on the other continent.

[Sonic]

Hail, I am always playing gigantic - archipelago - 80% water. This way it is the most realistic, since you also have to have navy and explore, also you don't have all opponents a start.

[Artifex]

"Yes, probably so. I play huge and giga maps, thus more territory and more huts and therefore more valuable. Thats where the value increases tremendously. On standard it is more likely to not be as valuable. It may be, but you have to be lucky. In all honesty, I would probably pick another trait if I was playing standard and smaller maps."

"Anyway if you play gigantic with 16 neighbors Expansionist doesn't really give you an advantage. Especially when you're on a continent with Liz and Cathy and Hiawatha and everyone else is on the other continent."

Another reason why I hate expansionist, it is so map dependent. I hate Large/Huge maps (as does my processer). A trait that requires you to play huge maps to derive a benifit is broken.

Also, to get it's benifit, you have to decrease your opponents and hand pick non expansionist civs so they don't take all the huts. (to me this is almost like cheating, at the very least very cheesy). The trait is a cheesy, broken trait.

When you have to fiddle around with the parameters so much to get a trait to be useful, to me thats a clear sign it is badly broken. Why not give yourself a few panzer tanks in 4000 bc while your at it?

[Hail Caesar!]

Geez if you guys want something to whine about you should complain about all the morons who post about how they mod their infantry to have 4 movement to make warmongering especially easy.

Expansionist on a large map with 8 players is about the same as a huge map with 16 players. At the end of the land grab you still end up with about the same amount of territory. There really isn't any advantage if you are expansionist to playing on a huge map or a small map.

One thing I would like to add. When I play expansionist I have at least 3, usually 4, scouts running the continent to find goody-boxes. Maybe some people who gripe about it are only limiting themselves to the one bonus scout they get on start.

Anyway I don't think there is anything better or worse about all of these traits. They seem to be pretty well balanced. Warmongers who cannot play any other mode will of course ***** about anything that does not give them an advantage (and mod the units so that they get an even greater advantage). You should go play Starcraft or Age of Empires or something.

Shheeez

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Artifex
Another reason why I hate expansionist, it is so map dependent. I hate Large/Huge maps (as does my processer). A trait that requires you to play huge maps to derive a benifit is broken.

Also, to get it's benifit, you have to decrease your opponents and hand pick non expansionist civs so they don't take all the huts. (to me this is almost like cheating, at the very least very cheesy). The trait is a cheesy, broken trait.

I am one of the biggest proponents for expansionistic here and I almost always play standard size maps with random opponents. I will still say that it is very competetive under these condition and is one of my favorites. I won't say I've never gotten a start where it didn't pan out as awesome (I have had the small island start), but most games it is very good.

Having said that, if you knew you were starting on an archipeligo with high water, it might not be your best choice.

I think most people who think it is a weak trait don't understand how to play it well.

[Hail Caesar!]

Originally posted by WarpStorm

I think most people who think it is a weak trait don't understand how to play it well.

They are the same people who mod the units to allow for an easier military victory. I'm sorry I've just been reading some of the threads about how awesome it is to mod all the military units and it's starting to get on my nerves.

I'm using this thread to vent, I suppose.

Anyway my Expansionist strategy is because I play Americans primarily. Not the other way around (i.e., preferring Americans because I'm go Expansionist).

But as Expansionist I'll still have swordsmen before anyone else. Which comes in handy nice when your neighbors are Monty and Liz. I'm supposing this will go as well in MP unless you are fortunate enough to have iron near your first or second cities.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Hail Caesar!


One thing I would like to add. When I play expansionist I have at least 3, usually 4, scouts running the continent to find goody-boxes. Maybe some people who gripe about it are only limiting themselves to the one bonus scout they get on start.

this is a great point. Perhaps the detractors think they can only have that one scout. If this were the case, yes it would suck. My build sequence is usually: scout-warrior-scout-settler. rinse repeat for each city. Thus I get a whole lot of territory covered quickly, popping tons of huts, getting all the techs for free and finding all the luxuries and opponents.

someone who thinks this trait is broken just doesn't know how to play the game.

[NeOmega]

so what if you don't get godie huts if the map is crowded? If the map is crowded, you make first contact and trade techs immediately, and get ahead in the tech race.

I think anyone that dislikes the expansionist trait thinks about it too much. Fact is, a inexperienced player would have no idea why their game is going so well, "even though" they chose expansionist. It's benefits are not to be discounted, slight as they seem they are a head start in a long, downhill race. (and I'm talking about soap box derby cars :P )