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

[Hail Caesar!]

I think the main issue is that some people only have one strategy for winning and anything that makes that one strategy difficult for them they think sucks. I guess you can win the game by backstabbing and being an ******* but it doesn't seem to be that fun. I wonder how it will pan out in MP.

[player1]

In fact there is difference between huge 16 player games and standard 8 players games.

Although there is simiala room to settle, there are more huts.

For example in some standard maps it happen to me to not find ANY HUTS (with exansionist).

Somethimes it was 2-3 huts in whole game.

With expansionist.

In those games, I just wondered why I have listed all those guys who say that exp. is great trait.

Maybe it is on larger maps, but not on standard (non-pangea) or smaller.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by player1
In fact there is difference between huge 16 player games and standard 8 players games.

Although there is simiala room to settle, there are more huts.

For example in some standard maps it happen to me to not find ANY HUTS (with exansionist).

Somethimes it was 2-3 huts in whole game.

With expansionist.

In those games, I just wondered why I have listed all those guys who say that exp. is great trait.

Maybe it is on larger maps, but not on standard (non-pangea) or smaller.

When you play at higher levels, you will understand how essential it is to make first contact.

[player1]

I always play at high levels (king - emperor).

[NeOmega]

Then how do you keep pace in the tech race if you are not expansionist?

If you've noticed, at least in emporer, the AI trades techs to eachother for dirt. The only way to keep pace is to be the one to make first contact, or else you'll find yourself w/o any techs, and the rest of the wrold set to enter the middle ages.

[player1]

Get 90% tax, buy tech, make markeplaces, WAR.

After renessance I again become first in tech.

Not being first in tech, is hardly "end of the world".

It's just one step before going back to greatness.

[NeOmega]

Ok, then you and I play differently, I trade tech, sell it, and WAR when I play expansionist.

I play emporer exclusively, and even when I have stacks of cash, most nations won't sell tech. I have to get it by waitign for it to fall to a cheap level in middle ages and early industrial, depending on the civ.

You should just wait for Multiplayer, and when you lose by 2000 B.C. online to an expansionist civ, you'll understand.

[Jack_www]

In Multiplay expansionistic trait will be usefull. If you want to take someone out early in the game. Like has been said a million times, you will see your eniemy, but they wont see you. If you are a builder and like to build up your civ and wait untill you have a good economy before attacking then expansionist wont work for you. It all depends on how you play the game. I could pick the greeks, since they got the 3 defense unit, and build up and wait to attack. Or you could be the Americans and use scouts to find other civ, then build a whole bunch of units once you find someone and rush them. I dont think that any trait is useless, you just have to know how to use them.

[LionQ]

Jack_www, you're absolutely right on that. In my opinion, Expansionist and Scientific are uselees, because I can't use them in my style of gameplay. But for others, these two CivAbilities are maybe their favorites and they can maybe use them very well.

You can use every CivAbility very well, it's depending on you style of gameplay! The one is useless for someone, but very usefúll for anyone else.

[Zero]

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.

Just about all the civ traits are map dependent. Larger map, more unit, more promotion(mil) Larger map more library more sci (sci) Rel - more temple, com - corruption (again map based) ind - more terrain more work needed... etc.

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.

How is that cheating? Even if you are not an expansionist civ you should be doing that. The part of the game is to be stronger than your competitor to WIN. That also includes possibility of weakening ur enemies. Expansionistics just have an advantage over such "cheesy" tactic that you describe as which should be mimiced by all civs whether exp or not!

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?

Fiddle around with what parameters? You get a scout and a increased chance of getting better result in huts, is abusing that advantage considered "fiddling around"? How does "giving yourself a panzer" even compare to what your describing here?

[aaglo]

Before Civ3 came out, I thought that expansionistic trait means something like "less corruption in distant cities" (very much like the commercial trait). Essentially that's what makes it worthwhile to expand, you have less corruption in very distant cities.

If Expansionistic should become something like "25% less corruption due to the distance from capital", then it would be useful trait. It raises an interesting question: Is there a commercial/expansionistic civ? (I cannot remember - was it Americans)?

[Jethro83]

The commercial/expansionist civ is the English.

Quite a weak combination of traits though, thus making the English the most difficult civ to master.

[player1]

Although from 1.29f patch commercial is not so weak anymore.

Still UU is poor.

[WarpStorm]

I have to agree. The traits are pretty good, but they have a very weak UU. It can be outdated before you get one built.

[player1]

That why I moved Ironclads to Industralisation in my MOD (and gave them cost of 100).

That's should partialy fix Frigate and Man-O-War weakness probelms.

But that would just happen, in games when naval combat is importatnt.