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

[Jethro83]

True that Commercial has been a stronger trait since the 1.29 patch, but I hardly find it to go very well with the Expansionist trait (except on Archipelago maps where you'll want Map Making very quickly). Both traits are only really strong when combined with a stronger trait like Religous or Industrious.

I find Commercial to go better with Industrious, Sceintific or Militaristic.

Expansionist only seems strong to me when combined with Scientific (cheaper libraries + extra techs from goody hut can possibly guarantee a continual lead in technology) and Industrious (granaries + quick irrigation and mining + free settlers from goody huts lead to more settlers, and therefore more cities).

So basically, I find the best expansionist civs to be the Americans and Russians. Though the Zulu and Iroquois are also up there purely because of their UU.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
The commercial/expansionist civ is the English.

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

I disagree. English have two wonders that can give them an early, but no tto early Golden Age. These wonders are the Collossus and The Lighthouse. Also because both are coastal wonders, there is less competition. The GA will fall at a very crititcal time, when 3- 6 cities have been built, and are harboring a small population.

[aaglo]

In another thread someone mentioned, that there is a new goody hut result. An advanced city (perhaps with a couple of population & a couple of buildings - I don't know)

So this makes the expansionistic trait a bit better.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I disagree. English have two wonders that can give them an early, but no tto early Golden Age. These wonders are the Collossus and The Lighthouse. Also because both are coastal wonders, there is less competition. The GA will fall at a very crititcal time, when 3- 6 cities have been built, and are harboring a small population.

I can see how the golden age from the Lighthouse could greatly benefit the English, however, the golden age doesn't guarantee victory, no matter how well timed, and well used it was.

The Expansionist trait is only useful at the beginning, when there are goody huts, and vast tracts of open land yet to be built upon. That means that this trait does nothing for you once everything has been built on. And the Commercial trait, while having been strengthened by the 1.29 patch is still too weak to use without a stronger trait to reinforce its effect (ie. Industrious or Scientific), and since Expansionist only affects the early game, it would be standing alone in the late game, when Militaristic, Industrious, Scientific, or even Religous would have been of more benefit.

Besides, 3-6 cities with a small population, under a despotic government isn't that significant as a golden age. A better one would be in the Middle Ages at the point where knights (or samurai, riders or elephants) are available, since there will be more cities, larger populations and more powerful wonders available to build.

That's just my opinion, and corresponds with how I play anyway. Of course, I am a bit too much of a warmonger to be able to build any of the earlier wonders (apart from the Great Library, and sometimes the Hanging Gardens) and such a strategy would hardly work for me.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by aaglo
In another thread someone mentioned, that there is a new goody hut result. An advanced city (perhaps with a couple of population & a couple of buildings - I don't know)

So this makes the expansionistic trait a bit better.

Indeed, thay would raise the popularity of Expansionist. I didn't know that is in PtW, but now you're talking about it, I'm remembering that that could happen in Civ2. You "walked in" a GoodyHut and sometimes you get a city with size 3 or 4, with some Improvements, like a Marketplace or a Temple, for example. It would be nice if this would return to Civ3 in PtW!

[notyoueither]

The City Result can be a draw back in elimination...

[NeOmega]

Well I have now played 6 MP games, in the middle of a co-op.

Expansionist is the best trait for MP.

If you have ever played RTS Multiplayer games, you would know, they are usually resolved in half hour or less, and a good game is when all the big stuff is built.

Well same goes for Civ III. Most competitive games end during the ancient age. Expansionist trait gives you a big advantage duirng this age.

[LionQ]

Could be. Never played MultiPlayer, so.....

[Wittlich]

I myself, prefer the expansionistic trait - especially when you also have the religious trait.

Expansion - better "goods" from goodie huts along with starting the game with a scout. (Great for the beginning of the game - which "sets the stage" for the rest of the game)

Religion - Cheaper temple/cathedrals along with only having a 1-turn arnarchy between government changes.

In my book, this is an EXCELLENT combination.

[LionQ]

Now we're all giving examples in which game style Expansionist is excellent or not. So I'm thinking this thread has reached is dead end.

[vmxa1]

I have to stick head out there to be whacked, but I dislike Exp and really do not care for the exp/rel combo.
First the goody hut stuff is not that great and helps the other civs as you add to the learned techs, making them cheaper. Once the hut phase is over it pays nothing in the way of dividends. (note I got nealy all he huts on my land and did not get a settler or a city). Rel was a fav of my until now. Cheap temples and the like is not bad, but will not win the day. Switch govs sounds good, but how often do you really need to do it? When combined as in the Arabs, it is a real anchor. To me the larger the map the less I want exp as the more I will miss Ind/Mil or even Com. The bigger the map the less I need the scouts as I will get plenty of huts anyway. The bigger the more roads and improvements I will need o make and the more Ind could help me and it last the whole game. Not getting promotions to elites, means no leaders as is my case now.

[LionQ]

Well, I dislike Exp too. IMO, every combination is good, excepting the ones with Exp. I prefer Mil+Ind, but Mil+Rel is good too, just like Comm+Ind and Mil+Comm. Those four are the best, according to me. Every combination with Exp is bad, imo.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by 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.

That's only true if you're playing with 2 or 3 players AND you're at a difficulty level that doesn't give the AI a decent chance. When you have a lot of competition, it's going to take a long time to win, so your early knowledge is not going to help much. Also, to trade luxuries, others need to know the path to your capital.

[LionQ]

And there has to be a Road, too.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by realpolitic

That's only true if you're playing with 2 or 3 players AND you're at a difficulty level that doesn't give the AI a decent chance. When you have a lot of competition, it's going to take a long time to win, so your early knowledge is not going to help much. Also, to trade luxuries, others need to know the path to your capital.

finding and building a city near a potential second source of luxuries can be agreat advantage throughout the game.