At what map setting/opponent # does the "expansionistic" trait start to become good?

[Artifex]

This post is all in regards to single player, I don't play multiplayer.

I play a standard map, regular land mass, continents with maximum opponents. On these maps I play I think expansionistic stinks.

On larger maps I get bored too easily.

One thing I notice is that the AI's automatically know where all the huts are...and send out scouts to hut pop like heat seeking missles. It always seems I only get 4 or 5 huts max each game..and the AI scouts beat me to all the huts since they know where they are. They run circles around me.

Am I doing somethign wrong? Do I not know how to use this trait?

I often hear that expansionistic is really powerful and good on certain larger maps.

At what map setting, number of opponents does expansionistic start to become worthwhile?

At what map setting would you call the "cut off" point and deem expansionist as not worth it?

Is any standard map setup available that would make expansionist worthwhile?

Most of the PTW civs are expansionist..so I am missing out on half of the expansion pack by forsaking this trait.

[CerberusIV]

I recently played a regent level game on the same settings you quote as the Zulus. The rival civs on my continent were the Ottomans, Persians and Babs. I managed to hit 11 or 12 goody huts with two scouts and map most of the continent.

I find expansionist becomes less helpful if there are expansionist AI civs on your continent or at monarch level where the AI starts with additional units.

The best thing to do with expansionist is build a second scout as your first unit so you can cover more ground.

The downside that annoys me is in a couple of recent games I got two towns (not settlers) out of distant goody huts and had to abandon them as corruption and nearby AI civs made them a liability.

Try a game where you pick the AI civs and make sure none of them are expansionist. That should make it worthwhile on a standard map unless you are playing above monarch level.

[Aeson]

I think higher difficulty actually makes it more worthwhile given the same map settings. Tech is more costly, early contact is worth more, and barbs from huts are more dangerous (and likely IIRC) the higher the difficulty level. These are all areas where Expansionist helps.

On smaller landmasses there are less huts. While this would seem to negate the Expansionist's advantage, it isn't as pronounced as you might think. If you're expansionist and share a landmass with some neighbors, you're much more likely to get those few huts that there are, instead of it being the other way around. If you get just one tech in this scenario, that's a 8-40 turn advantage in research, and possibly more as you've kept a shot at a tech out of your opposition's hands.

Also on smaller maps contacts come more quickly. Above Regent, the AI are going to have their extra unit(s) out and about from turn one. Your starting Scout can beat the AI's units in making contact first (assuming equal distance needed), but your first Warrior would almost surely make contact later. This means the Scout gives you the chance to opt into the round of starting tech trading, instead of being left out of it by the AI.

I tend to get longwinded on this subject... sorry. I'll cut it short.

What I'm saying is that certain aspects of the Expansionist trait are useful on any settings. On a Large/Pangaea it probably beats out even Industrious, whereas on standard settings it's about on par with Scientific.

[Bluefrog]

Expansionist is most valuable, on any map setting, when your opponents are not expansionist. And the older the world, the better; I hate starting with an expansionist civ in the middle of a dense jungle or a ton of hills/mountains. It totally negates the usefullness of the trait.

As long as you have flat terrain, build several scouts, not warriors, at the start of the game, and send them out everywhere. Always end their move on a mountain or hill, if possible. And as for the AI knowing where the huts are, I really don't believe it is true. I've had maps with just a few goodie huts, and it seemed like the AI was grabbing them all, and I've had the AI beat me to the punch by one turn on more than one occassion. But, I've beaten the AI by one turn as well many times. The real reason (albeit anecdotal) that I don't think the AI knows where they are is that I've nabbed several just a couple tiles away from their borders on many times.

What would really help this trait, and make a lot of sense on the side, is to cut the shield cost of settlers by about 3-5 (for expansionist civs only, of course).

[Nor Me]

Re: At what map setting/opponent # does the "expansionistic" trait start to become

Originally posted by Artifex
I play a standard map, regular land mass, continents with maximum opponents. On these maps I play I think expansionistic stinks.

That is odd because it is on about these settings that I think expansionistic becomes good.
In my last 12 games on Emperor on these settings as an expansionist, I have not once failed to get a settler from a hut. Of course, you have to play for that (build a few scouts, hold off on the first settler).
Early contacts, tech, knowledge of the map and just being able to see enemy units with scouts gives you an effective military advantage early on. I seem to be rushed early more often in PTW so this helps.
OK, expansionist is not as good as industrious on these settings but they're are occasions where I'd rather have it than the other traits.

[joncnunn]

Size of map doesn't matter much for Expansionism, except that starting positions tend to be more random on the smaller maps. (I have started as few as 3 tiles away from an oppoent on Tiny maps and as many as 20 tiles away from my nearest oppoent on tiny maps [this is about 1/3rd of the way around the world on this scale] as well.) So chances of Expansionism being useless are greatly increased on Tiny maps but so is the chance of it being highly valuable.

What does matter is:

Amount of land for the map: More than normal land will improve the value Exapansionism. Less than normal land will reduce it.

Pangena vs Archepello: Pangena improves Expansionism. Achepello hurts Expansioism.

If there are less than max oppoents for the map, Expansionism is boosted. Conversely, moding the files to cram more than normal max oppoents onto a map destroys the value of expanionism.

If there is a range of 2 / 3 MP terraign that can't be walked around, that will hurt Expansionism.

Yes, there's an added bonus for Expansionism if there's not a nearby oppoent with it as well.

[theNiceOne]

One thing Artifex failed to mention is how he tried to take advantage of the expansionist trait, as he doesn't mention how many scouts he built - my guess is that he built none, but only used the one he started with.

Doing that is like complaining about scientific in a game where you didn't build a single linrary or university.

Unless the map is overcrowded or you're on an island, you should build several scouts asap. Aside from gaining more techs and other stuff from more huts, you will also get contact before any other and know where to settle.

Getting contact with several civs that don't have contact with each other is a great advantage when trading techs. You may sell your techs for almost full price to all civs (since they don't know each other) while you get to buy at half price (if you know several civs who have the tech).

[Artifex]

I build tons of scouts.. I churn them out bigtime..at least 8 in my first city.. expansionist sucks..doesn't matter how many scouts. There are only so many huts. I exploit that trait for everything it's worth ..It never pays off, on the standard size maps I play on.


On the other hand look at militaristic..I do good with that trait many times..playing on emperor..I will get great leaders and it will pay off. But Expansionist never pays off for me..those stories of players getting all thier ancient era advances from huts..I just don't see it. I am lucky to get 2 advances on standard and thats with a dozen scouts scouring the map.

[CerberusIV]

I'm playing as the Arabs on a standard, continents map at regent level. I built two scouts then switched to warriors/settlers.

What I did get out of the scouts was the discovery that I am sharing a good sized continent (about 1/3 of total landmass I suspect) with only the Ottomans. I got virtually every goody hut but the real advantage was knowledge of the map. That decided me on an early war with the Ottomans so I beelined Iron Working and razed three of their cities. They are down to five and I have eight. I will let their industrious workers clear the area of jungle I have confined them to, reduce them further and get another peace treaty when they are down to one city. I will finish them off once I have Ansars and that will start my GA.

The point is that my gameplan is based on the knowledge that my scouts gained and that I was able to start on it quicker that if I had not had scouts.

[joncnunn]

Hum, 8 Scouts is just as much a mis-use of Expansionism as building none.

I think the best tactic to use for the capital as Expanioist is:

1. Build Scout
2. Build Granery (using worker to chop down forest to speed it along if possible)
3. Build Settler
4. Build Warrior

Have the first non-capital city you get also build a scout first. And if there's still a lot of unexplored terrtioy, do the same with the second non-capital city you get.

[Artifex]

So 3 scouts max? Hmm.

Anyway, I'm mainly curious about minimum map settings for expansionist to be worth it.

It's viability on continents, standard map is dubious at best. What do you think?

[Aeson]

I think if you use it right it's viable to powerful (if you use it no holds barred against the AI, Scouts = no Iron for them) on any settings except when you're all alone on a small landmass.

[Artifex]

(if you use it no holds barred against the AI, Scouts = no Iron for them)

Scouts can camp (deny resources) in enemy territory without getting attacked or expelled?

[Naiveplayer]

If you're at peace with a civ and you put a scout on an iron tile, they can't build a road on it. They'll ask you to leave but if you're cool enough they won't do anything really bad about it. Unless war breaks loose.

[theNiceOne]

IMHO, there are two "problems" with expansionist that other traits don't have (or have to a much lesser degree).
The first is that expansionist is harder to use right than other traits. You get full power out of religious by building temples and switching governements and everyone do that, etc. But to use expansionist correctly, you need to know how many additional scouts you should build. Most new players build none and end up thinking the trait is useless.

The second is that while all other traits give relatively similar benefits from game to game, expansionist may hadn you the game in turn two in one game, and do virtually nothing in the next - it is simply very much more random than any other trait.

In my last non-ptw game, I played Russia on a large game (fully packed) on emperor - everything else random. On the second turn, my scout popped a hut and gave a settler, on a very goo spot (adjacent to river, with cattle in city radius). That allowed me to out-expand all the AIs on emperor, so the game was never a nail-biter. There is no other trait that can give such a large benefit. But in other games you may get a warrior or two and some knowledge of the map. A bit helpful, but nothing close to any other trait.

On average, I think expansionist, when used well, is on par with most other traits.