Are civ traits balanced?

[chiefpaco]

I'm with you all the way, alexman. Something for commercial seems necessary, maybe using the % in some way like you suggested.

Some sort of guaranteed benefit for Expansionist might be ok, like a cheaper granary. It would be a failsafe for a bad starting position for them. I do think them starting with granaries is pretty powerful though.

An equal argument can be made for the rest, IMO.

It just seems like I'm missing something when I get a civ that gets no cheap buildings. I understand the need for variety, but I'm not sure it comes out fairly.

[BillChin]

I have an idea for Expansionist, especially if scout resource blocking is patched out at some point.

Expansionist civs get a free army at the end of each age. Gives a big boost when the early bonuses are long gone. Opens up a whole batch of interesting new strategies in single player and multiplayer for Expansionists. A free army is useful, but is not overpowering (except on tiny maps). In many situations a player would prefer a free advance (Scientific) over a free army.

Other people have suggested a two-move settler special unit, maybe make that available at the end of the first age.

While I'm at it, maybe give Commercial free maintenance on Marketplaces or maybe one extra gold for each Marketplace so Smith's Trading company is still useful. This gives them a decent gold boost without changing game balance much at all. A change in the percentage would be too big of a bonus later in the game.

[Sean]

I find expansionist useless. The poor English get stuck with both Commercial and Expansionist, not to mention a lame UU. It frustrates me, because I traditionally play as the English.

[Harovan]

I dare to say, that at any map larger than standard Expansionist is one of the best traits. The larger your initial landmass is (pangaea, large continent) and the less civs are living there, the more powerful is expansionist. On huge pangaeas with a substandard number of civs, it's worth 2 or 3 of the other traits together. In particular it can give:

- practically every ancient advance for free, given you send enough scouts
- a bigger amount of free settlers than the other civs can get (and any free settler before 3000BC is a HUGE bonus)
- early knowledge about fertile land, choke points, strategical and luxury resources
- lots of cash, because your world maps will be enormous valuable
- the opportunity to deny your opponents resources to a certain point (you can't stay there forever anymore, that's patched out)
- a cheap and flexible observation unit, that warns you, if unusual troup movements occur, that may lead to a sneak attack

Well, that's on large, thin settled maps. But I agree, on standard maps it's at most mediocre, and on tiny/archipelago it's useless.

[Jethro83]

On smaller maps, Commercial and Expansionist are weaker traits.

On larger maps, they are quite strong.

Though I've found Scientific to be quite weak since moving up in difficulty level. The cheaper libraries, unis and labs, with free tech at start of each era is nice, but I prefer to grab it all off a civ thats ahead of technology by beating them into submission.

So generally speaking, Scientific is weakest in most circumstances IMHO.

[alexman]

Sir Ralph: Agreed 100%. Expansionists rock when there is room to explore. Because of that (and their UU, of course) Iroquois were my favorite for a while. Although BillChin's suggestion of a free army at each age would help make the trait useful for smaller, more crowded maps, without making much of a difference for larger maps. Nice solution for a well-rounded trait.

LordAzreal: Again, (see above) commercial is actually weaker on larger maps. I agree that scientific is not very strong at the start of the game at higher difficulties. But as soon as you start doing your own research (I typically do, starting the second half of the middle ages at the latest), it is very useful. Those universities are expensive full price!

[DrSpike]

As always it depends on the land. If scout denial is not considered most of the time expansionist is as weak as commerical. It also depends on how you mean to play the game. If I am going for a spaceship/diplomatic win (and you really need to decide early in civ3) I wont pick a militaristic civ even on higher levels, where some early war is required. For this type of game religious and industrious are great traits.

For a more conquest orientated game militaristic is a must, and your civ choice is probably more dominated by that and UU than the second trait.

To answer the initial question no they aren't balanced. However the skill lies in getting the maximum out of the traits, which for most comparison games you will not be able to pick.

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
- a bigger amount of free settlers than the other civs can get (and any free settler before 3000BC is a HUGE bonus)

I agree with all of your points, Sir Ralph, but this one really rings true because I've seen the difference in tournament & GOTM games. In these, the people who get a bonus town early have a great advantage. Getting a settler from the first goody hut pays for the trait right there! In fact, I'd almost say with the other benefits, that alone can make Expansionist the best trait. 2 towns by 3000BC is far better than anything, I say.

May I also add to your list that using your scouts, you can do heavy and profitable map trading? I don't know how to do it well, but have heard others do it extremely efficiently.

I strongly disagree that Scientific is weak. I consider it at least as good as the others, if not the best for many play styles. Libraries give more culture than temples and Universities give more culture than Cathedrals. Plus they boost research. Plus you get cheap Research Labs. Plus you get 3 free techs and the modern one is worth quite a bit.