Expansionist Trait

anteos · December 16, 2003, 10:02

What do people think of this trait in conquests.

Is it a bit of a duff trait. Once the map has been exposed and the civilisations settled, it has no further use. Whilst other traits function continuously?

I've just played my first game with this trait and it did allow me (via a scout) to obtain a large swathe of land. Expanding in the right places etc

Jeem · December 16, 2003, 10:13

It's a bit too random for my liking.

It's very, very powerful in the hands of the AI though. Most MP games I play, the AI's with expansionist can run away with the game at the start simply due to finding settlers and cities. If the first opened hut is a settler or city, it's already got twice the economy and growth potential of the rest.

For the player, you usually know when you're going to win the game quickly when using expansionist. A couple of settlers/a city/4 techs and you're laughing. 4 maps and a couple of units means you've just wasted a trait.

It's also a double edged sword in that it opens up land quickly, so there's more chance of barbarians appearing.

Tall Stranger · December 16, 2003, 10:18

There is a bit of debate about how good expansionist is.

Conventional wisdom is that it is more valuable at larger map sizes (more unknown to explore) and on pangaea maps. In addition to allowing you to figure out where to expand, it also helps you make earlier contact with other civs, expanding your options for tech/ lux trading. Later, you may also make a bundle off contact trading, assuming many of the civs still don't know each other. You also have a slightly better chances of getting good stuff from huts.

All in all, a pretty good trait. Better than some, not as good as others.

anteos · December 16, 2003, 10:20

I've never had a settler or city from a hut? Is this only on the harder levels?

CerberusIV · December 16, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by anteos
I've never had a settler or city from a hut? Is this only on the harder levels?

IIRC it only happens if you are level or behind on number of cities - so it is more likely on the harder levels.

Tall Stranger · December 16, 2003, 11:25

You also can't generate a settler from a hut if you either currently have a settler built or are building one in any of your cities.

CerberusIV · December 16, 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
You also can't generate a settler from a hut if you either currently have a settler built or are building one in any of your cities.

Yes, although having one stacked in a build queue doesn't prevent you getting a settler from a hut.

SirOsis · December 16, 2003, 13:07

This information is good to know. Before popping a hut I'll make sure to change my queue if building a settler.

vmxa1 · December 16, 2003, 13:21

Yes do change the built to a non settler before popping a hut, even if you are not expansionist. Switch back after you pop it.

Spaced Cowboy · December 16, 2003, 13:24

I've given up on expansionist. I've also given up on huts and barbarians.

Puma · December 16, 2003, 13:34

OMG!!! What a nice surprise. It makes so much sense now that I think back on some settler finds.

pauli · December 16, 2003, 17:45

as i have a tendency to play on oversized maps, i'm something of a fan of expansionist civs. my last game... i knew all five other civs before more than two of them had made contact with each other. i also had a crazy tech lead early on (and again later on).

never got a single sgl despite getting nearly all techs first, though... but that's another issue.

Sarxis · December 16, 2003, 17:46

Wow! That is a nice thing to know.

Now I know.

The one thing that annoys me about Expansionist is the increased cost when you get Explorers.

Rhothaerill · December 16, 2003, 18:06

Quote:

Originally posted by SirOsis
This information is good to know. Before popping a hut I'll make sure to change my queue if building a settler.

I'm in a PBEM with SirOsis and now you guys have gone and given it away to him.

On topic...I have found the expanionist trait to be more and more useful the more "experienced" I get playing this game. I played with expansionist a lot when I first began playing Civ3 a few years ago and bungled it badly (basically I played it like the AI does.

). I stopped playing expansionist civs and ranked the trait at the bottom of the first six traits.

But after a while I started realizing that early expansion with granaries, etc. and especially early information are the key to this trait, as much or more so than the better hut popping. A couple of scouts (not just one) can quickly uncover the map around you and find the other civs for early tech trading. This is even more crucial in Conquests where map and contact trading have been pushed back (rightly so in my opinion).

Tall Stranger · December 16, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhothaerill

I'm in a PBEM with SirOsis and now you guys have gone and given it away to him.

Yeah, I know. I traded this information to him in exchange for Gems, Furs and 60gpt. (With the gpt bug still around, I'm rolling in dough

)

Quote:

On topic...I have found the expanionist trait to be more and more useful the more "experienced" I get playing this game. I played with expansionist a lot when I first began playing Civ3 a few years ago and bungled it badly (basically I played it like the AI does.

). I stopped playing expansionist civs and ranked the trait at the bottom of the first six traits.

But after a while I started realizing that early expansion with granaries, etc. and especially early information are the key to this trait, as much or more so than the better hut popping. A couple of scouts (not just one) can quickly uncover the map around you and find the other civs for early tech trading. This is even more crucial in Conquests where map and contact trading have been pushed back (rightly so in my opinion).

I definitely agree that Conquests has made this trait potentially more valuable if you're in the right spot (roughly in the middle of a pangaea, for example).

DrSpike · December 16, 2003, 18:53

On a biggish map (or landmass) on the middle or lower levels you can get your money's worth from expansionist. It's not as bad as it was in 1.07. Personally it's my joint least favourite trait though.

steven8r · December 16, 2003, 18:55

Expantionist is a fairly weak trait by itself. Fortunately there is no Exp/Exp civ. So even if Exp, your civ will have another trait that it can use. Exp can be useful in the early game and any other trait will come in handy after that.

As long as there's not any Exp/Exp civs, I guess we're OK. (would they start the game w/ 2 Scouts?????)

Exp/Exp that could suck rocks!

Jeem · December 16, 2003, 21:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
On a biggish map (or landmass) on the middle or lower levels you can get your money's worth from expansionist. It's not as bad as it was in 1.07. Personally it's my joint least favourite trait though.

It's my least favourite, and always has been. I can see how powerful it might be, but it's not worth the risk generally.

So - what other trait has the dubious privelage of being joint worst with expansionist in your opinion Spike?

WarpStorm · December 16, 2003, 21:41

Exp is one of the strongest in general. The headstart it gives you can last all game. Under C3C, it became even more powerful than before.

Jeem · December 16, 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Exp is one of the strongest in general. The headstart it gives you can last all game. Under C3C, it became even more powerful than before.

I agree with that. However, some games you'll be left with a big map and another couple of 2-pip warriors.

The potency of the Expansionist trait depends on the size of map and difficulty level more than any of the others. Industrial, Commercial, Militaristic, Agricultural and Religious don't change much regardless of world size/level. Seafaring is obviously more of a boon on an archipelago - or is it?

It's really impossible to say just how good expansionist is - it's got the potential to be the best and worst depending on world size, level and that most random of factors - pure luck.

WarpStorm · December 17, 2003, 06:27

Very true, Jeem. When PTW was being tested I tracked exp starts (mostly on standard size continents maps) and in very few cases did I get burned. I averaged 5 techs, 3 warrios, and a settler per game. On larger or Pangaea maps I would expect to be better. On smaller or archipeligo maps I'd expect it to be worse.

What usually influenced my haul most (as I was tracking with a consistent map size and style) was if one of my close neighbors was also exp.

DrSpike · December 17, 2003, 07:43

The thing is if you play on the higher levels you get such crap from huts now it just isn't worth it. Lower down you can reap plenty of reward on the right settings, which is why I made my comment above on map/landmass size and difficulty level.

Jeem: All of them are good, and it depends on the style of game of course, but I generally don't care for commercial much. Like with expansionist this is partially (but not completely) a hail back to the days when both traits pretty much sucked compared to the others.

Of course, by far the most important thing is to use whatever you have to its fullest.

Chemical Ollie · December 17, 2003, 08:10

I am on my first C3C game and haven't tried expansionist yet, but I can imagine it is strong, as you can't trade maps or communications until far into the middle ages. It was strong on large maps in earlier Civ3 versions as well. Aeson tought me some dirty tricks to maximize the benefit, like increasing the lux slider from the start (on emperor and higher) and pump out 3-4 scouts instead of warriors from the first city before building anything else.

I remember some games where I got about 10 techs and 2-3 settlers from huts.

bongo · December 17, 2003, 09:28

One question, do techs discovered from huts 'count' in generating SGL's?

Have only seen one SGL so far and that was from a 'regular' discovered-the-hard-way-tech. Haven't played enough c3c games to make some useful statistics either....

Chemical Ollie · December 17, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by bongo
One question, do techs discovered from huts 'count' in generating SGL's?

Have only seen one SGL so far and that was from a 'regular' discovered-the-hard-way-tech. Haven't played enough c3c games to make some useful statistics either....

I don't know if huts as such will generate SGL's but getting tech from huts will increase your chance, as you will be ahead in tech and more likely to be the first to discover something the hard way.

Shogun Gunner · December 17, 2003, 10:04

I never generated a SGL from "science from a hut" and I haven't read of that happening.... my guess is no.

Aeson · December 17, 2003, 11:09

Quote:

The thing is if you play on the higher levels you get such crap from huts now it just isn't worth it.

(much of this applies to Seafaring as well)

I disagree. On higher difficulty levels, early contacts are key. The Expansionist trait seems to be worth 5-10 techs and a few Workers on Sid difficulty level. You get in on the initial round of starting tech trading, and the extra AI Workers give a better chance that you'll find one in the capitol. There are times when it's worth an entire age of tech, and early Workers are close to being as valuable as a Settler from a hut. Contacts can still come too late (and then you'll almost certainly fall half an era behind), but Expansionist and Seafaring are your best bets.

Being able to map out AI's holdings (which become vast very quickly) to identify key information (cities, resources, luxuries, troop movement) is also imperitive. Scouts tend to be the difference between attacking blind and well run offensives given the later map trading. This isn't something that varies much, and the next best option is to use Workers to do the same thing. Slower, costing population and terrain improvements.

And huts... well at least you can open them on higher difficulty levels. A non-Expansionist has to go out of their way not to open them (or open them before any military is built) as Barbarians are so common and so tough to deal with. You won't get much in return, but at least it won't be a negative that comes sack your treasury, kill your Workers, and destroy your improvements.

Expansionist tends to give you just enough boost early enough to overcome the AI starting advantages. That's mainly the difficult part of the higher difficulty levels. Catching up. If you don't have any neighbors, it's not going to help you much, but neither will most the other traits. On Sid, you'll still fall behind, but not by as much.

DrSpike · December 17, 2003, 11:41

That's an interesting take. At least this time you don't like the trait because of scout exploits.

I concur with most of the analysis, and like Seafaring for this reason on higher levels. I guess most of it does transfer at least in some regard to the expansionist trait. The points made about map/landmass size are still valid I'd say.

I think we can agree that the current hut system robs expansionist civs of one advantage they could get. But the increased importance on these levels of early contact is certainly a counteracting factor worthy of consideration.

Aeson · December 17, 2003, 16:41

I agree. I think the trait is pretty balanced through the levels because of the changes to the hut system. Definitely mapsize and landform (and neighbors) still play a large part in how useful the trait is.

Pep · December 17, 2003, 17:02

I think scouts should be tweaked to be a "stealth" unit to barbs. Or barbs shouldn't attack them. I really hate to finish my scout movement near a barbarian camp knowing in the next turn he will be killed!

Also, to improve the trait and make it not only a "all or nothing" trait, I would add a new bonus to it. The bonus could be railroads easier to build or factories cheaper, to guarantee expansionistic civs just an expansion in the industrial era