CivIII not balanced why?Expansionist Rubbish

[Fayadi]

I plays Civ games for a long time.I dont understand could someone pls explain or argue with me whats so good about expansionist!?I am not newbie ,i really wanna listen to a "good" reason of how Apolyton's think about Expansionist because I am a regular member of Civfanatics.I know lots of civfanatics's (but not all)thinks Expansionist is Rubbish.In civilisations topic,I heard somebody said the game isnt balance because America is too good and about the super F-15 stuff! thats the best joke i heard in Civilisation discussion.I said any civ that have a special unit that is naval unit or air unit is most unlucky!Civ III main military relies on ground(Nuclear exceptional)I really wanna listen of how some crazy ppl loves Expansionist

[Saint Marcus]

The Expansionist attribute kicks ass if you play on a 255x255 map, with a huge pangea style continent. With the scouts you can get a massive amount of techs from villages (and barbarians won't pop up). You can get a HUGE tech lead.

On just about all other map sizes it's pretty useless.

[Moraelin]

Starting with a 2 move scout and making some 2 more, then setting them on automatic explore, means that with a single continent you'll raid all goody huts before your opponents even research their first science advance. ALSO expansionist means you ALMOST ALWAYS get something good from those huts. Basically you'll be technologically in the middle ages before your Scientific opponents even figure out the wheel (unless they start with it).

If you're telling me that a trait which can give you a MASSIVE tech lead is useless... can I have some of that good stuff you're smoking?

No arguments about the F-15 being a good candidate for THE most useless UU in the game, though.

[player1]

Commercial, Industrious, Religious, Scientific.
Everybody knows to use them properly.

Warmonger knows how to use Militiarstic trait, but not some
empire-builders.

Expansionistic trait is VERY USEFULL.

But,

Only,

If you KNOW,

HOW

TO USE IT.

If you don't use it well, then it's waste of time.

But, if you know, NOBODY WOULD beat you.

[player1]

Better thing from Barbarian Villages.

Very usefull...

But, if you are one of SAVE/RELOAD guys, you'll probably use some other trait.

This one is from Ironmen style players (or MP guys).

P.S.
This trait will be much interesting in MP (when it comes out).

[Kolyana]

Hey,

I

....

Can ....

talk like

THAT

too

[Fayadi]

look I agree when u have advantages at early game...but......this is the only advantage u have from an expansionist civ?Any other CSA will serve u well throughout the game,if u r thinking to get those huts r u saying the AI is dumb too not to get those huts if they are expansionist too?Industrious is excellent throughtout the game.....for early game ur city grows faster because of irrigation.so the most number of tech u can get from exploring scout in my opnion is 3.3 tech versus Scientific ability which also gives u 3 tech plus cheaper schools!Industrious are too good to be true extra shield faster worker cool!!!

[player1]

As I said it is good ONLY if you know how to use it.

And how to EXPLOIT that early advantage.

If you don't know, then I suggest you NOT to use it.

It will make more harm then help.

[Fayadi]

How good could u go if u use Expansionist?Experts dont play expansionist!Tell me just explain how good could u go?ppl in CivFanatics who beat AI in deity levels,emperors dont use expansionist.Dont give me the crap if only i know how to use it!
Expansionist is really rubbish if u compare with high end ability like commercial,industrious,militaristic

[Moraelin]

LOL. I can have all ancient techs by 2500 BC or so, and you're telling me it's not an advantage that will last me through the whole game? I can have pikemen and knights before the other civs even figured out how to make horsemen. I can start building Sun Tzu's art of war or just about any other ancient wonder before most other civs are even half way there with the research. And from there, I can go up the research tree to make Musketmen before the rest of the world even got Knights.

Jesus Christ.... If THAT kind of advantage is useless for you, WHAT would have counted as balanced in your book? Something that just gives you a button that says "push here to instantly win the game"?

And besides, wth, I guess that's what balanced means. Some people prefer this, other people prefer that. If you don't like the Americans' traits and UU, go play some other civ that has the traits you like more. It's that simple.

[jgflg]

Originally posted by Moraelin
LOL. I can have all ancient techs by 2500 BC or so, and you're telling me it's not an advantage that will last me through the whole game? I can have pikemen and knights before the other civs even figured out how to make horsemen. I can start building Sun Tzu's art of war or just about any other ancient wonder before most other civs are even half way there with the research. And from there, I can go up the research tree to make Musketmen before the rest of the world even got Knights.

Jesus Christ.... If THAT kind of advantage is useless for you, WHAT would have counted as balanced in your book? Something that just gives you a button that says "push here to instantly win the game"?

And besides, wth, I guess that's what balanced means. Some people prefer this, other people prefer that. If you don't like the Americans' traits and UU, go play some other civ that has the traits you like more. It's that simple.

What kind of map are you playing on? I usually find two or three techs at most on a standard map.

[jgflg]

Originally posted by Fayadi
How good could u go if u use Expansionist?Experts dont play expansionist!Tell me just explain how good could u go?ppl in CivFanatics who beat AI in deity levels,emperors dont use expansionist.Dont give me the crap if only i know how to use it!
Expansionist is really rubbish if u compare with high end ability like commercial,industrious,militaristic

Actually one of the best civs for winning on Deity is expansionist, the Iroquis. But that's because of their UU and probably despite the expansionist. Playing on a standard map in Deity you can gain an advantage with the scouts, but it depends on your strategy. If you do a massive warrior rush at the start then scouts are great for finding enemy towns. I tend to wait until I get horseman though and by then usually the other civs are already up against your borders. My personal preference is the Egyptians with Religous and Industrious, but I don't really like the war chariot as a UU.

Assuming you do an early despot rush playing on Deity or Emperor, the UU available to a civ is more important than any specific traits since the game will usually be won or lost in the ancient-early medieval eras.

[HalfLotus]

Tech from goody huts give you an early tech lead. You can parley this lead for the rest of the game if you're careful. Trading techs is also the best way to earn cash.

When I'm behind in tech, I trade luxuries mostly get back in it. When I'm ahead in tech, I trade luxuries AND tech for a huge lead.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by jgflg
What kind of map are you playing on? I usually find two or three techs at most on a standard map.

Large map (but not huge), large land mass, single continent. I usually find plenty of techs even on the standard map, though. I do, however, fire-and-forget three scouts immediately, before even building a warrior to defend that first city.

Admittedly, the key there is is the single continent. Expansionist scouts do become useless if you play archipelago, and not worth it even with continents. So you'll have to trade the protection of having water between you and some opponents early in the game, for techs.

[John Paul Jones]

The expansionist trait is cancelled out when playing the any of the americans with the default options on (cultures start next to each other). Both the Americans and Iroquois are expansionist and the Aztecs have the jaguar warrior which is better than a scout. And how many expansionist wonders are there ?

[Nakar Gabab]

And how many expansionist wonders are there?

SETI?

[Fayadi]

Ok Expansionist is only good for newbies in my opnion,u can get 4/5 tech at early game thats good I know Expansionist is an attribute suited to Newbies!U know why?because ppl are too lazy to make full use of Industrious,Religious,Scientific,Militaristic,Comm ercial
These abilities requires micromanagement to reach the full potentials!
Experts (I am not one)know that these attributes could give advantage u in a long term.Although Scientific isnt my favourtie attribute ,i believe scientific is 1000% better than expansionist u know why? ppl normally discover 4 or 5 tech the most with scout !Scientific gives u 3 free tech the whole game but with cheaper library and university?U could advance faster in turns which could give u a total of 7 or 8 tech (including the 3 free advance every era)advantage for the whole game?Expansionist ability expires.
Smart ppl believes in suffer first,enjoy later(but what Industrious gives u obvious advantages throughout the game thats too good!)
greedy ppl believes in enjoy first,suffer later
so guys which u prefer

[Velociryx]

I would respectfully disagree.

While Expansionist is not my favorite Civ-Trait, on the right maps (non-archepelago), it is quite impressive.

Consider that with a fast-moving unit from 4000 BC, you are able to uncover more of the map more quickly.

This means you find all the best places to found future cities faster than you otherwise would.

This in turn, means better overall city placement, which yields faster growth, more early game pop-rushing to get more infrastructure in place more quickly, and more opportunities to choke off the growth of your rivals (consider the effect of finding that one-tile landbridge in 2500 bc and staffing it with a single warrior....limiting one of your rival civs to all of four cities. THAT's a powerful advantage.

The techs gained from goody huts are nice, but they are simply a bonus. The real power is in diplomacy and knowledge of the world around you.

With your scouts, you can fan out in all directions, meet all the civs early, keep them apart from each other by expanding in the proper directions, and control the flow of information on your continent, acting as middleman, keeping the other civs just flush enough with techs to grab their latest research efforts.

Expansionism takes finesse and control to master, but when you do, it can be every bit the equal of the other traits. Just know going in that Expansionist power is the inverse of Militarism. The bigger the world, the more powerful the ability.

-=Vel=-

[Fayadi]

the question is if u rnt expansionist u can always explore with warrior.i played with expansionist civ before and it sucks.Scout is better than warrior by one movement but it still can explore
Dont tell me u cant explore with warrior
Warrior are so easy to get (5 turns) and I respectfully says u r not using sense u think scout is the only choice to explore lands?Although slower it still can explore ,I do use warriors at times to explore in random maps ,its a great tactic!taking 5 turns to complete warrior is considered nothing when u see the greatness of Industrious, Commercial ,Militaristic
so it is really rubbish if u bother to look.Some of u might say why the hell i wanna waste time listing down the cons of expansionist? u know why ?I was unpleased with the unbalance of Civ III

[Velociryx]

I agree, and I DO use warriors to scout with anytime I'm not playing an Expansionist civ.

The point, however, is that while the scout is "only" one more move than a warrior, it's also twice as fast.

Speed is life in Civ.

-=Vel=-

[Fayadi]

Well IF u wanna trade the greatness of Commercial,Industrious,Militaristic with 1 extra move which u describe life which WOULD U CHOOSE???WHICH ONE?The answer is too obviois to be described

[Velociryx]

'k....well....it sounds like your mind is pretty well made up then. Recommend *against* you playing an Expansionist civ, but don't be terribly surprised if MP comes out and someone with an Expansionist civ hands your hind-end to ya....

-=Vel=-

[Fayadi]

well i believe strongly that i will lose more badly if that "particular" person use other civ ability!

[player1]

Originally posted by Fayadi
Ok Expansionist is only good for newbies in my opnion,u can get 4/5 tech at early game thats good I know Expansionist is an attribute suited to Newbies!U know why?because ppl are too lazy to make full use of Industrious,Religious,Scientific,Militaristic,Comm ercial
These abilities requires micromanagement to reach the full potentials!
Experts (I am not one)know that these attributes could give advantage u in a long term.Although Scientific isnt my favourtie attribute ,i believe scientific is 1000% better than expansionist u know why? ppl normally discover 4 or 5 tech the most with scout !Scientific gives u 3 free tech the whole game but with cheaper library and university?U could advance faster in turns which could give u a total of 7 or 8 tech (including the 3 free advance every era)advantage for the whole game?Expansionist ability expires.
Smart ppl believes in suffer first,enjoy later(but what Industrious gives u obvious advantages throughout the game thats too good!)
greedy ppl believes in enjoy first,suffer later
so guys which u prefer

Just the opposite.
To play Exp. for great benefits (after early ages) you MUST a a VERY GOOD player. To know how to exploit that early advantage.
Like getting most of iron & horse resources. Early tech trade, and later tech SELLING, so can still stay on top (newbies just can't do that).
And extra settler is cruial (Exp. often get one), although other civs can get settlers from hut, it is much rarer then for Exp. Still, if you prefer load/save playing you can get settler from huts without Exp. trait (like some Deity winners).

You must now how to SELL early advantege to get later ADVANTAGE.

NEWBIES don't know that.

This trait need more finnese then any other.

Diffculty of this trait is that exept expertise it needs some amount of LUCK.

With patch techs research is SLOWER.


I think it will be interesting in MP.


P.S.
My favorite Exp. are Iroques (ealy temples), or Americans (exp. & ind. in combo are good ealy advantages)

Never played English or Zulus.

Russans look interesting (huts + extra techs + science boost from cheap libraries)

I never play Exp. on lower then Empror level.


P.P.S
Is it just me or it is impossibile to get more then onece settlers from goody hut.

If it is the case, then I suggest Firaxis to move then limit to 2 settlers (from 2 goody hut) for Expansionistic civs. I that that would make them more balanced to other traits.

[BanastreTa]

When I bought the game and examined the civ traits, I too was among the hordes of people who claimed that expansionist was worthless. I held fast to that for some time.

Not anymore. After reading this thread yesterday, I started my first full-scale game with a focused attempt to exploit "expansionist" (my very first game was with the Americans, but I didn't really know the game well enough yet to really use the civ traits).

I chose to play as the Iroquois on a huge Pangaea. Hours later, I think I'm solidly in the camp of Vel et. al. who have been defending expansionism.

On the Pangaea map, the scouts were a major advantage. Through discovery of many goody huts, I built up a solid tech and treasury lead over all other civilizations in alarmingly quick fashion. Sending out several scouts, the extra move over a warrior allowed me to quickly explore, gaining a vast intelligence, and contact with all other civs.

Of course, I should probably offer one disclaimer as to why the current game may be so enjoyable in addition to the use of the expansionist trait. The Iroquois mounted warrior is an excellent early offensive unit. These things hit hard and move fast. Using a horde of about 15-20 mounted warriors, I've been able to overtake two large neighboring civilizations, the English and the French, and the Iroquois empire is by far the largest in the world. Through conquest and expansion I've built up by far the largest empire I've had by the AD/BC split in Civ 3.

Lest I be too glowing about expansionism, though, I think this still reveals one problem with the militaristic and expansionist traits that renders them, on the whole, less useful than the other ones. Neither trait is as "universal" as scientific, religious, commercial, or industrial, which can be of use in almost any game.

That is, expansionist is a LOT more useful on a huge pangaea map, arguably shooting to the top of the traits. For a game on a small archipelago, expansionist is almost useless. Also, expansionist is basically only a trait for the early part of the game, although it is arguable that if you build up a big early lead that counteracts any future advantages.

The same is true with militaristic--the value of the trait depends on what kind of map you are playing on. On a small map with constant warfare, it is great. On a large map where it takes a long time for things to develop, it isn't as good.

Scientific, Religious, Commercial, and Industrious, however, are useful on any size map, and arguably on any type of game. Even if you are a player who likes to win by conquest, you can still benefit from cheap buildings and fast workers. If you are a culture vulture, however, militaristic is hugely diminished.

Furthermore, it seems most games are being played on "Large Continents" maps, just from my observation. In this setup, neither militaristic nor expansionist traits are particularly useful, unless you get stuck on a small continent with 4 or 5 other civs.

This is also why IMHO the zulus are the worst civ, because their traits are contradictory. One or both will always be broken. If you play Zulu on a huge map, militaristic isn't helpful while expansionist is. If you play Zulu on a small map, militaristic is helpful but expansionist isn't. If you play them on a large map with continents, neither trait is particularly useful

Still, expansionism isn't as bad as I thought it was. If you have been bashing it, you ought to try using it skillfully, as it can produce a very enjoyable game.

BT

[Blackfish]

Originally posted by BanastreTa
When I bought the game and examined the civ traits, I too was among the hordes of people who claimed that expansionist was worthless. I held fast to that for some time.

Not anymore. After reading this thread yesterday, I started my first full-scale game with a focused attempt to exploit "expansionist" (my very first game was with the Americans, but I didn't really know the game well enough yet to really use the civ traits).

I chose to play as the Iroquois on a huge Pangaea. Hours later, I think I'm solidly in the camp of Vel et. al. who have been defending expansionism.

The Iroquois mounted warrior is an excellent early offensive unit. These things hit hard and move fast. Using a horde of about 15-20 mounted warriors, I've been able to overtake two large neighboring civilizations, the English and the French, and the Iroquois empire is by far the largest in the world. Through conquest and expansion I've built up by far the largest empire I've had by the AD/BC split in Civ 3.

Methinks you have been swayed by the:
[1] AI's retarded nature when it coes to mounted warrior rushes
[2] kick-ass strength of the Iroquois UU
[3] specific layout of the map you are playing on (pagena as opposed to archipelego)

I know you went into it in the bits I deleted - I just found it amusing that someone else fell prey to the same problem I had, in that I was wildly enthusiastic about the Aztecs. Until I took a better look at my successes with them and found that most of it came from digesting 3 other opposing civs in the ancient era, and having enough of a lead (tech, economy, size) that I was able to hold onto it into the modern era (not finished the game...).

Do you still think Exp is great? Do you think you would fare well against say... the Aztecs in MP (large or medium map, pagena)?

[Saint Marcus]

u can get 4/5 tech at early game

13 in my last game. Techs from goody huts that is. Not to mention 4 settlers, 400gc money, 7 warriors.

Monarch
16 civs
255x255
Pangea
Large landmass
Iroquis

13 free techs basically means you win the game. No other trait can do that.


Still I'm not a huge fan of exp as a civ attribute. It depends too much on the map you're playing.

[Whoha]

look, if you think the traits are unbalanced, you can disable them(even without resorting to the editor for once!), problem solved. all the traits are unbalanced according to your logic, as there are instances(mostly revolving around the really easy way to win even on deity, the early game pop rush) where all the traits are useless(and for militaristic if you are a peaceful player) so of course, if you do not use a trait, its quite useless.

[rah]

Early techs from huts can be overcome through trading. And if you get that free settler too far from home, it sometimes isn't that valuable.

BUT I do predict that Exp will come into it's own for MP. Especially if the games are played at Deity. In Deity, huts are almost useless. But those expanionists that can snag 5 or 6 techs from huts will have a great advantage. There will be no AIs to trade rape to stuff the early tech stockings. And since most MP games rarely last more than one or two sessions, the games will not last long enough for the other traits to overcome that advantage. And an early settler will be an even bigger advantage. I think exp/rel civs will offer the best advantages in MP games.

RAH

[player1]

Originally posted by rah
Early techs from huts can be overcome through trading. And if you get that free settler too far from home, it sometimes isn't that valuable.
RAH

I fact, if you are expansionist. Trade techs (read: sell) can give you even better lead. On Deity, getting that extra Settler is cruical for better outcome of game.


As for MP, I think that exept exp/rel, also good one is exp/ind.

Personally I thnik that exp/mil is worst, but having Impis with ability to disalow retreat to enemy horse units can be powerfull.