Taking a second look at Expansionist

monkspider · July 16, 2002, 05:37

Over the years I have come to be one of the most vocal defamers of the Expansionist trait. It always just seemed to be a rather silly trait to me, after all, where would you be if the huts didn't turn out your way?

However, after playing a game as Iroqouis and a game as Zulu, I have taken a new appreciation for Expansionist. In fact, I would actually go as far as putting it in the same tier as scientific/militaristic.

One thing that I have always failed to appreciate about expansionist, is just how much having a map of your entire continent so early on can help your city-placement strategies. This is something that just can't be quantified in the same way as a free tech every age or cheap temples. Having knowledge of your map just opens so many new strategic options to you in the early game. And it is hard to describe them here, because often times they are very subtle. But I wouldn't doubt if many of them are gamebreaking.

Another thing I have noticed is that the huts really *DO* help you *much* more than they do non-expansion civs. In two games on continents maps, I recieved about three or four really good techs (writing and literature even among them!) and even got a settler on the fourth or fifth turn of my last game (talk about a boost!). In my last two non-expansionist game, I got a whole lot of barbarians, a map or two, maybe a warrior and a little bit of gold. I didn't get a SINGLE tech, much less a settler.

Most of all though, I have finally found expansionist to be a lot of FUN! Moving three or four scouts around the continent, hoping for one last goodie hut to show itself, not having to beg the other civs out of their maps. I would even go as far as saying it is probably the most purely *fun* trait around

I am quite shocked that I have been such a vocal opponent of expansionist all these years, I have certainly come to take an appreciation of sorts for it these days. I ask anyone here who still doubts expansionist to try two games as an Exp. civ, and then try two games as a non-exp civ and see if your feelings change.

Bambul · July 16, 2002, 07:18

I changed Expansionsist Civs around a bit to add the Colonist unit. It's basically a settler with 2 move. Someone else had it in one of their mods (forgot who, can't give them credit for it). That was mainly to replace Stealth Fighter which IMO is the most useless unit in the game. This does make expansionsits much more powerful though.

Harovan · July 16, 2002, 07:28

Expansionist is the more powerful, the larger your initial landmass is and the less civs are on it. For instance, on a huge pangea with 8 civs it's incredibly powerful, on a standard archipelago with 8 civs (less archipelagos are usually just pangeas with landbridges) it's nearly worthless.

WarpStorm · July 16, 2002, 07:32

Monk, I agree with your current thinking on expansionistic civs. They have gotten a bad rap, undeservedly. The big problem with them is still that their bonus is very map dependent. Yes, the scout can give you a map and maybe some techs, sometimes. I've had starts where I was stuck on an island before. In this case you get basically no benefit from the trait at all. To give it credit though, on most maps it will give you a head start over your competition in the ancient era.

Artifex · July 16, 2002, 07:45

Unless you play on a huge pangea map it is the worst trait. What good is getting goodie huts with advances when everyone knows the AI civs tech whore like mad and ancient advances are easy to come by.

Solver · July 16, 2002, 07:56

I have been thorugh an Iroquois game where I came to start on a pretty small island, since I usually play random settings. Damn the trait was wasted

.

WarpStorm · July 16, 2002, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
Unless you play on a huge pangea map it is the worst trait. What good is getting goodie huts with advances when everyone knows the AI civs tech whore like mad and ancient advances are easy to come by.

Think about it Artifex, if you didn't get those techs from the huts you'd be that much further behind and wouldn't have the techs to trade for those other "easy to come by" techs. How is this worse?

I think that monkspider's point was that the big bonus from expansionistic is the free scout. This gives you a five-ish turn headstart on exploring your surroundings over the non-expansionistics. The scouts are cheap and fast and you will know where to build before anyone else. With any luck, you can grab the good spots.

I won't argue against the fact that this trait is the most map dependant, it is.

Lawrence of Arabia · July 16, 2002, 11:43

Expansionist is also good on archipelago because you can research map making right from the start.

Incan_Warrior · July 16, 2002, 12:32

I have played an expansionist Civ before, and as has already been said, it's value is entirely dependent on the map size and landmass makeup. Nevertheless, I'm going to place a bet NOW that when MP finally rolls out, the Expansionist trait is going to move up in preference. It's one thing to know the location of your AI opponents, but quite another to know the location of your human opponents.

Of course, in a game made up entirely of human players, you can bet that scouts will never be allowed to freely roam in and out of territories - they will be toast!

WarpStorm · July 16, 2002, 13:00

As far as I'm concerned, in MP sending one of your units (even just a scout) over my border is an act of war.

monkspider · July 16, 2002, 14:30

The thing is though, regardless of map-type, being able to control the maps is like controlling the middle of the board in chess. It gives you a lot of power to work with. If you can strategically deny the other civs on your continent from meeting each other as long as you can, you alone will have the run on their techs and access to their markets. In a recent game on regent level as an expansionist civ I strategically expanded in a way that made contact between two other civs very difficult, and I never sold the communications. It took the better part of antiquity for them to finally meet each other, and when they did, I was a flourishing Republic and had gained a tech lead that would last the remainder of the game. Expansionist just gives you so many options to work with.
In regards to it being map-based, perhaps it is more effective on panagea, perhaps it's not (in my experience things were always more or less balanced out by the fact that there were almost always other expansionist civs on the continent making a rush for the goodies as well). I will say this though, I think the notion that Expansionist is completely pangea-reliant is a myth, perhaps one that was founded in solid reasoning in the early 1.16f days when they were still tweaking Expansionist and so forth, but now is no longer valid.

Dimension · July 16, 2002, 16:08

I think the real question on everybody's mind is... What happened to the cute spider avatar?

monkspider · July 16, 2002, 16:46

Oh don't worry, the spider still has a place here. Actually, when me and my brother were kids he would always draw these comics with spider named monkspider as the main character, the cute spider was actually a scanned image of one of his old drawings.

I wouldn't be surprised if the spider resurfaces again sometime soon.

Catt · July 16, 2002, 20:30

As others have said, I really find expansionist to be the most "game dependent" of the five possible traits. If you play all-random games, expansionist can be helpful or can be largely wasted (try playing on an archipelago, max water, no barbarians - which means no goody huts). If you play huge maps with less than 16 civs, if becomes very powerful. If you use scout denial (I think an exploit) it becomes unbalancing.

I've been very busy lately and not had a lot of time for Civ 3, but I've been slowly playing and all-random game, standard size map, 8 civs. I got Iroquois, and the map looks to be a pangea, maximum water. The land mass almost looks like an archipelago that actually connects in one or two tile chokepoints. I had terrible luck with goody huts - only found 4 - 1 warrior, 1 map, 2 gold - I think the random barb setting must have been sedentary.

But Monkspider's point about scout-enabled map knowledge making subtle but potentially huge differences certainly rang true -- I was able to secure several chokepoints and (to some degree) control AI civ communications with each other. The game isn't won, but nearly so -- without my fast exploring, I would have had to be much more aggressive in the early game, as I would have had to fight for several chokepoints (as it was, I hardly fought at all with my MWs - through chokepoint holding, I secured a large enough landmass that virtually the entire ancient age was spent settling available land).

Catt

Dimension · July 17, 2002, 01:36

Knowing the map is certainly important, as optimal city placement makes a big difference. Don't you hate having to raze a city and found it one tile over because the AI put it in a dumb spot? The problem with expansionist is that scouts just aren't much better at revealing the map than warriors are. They don't see an extra square. They don't go through jungle any faster. If you send out three warriors to scout, you'll still find the perfect place to put your initial cities, and you'll still reveal every square on your continent long before you can get a settler there.

As Lawrence likes to point out when people are giving scouts a hard time, though, it is nice to be able to get Map Making fast. I would say that this is just as useful as the scouts themselves.

Obviously the big benefit of expansionist is getting to more huts and getting better things from the huts. Sure, you could say that expansionist sucks on certain maps, but what does that prove? The game environment you choose (or the random environment that is chosen for you) will always play a big part in all aspects of the game, just like the playstyle you choose will affect what traits are useful. If you're playing without huts, expansionist sucks. If you're playing OCC, religious sucks. If you've got a builder strategy, militaristic sucks.

That's why any comparison of traits and/or civs themselves must take this into consideration. If you're and aggressive player using random settings and you end up with a wide open pangea, chances are whatever civ you picked would be inferior to the Zulus in that setting. Does that mean the Zulu's are the best? Certainly not. Does that mean expansionist is good? Well, it depends. It's all relative.

Dimension · July 17, 2002, 01:53

BTW, when I said that getting to Map Making fast was just as useful as the scouts themselves, I meant scouting with the scouts without regard for whether there are huts or not. Obviously, the main reason for expansionist would be the ideal situation of finding a few techs and a settler in huts.

Cort Haus · July 17, 2002, 05:46

I think cheap harbours would help balance the exp civs on island maps - and FWIW - cheap markets for commercial civs to bring them up too. Then finally people might want to play the English.

punkbass2000 · July 17, 2002, 07:52

Why does Religious suck for OCC? I think of it as one of the few useful OCC traits.

Zachriel · July 17, 2002, 08:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension
Knowing the map is certainly important, as optimal city placement makes a big difference. Don't you hate having to raze a city and found it one tile over because the AI put it in a dumb spot?

Talk about a perfectionist!

"Ok everyone. We're going to tear down all your homes and businesses and move it over one square.

"No it doesn't matter that the temple is hundreds of years old, we'll build you a shiney, new one.

"We don't care that you like the old one better.

"Ok that's it. No more discussion."

*Click*

WarpStorm · July 17, 2002, 09:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension
The problem with expansionist is that scouts just aren't much better at revealing the map than warriors are. They don't see an extra square

They move two spaces and you get the first one for free at the beginning. How is this not better than using your first 10 shields to build a warrior that moves one space a turn and can unleash barbarians on your city?

Nakar Gabab · July 17, 2002, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Talk about a perfectionist!

"Ok everyone. We're going to tear down all your homes and businesses and move it over one square.

"No it doesn't matter that the temple is hundreds of years old, we'll build you a shiney, new one.

"We don't care that you like the old one better.

"Ok that's it. No more discussion."

*Click*

Didn't you see the Simpsons episode where Homer became the head garbage collector?

Catt · July 17, 2002, 13:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension
Sure, you could say that expansionist sucks on certain maps, but what does that prove? The game environment you choose (or the random environment that is chosen for you) will always play a big part in all aspects of the game, just like the playstyle you choose will affect what traits are useful. If you're playing without huts, expansionist sucks. If you're playing OCC, religious sucks. If you've got a builder strategy, militaristic sucks.

That's why any comparison of traits and/or civs themselves must take this into consideration. If you're and aggressive player using random settings and you end up with a wide open pangea, chances are whatever civ you picked would be inferior to the Zulus in that setting. Does that mean the Zulu's are the best? Certainly not. Does that mean expansionist is good? Well, it depends. It's all relative.

I fully agree that the "perfect civ" is almost entirely dependent upon game variables - the map, the opponents, etc. But I also believe that expansionist is the most volatile of all traits -- it can be a blessing or a near total waste. None of the remaining five civ traits is subject to such volatile "value" depending on map and game parameters. In fact, as one who sets my "strategy" according to the cards I've been dealt by the random generation of variables, only expansionist presents a situation where it may be difficult to exploit its unique benefits - in all other instances, game play can almost always be tailored to a civ's unique traits to exploit their inherent advantages.

Catt

EDIT: changed "remaining four civ traits" to "remaining five civ traits." Thanks, Dimension

Dimension · July 17, 2002, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
They move two spaces and you get the first one for free at the beginning. How is this not better than using your first 10 shields to build a warrior that moves one space a turn and can unleash barbarians on your city?

I said they "aren't much better at revealing the map". Just 2 warriors running around will probably find ideal city sites. If you're expansionist, you want 3 or 4 scouts to get to huts near enemy territory. So yes, getting 2 moves and the free scout is vital for getting huts. I just meant that it doesn't change much as far as exploration is concerned. If you only used scouts to explore (and not for huts), you would only need one or two. That would save time, and you could make temples/garrisons/workers/settlers faster, so the free scout and extra movement would speed up your early game. If you were playing with huts, though, it would be ridiculous not to build a couple more scouts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
But I also believe that expansionist is the most volatile of all traits -- it can be a blessing or a near total waste. None of the remaining four civ traits is subject to such volatile "value" depending on map and game parameters.

Four other civ traits? Ouch! Are we not even considering Commercial to be a trait anymore?

chiefpaco · July 18, 2002, 13:13

I like the fact that Expansionist civs start the game with 2 things:
- A scout.
- Tech to make Granaries.

Starting with a scout on turn 0 means you will get a jump on your non-expansionist neighbours in terms of map-discovery and goody hut stealing.

The early bonus of higher population growth can pay exponential dividends over the course of the game.

And I just posted elsewhere on this, but I also think any benefit you get at the beginning of the game is far more valuable than ones you get near the end. This is because you reap any advantage you get from the time you get it onwards.

The Puny Celt · August 6, 2002, 04:00

Some good arguments but I'm still not convinced that expansionism is as good as the other traits. I think it's inferior because:

- its effects run out, eg it's very rare to use the scout or find goodie huts beyond Middle Ages. The other 4 traits continue to give benefits right to the end.

- unlike Civ2, I don't think there's so much of an advantage in quickly finding the optimal sites for your new cities, because you can't ignore an expanse of desert/jungle/tundra it might later provide strategic resources

- I've been looking at my notes from the games I've played, and the gains in goodie hut bonuses while playing an Expansionist civ have been surprisingly modest. However I've played most of my games on a standard-sized map where goodie huts aren't so abundant. But why should this trait be so map-dependent? None of the other traits are.

- I think it's arguable that a full-on expansionist strategy, which this trait encourages, is even the most efficient way to victory - what with corruption and culture flips. Sure you usually need a decent-sized empire, but a huge sprawling one is often more trouble than it's worth.

I'd like to see a couple of changes made in the next version that will make the Expansionist civs more balanced:

1) the expansionist trait is next to useless on an archipelago/large water mass map. I'd like to see EITHER: a new sea unit available only to Expansionist civs once they discover Map-Making, it would have an extra movement point over a galley but either 0 or 1 carrying capacity (so that like the scout it is used mainly for exploring); OR for Expansionist Civs the odds of losing your galley/caravel in sea or ocean tiles are reduced by half.

2) the scout, like a worker, has the ability to create a colony. (I think making the scout a settle with 2 movement points is too powerful)

Just my thoughts. (Bear with me if all these points were argued/counter-argued when the game first came out, but I didn't have time to trawl through all the archives to find out!)

kring · August 6, 2002, 20:13

I will add a plug for Expansionist.

I tend to get better things from goody huts (as an Expansionist civ) when I use non military units (either Scouts or Workers or Settlers; anything with 0/0 A/D values) than if I use Warriors.

I play Expansionist civs a lot, not exclusively. They work just as well on continents as pangaea.

Each trait has +/- for it.

JohnM2433 · August 6, 2002, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Expansionist is also good on archipelago because you can research map making right from the start.

"Right from the start"? Sorry, you need Alphabet and then Writing first. In fact, Commercial civs are better poised to get to Map Making ASAP, because Alphabet is more expensive than Pottery.

Incedentally, this means that the English should be able to research Map Making the earliest, since they are Commercial as well as Expansionist and start with both Alphabet and Pottery. So in a scenario in which they have to start off on their island home, they aren't quite as unfortunate as one might think. Hm.

By comparison, the Japanese would be screwed.

Inverse Icarus · August 6, 2002, 22:04

on marlas world map, marla put a new naval unit in (i forget the name). it was 1-1-2 and could carry one unit, availible with pottery. same GFX as a galley.

Very useful for an island civ (japan / england) on the world map.

Perhaps they could allow expansionists to build them?

JohnM2433 · August 6, 2002, 22:22

Yes, I remember that unit. The problem was that the game crashed whenever I tried to build it.

I wound up changing the mod rules back to standard and just using the map. I haven't played many senarios, but they seem to have a tendancy to crash. This is something FireAxis will need to work on.

I like the principle though, and the unit ("pirogue" or something like that) would definitely make it suck less to start out on a small island. It was obvoiusly indicated for that map, since otherwise the "English" and "Japanese" starting positions were clearly quite disadvantageous.

NeOmega · August 7, 2002, 01:56

The best thing about expansionist is you get to use the abilities right away. Many people love scientific... but scientific you have to discover literacy before you can even begin to use its ability. And I think any good civer knows.... how you start is the most critical part of the game. In fact, scientific takes the longest time to exploit.
If you play emporer, scientific is almost worthless, you are way behind by the time you get literacy, and spend the next two eras catching up, if you survive, you may pull ahead by modern times... but that is a big if.