Expansionistic trait should be dropped, it's a wasted trait - Page 2

N. Machiavelli · September 24, 2002, 15:06

I suppose that it takes different strokes for different folks. The Expansionist trait will, as many say, be a strong tool in MP. In SP, it's underpowered thanks to the omnipotence of the AI, but far from useless.

As for the scouting around before restarting; I take what is given. I play the game for the challange. If I wanted to try to get the highest score possible, I'd make a custom map in the Editor and manually place myself. Instead I choose to prove to myself that I can overcome using skill regardless of tundra; making the end victory all the more sweet. Waste of time? Hardly, IMHO.

Traelin · September 24, 2002, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
I suppose that it takes different strokes for different folks. The Expansionist trait will, as many say, be a strong tool in MP. In SP, it's underpowered thanks to the omnipotence of the AI, but far from useless.

Very well stated Nicolo.

I agree with your assessment, and I think I was being too harsh by saying it sucks. It's just not MY first choice of traits in SP, but it could be someone else's.

Traelin · September 24, 2002, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Sorry, I play my games out till it is clear that it's totally hopeless (I've won a few tundra starts) and count it as a loss by retiring. This isn't ever in the first few turns.

Hehe you're a better man than me.

But you at least gotta give me credit for admitting I reload every now and then.

Darkworld Ark · September 24, 2002, 17:46

I myself edited the Expantionist trait in my "Republic" mod so Scouts are Settlers that cost 1 pop & have 2 movement. It works pretty well. I'll proboly have my friends use my mod in multiplayer.

Athitis · September 25, 2002, 17:09

Expansionist civs are good and have an early advantage to the game....but that's all. Let us not forget that in MP balances change quickly and even the most powerful/mighty civ can lose from an obviously lesser civ, even when he was quite some techs ahead of the others.

IMHO the best traits are Scientific and Commercial, so i usually play with the Greeks ( but also the Germans-can't wait to play as Celts and Spanish too!). The commercial can really boost your economy latter in the game ( a large empire is useless when there's so much corruption/waste IMO) and it makes a nice combo with Scientific, which I personally value as the best of all traits.

In MP there's a fine line between victory and loss!

WarpStorm · September 25, 2002, 18:45

Athitis, I find that being ahead in the beginning means being ahead for the entire game. In addition, there are no "pure" expansionistic teams. They all have another trait. Expansionistic-Scientific gets lots of tech. Expansionistic-Militaristic steamrollers of the start continent etc. I used to slam expansionistic, too, till I was shown the light.

asleepathewheel · September 25, 2002, 19:11

I wish these dueling threads would be consolidated.

WarpStorm · September 25, 2002, 20:57

In a couple of months we'll see which ones really work best, not just against an easily exploitable AI.

asleepathewheel · September 25, 2002, 21:19

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
In a couple of months we'll see which ones really work best, not just against an easily exploitable AI.

true.

I really hope that each trait can be used effectively, that any trait can dominate if used by a pro. No fun if everyone wants to be Japanese or Aztecs. Diversity.

Inverse Icarus · September 25, 2002, 21:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
You think PTW games are gonna be long and drawn out? I wonder how the simultaneous moves will help this, if at all.

i know mine will be, but i play with a bunch of friends i know IRL.

Zero · September 26, 2002, 01:26

Quote:

I really hope that each trait can be used effectively, that any trait can dominate if used by a pro. No fun if everyone wants to be Japanese or Aztecs. Diversity.

I for am not gonna choose mil/rel combo, especially with new improved comm trait.

And for you insulting expansionist, jus admit you don't know how to use it. if its not your style then fine, but dont diss wat you dont like. Early domination is CRITICAL in SP civ. and thats with even not as so much as with ai cause ai is dumb and can actually slip up their lead to you, but it will even be more CRITICAL when PtW comes out. I can't stress how early dominance is important. it just is. anything that helps you get head start is a powerful trait. and as for someone saying exploration is not powerful in SP? AIs value world map just as much as a smart human player knowing "knowledge is power" does.

Traelin · September 26, 2002, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
And for you insulting expansionist, jus admit you don't know how to use it. if its not your style then fine, but dont diss wat you dont like.

It's not that I don't know how to use it. I just consider Expansionist to be a more passive-aggressive approach to gaining the early lead, and that may very well fit someone else's gaming style.

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
Early domination is CRITICAL in SP civ. and thats with even not as so much as with ai cause ai is dumb and can actually slip up their lead to you, but it will even be more CRITICAL when PtW comes out. I can't stress how early dominance is important.

My response on SP:
Generally that early lead isn't going to last (technologically speaking, at least not without the Great Library). Like I said before, others may very well like it. Personally I prefer to be Militaristic, since I more easily crush my opponents into giving me their Techs, while simultaneously taking cities and gaining leaders at a much faster pace. The leaders in turn gimme my Great Library, Sistine Chapel, etc. etc. Of course, the captured workers are useful in mining the crap outta my grasslands, but ugh I'm mixing in all the things I like about Mil., which is OT.

That's just me though. I'm probably one of the biggest warmongerers out there, so maybe you're right, Mil. just suits me better.

My response on MP:
I agree, Expansionist will play a BIG role in MP, for reasons I've mentioned in previous posts.

Artifex · September 26, 2002, 17:07

I love militaristic too, by far. Great leaderes en masse are invaluable at the high levels emperor/diety. They help you get those critical wonders you would otherwise lose. And warmongering is my style.

WarpStorm · September 26, 2002, 18:19

Traelin, there are Expansionistic-Militaristic civs (Zulus and now Mongols and Vikings). They are great for early conquering.

Sonic · September 30, 2002, 07:59

I would add the following traits:
Agriculture (bigger food production)
Urbanistic (no need for aqueduct and hospital to expand cities)
Maritime (+1 tile of movement for all sea units)

statusperfect · September 30, 2002, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonic
Urbanistic (no need for aqueduct and hospital to

Are you insane?

Allowing cities to grow beyond 12 before industrial age? That trait would kick anything. Also it would be like two great wonders (allowing two improvement free). It's like having Zun Tzu and Pyramids from beginning.

Zero · October 2, 2002, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Traelin

My response on SP:
Generally that early lead isn't going to last (technologically speaking, at least not without the Great Library). Like I said before, others may very well like it. Personally I prefer to be Militaristic, since I more easily crush my opponents into giving me their Techs, while simultaneously taking cities and gaining leaders at a much faster pace. The leaders in turn gimme my Great Library, Sistine Chapel, etc. etc. Of course, the captured workers are useful in mining the crap outta my grasslands, but ugh I'm mixing in all the things I like about Mil., which is OT.

not with Great Library cutting off at Education, It's not as a powerhouse as it used to be.... You wouldnt be able to do much in MP relying that way since building wonder early is costly business and can be vulnerable agst early aggression. (unless you used GL to build it I guess) And of course human players can focus research on education path since they might be sour about that they didnt get it....

Notice when AI takes the lead you can always topple them even if it takes little by little... but when you are leading in the game agst AI, the momentum never ceases to stop That's cause your human and you know how to use your lead to your advantage. AI is quite stupid and can actually let you screw you over. Even in higher levels, all victorious games have the same cycle of you tailing behind AI and once you rank higher, you never seem to lose that lead... Although your lead agst human is not gonna be as easy as keeping it from AI, You early lead should be quite solid even against human players.

Zero · October 2, 2002, 01:19

for people who like to play like a hermit and start expanding power in the industrial age, since they don't like fighitn with swords and shields.... you can get away with doing this with ais, but with humans I don;t think this would be doable... early wars are gonna be sooo important. Unless everybody are preferring modern war type and dont even touch each other

notyoueither · October 2, 2002, 02:56

Yep. I have to conclude...

Expansionist delenda est!

Traelin · October 2, 2002, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Traelin, there are Expansionistic-Militaristic civs (Zulus and now Mongols and Vikings). They are great for early conquering.

Yeah I've been meaning to try playing with the Zulu, but for some reason I always find another Civ to play that's more interesting to me. When PTW comes out, you can rest assured that I'll be playing the Mongols. I've always had a fascination with Temujin and the Mongol Horde. OT: anyone remember a game called Genghis Khan on the Nintendo and GK 2 on Super Nin.? Fun games.

WarpStorm · October 2, 2002, 16:18

Genghis Khan was a blast. Always having to take time out to make babies.

Novaya Havoc · October 2, 2002, 20:10

My dad played Genghis Khan like a fiend on my original Nintendo. I prefered Super Mario Bros 3, thanks.

Actually... I have both games sitting on the shelf next to me. I don't have a Nintendo anymore, but still have Genghis Khan...

-Ben

Traelin · October 3, 2002, 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Genghis Khan was a blast. Always having to take time out to make babies.

ROFL yeah, and picking governors/generals with "A" and "B" stats that wouldn't revolt.

Artifex · October 3, 2002, 13:19

I think the Keshik (mongol UU) are gonna be mounted crossbowmen that take the place of the longbowman.

Cool. I won't be needing to research chivalry anymore.

I can't wait to see thier attack animation.

LionQ · October 3, 2002, 14:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
I think the Keshik (mongol UU) are gonna be mounted crossbowmen that take the place of the longbowman.

Indeed, it does, with one change of your post: it's gonna be a mounted bowman and not a mounted crossbowman.

Artifex · October 3, 2002, 19:23

I thought mongols mounted units used some of the first crossbows. I could be wrong though, for some reason I was thinking they had a crossbow type weapon.

Anyone know much about the mongol history? Did they use bows or x-bows?

Anyways I think x-bows are cool.

Kingof the Apes · October 3, 2002, 20:46

I believe the Chinese invented the first crossbows.
Mongols always used normal bows.

Randolph · October 4, 2002, 08:05

I’m rather sure that Mongols used composite short bows, this was the most effect bow type weapon on horseback.

LionQ · October 4, 2002, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
I thought mongols mounted units used some of the first crossbows. I could be wrong though, for some reason I was thinking they had a crossbow type weapon.

It is wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
Anyone know much about the mongol history? Did they use bows or x-bows?

Yes, I do. They used the "normal" bow, with some changes, of course, to make it more useful on a horseback.

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
Anyways I think x-bows are cool.

Sure they are!

realpolitic · October 8, 2002, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Artifex
I hate that useless trait.

I agree, but to make it slighly better, make the scout better, ie capible of pillage, movement 1 all as roads. this at least makes Navigation unnessarsary, and earily pillaging easier.