Best civ for expansion won't be expansionist! ??

[pansophy]

I really like the French as well. To me, the French are like an improved civ from CIV2, having more of the basic building blocks of any civ, more trade and production units.

The French will allow any strategy to be adapted where as for any other civ, you almost have to adapt a particular strategy to reap the benefits for that particular civ.

The French can still expand quickly, the French can still be militaristic since they will have more money to support an army and more production to produce units, they can be scientific since they will have more trade and less corruption (and faster production of roads), and they can be religious since they will have more production and the ability to pay for more buildings than other civs.

Assuming the special unit is at least decent, for a random map, I think I will be hard pressed to pick anyone other than the French since I can adapt whatever strategy fits the situation.

 

[stravaig]

Pansophy -

I was thinking along those lines, too, but you stated it better than my beleaguered synapses.
The French have a big advantage in being very flexible, I agree. They can be played as the 'generalist' vs the 'specialists.' The specialists can outshine them in any given area. The French may not lead in any given area, but if played right they can be second or third in most every area, which might be enough to win.

- Stravaig

 

[CrazyScientist]

I agree that a lot of the benefits of expansionist civs seem kind of short lived.
My opinion (which as a few people have pointed out is a worthless as the next guy's since none of us have played the game) but based on civ 2 it seems like commercial industrious will be the coolest for really any victory goal.
Think what a relief it is to have engineers working instead of lazy-ass settlers in Civ 2. All the good tile improvments pop out much faster causing your cities to boom. With an industrious civ you may have something close to that advantage right off.
It also seems to me that commerce would help to stave off those militaristic civs. A large cash flow letting you field a much larger army, and allowing you to boost your science rate to get more advanced troops.

 

[Robespierre]

Expansionism may have short lived benefits, but the benefits come at a time when you need them the most, so once everybody goes off on their own tangent you will have a head start that will be difficult to lose (unless you play stupidly or diplomacy goes against you).

Expansionism gives you more early cities, so that equals more culture, commerce, territory, population, production, and military. Sounds to me like a better bonus than just a little extra commerce or a little extra production.

 

[ecofx]

Nice to see this thread doing well
Robespierre: I've reckoned that the most efficiencvy expansion plan is to wait until at least size 5 before finishing a settler in a city. This gives that all-important first city time for at least 2 units, before I start on a granary or something, so my free expansionist scout is not going to give me that much of an advantage on exploration, especially if I get a few goody hut troops as is usually the case. Discovery of huts will just be a little slower, that's all!

The BIG question is what 'better' goodies means. Does it really mean better, as in 200 gold instead of 100, or does it mean the better ones more often (i.e. cities or settlers more often)? Even if the latter is true at double the frequency, I'm likely to get, on average, maybe two cities out of ten huts instead of one. Within the first 60 turns, or so, maybe a couple of cities more, which could be quite a long way from my capital. Because there'll be no irrigation there, I'll have to wait till a worker comes along with a road and does some, or 'grow it alone' - which will take some time too. Defence will also be a bit of a problem. Risky, I'd say!

Yes, growth at the beginning is very important (that's why I'm so expansionist), but having commercial as the second ability along with industrious instead of expansionist will mean less corruption for a large part of the game and more commerce(trade) for the whole game, whith the flexibility mentioned so well by Pansophy.

Don't get me wrong, those early cities will mean a good advantage to fight off the other abilities with (mil, sci, rel) if the cities are relatively close to the capital (luck, not choice), but the lasting effect of commercial along with industrious makes it my pre-game-analysis favourite.

 

[stravaig]

Okay, for the interest of this argument (and not because I enjoy public floggings) I'll admit the following:
Sometimes, I'm weak. Sometimes, I save before pouncing on a goody hut. Sometimes, if it isn't something very impressive (like a free settler, free city, or free tech), I reload and try again. And again. And again.

Now that I've thoroughly disgusted many of you, let me get on with my points.

This strategy of mine (more commonly known as 'cheating') almost always results in getting a massive and insurmountable early advantage over the AI Civs (so yes, I only do this when I don't feel like being particularly challenged...).
For that reason alone, I suspect that "Expansionistic" is potentially (with some luck?) the 'best' trait.
Now, that raises some questions.
Are the goody hut (barbarian villiages?) rewards entirely random every time, or does the game hide a number of 'rolls' in advance such that the hut will yield the same result every time (I think CTP did it that way)? If the latter, then Expansionistic just became that much more valuable, because my strategy (yes, yes, my filthy cheating ways!) will be invalidated.

Interestingly enough, the initial boost that the Expansionistic Civ gets is, theoretically, offset balance-wise by the fact that the other Civ's traits last indefinitely... Very cool.

- Stravaig

 

[ecofx]

Oh, it's ok stravaig, just think of it as creating multiple parallel universes of your civ, that diverge at each goody hut, and you only play the best universe. As a systems analyst, I tried it out, too, but became hopelessly powerful in that game
I even created a map with rivers flowing to the huts, got free (no city) chariots a few times by getting one, then using it to move to the next hut, then a free city at the end, and settled my original settler all in the first turn.Just a bit of fun, really hohum...

In civII, after I think, automobiles, no more advances were given out by any huts left in the game, because it was worth too much. Maybe there's a limit to free cities at the start of the game in civIII, with expansionists getting more (without cheating!). We'll have to wait and see.

Serg has posted a thread that cities of size 1 and 2 will only require 20 food each for growth. If true, then expansion of any civ will be faster than in civII, because of the extra worker's work at the beginning. Hmm - confirmation? (and hi Serg)

 

[Tao Jones]

Eco, your points are well taken. I think we may play a slightly different style of game, you and I. And, if I may speculate, your French may just compliment your particular strategy better than any other faction. To each their own. I salute you, and bid you success with your capitalist endeavors.
Tao

 

[ecofx]

- thanks Tao for the compliment.
My thought for the day is about happiness, as this was also linked to expansion through the happiness (or not) of cities through wonders. The cathederal (extra happiness for each city on continent) was an open invitation to have lots and lots of cities to really work the wonder to the full). Will luxuries run out with massive civs, I wonder? Is there really no happiness slider in civIII?
Also, will own cities be able to trade with each other, for example, food in a swamp city for extra ressources, or so? Even a city in a terrible area could contribute to total culture if you've got the money to 3/4 buy improvements, for example. It just needs enough food to survive.
Expansion rules!

 

[ecofx]

Well, time flies, but my opinion is still the same..
My new interest in city sprawl is to create cities of size 2 and 3 to intentionally slave labour the inhabitants. The info is that you can set the shield production rate per lost city point, but what will the default be and which citizens will remember their slavery and how will it affect growth back to size 3 for a further round of slavery?
This sounds like a pretty good production method as units have no home cities anyway! I just hope the other cities don't get to hear of the slave labour camps!!
P.S. I'm normally a peaceful player i.e. no wars, but for the sake of progress get the whip out!!
Comments?

 

[Mozenwrath]

I think one of the best combos is the Commercial+Expansionist one. In my view, these two attributes go hand in hand. Think about it; Expansionist SHOULD in practice mean more cities in your civilisation. Commercial=more trade in each city centre therefore with more cities you have MUCH more trade than usual. I also think that less corruption helps because you will need to have far-flung cities to get the right resources. This will be a lot easier with reduced corruption. Finally, we all know how brilliant the goody huts in Civ2 are, with better findings from expansionism, you will get a great boost at the beginning of the game and gain that vital early lead.

P.S. Could anyone tell me WHO is Commercial+Expansionist because i don't know and I want to start with them.

 

[spiky82]

The Americans

 

[vanniken]

My personal decision on which civ to choose will depend as always on my mood
i think most of us are making conclusions and decisions based on civ2 experience when it was really crucial to build strong and pretty dominant core as early as possible.. after reading tons of info about civ3 we should remember, that Firaxis uses word "balanced" if speaking of possibilities of each civ, considering new trading and diplomacy rules.. I understand, that each civ will have to create certain circumstances which will help to prepare the way to glory; by that i mean, success with EACH of them will depend only on your chosen strategy, suitable for particular civ.. we should remember that initial specific features are just instruments in our hands, that, combined with our creative approach, can be used for achievement of goals..
and don't forget about the new meaning of resources - i think being expansionist and militaristic doesn't help too much if you have no access to rubber or saltpetre, for example, and have no skills in diplomacy i'm sure that ALL possible victories can be achieved by all civs

but, keeping to tradition, i'd prefer English, Greeks or Indians

 

[ecofx]

Hi vanniken.. being balanced, exactly!

Rex Martin, Lead Play Tester writes..
"Add to this the fact that they are "Industrious" as well ..(+commercial).., and you have a combination that gives great flexibility in this game, making France perhaps the most balanced of the civs.

The French have got the raw power to go with whichever strategy pleases (extra cash and less corruption per city, more shields and faster workers), which is better and better the more cities you have, expanding out from your capital (and hidden palace).

The only thing I'm really envious of is temples at half price and quick gov changes from religion, but over the course of the game.....

A free scout and better goody huts.. the goody huts will have to be one hell of a lot better to keep the initial advantage going further into the game over either industrial or commercial characteristics.

I've written before about the benefits of more cities, but think of this too: Instead of 1 city size 10, change it into 4 cities of size 3 covering slightly more area. What are the benefits, apart from simple to think of ones?
1. Turn them into slave labour or conscription cities, either blasting out shields or defensive troops. Assuming you've grabbed the granary and cathedral wonders, and you can jump between size 3 and 2 and 3 every three turns or so and get the equivalent of x? shields of production from each of the 4 tightly-packed cities without even building anything. Unhappiness, no chance, the cities are simply too small.
2. If you need to produce troops quickly with cash, the more cities the more rushed production.
3. If you've got time for temples, that's lots of culure for the civ even if not for each city

etc, etc.
I'll be expanding when I finally get the game, but I'll start with a different civ or civs, so that I've got the powerful civ to try out once I've got the hang of things - then the French will start kicking...
Which civ is the weakest, though??

 

[chimera99]

I picked up nine or ten science advances in BC from having 2 scouts running around getting all the villages. This included 2 level 3 sciences advances (currency and something else.) That has got to be a huge payoff long term. (I just hit AD so I'm a long way from knowing for sure.)