Help with expansionist trait.

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by metalhead
I would say that an Expansionist civ is served much better by forgoing a granary and building nothing but scouts in your capital, with the exception of settlers. You do want to build your first settler ASAP, and then you can focus your 2nd city on being a settler factory, while building nothing but scouts and settlers in your first city.

Thanks, I'll try that.

Oh and I like keeping track of coasts too, though I never noticed there were more huts. I like to scout out my port cities well in advance, and the scouts can see across bays and straits nicely.

 

[Gothmog]

I have a couple of dissagreements with metalhead. Nothing major, mostly just style. Playing as an expansionist I like to build enough scouts to send one out to each point of the compass. That is 4, unless there is a coast nearby. Then 3, or even 2 if two coasts. Then I go straight for a Granary. I don't worry about an MP for quite a while - I use the slider. I am hoping to get cash and techs from huts and want to get scouts out asap. Also by not building a settler right away, I give the AI time to get ahead in cities and increase my chances of getting a settler/city from a hut.

 

[Globetrotter]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
I started on one of the two continents, with only one other expansionist civ. I built 2 or 3 additional scouts only, but managed to get: 2 warriors, 3 settlers, several amounts of 25 gold and the following techs: Bronze working, iron working, construction, mathemathics, currency, alphabeth, philosophy, the wheel, ceremonial burial, horseback riding, mysticism and polytheism. That's 12 techs.

So you're still have some way to go before you get everything you can from expansionist.

Now that is a lot of techs!
But what level were you on? I couldn't find it in your link

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Globetrotter

Now that is a lot of techs!
But what level were you on? I couldn't find it in your link

I think it was on Regent. It was around the time I switched from Monarch to Emperor on normal games, but I think I switched back to regent for the OCC.

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Gothmog
I have a couple of dissagreements with metalhead. Nothing major, mostly just style. Playing as an expansionist I like to build enough scouts to send one out to each point of the compass. That is 4, unless there is a coast nearby. Then 3, or even 2 if two coasts. Then I go straight for a Granary. I don't worry about an MP for quite a while - I use the slider. I am hoping to get cash and techs from huts and want to get scouts out asap. Also by not building a settler right away, I give the AI time to get ahead in cities and increase my chances of getting a settler/city from a hut.

The luxury slider thing is pretty arbitrary. I prefer to maximize my own research no matter what, and I often run at 90% science as long as is feasible, unless I get the GL, but this is just my personal play style.

If you are only building 4 scouts total, I don't think you're maximizing the potential of expansionist. To put it philosophically, building scouts is your only advantage as an expansionist civ, and the advantage quickly disappears as you approach the middle of the Ancient Age. Therefore, it makes sense to absolutely maximize this advantage by flooding the map with your scouts.

Of course, on tiny and probably even small maps, 3 or 4 scouts is plenty, but on a larger map, you will find many more huts with 8 or 10, because you can send your earliest built scouts as far away as possible while scouting your more immediate surroundings a little later. You will find yourself reaching far-away huts with much more frequency. Also, if you are limited to 3-4 scouts, it is a much bigger blow if one gets whacked by a barb. The whole point of scouting is to cover as much of the map as possible in the shortest amount of time, and the best way to do this is with an exorbitant amount of scouts.

Relying on popped settlers/cities by not building your own and allowing the AI to pull ahead is a very good strategy. However, on Emperor/Deity, this happens automatically, so you can build your own settlers as fast as possible and still get a couple free from huts.

The bottom line is, if your style is working for you, go with it. But I played expansionist civs exclusively for the first 3 months I had the game, and found that as far as scouts go, the more the better. Give it a go, you'll be happy with the results.

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, after I posted I too thought some of the difference was due to map size. In fact I did increase my typical scout build from 2 to 4 after a bit of play and consideration. I typically play on Standard map with random style (always on Diety) and I find that 4 works for me. I may build one or two more if I find out I am on a Pangea. Sometimes if I am on an island even 4 is too many. I have only played on a large map a few times - only once as an expansionist - and I did build more scouts - I think 6. I guess on huge (haven't tried it yet - not enough time), I would build even more.

Even on diety the AI needs a bit of time to get far enough ahead to give you the settler bonus - they will look around before settling their free second city - and depending on their food bonus may not get a third for a little while. Remember that you cannot get a settler if you have or are building one. Also, on a standard map -> Diety, there are often a couple of AI's waiting to swoop in on my territory almost imediately. So waiting to build a Granary in my second city is something I only do if my food bonus is nonexistant in my capital.

It sounds to me like we are pretty much in agreement, you may build a couple scouts more in some situations and I use the slider more though. Comes down to style. Also my belief that I have a permanent hut curse.

 

[kb2tvl]

I try to get a granry when my city is around size 4 ish and I have 2 workers. The second city is important but if your putting out scouts, then you have this growing population and can rush a granary or cut trees to get a granary up fast. I personally think that arabia is the best positioned to get the GL. Alaphabet is not usually known and cerimonial burial + pottery gives a big leg up when city building.

 

[MummyMan]

Speaking of Expansionist civs, which is your favorite to use and why? I like the Americans myself because of the industrious trait, the UU sucks but being able to build improvements at 2x the speed is a very useful thing to have.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Gothmog
Even on diety the AI needs a bit of time to get far enough ahead to give you the settler bonus - they will look around before settling their free second city - and depending on their food bonus may not get a third for a little while.

But you don't need less cities than the AI to get a settler from a hut (IIRC), you only need to not have more than the average AI civ.

Ex: In my last emperor game as Russia I popped a hut on my second turn and got a settler. All civs (including me) had exactly one town then.

 

[Scyphax]

MummyMan

My favorite are the Russians particulary when maintaining tech parity is difficult - at high levels or OCC because of the free tech at each age.
The combo of techs from huts and 1 free per age is very powerful.
The Cossack is an excellent unit that triggers the GA at a good time.

 

[Gothmog]

Re TheNiceOne: For some reason I thought the rule was you had to have less than 2/3 of the other civ's. I read that somewhere . But certainly your example proves that not to be the case. Thanks for the tip!

 

[metalhead]

I've also gotten the 2nd turn settler a couple of times - those are usually the games I don't finish because they are simply too easy. I think the rule is that you have the same as or fewer cities than the total # of cities on the map/total # of civs, but this could also be false. Also, you can easily exploit the "not currently producing a settler" rule by switching from settler production before popping a hut, if you are building one.

I think that the best expansionist civs are the Iroquois and Arabs. Their UU's are among the best in the business, plus all the obvious benefits of being Religious. The Russians are good, but their UU is not much of a game-breaker, and I don't think Scientific provides enough ongoing benefit to stand alone after Expansionist is spent. Of course, I'm a little biased, as I played the Iroquois exclusively for the first couple of months that I owned the game. As with a lot of questions regarding best civs, etc., it really depends on your play style and personal preferences.

 

[Trev]

I play the Russians a lot, good for expansionist and cheap libraries which help in expanding cultural boundaries rapidly

The biggest advantage of scouts is the fact that you get a large area explored quickly, so that it is possible to locate cities early to take control of strategic and luxury resources before your opponents do.

Good access to strategic resources is the real make and break factor in many games, so trade for ironworking and horseriding as early as you can, I do not research them, as the odds are you will get them from huts or trade quicker

 

[MummyMan]

Sounds sweet to me, i'll try the Russians. I like the Iroquois too because of the short revolution times, but they're GA always comes really early The cossack sounds good though, i always hate trying to kill them when invading Russia.