Is it just me or does the expansionist trait totally suck?

[gunkulator]

The Expansionist trait can help with early contacts, however eventually all the AIs on one landmass will meet and so your advantage is gone quickly. Seafaring lets you build 3-move per turn curraghs that are also quite helpful for meeting your neighbors but also have a good shot at making it across the ocean to the next landmass. You can become a real trade broker for a much longer time. As for huts, at upper levels the AI gets most of them anyways. Seafaring grants +1 sea movement, +1 commerce for coastal cities and cheap harbors. These last the whole game.

So for pangaea, Exp may be moderately better. For all other map types, I prefer Seafaring.

 

[guare]

I value expansionist over industrious, the advantage it gives you can give you a tremendous advantage in the AA that leads to a tremendous advantage throughout the game. I would rate scientific and agricultural over expansionist though.

well, in my (noob) opinion, the expansionist civ finds resourses and civs first, but the industrious connect it first.

 

[Tone]

The Expansionist trait can help with early contacts, however eventually all the AIs on one landmass will meet and so your advantage is gone quickly.

I guess it depends upon your definition of 'quickly'. This 'shot is from a game I played at Monarch level.

All civs started on the same landmass-a sort of sideways S-shaped huge pangea with me in the middle. That is the situation at 1000AD but the two groups actually never met each other. This includes the seafaring Byzantines that I left alone until last. Yes, I know it wasn't with me playing an expansionist civ but the point is about the AI making contacts, or not as the case may be.

I agree with your point though that seafaring lasts for the whole game but even on a more standard shaped map, early contacts can put you in a game winning position. Seafaring wins on continents and 'pelago but is pretty poor on pangea.

well, in my (noob) opinion, the expansionist civ finds resourses and civs first, but the industrious connect it first.

...and the agricultural civ takes the site first?

 

[fishjie]

expansionist only has a benefit in the beggining, afterward its worthless since you dont get any static long term benefit. and its only good on pangaea where you can broker with everyone, but i found it complete garbage on continents. give me commercial or agricultural or industrous any day.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

of course it's not as good as in the beginning. If it were, it would be totally overpowered.

You get free settlers, cities or techs more often, without barbarians. You get contacts with everyone faster.

You have to use that correctly, of course, but you can get such a large lead that you can't lose.

 

[Little Corporal]

expansionist only has a benefit in the beggining, afterward its worthless since you dont get any static long term benefit. and its only good on pangaea where you can broker with everyone, but i found it complete garbage on continents. give me commercial or agricultural or industrous any day.

Expansionist is fine on continents, you can broker with apprx. half the world. It's trash on archipelago though. You get the static long term benefit of knowing where everybody and everything is on your landmass, and a tech lead. What's not to like?

 

[gunkulator]

All civs started on the same landmass-a sort of sideways S-shaped huge pangea with me in the middle. That is the situation at 1000AD but the two groups actually never met each other.

I think you'd have to admit that you're talking about a pretty unique map and starting situation. Had the map been more of a blob pangaea or if you had started at one end instead of in the middle, you would not have had the same outcome.

This includes the seafaring Byzantines that I left alone until last. Yes, I know it wasn't with me playing an expansionist civ but the point is about the AI making contacts, or not as the case may be.

Kinda kills the whole point though. Expansionist made no difference, just the map and your starting position. At DG, Deity or Sid, the AI gets so many free units right at the start that they inevitably grab all of the goody huts and make contacts pretty quickly. And yes, the AI has no clue how to use seafaring correctly.

I agree with your point though that seafaring lasts for the whole game but even on a more standard shaped map, early contacts can put you in a game winning position. Seafaring wins on continents and 'pelago but is pretty poor on pangea.

Yeah, Seafaring is pretty pointless on pagaea however outside that map, it is better for making contacts than Expansionist and has other benefits besides.

 

[Tone]

Firstly, no it is not unique. Rare? Certainly, but by no means unique. More likely to happen on the lowest levels? Yes, but I've played a number of higher level pangea games where one or more AI civs have been isolated from the others. My first thought was a DG fast SS game I played where Korea did not make contact with any other civ but me until the Industrial age. Unfortunately I couldn't lay my hands on the save quickly to post that one. The map was a 'blob' and although I blocked them off reasonably quickly, the AI gets enough units to explore and is normally powerful enough in the early game at this level to make you think twice about giving a 'leave or declare' demand. I have no idea why it didn't make more contacts in this game.

Let me make it quite clear that I'm not disagreeing with your general theme though, gunkulator. I'll normally take SEA over EXP-certainly for a totally random map- but I just want to emphasis how powerful early contacts can be and how they can last in the right circumstances. You can do this on pangea maps with plenty of normal units out scouting but EXP civs have a real advantage in this case.

Of course, the same advantage can be gained from seafaring civs on continents maps. Their suicide galleys often manage to cross the ocean, giving the player two sets of monopoly trade options up until the AI gets Navigation or Magnetism.

In short I just don't want people to miss out on the fun of playing civs like Russia, the Mongols and Arabia just because they think that EXP is a worthless trait.

 

[guare]

...and the agricultural civ takes the site first?

UHAUAHAUH i gotta play with a agricultural civ to check it out XD

 

[Theryman]

When I played Vanilla/PTW, it was hard to not play an industrious civ. Most of the civs I enjoy playing are industrious.

Get C3C, and play with Agricultural. I did the same with Agri that I did with Industrious when I first got Conquests.

When I had Vanilla, I literally had to force myself to stay away from Industrious. I did not want to ger dependent on the fast workers.

I can use it now it C3C, though.

 

[greekguy]

Expansionist trait is easily the worst trait in the game. it's only advantage is scouts (only good for AA) and better goody huts (you usually get crap from goody huts at higher levels, even with EXP). the only EXP civ i am willing to play as is America, and that's only because i'm American.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

There is no bad trait.

With expansionist, you can, depending on map or level, be 1/2 through the middle ages by 1000 BC.

Barbs huts dont' spew warriors at you on any level.

you meet people faster and see where luxes are faster.

There is no bad trait.

 

[rescuerick]

also, i can't emphasize how huge it is to pop an early settler on any level. popping them within the first 5 turns effectively makes you twice as strong as you would have been. on the lower levels, this is the game breaker, especially if they can both be settler factories. even if one becomes a production city, it can start churn out troops which could jumpstart your eventual conquest (or provide protection MPs for the builder types). on higher levels, if you are below the average number of cities, you could conceivably pop more than one settler and this can help you catch up in size, production, and ultimately tech. the opportunity to get most of your AA tech is gravy...

 

[MAS]

also, i can't emphasize how huge it is to pop an early settler on any level. popping them within the first 5 turns effectively makes you twice as strong as you would have been. on the lower levels, this is the game breaker, especially if they can both be settler factories. even if one becomes a production city, it can start churn out troops which could jumpstart your eventual conquest (or provide protection MPs for the builder types). on higher levels, if you are below the average number of cities, you could conceivably pop more than one settler and this can help you catch up in size, production, and ultimately tech. the opportunity to get most of your AA tech is gravy...

exept that on higher levels, you are not going to get settlers from huts.

 

[Scratcher]

exept that on higher levels, you are not going to get settlers from huts.

Why?

Which levels?

 

[Little Corporal]

Why?

Which levels?

On anything above monarch(and not much on monarch) the chances of popping a settler from a goody hut are very low.

 

[Tone]

exept that on higher levels, you are not going to get settlers from huts.

Well actually, only on Sid level do you stand no chance of a settler with an EXP civ.

Why?

Which levels?

Generally speaking, the chances of getting anything good decreases at the level increases but you can still get settlers at Deity level with an EXP civ. It's a 1 in 5 chance which is not too bad. Non-EXP civs will get barbs 85% of the time on Deity.

Check this thread out for much more detail.

The problem with GHs at the highest level is actually getting to them first. The AI has so many units to explore with and knows where they are already so you'll probably only get to those in your immediate area.

 

[axehaxe]

Originally Posted By Automated Teller

if you pay attention to the AI, the expansionist civs are often the ones with the largest empires.

9/10 times for me, the runaway AI is an agricultural or industrious AI - Mayans = Death!

 

[rescuerick]

wow - went back and looked at the goody hut thread and it looks like the RNG spirits have been pretty good to me on my last few Regent games...

did not know the probability for settlers was so low, especially moving up in levels. may have to rethink what i play...

 

[axehaxe]

When combined with the wrong trait, expansionist sux! Reminds me of the Arabs - religious, expansionist...What the heck?!?!?