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

[axehaxe]

Americans on the other hand are expansionist and industrious which is next to lethal if played up properly. Industrious is a silent killer!

 

[timerover51]

I either play the Americans or the Dutch. The Americans for the use of both the industrious and expansionist trait. Besides having the advantage of blanketing the map quickly with scouts, you do pick up a lot of early techs without real cost, and the settlers and the warriors you pick up are quite useful, as I go for monarchy quickly, and conscrip warriors make excellent, no cost garrisons. Once the map is explored, and the goody huts are gone, the trait is obviously much less useful, but then the industrious part kicks in for the Americans.

I use the Dutch because I like sea maps, and the combination of seafaring and agriculture is very useful. The extra food per city can be leveraged into extra shields pretty easy, and the seafaring gets me out and exploring fast. I have modded the curragh to carry one passenger, which makes it even more useful. After all, the curraghs used by the Picts and Celts in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales carried on a sizeable merchant trade long before the Romans arrived in Britain.

 

[Dreadnoughtt]

Except all technologies in the AA have a low value. Most of them are 100 gold or so, and there are a few that are 300 and 400. But this expansionist trait comes no where near the scientific one. Starting from the middle ages, you get a free tech which you can sell for at least 1500 gold, then the industrial ages, for where a early tech is aroun 5000 gold, then the modern age where a free tech is usally worth 50000. This such a huge advantage, not to mention discount libs and universities. Scientific over expansionist Always!

 

[azzaman333]

I find you dont need expansionist to pop early settlers. If you see a goody hut within 3 tiles of your capital, use your worker to pop the hut before you get a warrior. You cant get barbarians, and you have a pretty good chance for a Settler (from my experience)

 

[Turner]

Right, when you don't have any units with a defensive strength > 0, you don't pop barbs.

I had one RnR game where I was just putting out settlers and workers. Popping huts like crazy. I disbanded any warriors. Plan was going good until I popped a hut and I had a settler running around that had a defensive strength of 1.

Didn't pop any more huts while I had settlers running around.

 

[Little Corporal]

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

The Arabs are a great civ, the traits though not complementary are both strong individually and the UU is great, the best knight replacement.

 

[axehaxe]

Originally Posted By Little Corporal

The Arabs are a great civ, the traits though not complementary are both strong individually and the UU is great, the best knight replacement.

I've played as Arabs before back when I was attempting emperor and it was 100% the worst game I've ever played. The religious trait is a lot worse than the expansionist trait and I think that it is possibly the worst trait in the game. You only need to switch governments twice at most during a game and to save 12 turns of anarchy for a trait simply isn't worth it IMO. Even its cheaper buildings are not much of a help because I rarely build temples, colissuems, and cathedrals until the mid-industrial age - happiness is a marketplace/luxury/luxury slider issue to me. I messed up that game actually because of being tempted into building cheap early temples when I should have been cranking out tons of military. Also Ansar warriors get killed easily and you would need tons of them to be effective - I would prefer the rider instead.

Expansionist agricultural
Expansionist industrious
Expansionist commercial
Expansionist scientific
Expansionist militaristic

are all ok

but

Expansionist religious
Expansionist seafaring

are garbage combinations IMO

 

[MAS]

Also Ansar warriors get killed easily and you would need tons of them to be effective - I would prefer the rider instead.

Wait a second, wait a second! The Ansar trades a point of def rating for a point of movement, and cost 10 shields less.

Considering the relative uselessness of def rating in this game: The Ansar is way superior to a normal knight. With a move of 3, you should be the one attacking, so the Ansar def rating will only very rarely be tested.
In fact, I even dare to say that the value of the def rating is such low in combination with 3 movement, the 10 shields less production cost makes up for it, so the Ansar even superior to the Rider. (though maybe not much)

Also, the map, and specifically your starting location, are far more important factors in your success than the civ traits and UU. So that one game you played proves nothing.

 

[Tone]

Well said, MAS!

 

[garyg]

A side note on expansionist and popping settlers.
Make sure you are not building a settler in a town when you pop the hut.
I switch from settler to temple, pop the hut, then switch back.

 

[gunkulator]

Best knight replacement = War Elephant. 25% more hps as a veteran and you can always build it.

Against vet fortified pikes, vet Ansars and all other knight replacements still only win 49.3% of time. WEs win 63% of the time.

 

[Ansar]

Expansionist only gets you a scout. It's good if you have sedentary barbs, and are on a pangaea, but for everything else, I dont like. It's pretty much the worst trait, IMHO. :thumbdown

 

[Little Corporal]

Ansars are better than jumbos, they're cheaper and faster then the jumbos.

 

[Dreadnoughtt]

the Ansar even superior to the Rider-MAS

Since China has the industrious trait, this makes up for the shield cost bc cities will be producing more shields and/or the tiles will be improved faster, speeding up production. The militaristic trait on top of that makes the Riders more likely to get promoted to elites, making them more effective than the ansar.

Best knight replacement = War Elephant. 25% more hps as a veteran and you can always build it.

Against vet fortified pikes, vet Ansars and all other knight replacements still only win 49.3% of time. WEs win 63% of the time. -gunkulator

Well said , as everybody seems to underestimate the war elephant drastically...

 

[azzaman333]

I have never underestimated the War Elephant. It is clearly one of the best UU's in the game, since it's virtually a 5-4-2 Knight which requires no resources.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Expansionist and seafaring aren't bad for continental maps, especially very large ones. You get to meet all your opponents PLUS get to meet the ones on the other continent.

I would say that China is a better miltary civ than Arabs - they are pretty much designed for military. But really - either of them is excellent, because the extra movement make it much easier for them to sweep the globe.

 

[Little Corporal]

Expansionist and seafaring aren't bad for continental maps, especially very large ones. You get to meet all your opponents PLUS get to meet the ones on the other continent.

I would say that China is a better miltary civ than Arabs - they are pretty much designed for military. But really - either of them is excellent, because the extra movement make it much easier for them to sweep the globe.

China may have better military traits, but the Ansar Warrior is better than the Rider because it trades an insignificant defense point for 10 shields off, which makes it ridiculously fast building considering you will probably be in a golden age while using it.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

won't argue with that. I wasn't arguing that. Both civs bring the "cavalry sweep of the world" that usually happens in the late middle ages to the early middle ages.

 

[Little Corporal]

I'm glad you aren't arguing about that, because then you would be wrong
I prefer Arabia as a military civ over china simply due to the Ansar's awesomeness.

 

[axehaxe]

Originally Posted By MAS

The Ansar is way superior to a normal knight. With a move of 3, you should be the one attacking, so the Ansar def rating will only very rarely be tested.

Not really. Shield-wise the Ansars are better but consider this: AI have ansars I have knights. I land knights on one of the AI hills or mountains. This automatically raises the knights defense rating from 3 to 4.5 or 3 to 6. When fortified, knights automatically become defense 4. My pikemen have defense 4at the least when fortified. It is an even gamble to attack my pikemen even deep in my territory with Ansars. Ansars are then good only for this attack purpose because when you land ansars on mountains, they have a defense of 4. Knights on mountains on the other hand are pretty much riflemen on flat terrain with 2 moves to spare. So if the AI had a go at me with Ansars, I could have built tons of pikemen and have my knights fortified on the AI mountains and let their Ansars commit suicide trying to kill my knights and then swoop down and take out their cities when possible.

Originally Posted By MAS

Also, the map, and specifically your starting location, are far more important factors in your success than the civ traits and UU. So that one game you played proves nothing.

Oh absolutely! Takes several games with a certain civ to get to know that civ better. Once, I got a starting location that involved every tile being a tundra. I was the Greeks, but b/c of this the outcome was inevitable.