Isions response to the 'weakest trait' poll...

[Ision]

Once again a weakest trait poll has been taken, and once again Expansionist leads the pack as the so-called weakest. Leaving aside the Arch map argument (which is somewhat valid) and focusing on Pang and Conts maps (easily 80% plus of games played) here is some food for thought.

What many of you gentlemen seem to highly underestimate is the 'absolute' value that any trait gives throughout the ENTIRE game if it's value is felt early enough. Even a small and incremental 'early' advantage will far outweigh a more dramatic advantage later on - the reason is that that early advantage translates out in a 'domino effect' manner into every aspect of the later game. It is in that sense that Expansionist is without question one the single strongest traits in the game - this is especially so at the higher levels where 'early' advantages become far more crucial. Below is a quote from another player that sums it up as well as I have ever heard it:

I think the expansionist trait is one of the most powerful traits in the game, actually. For sure the most underrated.

Even if you do not exploit your trait to its fullest potential, you can at least scout the area around your starting location and determine the best city locations without sacrificing much growth. Missing that wheat tile near your capital can actually slow your growth by 50% in the beginning of the game. Finding that luxury before the AI claims it can save you lots of gpt towards entertainment. Finding that great second city location early can allow you to build a road to it and plop your first settler there immediately. Realizing that you are stuck in a small island early can influence your research choices...

Traits with early advantages like Expansionist, Agricultural, and Industrious are so strong because the early bonus gets multiplied as your civilization grows. It hardly matters if a civilization gets no bonus after the ancient age, if the early bonus has done its work.

I honestly believe that the real reason that Expansionist consistantly rates poorly is that it is a more difficult trait to master and play well, and that it is a trait whose advantages vary in degree from game to game. Unlike Industrious and Agri - Expansionist advantages are not direct and easily measured - so unlike Ind & Agri the trait is grossly underrated. New players tend to shy away from any trait that is nuanced and/or the players level of game mastery prevents him from getting the most out of it. IMO even a poor expansionist start (or poorly played exp start) will usually result in a greater long term benefit than most other traits.

Think about it..............

Ision

PS: the above is but 1 example of why I despise 'polls' so much!

 

[The Last Conformist]

I can but agree.

 

[Kaboth]

Expanionist has some value on archipeligo maps when combined with commercial. Meaning you can research map making and build the great lighthouse before anyone else. In Civ classic this used to be the only reasone to play as England. But using a civ with the seafaring trait is probably better.

Personally I feel expansionist is a bit of a hit and miss affair. Even if your playing with max computers on huge pangea you'll probably only pop a few huts before the AI is all around you. I think most people play with max AI players on their map ussually. However take a few players off and you'll probably pop tons of huts making it supremely powerful trait.

Agricultural also can act in funny ways; if there is heaps of desert around its supremely valuable. To take advantage of the extra food in centre city square the city must be built on a river. Yes I have tested that. If neither of these conditions are met all you get is half price aqueducts, hospitals and solar plants (?).

I still feel Industrious is the most flexible trait. It's always useful particularly in the early game when you can pump more settlers and troops instead of wasting time on additional workers resulting in a larger, faster expansion phase. Also useful later on because less workers required = more troop supply. Particularly useful under republic.

 

[Longasc]

Well, then seafaring should be the leader.

According to statistics, most players play regent/monarch, and Expansionist does not shine on those levels as it does on higher ones.

Having a fixed and sure advantage like extra food, production, discounts on buildings is also a thing that people like more than increased odds for better outcomes - how many simply reload?

Expansionist can be very unsatisfying if you do not get a tech or a settler.

On behalf of the expansionist civs, I still would like to thank you for saving their honor.

 

[Gainy]

I completely agree also. Just one thing:

To take advantage of the extra food in centre city square the city must be built on a river.

It can be built on (meaning next to) a lake also.

Actually, two things

If neither of these conditions are met all you get is half price aqueducts, hospitals and solar plants

I'm not sure if you can get half-price solar plants, as i've never got that far. But you are missing out on the point that irrigated Desert produces 1 more food

 

[Ision]

Expansionist can be very unsatisfying if you do not get a tech or a settler.

I have never failed to get a settler or free tech or both from expansionist - either directly by popping 1 from a goody hut OR -

the superior scouting of my area results in ideal city placement which translates out into a net gain in shield/food production from that new built city - which on averge translates out into ...Or

after popping a couple of free warriors I was able to garrison a city without having to build the warriors, which translates out into immediate granary build, which leads to quicker first settler.......OR

or find a resouce which increased happiness which translates out into......................

or

...................................

an indirect free settler or indirect free tech.... almost without fail

once again - as I said before, you cannot measure this trait soley on a 'direct' basis, but must account for the in-direct results.

Ision

 

[Ision]

According to statistics, most players play regent/monarch, and Expansionist does not shine on those levels as it does on higher ones.

Actually if a player were to master this trait at the lower levels - his advantage at the lower levels would be MORE pronounced. The lower the level - the more devastating any 'quick start' advantage trait will be. At the higher levels its about , catching-up faster. At the lower levels its about when does total dominence set in - with expansionist it will happen much sooner than with most other traits.

Personally I feel expansionist is a bit of a hit and miss affair.

Its NEVER hit or miss

- its a 'hit or hit big' affair

at worse you have made first or second contact, mapped the better areas to settle, mapped your enemies location, and mapped vital resouces, got some free gold, and a couple of free warriors for garrison duty or even more scouting - thats a 'hit'!!!

at best you have done all of the above AND popped a couple of free techs and perhaps a free settler as well! - big hit!!!!

the 'hit or miss' rap has never been valid except on arch.

Ision

 

[Slax]

I once was anti-expansionist, but no more.

I wonder if a large percentage of the players who hate expansionist are the same people who reload often, or use utilities to see the map at the start? Many of the expansionist advantages can be reproduced by cheating.

Play iron-man (ie. no cheating or reloading).

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Expansionist is by far one of my favorite if not my all time favorite trait. Currently I am on Emperor, I was able to expand so quickly by finding where the other AI's were and building on their border to prevent their growth. I avoided wasting vauable settler movements to find out there is nowhere good to build in a particular area. Finally, all the bonuses I got from goodie huts are extremely helpful, tech (gets me a better foothold in the tech race), gold (allows me to reduce tax rate, to increase science to research faster), I even managed to pop a city, right in the middle of 3 civs (perfect military base.) With knowing all the AI's early on I was able to get ahead scientifically, by buying from one and selling to all the others with ease, as they haven't met yet. Expansionist should never be underated, as its effects are immense.

 

[Ision]

Well said CIVPhilzilla.

Ision

 

[warpstorm]

I also feel that Expansionistic is the strongest trait over the long run).

 

[Kiech]

Another note on Expansionist and C3C - now that you CANNOT trade contacts until Printing Press(and WM until Nav), it has become INFINIATLEY more powerful IMHO. Early tech trading is very important in the game and the expansionist ensures that you get to do just that. There is nothing else I hate more than not being able to find the civ my opponent is trading with.

As for usefullness on Arp maps - heh, anyone else having trouble pulling a decent arp map with 1.22? - your scouts will quickly give you the lay of the land to plan out your cities quickly and let you know how soon you need to have boats ready.

Excellent, excellent civ trait.

 

[lord42]

Well I play Archepelliogo's so seafareing really takes the place of expansionist for me.

I feel that expnsionist can be usefull but... when the scout gets barb killed on the fifth turn it turns me off.

Commercial is my favorite by the way.. And is the strongest in the long run. Once cities breach size 12 you become a nightmare for every other civ..

 

[Birdjaguar]

I have never played an expansionist civ in an epic game. Based on this thread, I will give it a try.

 

[Ision]

Another note on Expansionist and C3C - now that you CANNOT trade contacts until Printing Press(and WM until Nav), it has become INFINIATLEY more powerful IMHO.

I forgot to make that point - thanks.

Ision

 

[Smellincoffee]

I didn't post one to up my post count or because I was simply curious; I wanted to see what players thought were weaker traits or weaker aspects of current traits, so I could fiddle with the editor and make some changes that weren't so focused on the map. Expansionist is typically regarded as weak because it has no obvious reach outside of the ancient era, whereas the other traits do. Seafaring is NOT as focused on the map. Even if you played a Pangea, you would still benifet from the starting tech alone (Alphabet) and the coastal towns.

I'm not a big fan of Expansionist because I rarely play big maps and usually stick with continents -- and rather than use scouts, I can always get a ROP and use horsemen to do my scouting for me. And THEY can fight off barbarians. Of course, Expansionist is very good when popping goody huts, which is the only reason I'd play them.

And I guess I want to strengthen Expansionist because I tire of seeing "expansionist" civs (like America or Russia) be really tiny "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg" type nations in the game. If America is in the game, she should straddle the globe like a collossus.

 

[Jon Shafer]

While I am a fan of Expansionist and I agree that it can be powerful, I think some of you are giving it a little more credit than it is due.

And I don't really think you need to be an experienced player to know how to use EXP. You build Scouts and send them about... worthy of a course at a university, I know. As long as you have some semblance as to how to scout then any player can reap its benefits the same. I think what you may be trying to say that only more experienced players realize how strong EXP can be. But, as Kaboth said, it's a hit-or-miss trait.

There are many advantages to EXP, and these have been hashed out already. Hut popping, early scouting, no barbs from huts, possibly a free Settler, meeting civs sooner, more of the landmass mapped, etc.

The problem is that EXP IS a very map and luck-dependent trait. You can say that the early scouting, etc. etc. adds up to long-term advantages however you slice it, but seriously now, I wouldn't call it a lifesaver just because I spot an extra good tile or two near my capital to build a better city. If I was unable to find this miracle site by scouting the hard way with any other trait then that would be bad scouting. The area immediately surrounding your capital should be a high priority for scouting and if you leave that important task unfulfilled then it's not the fault of your traits that you didn't do things right. The same goes for not spotting luxes and such. If they're so far off you needed a Scout to find them then you probably won't get them anyways.

The issue of getting free Warriors for MP usage is a fair one, but you usually won't find TOO many huts near by, and you can usually count on 1 free Warrior somewhere in the vacinity, if that.

Meeting a civ or two earlier? Also an advantage (if you DO have any neighbors, and assuming you DO meet them any sooner), though not as pronounced as is being claimed. On higher difficulty levels the AI starts off with so many units and so many scouts that they meet each other relatively quickly, cutting you out of deals pretty fast anyways. Many times all you'll find is a civ completely ahead of you or who has absolutely nothing to trade.

And quite frankly, the hut scramble is pretty ugly, especially higher up. With the AIs having so many units (except on exceptionally large maps with lots of space) you won't get all that many huts. The AI civs know where they are and they will find many of them quickly. I've gotten many EXP games where I only find a single hut for myself.

And about half the time I don't get ANY techs or ANY Settlers, which basically neuters the greatest effect of the entire tech. 'Cause, I don't think I'm surprising anyone here, the main purpose of EXP is to get that free city early or to get a nice healthy tech lead. When those don't pan out then you're left with a scattering of interesting and possibly useful benefits that you can't really count on to help you out.

EXP:

Powerful? Yes. Underrated? Yes. Better than AGR or IND? Nope.

 

[Tarzus]

I just like to point out that whether a trait is good & powerful or bad & weak depends on the type of statistical achievements and strategical achievements you want to get in your short, medium and long term plans. In Civ game you always (whether intentionally or not) achieve something. May it be gaining tech from popping huts or gaining gold from killing barbarians.

Strategic Achievements (STGY A) are achievements like rival being eliminated/weaken, strategic or luxury resources grabbed, enemy threat eliminated, choke point, cultural gain, wonders, even huts popping, etc. The level of achievement is somewhat difficult to quantify and compare with one another in terms of number/value, especially when you compare different goals and different play styles.

Statistical Achievements (STTC A) are things that can be quantify, like number of troops build, number of cities own/build, Money earned, etc.

An achievement can often involve both STTC & STGY achievements. For example Pyramid. Strategically you want your cities to grow faster and outrun (or at least keep up with) the AI's expansion, hence you build the pyramid. On the other hand your aim is to gain, say 20 gpt more, and you have 20 cities all with granary. By building Pyramid, you can achieve this goal, plus some more gp for selling all 20 granaries. Both are achievements from building the pyramid, and both can be intentional / non-intentional.

The power of traits also provides mix of STGY A & STTC A to your empire, example Commencial & Expansionist below:

Commecial
Statistical Advantage:
1) more commerce means more beakers, gp and happy faces.
2) less corruption.

Strategical Advantage:
1) faster marketplace, bank, stock exchange, etc. At a glance this is not much, but you would be surprise that faster built of these improvements could means earlier $ than others for buying a strategic tech and then rushing units for war. Often, the strategical advantages of this trait are overlooked as we tend to classify it as a solely STTC trait.

To utilise more power from this trait, I could convert my government to Mon/Rep in Ancient Age, and rush units/settler for war/expansion. See ? The traits become more than just a statistically advantageous trait that not just provide coins and number.

Expansionist
STTC Advtg:
1) one more unit at start (nothing much). That unit can move 2 tiles (a little bit more but still nothing much at all). Able to make early contact, know landscape earlier and plan for suitable tech suitable build order suitable strategy (hey, that's something, but that falls under STGY A, therefore, nothing much STTC-ly)

STGY Advtg:
Many (though dependant on luck), I’ll leave this for the experts to mention.

My feeling is that many players who underrate certain traits (including myself) are often one who see traits more STTC-ly than STGY-ly. Statistics like how many more cities AI have, how many more units they own, how much gp they could earn per turn, how many techs they are ahead, and so on, often pressurize the players to choose traits that seems to impact statistic directly. I mean at the end of the game this is what we all are dying to achieve (statistical achievement), but we often neglect the importance of STGY A that will lead us to far better STTC A.

Re: Agricultural trait
desert has equal output as plain = more cosistent OCP implementation. Instead of irrigating plain and mining desert, irrigating desert and mining plain net you more f.s.c output.

 

[Arathorn]

Ision, I'm disappointed in you. You usually have such good things to say, but....

at worse you have made first or second contact, mapped the better areas to settle, mapped your enemies location, and mapped vital resouces, got some free gold, and a couple of free warriors for garrison duty or even more scouting - thats a 'hit'!!!

I get all those things just as often without playing an expansionist civ. And, on Sid (and often on deity), the huts just don't contain anything good at all, so you don't get free warriors or gold or anything.

Anybody who can't use regular units to scout effectively, both to get early contacts and to know where to place cities, is in trouble anyway and probably won't be able to do it even with scouts. I very rarely play expansionist civs any more, because:
- Huts are often valueless anyway
- AI civs (with tons of starting units) get there first anyway
- Scouting is easy with regular units
- I generally play random barbs...having lots of barbs or no huts at all are both possible and both very bad for expansionist civs
- If I get a good run with an expansionist civ (two or more cities), the game's boring and easy anyway, so it's no fun to play.

It's much too much hit and miss. If it hits big, it's really not much fun to play. If it misses, you've wasted a trait.

Now, that's not to say it isn't beneficial. It is. I just don't think it compares favorably, overall, to the other traits. Weakest does not mean weak.

Arathorn

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by lord42
I feel that expnsionist can be usefull but... when the scout gets barb killed on the fifth turn it turns me off.

Why do you only have one scout? I routinely build a few.