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

[Ision]

Ision, I'm disappointed in you.

sorry to hear that

I get all those things just as often without playing an expansionist civ.

you do not get them anywhere near as quickly - in CIV 'speed' kills - also you do not get ALL those things; gold, warriors, techs, settlers are almost exclusively Exp benefits - the only aspect that you mirror is the mapping, and that at a slower and far less in depth degree.

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.

Its not about being unable to scout effectively with warriors, its about doing it far easier, far faster, and with a greater pay-off. As to where to place new cities, any player that has played Exp extensively will tell you that his early city (first 1 to 3) placement on 'average' is far superior than when non-expansionist. The results of even a slightly better city placement is magnified 10 fold over the course of an epic game.

- 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.

the same can be said of any Civ with any trait combo - also, if this is a consistant theme when you play expansionist: a) you have undermined your own argument. b) consider moving up a difficutly level.

It's much too much hit and miss.

Its never hit or miss (arch excepted) Its always hit or hit big.

The intention of my thread is not to argue on Expansionsit being THE best trait - there is none, it is NOT to argue that the trait does not stink under certain circumpstances because it does (like all traits) , its not to argue that if you don't like expansionist as a trait or the play style of it you're a 'poor player' - we all have our prefrences. My only intention is as a re-action to the 'strongest/weakest' approach which is far too prevelant and based far and away on ease of play and personal bias. Without giving a SPECFIC CONTEXT the weakest/strongest approach TICKS me off. Like all traits the games difficulty level and the players expierence are key. Expansionist is a terrific trait better than ANY other and weaker than ANY other depending on the context, your play style, goals and overall mastery of the game mechanics and nuances. Weak at culture, strong in quick start, weak on the seas, strong for the war minded.... ect... No more - no less.

Ision

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

In fact, the built-in benefits of EXP are good enough that this trait is even worth in in the DyP mod, where all Civs have access to Scouts from the beginning (EXP Scout - Rangers are faster and can defend). Just the chances for techs or Settlers are much elevated.

Something else: While I like the trait, IMHO it only is really worth it on Emperor and DG; below, you hardly get Settlers, since the AI most likely will have less cities than you, Deity+ huts simply don't give anthing but gp and Maps.

 

[Arathorn]

Move up a level? Care to explain how to do that? I guess I could mod the game to beyond-Sid, but since Sid already doesn't let you ever get anything good (besides maps, essentially) out of a hut, it seems rather silly.

In general, expansionist is the least powerful trait. That's just because they're all pretty powerful, if/when used correctly. Expansionist just has the least to offer at the highest levels. Scientific is a very close second, but its techs come at a good time and are more controllable, so it's more valuable, in general.

Speed is important, yes, but the difference between having full contacts in 1250 BC instead of 950 BC is trivial compared to lower corruption in all cities all game (commercial) or ~5 turns in anarchy plus cheaper buildings (religious) or faster roads/improvements and shields (industrious) or tech slingshots (scientific) or extra food/size all game (agricultural) or an extra army (militaristic). Seafaring actually gives contacts faster, usually, and can give a lot of contacts expansionist can't (especially when playing on a totally random map).

The results you get from huts are much more dependent on difficulty level than they are on whether or not you're an expansionist civ. 25 gold early in the game is nice, but you get that from industrious or commercial or seafaring or agricultural, too (faster roads, less corruption, center square commerce, faster growth respectively). A single warrior is 10 shields, which is, again, easy to gain even very rarely with other civs, whether it be saved by lower corruption or not invested in a building or easy because of higher population and/or better developed land.

Sure, if you build two scouts you're going to explore better than if you build two warriors, but if you're an even adequate player, you will realize this fact and build more warriors for exploration than scouts. I thought that was so obvious it didn't need to be said. Maybe it does. I can afford to build those extra explorers because of the other benefit(s) of the differing traits. [Or two warriors and two curraghs or whatever. It depends on the situation, but the other traits work in EVERY situation. Expansionist isn't so hot if you're on an island. Or barbs are set to not exist. Or... Or... Or...]

If you are getting much better city spots playing expansionist, you're doing a really poor job scouting when non-expansionist. I've played expansionist civs a number of times and the quality of the first/second/third/fourth/etc. city is determined by the same thing it always is -- the quality of the surrounding terrain. Playing expansionist doesn't magically make better squares appear around you.

As for getting two or more cities, I occasionally play extreme variants on lower levels. I don't like getting too many cities. I've gotten as many as five playing non-expansionist and it's no fun then either. I've also popped >60 huts as expansionist and gotten no settlers (yes, I know the requirements to get settlers). It's miss small or miss big.

Its never hit or miss (arch excepted)

It's never hit or miss (except when it is). ??? Except when you're on an archipelago (1 map in 3, if random). Or a small continent (happens sometimes). Or there are no goodie huts (OK, not worthless, but the value is taken down by half, at least). Or if the AI civs beat you to most of the huts. Or your scouts die rapidly to barbs. Or... Or...

Yes, expansionist CAN be a great trait. It can give more than other traits. But it consistently delivers less than other traits(even in the early game), especially on the higher difficulty levels. All traits vary in usefulness, depending on LOTS of things, but the mean and median value of expansionist is lower than the other traits. Its highest value might be the highest, too, but when assessing traits, I go on average value, not what can/might happen. And, on average, expansionist is the weakest. Again, that's not saying it's bad or worthless...it's just worth less, on average, than other traits.

Arathorn

 

[dgfred]

I and A. Thanks for the "discussion" A whole lot of great
info here but where is the . This is a lurkers paradise.

for all your time and energy helping us along.

 

[Ision]

Expansionist just has the least to offer at the highest levels.

I respectfully disagee - lol -

Speed is important, yes, but

for me, there are no 'buts' in this equation - whatever mid or late game advantages there are to be gained by other traits that give those advanatages far more dramatically and measurably than Expansionist - the incremental advanatage of Exp early on has had its domino effect to at least average out to the advanatges you described. Not always - sure - sometimes better - sure - I am not speaking in absolutes; but in averages. The arch maps examples you gave are out of context (I have connsistantly pointed to it as an exception).

let me quote Alexman on this one more time:

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.

moving on...

Sure, if you build two scouts you're going to explore better than if you build two warriors, but if you're an even adequate player, you will realize this fact and build more warriors for exploration than scouts. I thought that was so obvious it didn't need to be said. Maybe it does.

sorry - NOT so obvious - the 'just build more warriors' response is exactly my point. It one of the advanatages of Expansionist that the time and effort of having to do that is not a factor. Just 10 each you say, just a couple more you say... in the early game 10 to 30 shields is not just a 'just' ... it is properly measured in time... time in which the EXP CIV will be on its way to building what you build 'LATER' and thats the whole point of the trait - the ability to get there first - even if incrementally so. 'There' being: granary, settler, worker, archer whatever... depending on your goals. BTW, I may be wrong but I AM at least an adequate player.

If you are getting much better city spots playing expansionist, you're doing a really poor job scouting when non-expansionist.

perhaps i need to brush up on my non-expansionist games LOL...... the key word here is when you said 'MUCH' - no, i do not get MUCH better spots - just on average one of those first cities will be on a 'slightly' better spot. That 'slightly better' spot early has a cumulative effect over time.

on average, expansionist is the weakest.

I still - respectfully disagree.

Ision

PS: I think we have 'played' this one out.

 

[Ision]

"I and A. Thanks for the "discussion" A whole lot of great
info here but where is the love"

dgfred,

I have nothing but respect for Arathorn, the debates get 'heavy' from time to time - but its in a sporting spirit.

If however, I HAVE said anything improper - I apologize to Arathorn and any of those 'lurking' here.

Sincerely,

Ision

 

[scoutsout]

@ Ision, Arathorn: While I find your debate fascinating, some thoughts for both of you:

@ Arathorn: While reading your posts, I imagined myself playing Sid, and had a sudden vision of my mother opening up "regedit". Not pretty. Consider some of Ision's recent works on the various tribes. He has gone through considerable effort to put some information together for those of us in the 'middle of the bell curve' - the ~80% of us that play Regent to Emperor. A recurring theme (and not just from Ision) is that there is no "single best civ" or "single best trait".

Learning to maximize a tribe's combination of traits is key to winning with that civ. Many Regent level players (myself included, when I was there) prefer the civs with "builder" traits, or the traits that lend themselves well to a more generalized approach to the game (Industrious, Religious, Scientific, Commercial). The common recurring theme in Ision's "Tribes" articles is how to maximize the benefits of the trait combination of a given civ. These lessons are of tremendous value to players working their way up from Regent.

@Ision: consider your own "Monarch to Emperor: The Great Leap" article. Might it be possible that after making the "Great Leap", a player will encounter an "event horizon" at Sid? Where some things that work at Emperor/Diety get sucked into the same black hole that took Regent level self-research out of the game?

@Arathorn and Ision again: IMHO, you guys are talking "apples and oranges"...or one of you has the elephant's trunk, the other the tail...or something.

One thing I find interesting is that most of the discussion about the expansionist trait has centered around scouts. Nobody has talked about early granaries. Consider the "minimum research gambit" possiblities when you don't have to dump your treasury to get pottery in the expansion phase... there's tremendous value there.

...and "minimum research gambits" are another thing that separates the Emperor level player from the Regent.

Best regards to (and for) both of you.

 

[dgfred]

Ision, Nothing wrong said, it just tickles me when you guy have
even the slightest disagreements. . Thanks again
for all your work and help. You two are s.

 

[Arathorn]

A few more points, then I will agree to disagree...

I can't quite jive to the mindset of completely ignoring a third of the maps.... I play solo games on completely random maps and 'pelago comes up about a third of the time. Different perspectives on the importance of that has come into play, too, I think.


Industrious gets you spots slightly better earlier, too. The speed of the first worker is very important. Industrious is very strong early. (You can grow as much as three turns earlier with industrious. And that grows over time, too.)

Commercial makes all spots better, almost like having a courthouse in every city to start the game. 10 shields disappear in a flash very early, when it's your fourth and ninth shield corrupted, not your third, seventh, and eleventh....

Agricultural is almost as valuable as spotting that grassland wheat. And it extends to all cities on fresh water. I'll take two adequate spots over one slightly better spot.

The point of this is that many of the other traits give similar advantages. From alexman's list, if I were to do the same for industrious, for example...
- Getting that irrigation faster gives you more growth, so your settler wins the race to the luxuries by 5 turns instead of it being close.
- Having the faster forest chop gets your granary and settler factory running 7 turns earlier, netting all kinds of benefits.
- Faster roading gets you to that second city spot a turn faster, so you've settled it faster than the expansionist civ.

Similar lists can be made for many traits.... You're actually more likely to get those good spots with an agricultural, industrious, or commercial civ than with an expansionist.

As militaristic, I'll just go TAKE the darn thing!

I honestly can't remember the last time I played a game and thought "If only I hadn't missed ..." because I hadn't seen it instead of flat-out being beat there. And, no, that's not lack of prioritization...that's not being able to get the settlers out fast enough and losing spot C because A and B were better and I settled there first.

BTW, what's your "weakest" trait, on average?

Arathorn

P.S. I was (and still am, somewhat) one of the loudest trumpeters of "It all depends!" But, envisioning myself in a completely random situation (Random everything -- map size, difficulty level, map characteristics, etc.), the trait I'd least want is expansionist. Huge map on regeant with sedentary barbs? It'd rock. Tiny 'pelago with no barbs at all and it'd suck....

 

[Arathorn]

Oh, hey! Missed a post. I have nothing but respect for Ision, too. He's done great stuff and his articles (while I don't necessarily agree with all the fine points on) are tremendous. That's why I was a bit disappointed to see him loudly trumpeting the values of expansionist....

Yes, it is valuable. Not using it to its fullest is ridiculous. Played properly, its value is well over 100 gpt in the late game (e.g. if asked between being given 100 gold every turn after 1600 AD (or upon entry to the IA or some such nonsense) or being expansionist, I'd be expansionist, even on a truly random map).

If anything I've said was taken as a personal cut to Ision or anyone else, I apologize. It was never my intention.

Arathorn

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by Arathorn
If anything I've said was taken as a personal cut to Ision or anyone else, I apologize. It was never my intention.

I certainly didn't take it that way... the way I took it was that you guys were discussing things on different planes. It also appears to me to be an "intellectual argument", which is a good and healthy thing, IMO, and much different from an "argument", if that makes any sense...

 

[Ision]

A few more points, then I will agree to disagree...

lol............ alright - finally we agree on something!

Industrious gets you spots slightly better earlier, too.

I agree, I like this trait as well.

Commercial makes all spots better,

I agree, ...... somewhat.

Agricultural is almost as valuable as spotting that grassland wheat

I agree, (depending on the river/lake ratio).

Similar lists can be made for many traits....

I agree, which is exactly WHY I opened this thread - to dis-credit the 'weakest' trait argument.

You're actually more likely to get those good spots with an agricultural, industrious, or commercial civ than with an expansionist.

Sometime you do. Sometimes you don't. Thats the beauty of having CIV traits. I would not add commercial to the quick start 3-some Ind/Exp/Agri - its primary merits are elsewhere.

BTW, what's your "weakest" trait, on average?

I am loathe to answer that question - I am far to 'context' oriented to answer that. The best I can offer is this: I never judge a trait in a 'vacuum' ie... alone, because none of the traits exit independantly - they exist along side another trait that affects it to varying degrees (and at time the UU has a great influence as well). So I tend to think in terms of 'trait combos'. Do I have a weakest trait for me PERSONALLY (because of my preferred playstyles and biases) - YES. So now that I have qualified my answer, I won't dodge your question - for me its religious.

Ision

 

[Ision]

Ision: consider your own "Monarch to Emperor: The Great Leap" article. Might it be possible that after making the "Great Leap", a player will encounter an "event horizon" at Sid? Where some things that work at Emperor/Diety get sucked into the same black hole that took Regent level self-research out of the game?

Scout,

You may have a point, I will consider it. The fact that I play on deity level has NOT kept me from continuing to play all 8 of the diffrent CIV traits - I go out of my way to do it for the sake of variety. That said, your 'even horizon' comment may be valid.

@Arathorn and Ision again: IMHO, you guys are talking "apples and oranges"...or one of you has the elephant's trunk, the other the tail...or something.

great line... BTW I insist on being the one on the 'trunk' end.........

Ision

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Ision
I am loathe to answer that question - I am far to 'context' oriented to answer that. The best I can offer is this: I never judge a trait in a 'vacuum' ie... alone, because none of the traits exit independantly - they exist along side another trait that affects it to varying degrees (and at time the UU has a great influence as well). So I tend to think in terms of 'trait combos'. Do I have a weakest trait for me PERSONALLY (because of my preferred playstyles and biases) - YES. So now that I have qualified my answer, I won't dodge your question - for me its religious.

I think I fear you may be suffering from contradicting yourself with this.

So basically you cannot judge a trait by itself since other factors influence it so much, except for EXP, which is so great because x and y and z, despite the fact that most of these effects are potential and the effects of EXP are different for every game.

As I said in my post above, I've had many games where I only get 1 hut as an EXP civ and half my games where I don't get a tech or a Settler. That's pretty damning evidence for the random nature of the trait.

And, for the record, I find SCI the worst trait. I'm simply arguing that EXP isn't "all that" in every game.

 

[Arathorn]

Fine. Leave me the tail!

Event horizon?
It's pretty "straight-forward" to beat deity with any trait/combination of traits. There's certainly no trait combination that is completely uber nor one that is so weak you can't win that way. I personally find some combos slightly easier than others but other very good players have different opinions and for good reason, so....

Sid? I dunno. I've not played enough to say. The neutering of huts on Sid (a bad move, IMO) exaggerates some of my deity perceptions. I'd wager any combination CAN be won, but that agricultural, industrious, and/or commercial will be the most common, with militaristic, seafaring middle and expansionist, scientific, religious relatively rare.

I've just read too many people saying "You have to be <blank> to beat deity" (Persia or Ottomans or...) or "You have to always <blank> to beat deity." (warmonger or have a 4-turn settler factory start or...) And they're wrong. My guess is something similar applies to Sid, but the pace there is so frenetic and out-of-control, I find certain tactics to be ... handicapped. Whether that's a function of the difficulty level or my play, though, I don't really know. [That is, I can beat deity this way or that way or even doing this, but it's easiest for me...this way. So that's the way I expect to beat Sid. Someone else might have a different, and equally valid, opinion.]

OK, certain things don't really work on the really upper levels...
- Wonder addiction (you can still get 90+% even on Emperor, if you REALLY want to, but not on deity...don't know about demi-god, honestly)
- Letting the governors do their work (they're just SO bad)
- Automating workers (at least in the first 150 turns)

As a variant, one of those MIGHT be possible, but it'd be extremely tough, even on deity, and probably impossible (or next to) on Sid. [Nothing's truly impossible, given enough tries and the right starting positions -- you on a huge island alone and each of the AI foes isolated on a small, crappy landmass will win nearly anything.]

Twas a fun debate and interesting questions...
Arathorn

 

[Ision]

So basically you cannot judge a trait by itself since other factors influence it so much, except for EXP, which is so great because x and y and z,

Yes I can judge it, I stated that I am loathe to do it. Each trait has its own stand alone merits - but one cannot honestly compare that merit to another trait in the context of this game because the trait is not actually standing alone - which is why I respond negatively to strongest/weakest polls.

As I said in my post above, I've had many games where I only get 1 hut as an EXP civ and half my games where I don't get a tech or a Settler.

I have had a few like that, but the vast other advantages of the trait still paid off to the point were its value was at least average. Getting a settler is supposed to be an unlikely event (like SGLs) - its the cherry on the cupcake - not the common.

At any rate, I am finished with this topic -

Ision

 

[Halcyon]

Expansionist is a lovely little trait when things go your way. I get so attached to it that I deliberately avoid playing as expansionist civs. With a decent start and enough scouts you can pick up a lead you never really lose.

A good expansionist graph in the early game looks like this.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Nice! What difficulty level is that?

 

[Zardnaar]

Aragorn and Ision. I have alot of respect for both of you as civ players and I agree with alot of both of your points. Even if expansionistic is the weakest trait its still good and obviously suits Isions play style. Personally I can't seem to make it work that well but have had games where you get a huge tech lead from goodie huts or a bonus settler. On the flip side of the coin

I'm not 100% what my playstyle is but I don't think its expansionistic but I'm going to make myself play it for a different style of game. Ignoring it completely going by a poll of people who may or may not know what they are talking about strikes me as pointless. If you don't like the trait try playing as it- you may get a nice surprise.

 

[Longasc]

Stop trying to find the ultimate and only correct answer(s) why expansionist is so good or so bad.

Even if you have thought about it thoroughly and you are absolutely convinced of your opinion, you should accept other views even if you cannot agree.

Discussions and really hot debates are good for those who read them, but keep it nice and civil.

Furthermore, Zardnaar has a point, the trait named the worst must not necessarily really bad at all. If many do not like it, no reason for you to convince them at all as long as YOU like it.

Reminds me of two friends of mine, both are very clever but they always hiss at each other after they reach certain points in their discussion and cannot convince each other.

I think both Ision and Arathorn did not go too far this time, but I think they are somewhat similar and I just post this to keep up the good mood in the forum.