Warmongers: Creative or Expansionist?

[ElConejo]

I have wondered on this for a while now, what is the better trait for warmonger civs, creative (which immediately begins to boost defensive strength in captured cities) or expansionist (which helps with health in new cities)? Also, which of the two traits is easier for the AI to use aggressively the best?

Thanks alot for all your comments.

 

[Meatbuster]

Creative is automatic so AI is "better" with it. The main advantage of Expansionist, fast granaries, aren't leveraged well by the AI. And without Creative, the AI usually fails to expand the borders of newly founded and captured cities as well.

As for human play, it depends on your style. I still say Expansive is better so you can regrow newly captured cities faster (since you can kinda replace Creative by increasing culture percentage; or run specialists when on Caste System or if you own Sistine Chapel).

 

[voek]

I would choose either actualy, but ok that is not the question. Then I would pick expansionist. I like whipping cheap granary's fast for the rebuild. Culture isn't much of a problem. Sure you have cheaper theatres etc, but I want to whip some old rebels anyway and start growing my own peeps, so I have less lame demonstration about not attacking the mother country and crap like that.

Whipping a theatre (and adding an artist) will get more then enough culture. Ofcourse it also depends on your warmongering style. When I charge I often attack in waves, but at the end I always destroy the entire civ and keep attacking city's who are culture pressing mine. So best solution against ancient culture is guns... hehe

 

[shivute]

Expansionist is better.
Creative is a next to useless trait once drama comes along.

 

[Murky]

Given the choices of leaders with these traits it could go either way. Augustus is creative but also makes a good warmonger because of the Praetorians. Creative is good in the early game. It allows you to skip Stonehenge and get on with doing other things like conquering the world. It also helps in newly conquered cities. You can skip rushing theatres and just build CHs/MPs.

Expansionist is good at the higher levels of play because of the health issues you will have because of the difficutly level. There are some good leader/civ choices too.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I like Kublai Kahn of the Mongolian empire for war mongering. I love early game expansion (it's great for crowded continents or terra maps) and having that boost for the post-takover expansion is necessary, too. Especially if a friendly civ's borders push up against a newly conquered border city while it's still in revolt (I hate that), it is necessary to grow culture and quick! It's been a while since I was old Kublai, I think I'll give him a whirl again, soon.

 

[drkodos]

Choosing either one can work. Decision over warmongering is more dependent on a number of other variables than trait preference, for me. I find beating the wardrum is facilitated better by resource allocations and the location and make-up of the other civs in the game than it is by what trait(s) my leader has.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^True, but one shouldn't discount traits entirely. Especially if you have traits like Financial and/or Charismatic. These traits definitely support the warmongerer. Plus, UU and even UB (think Mongols) can contribute greatly to a warmongerer. If you don't have proper resources, use your traits/UU/UB to attack someone who does.

Overall, though, I do agree that traits are only a portion of what one should look at for warmongering.

 

[shivute]

You can warmonger with any leader, traits are only a bonus.

3 to 4+ hills with mines per city is much more effective

 

[drkodos]

You can warmonger with any leader, traits are only a bonus.

3 to 4+ hills with mines per city is much more effective

Until they have a trait that directly addresses production, I think trait selection is a red herring when it comes to whether or not a particular leader is good for warmongering.

Interesting that they have traits that directly and continually modify two of the three outputs from a tile but have nothing that addresses continual modifcation of hammer production. One reason is that production is the real keystone to success. Any real bonus to production would truly be overpowering if it were availiable to a civ through a trait, and not through a civic such as State Property.

 

[ownedbyakorat]

The make-or-break issue for Creative is the number of continents. If that number is greater than 1, you're better off with expansionist. The idea with creative is to use culture to apply pressure early and to lock out opponents' expansion routes. But an opponent on another continent is immune to this and you won't reach them before the trait is functionally obsolete. Theaters are so cheap that the bonus to building them is nearly worthless.

Expansive, on the other hand, doesn't do much for you at the start, though the value of cheap granaries is not insignificant. What expansive is really good for is giving you a higher pop in your cities before the high-end health techs come along. There's a long stretch in the middle of the game where you can't do much in terms of adding health, especially for a landlocked city, without conquering/exploiting more resources.

 

[drkodos]

Expansive, on the other hand, doesn't do much for you at the start, though the value of cheap granaries is not insignificant.

It can be leveraged into high value at the start of higher level games, especially if one likes settling in Flood Plains and chopping any available wood. In that sense, I think it is much more powerful than Creative as far as fueling any warring tendencies. What good is extra tiles from Cultural expansion if you cannot work them? And for that, Expansion is a better fit even at the game onset.

What expansive is really good for is giving you a higher pop in your cities before the high-end health techs come along. There's a long stretch in the middle of the game where you can't do much in terms of adding health, especially for a landlocked city, without conquering/exploiting more resources.

True. It is also good for offsetting the health-hit a civ takes from industrialization (factories & coal plants).

 

[ownedbyakorat]

What good is extra tiles from Cultural expansion if you cannot work them?

1) Freedom of movement - roads on those tiles help you achieve a superiority of mobility against any opponent.
2) Resource exploitation
3) Ability to choose from a wider variety of tiles to work
4) Eliminates need to build obelisk or library early
5) Area denial - if you don't sign rights of passage away, wider borders can cut off enemy routes of expansion, allow you to seal off areas for further expansion where your opponents can't go, without having to settle them immediately yourself
6) Greater freedom in choosing city sites
7) Potential to take workable tiles away from neighboring enemy cities
8) Defense against enemy cultural pressure, and a bonus to applying cultural pressure against them

Cultural border expansion has a great tactical value that should not be underestimated! However, the long term benefits of expansive, because they are long term, are superior, no doubt.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I'm gonna try a Fin/Cre leader (whoever that is) for warmongering after my next game (who will def be Kublai Kahn! y@y)

 

[ElConejo]

Thanks alot everyone, this thread really helped me leaps and bounds. Truth be told, the reason I opened it was because of my Mod (see sig) where I wanted one of my factions to have Spiritual and either Creative or Expansive but couldnt figure out which would be better for the little warmonger.

This helped alot, and I think I will be going with Creative for him as the map is quite restrictive and he will benefit from the trait more than expansive (esp at the beginning here the Gaalsi were "historically" most powerful).

Again, my deepest thanks, and please continue (if you should wish) to use this thread for further debate over the issue.