29-05-2002 05:37									#1
	Uselessness of Expansionist Trait Full PM-box? Change here!

Quite a few people have complained about the stupidity of the power graph. Most points come from territory. So, does that mean Russia is the world's most powerful country? Nope.

But it made me think. Although it could be an even match between a small but industrious country and a large but uncultured country, over time the large country will grow stronger. Eventually, the small country will hit a peak and will gradually lose power until the large country hits it's potential. Civ 3 is about potential, not immediate power. That's why territory is so valuable.

What about the people that claim that they are really the strongest, but they don't "waste their time" killing that tall, but weak giant of a country? Well, they aren't really on top. If you are as powerful as you think you are, then you should be able to defeat any country regardless of size.

I lost a game because I didn't see the power of land. Everything you are capable of doing is based on the land's resources and the roads you make on it. So, relax if you start on a small island or a desert peninsula. The scoring system of Civ 3 should be based on improvement, not starting on a river with 3 food tiles next to you.

Ironically, expansionist is the worst trait. It doesn't speed up the rate your settlers move or how much food you need to make them. Im my opinion, an expansionist civ should always start next to a grain tile in addition to what it would normally have. Or, perhaps it should have +1 food in cities bigger than size 4 (after size 6, the land rush is over.)

Expansionist needs more power if it should be taken seriously. Commercial gives you a little more trade, industrious gives you production, and expansionist gives you scouts. Expansionist should be a long-term benefit of having more land, but it doesn't accomplish this goal currently. Do you think the traits are balanced? I don't.

	29-05-2002 06:01									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

no, expansionst is hardly useless, it's just limited, as many other abilities are.

the expansionist trait is for the early game, you can spot bottlenecks, plan future cities, and decide which way to colonize (you often want to colonize towards an AI to cut down their land).

the goody hut bonus they get is also for early game, infact in one game as the english ( ::shiver:: ) i got 3 settlers from huts within the first 10 turns.

recapping: the expansionist ability is for an early leap on the game, and the ability phases out over time. most other abilities (commercial, industrious) have factors that play better at the end of the game (ie extra trade for cities/metrolplis)

	29-05-2002 06:56									#3
	Tired of ads?

Yep, it does make for short-term benefits. But the free warriors, gold, and an occasional tech advance are just newb benefits. Compared to half priced temples or libraries, a reduction in corruption, or super fast workers, it isn't very good.

I like traits that can be useful in every game. Luck based traits like militaristic and expansionist can be a tremendous asset or a lame duck. Expansionist isn't worth it in most games.

	29-05-2002 07:08									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ive noticed taht in civ 3 land is VERY important, moreso than many other strat games. So to give expansionist civs any more of an edge might really unbalance things. Nevertheless here's some ideas that might give them more of an edge:

Settlers: 2 movement. Originally I thought "move like every square is a road" but I think thats too powerful, with 2 movement they can still get slowed down by terrain.

Emmigration Cultural Conquests: Think Texas. If a city of yours is next to a neighboring city that has room for expansion (ie can feed more people) there is a chance that one of their new citizens they get on expansion is of your ethnicity. Then the chance of cultural flipping to you woud increase.

I hate having cool ideas only to realize they wont get put in the game this late

	29-05-2002 08:27									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

Find one settler in the early game goody hut and bam, double your growth. I usually get to at least 4-5 goody huts that I normally wouldn't have gotten on a normal map when I play an expansionist civ

	29-05-2002 09:11									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I agree with King of Rasslin. I think expansionistic is usually (though not always) much much weaker than the other traits. I thought this long before Civ3 came out.

Expansionistic is the gambler's trait. You might get settlers and lots of techs and get a huge lead ... or you might get nothing and be at a huge disadvantage to civs with two functioning traits.

The other traits give much more assured benefits. Only militaristic is near as variable as expansionistic. But it gets many more battles to "even out" than expansionistic gets huts or no huts.

I myself never choose expansionistic. I would like it changed to something more stable. Whether you get a huge advantage or no advantage at all, both unbalance the game compared to steady benefits. I would also like expansionistic to actually result in civs being more expansionistic, beyond a lucky settler.

Changing expansionistic would have to be very very careful though. Cities and population are the source of power, as King of Rasslin points out. Anything that increases the actual source of production, rather than just production itself, is a huge advantage. You don't want to end up like the Shang in AOE I ... they got cheaper peons (settlers kind of), and were basically unfair against all other civs.

Increasing Settler speed to 2 might be too powerful. Unfortunately, the numbers for Settlers are too low to be able to give an advantage without being overpowering. 1 movement, 2 pop points to build, 30 shields to build ... these numbers are too low to be able to increase/decrease without huge effects. The only possiblity would be decreasing shield cost to 20 shields ... but that might be too powerful.

I really like the idea of getting 1 extra food in the city. I like this because it so mirrors the extra coin and extra shield of commercial and industrious. Also it is in keeping with expansionistic being a boost in the early game, but less useful late game. Extra food will help early game, but later game, who cares if your city has 1 extra food? You still have to make aquaducts, and to a size 20 city 1 extra food is meaningless.

So I like very much the idea of 1 extra food in cities. Maybe cities get this bonus when they are at least size 2 (but not size 1), so that they can actually build settlers faster and expand like they are supposed to.

This might be too powerful, but it might be worth a try.

	29-05-2002 09:45									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'll float my idea for Expansionist again. Give them a free Army at the end of each age. Firaxis has to be the one to do this as the editor does not have this kind of capability. On larger maps, one army means little, usually less than a free advance (Scientific). On smaller maps, where scouts and early granaries are junk, a free army is worth a lot. This balances out the trait for small maps.

A free Army opens up a lot of strategy options for single player and multiplayer. More options = more fun, and in this case, changes game balance just a little bit.

	29-05-2002 11:34									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I really like the one extra food idea. An expansionist civ should have an advantage at growing. I also like the idea of cheeper settlers, this would be like the civs that get cheeper science improvements.

	29-05-2002 12:02									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

I think that a good expansionist trait would be that your borders could expand faster, i.e., less culture is required for growing your borders. This almost sounds like an idea for another civ trait "cultural", but a valid case can be made for expanding borders (faster culture) to be for an expansionist civ.

	29-05-2002 12:48									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm thinking about cheaper settlers...

They have two costs, population (2) and shields (30). Like I said these are both low numbers, 2 and effectively 3. To give them a reduced cost on population, you would have to halve the cost, which is too much. To give them a reduced cost on shields, you would have to go to 20, a reduction of 1/3. This isn't as bad as reducing the population cost, but is probably still too much.

The one extra food in the city idea is great because it gets around this number-too-low-to-give-a-price-break issue. It basically reduces the Settler cost from of 2 population points, or 40 food ... but doesn't go all the way to reducing it by 50%. I think in an average city it will reduce the cost by 25% or so (I think it might vary depending on the city).

This would be a lot better than 50%, and somewhat better than 1/3. Still I'm worried it might be too powerful ... cheaper settlers would be so advantageous. An unintended side effect would be that population growth would be quicker even for non-Settler building purposes...

Still its an interesting idea.

	29-05-2002 13:09									#11
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The power of the expansionist trait heavily depends on map settings. The smaller the initial landmass (your first continent or island) is, and the more civs live on it, the weaker is it. And vice versa! The bigger and thinner settled this landmass is, the more powerful is expansionist. Best setting: Huge pangea map, 60% water, 8-10 civs (less would be boring). Under these circumstances, expansionist is worth all other traits summed up!

It will:
- give you all ancient techs for free (just build enough scouts)
- lead you to the best spots of luxuries, resources and fertile land
- bless you with more free settlers (although the "skilled warriors" are worth 2 shields, not more)
- give you military advance, because your fast scouts will spot sneak attacks earlier and are predestined for fooling, misleading and blocking enemy forces
- make granaries available from the beginning, ensuring rapid growth; although a food bonus resource outweights a granary, but that's not always the case
- give you the opportunity, at least for a while to deny resources to your enemies

On maps larger than standard, I seldom play without expansionist. I think, most complains about its weakness come from people who play standard maps or even smaller. Play the Iroquois, Americans or Zulus once on a huge pangea map, and you'll see what I'm talking about. And remember: The power of expansionist may be limited to the ancient age, but who wins the ancient age, usually wins the game, because you'll keep the land, luxuries and resources, gained early, for the whole game.

Disclaimer: The expansionist trait is very poorly handled by the AI, so my statements are limited to the human player.

	29-05-2002 13:17									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I play on standard sized maps. I don't have a state of the art computer or a lot of time. I would play huge maps if I spent more time playing than waiting for the computer to move 50 cavalry around its border every turn.

	29-05-2002 15:07									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think that the best thing to strengthen the Expansionist trait without making it overpowered would be for Expansionist civs to be able to build Granaries at half cost (30 shields). This would give Expansionist civs a growth bonus to add to their exploration bonus, without letting them expand so quickly that they overwhelm the other civs in the game.

	29-05-2002 16:16									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

While all dependant on map settings, Expansionist is the only trait that is *only* viable in the early game. All the others have some, even though, possible, minimal uses for the entire game. Say, you will be building scientific buildings both in the Ancient and Modern Ages. And Industrious works since turn 1 till the finish of the game. Expansionist only works as long as there are huts, you'll explore it all anyway.

Yes, Expansionist could be made stronger by giving them better Settlers, let's say, a bit cheaper. Not 50% though!

	29-05-2002 19:53									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

i think they should get Granaries, aquaducts (spelled wrong) and hospitals at half price or soemthing. Dont think that would imbalance it to much

	29-05-2002 23:04									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmm a lot of great idea here...

Doesnt it make sense that if a Scientific Civ get half priced Libraries that an Expansionist Civ would get half priced graneries?

	29-05-2002 23:30									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

one idea i read somewhere is to give them a special kind of settler (in addition to the origional one), that was wheeled with 2 moves.

that way they could stride plains / grasslands in no time, but wouldnt be able to cross mountains / jungles.

	29-05-2002 23:31									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by ShredZ Hmm a lot of great idea here... Doesnt it make sense that if a Scientific Civ get half priced Libraries that an Expansionist Civ would get half priced graneries?

interesting. graneries / acquaducts / hospitals and maybe even harbors would be nice.

	29-05-2002 23:31									#19
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

oh, and the prices arent halved, it's less than that (Dan Magaha corrected me a while back)

	30-05-2002 00:41									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Sir Ralph - Great summary of how strong expansionist can be. I agree it can be super powerful, sometimes. Like I said it is a gamble.

However, this is part of the problem. Expansionist tends to be either super powerful, or super useless. Neither one is good for a game. I don't want a useless trait. Also, I don't want a super advantage. Getting all those things you listed would ruin the game ... why would I want such a huge advantage?

That is why expansionist is broken ... it is either too good (sometimes) or useless (most times). Both makes it unplayable.

Thats just how I see it though.

Solver - Totally right, 50% cheaper settlers would be way way too much. That is why I like the one extra food idea, it might allow less than 50% cheaper bonus.

TheEvilCheater - Thats brilliant too! Cheaper granneries would be great because it would again be similar to the scientific and religious bonuses. It also would probably be simpler and have less unintended side effects than 1 extra food. I think that is a real great idea too, good work.

This would require some calculation about how much quicker cheaper granneries would be versus just building settlers ... I think its a very good idea though.

	30-05-2002 00:45									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX one idea i read somewhere is to give them a special kind of settler (in addition to the origional one), that was wheeled with 2 moves. that way they could stride plains / grasslands in no time, but wouldnt be able to cross mountains / jungles.

I kind of favor the idea of turning the scout into a poineer unit that can explore, settle, and do worker actions the unit would be more expensive (30 shields, the cost of a settler).

	30-05-2002 01:30									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

In my opinion, a food bonus or 20 shield settlers are too much, because they upset game balance. Remember the AI civs get these bonuses too. Imagine how fast an AI expansionist civ might go with these additional bonuses. Same with the half price granary--too big a bonus early in the game. Americans could get a granary before turn seven on many maps at 30 shields (forest cut for ten shields in 5 turns).

Half price aqueducts and hospitals sound like a great idea. These are built long after the scout and goody hut era, when expansionists civs are in a need of a boost as other civs build their cheap buildings.

I like the idea of a special two-move settler, but maybe have it cost 40 shields instead of 30.

	30-05-2002 07:20									#23
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX the goody hut bonus they get is also for early game, infact in one game as the english ( ::shiver:: ) i got 3 settlers from huts within the first 10 turns.

A quick question, not to derail this thread. Uber, what size map were you using? I have never seen a goody hut spawn a settler on a standard size map.

	30-05-2002 07:32									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley A quick question, not to derail this thread. Uber, what size map were you using? I have never seen a goody hut spawn a settler on a standard size map.

i was playing a large one (not huge, 1 step up from standard).

if i'm correct, only expansionist civs can get settlers from a hut.

	30-05-2002 07:37									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley A quick question, not to derail this thread. Uber, what size map were you using? I have never seen a goody hut spawn a settler on a standard size map.

I just started a new game today and I had a settle spawn from a goody hut on a standard size map.

	30-05-2002 20:29									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hmmm, lots of good ideas put forth here - I'm impressed with you guys.
I agree that the trait needs something else to balance it with the other traits...
1-pop settlers is way to much, especially considering the power of pop-rushing under despotism...
20-shield settlers is probably too much also, you could build 50% more cites if you did it right, this plus better goodie huts is way to powerful.
The 1 extra food per town is a cool idea, because it mirrors the commercial or industrious 1 extra commerce or shield per city. It also matches up well against the industrious advantage Vel has been ranting about; they can work the land faster, but an exp. civ wouldn't have to: they could work a forest tile from the beginning, for instance. Again, though, may be too powerful, when combined with better goodie huts.

So, the ideas that I like best are these three (and only one should be implemented, not all):
1) Combine the scout and worker. As someone said, pioneers didn't just explore, they chopped down trees and built houses etc. So give exp. civs a 2-move worker unit. It could explore and find huts, and also come home and work the land. You would have a land-working advantage, since they could move into a flat tile ans start working it the same turn, but it would be quite mild: 25% on some tiles, 0% on others, probably an average 0f 10% overall.
2) Give them some cheaper buildings. Most other traits get this. The logic of cheaper granaries, is pretty weak (they're expansionistic, not culinary) but its effects would go to their strength, so yeah, cheaper (2/3?) granaries. [Note, I also think commercial civs should get cheaper marketplaces and harbors, that's another trait that suffers.]
3) This is a bit radical, but: how about allowing expansionist caravels traverse ocean squares from the get-go, without Navigation. Not sure how unbalancing this would be but it would extend their advantages past the ancient age, which is what a lot of people want to do. They would have an advantage in meeting other civs, which the scout already gives them so is already approved as one of theri advantages, and would be maybe able to expand a bit more onto islands, which is, well, expansionist.

	30-05-2002 20:46									#27
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MiloMilo Hmmm, lots of good ideas put forth here - I'm impressed with you guys. I agree that the trait needs something else to balance it with the other traits... 1-pop settlers is way to much, especially considering the power of pop-rushing under despotism... 20-shield settlers is probably too much also, you could build 50% more cites if you did it right, this plus better goodie huts is way to powerful. The 1 extra food per town is a cool idea, because it mirrors the commercial or industrious 1 extra commerce or shield per city. It also matches up well against the industrious advantage Vel has been ranting about; they can work the land faster, but an exp. civ wouldn't have to: they could work a forest tile from the beginning, for instance. Again, though, may be too powerful, when combined with better goodie huts. So, the ideas that I like best are these three (and only one should be implemented, not all): 1) Combine the scout and worker. As someone said, pioneers didn't just explore, they chopped down trees and built houses etc. So give exp. civs a 2-move worker unit. It could explore and find huts, and also come home and work the land. You would have a land-working advantage, since they could move into a flat tile ans start working it the same turn, but it would be quite mild: 25% on some tiles, 0% on others, probably an average 0f 10% overall. 2) Give them some cheaper buildings. Most other traits get this. The logic of cheaper granaries, is pretty weak (they're expansionistic, not culinary) but its effects would go to their strength, so yeah, cheaper (2/3?) granaries. [Note, I also think commercial civs should get cheaper marketplaces and harbors, that's another trait that suffers.] 3) This is a bit radical, but: how about allowing expansionist caravels traverse ocean squares from the get-go, without Navigation. Not sure how unbalancing this would be but it would extend their advantages past the ancient age, which is what a lot of people want to do. They would have an advantage in meeting other civs, which the scout already gives them so is already approved as one of theri advantages, and would be maybe able to expand a bit more onto islands, which is, well, expansionist.

With:

1) How would you feel about adding settling abilities to the scout and making it cost 30 shields? Also perhaps the initial scout should by removed. BTW this is pretty easy to mod, Im going to try it out my next game. Im considering giving it a defense of 1. That is they cant be captured. But its not like youd build them in abudance for worker tasks since workers are cheaper, but they do help in moving into potentially hazardous zones to build stuff.

2) I dont know about this idea. I agree it could be more powerful. Not only that but when I think about expansionist I think about exploration and settlement, mostly a non-domestic phenomenon.

3) I like this idea. Perhaps their triremes only have a 10% (or so) chance of sinking as opposed to 50%. Maybe they should get some sort of oceanic scout unit that can explore but is non-combat.

	30-05-2002 20:52									#28
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The main problem with Scouts in my experience is they die. I like Raging Barb lvl. to increase the experience of my troops, and maybe even take out one or two of the AI troops; sometimes I lose the troops or gold.

I don't build Scouts much, I build Warriors and send them out as Scouts. I may build a couple of Scouts, but not more than that. U can get the same speed with Aztec Jag Warriors, buildable immediately, or Zulu Impi. They can both defend themselves.

I am not impressed with the Expansionist trait, and agree it tends to be superpowerful or superweak. A lot will depend on how many goody huts are near your start position/on your island or continent. Once you learn all the early age techs, not much use for the trait.

	30-05-2002 20:59									#29
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Pythagoras, I forgot to comment on the 2-move settler idea. I actually like it - you could not build more cities, just get them where they need to go faster, and thus choose better city sites. So, in effect you would not expand faster or more, you would expand better. Which is what they should do.

I see the problem with combining scouts and workers: you'd need to give up a pop point to make a scout.

Yes, for ships, you could just tweak the chances for sinking. I think this should be changed anyway. For most civs it should be 66% or 75%, but for expansionist civs it could be 33% or so. That would work nicely. Do we know if this can be done in the editor?

I agree with Kring that scouts should be 0/1/2, not 0/0/2.

	31-05-2002 06:43									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MiloMilo Pythagoras, I forgot to comment on the 2-move settler idea. I actually like it - you could not build more cities, just get them where they need to go faster, and thus choose better city sites. So, in effect you would not expand faster or more, you would expand better. Which is what they should do. I see the problem with combining scouts and workers: you'd need to give up a pop point to make a scout. Yes, for ships, you could just tweak the chances for sinking. I think this should be changed anyway. For most civs it should be 66% or 75%, but for expansionist civs it could be 33% or so. That would work nicely. Do we know if this can be done in the editor? I agree with Kring that scouts should be 0/1/2, not 0/0/2.

How about a pioneer: settler w/ 2 movement and worker skills and 1 defence separate from the scout unit.

I think the ship idea might be hard to do, maybe if you created a seperate unit.