 |
|
Hail Caesar!
|
|
Austin
Feb 2002 time: 05:22
|
|
I think the main issue is that some people only have one strategy for winning and anything that makes that one strategy difficult for them they think sucks. I guess you can win the game by backstabbing and being an ******* but it doesn't seem to be that fun. I wonder how it will pan out in MP.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
In Multiplay expansionistic trait will be usefull. If you want to take someone out early in the game. Like has been said a million times, you will see your eniemy, but they wont see you. If you are a builder and like to build up your civ and wait untill you have a good economy before attacking then expansionist wont work for you. It all depends on how you play the game. I could pick the greeks, since they got the 3 defense unit, and build up and wait to attack. Or you could be the Americans and use scouts to find other civ, then build a whole bunch of units once you find someone and rush them. I dont think that any trait is useless, you just have to know how to use them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Artifex
Another reason why I hate expansionist, it is so map dependent. I hate Large/Huge maps (as does my processer). A trait that requires you to play huge maps to derive a benifit is broken.
|
Just about all the civ traits are map dependent. Larger map, more unit, more promotion(mil) Larger map more library more sci (sci) Rel - more temple, com - corruption (again map based) ind - more terrain more work needed... etc.
quote:
Also, to get it's benifit, you have to decrease your opponents and hand pick non expansionist civs so they don't take all the huts. (to me this is almost like cheating, at the very least very cheesy). The trait is a cheesy, broken trait.
|
How is that cheating? Even if you are not an expansionist civ you should be doing that. The part of the game is to be stronger than your competitor to WIN. That also includes possibility of weakening ur enemies. Expansionistics just have an advantage over such "cheesy" tactic that you describe as which should be mimiced by all civs whether exp or not!
quote:
When you have to fiddle around with the parameters so much to get a trait to be useful, to me thats a clear sign it is badly broken. Why not give yourself a few panzer tanks in 4000 bc while your at it? |
Fiddle around with what parameters? You get a scout and a increased chance of getting better result in huts, is abusing that advantage considered "fiddling around"? How does "giving yourself a panzer" even compare to what your describing here?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002 time: 15:22
|
|
The commercial/expansionist civ is the English.
Quite a weak combination of traits though, thus making the English the most difficult civ to master.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002 time: 15:22
|
|
True that Commercial has been a stronger trait since the 1.29 patch, but I hardly find it to go very well with the Expansionist trait (except on Archipelago maps where you'll want Map Making very quickly). Both traits are only really strong when combined with a stronger trait like Religous or Industrious.
I find Commercial to go better with Industrious, Sceintific or Militaristic.
Expansionist only seems strong to me when combined with Scientific (cheaper libraries + extra techs from goody hut can possibly guarantee a continual lead in technology) and Industrious (granaries + quick irrigation and mining + free settlers from goody huts lead to more settlers, and therefore more cities).
So basically, I find the best expansionist civs to be the Americans and Russians. Though the Zulu and Iroquois are also up there purely because of their UU.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002 time: 15:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by NeOmega
I disagree. English have two wonders that can give them an early, but no tto early Golden Age. These wonders are the Collossus and The Lighthouse. Also because both are coastal wonders, there is less competition. The GA will fall at a very crititcal time, when 3- 6 cities have been built, and are harboring a small population. |
I can see how the golden age from the Lighthouse could greatly benefit the English, however, the golden age doesn't guarantee victory, no matter how well timed, and well used it was.
The Expansionist trait is only useful at the beginning, when there are goody huts, and vast tracts of open land yet to be built upon. That means that this trait does nothing for you once everything has been built on. And the Commercial trait, while having been strengthened by the 1.29 patch is still too weak to use without a stronger trait to reinforce its effect (ie. Industrious or Scientific), and since Expansionist only affects the early game, it would be standing alone in the late game, when Militaristic, Industrious, Scientific, or even Religous would have been of more benefit.
Besides, 3-6 cities with a small population, under a despotic government isn't that significant as a golden age. A better one would be in the Middle Ages at the point where knights (or samurai, riders or elephants) are available, since there will be more cities, larger populations and more powerful wonders available to build.
That's just my opinion, and corresponds with how I play anyway. Of course, I am a bit too much of a warmonger to be able to build any of the earlier wonders (apart from the Great Library, and sometimes the Hanging Gardens) and such a strategy would hardly work for me.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|