I definitely enjoy the war and combat systems as they exist now, and I feel like the game's current foundation for these systems is quite good - however, the way that these two archetypes exist within those systems is messy and could use a rework. 

I think it's generally thought that the expansionist trait is weaker than, say, the builder or science traits, but I think that's secondary to how redundant 'militarist' and 'expansionist' seem in comparison to the other archetypes. A militarist empire is typically going to be fighting wars to grab land from other states, which will lead them to acquiring military stars (killing units) and expansionist starts (acquiring territories). An expansionist empire is typically going to be grabbing land by fighting wars, which lead them to acquiring expansionist stars (acquiring territories) and military stars (killing units). They're interchangeable in a way that merchant cultures and science cultures just aren't.

The issue in my mind is that I'm not really sure what it means, in this context, to be a 'militarist' culture and an 'expansionist' culture, when, in how the game currently exists, both of these archetypes center conquest.

I would propose handing the 'expansionist' archetype the militarist bonuses regarding wars of conquest (likely a reimagining of the 'vigilance' bonus), while orientating the militarist archetype around *all other* types of wars, such as - wars to convert other cultures, wars to extract reparation, wars to change ideology, wars to establish trade deals, and even defensive wars. I think this provides a much stronger image of what these two archetypes entail. Imagine the difference between Russia's conquest of Siberia vs the thirty years war or the Hồng Bàng dynasty defending against invasion. (excuse me if these are bad examples)

The issue with this is that the systems surrounding those goals are, at the moment, very weak. The culture and faith systems would need to be largely fleshed out in order to make the militarist archetype really work in this context. I still feel it would be an improvement on the current situation, though.

A militarist empire is not going to be fighting wars to grab lands , but to grab food and gold. 

typically Romans are expansionist because they want lands, they want a large empire 

Mongols are militarist , they don't necesseraly want lands , they whant ransack . 

I agree, while they may look different their goal and playstyle may often end up being indistinguishable, a militarist is going to wage war and likely expand and a expansionist is probably having to go to wage war in order to expand, the reason is not just because there are a limited amount of territories, but also, especially early game the "peaceful" way of expanding cost so much influence, sure you can play down outposts but those don't count to your expansionist stars and they become really expensive to attach.

The decription that expansionist culture expand, not nessicarly through war don't apply much, their ability to take a territory can only be used once every 10 turn and it take something like 5 turns to complete, meaining in the end you can maybe get a territory every 15 turns, so in 150 turns you can get 10 territories, a pretty small amount and not enough on larger maps to be a "peaceful" expander and those territories become just outpost that you then need to attach anyway. The ability also require you to move an army inside another player territories and it must be used against another player which is not really peaceful and feel quite close to something a militarist may be doing.

It get better once you get settlers as those allow for serious peaceful expansion and they create cities that do count towards expansionist stars, but that is mid game. The passive part of militarist being able to ignore open borders have from what I know little use beyond military uses, which make expansionist feel more like another version of militarist.

So I think a few changes to expansionist can be done. Their active ability could be like now but also be given a second use of allowing you to attach an outpost, which would be particular useful in early game due to the high cost of outpost attachment and the fact only attached territories count towards expansionist stars and it would give that ability a non aggressive use. The passive Im less sure if it should be changed.

I think maybe the main thing that may need to be changed is expansionist stars, right now they only count territories attached to a city. I could see expansionist stars be changed to count outpost as half a territory, vassals territories as half a territory and maybe territories under sphere of influence, this would give more ways to get the expansionist stars and without less need of going to war.

Militarist affinity on the other hand I think is fine, I think all the issues is on the expansionist side, too much focused on military and war.

Free outpost attachment would be à nice power for expansionist cultures. Better than the ugly annexion imho.

I was thinking expansionist could choose to either attach an outpost or annex an territory with their ability.

They should change expansionist stars to count any territory you have a District in.   So Unattached Outposts…Yes.  Vassal territories you have a colonial office in…Yes.   Then let Americans build their EQ in Vassal and Allied Territories as well.(renamed to Military Base)

Krikkitone wrote:

They should change expansionist stars to count any territory you have a District in.   So Unattached Outposts…Yes.  Vassal territories you have a colonial office in…Yes.   Then let Americans build their EQ in Vassal and Allied Territories as well.(renamed to Military Base)

Agree, especially british and americans, the british vassal play is just contraproductive as they get no progress towards expansionist stars by making players into vassals so they want to annex instead but in such case they can't use their emblematic district.

IDK I think Annexation is extremely powerful. It forces people to fight you at their outposts, outside of your defenses. If you're a large empire, it can really pressure smaller people into wars with you, since you can walk around and annex their stuff and they have to either let it happen or fight you. If they send little sorties out to delay you, you're getting 8 Support per fight. If they fight with their main force you can choose the battlefield. And you can position yourself for war because you can walk all over their lands and they can't stop you. 

The concept behind the annexation trait is great. If your goal is to just grab land, and war is a means to an end, then being able to circumvent the need to fight entirely through pure show of force is a good mechanic. It's not strong enough on its own to compete with other traits, but if landraiser and collective minds gets tuned downwards then I think it will be in a better place.

Is that true? What about the builder or Scientist trait will help you during Classical Era if the Romans are annexing your stuff with Legions?

The issue I have with expansionist ability is the 10 turn cooldown mean you can maybe capture one territory every 15 turns, 5 turns it take to capture the territory and then you have to wait for 10 turns due to the cooldown. That is a pretty slow and limited form of expansion and if the enemy play a single unit upon the outpost or administrative center you can't use it, sure you can kill the outpost unit, but you can't do the same on administartive centers. And everyone can ransack and the outpost and build their own, thus expansionist ability to capture an outpost don't give them much advantage in terms of expansion compared to the ordinary ransack and replace.