Tradition-Honor; How often are they used on Deity

[JamesCivFan]

As the title says, I find that 99% --if not 100%-- I open and finish Liberty first in my Deity games, no matter what kind of victory I am going for, except for OCC cultural victories in which Tradition is better.

How often and under what circumstances do you think Honor or Tradition should be opened instead? Liberty's free Great Person, plus free Settler and free worker far beats the +15% that you get for Wonders from Tradition or for example the free Great General from Honor.

I am really wondering if you think they should both get a buff, or if Liberty should be nerfed a bit, so it's no longer a no-brainer, and also, when you use these two Policy Trees.

 

[PhilBowles]

As the title says, I find that 99% --if not 100%-- I open and finish Liberty first in my Deity games, no matter what kind of victory I am going for, except for OCC cultural victories in which Tradition is better.

How often and under what circumstances do you think Honor or Tradition should be opened instead? Liberty's free Great Person, plus free Settler and free worker far beats the +15% that you get for Wonders from Tradition or for example the free Great General from Honor.

I am really wondering if you think they should both get a buff, or if Liberty should be nerfed a bit, so it's no longer a no-brainer, and also, when you use these two Policy Trees.

Not sure about Deity specifically, but a free Settler in particular is a bonus it would be difficult to beat in the early game with any other option. A free Worker is just icing on the cake. Liberty vs. Tradition is meant to be a choice between Tall vs. Wide, but tall empires want to expand early so that they can focus on development, and if anything they benefit more than larger empires from the worker bonus. So whichever way you go, Liberty is almost always the best option.

Honor ... has a very strong opener with the culture vs. barbarians bonus, but to my mind most of the rest of that tree is of limited value. 10% for adjacent units is probably not a big enough deal to be valuable, so I'd suggest a larger bonus for that.

Tradition ... that 15% wonder bonus is something I could probably use more often, and Monarchy can be strong. I think Tradition is probably misplaced where it is among policy branches, since its effects are most useful later in the game (even the 15% wonder bonus is much more noticeable when shooting for the Porcelain Tower or Sydney Opera House than when aiming for Stonehenge). Mostly I think its effects are good enough, it's just not an early-game tree (and who would think of taking Tradition later in the game?) It also has, I think, one of the least useful branch opener effects. If Liberty had to compete with Piety instead of Tradition, there would be more of a choice to be made. Alternatively, keep settler bonus in Liberty and move worker bonus to Tradition - then you have to choose one or the other, not both.

 

[JamesCivFan]

Excellent points! I didn't go and mention all of the Tradition and Honor bonuses in my OP, but as you said, a few changes would be greatly beneficial so it all gets balanced out. My opinion is to at least rearrange a few Policies in Tradition, and maybe give a few boosts to Honor, such as one or two free warriors. That way, players can actually consider it for an early rush (upgrading those free warriors to swordsmen, or even rushing another 2-3 for a super early 5 warrior rush against a nearby 8 Defense City). As for Liberty, if they are to nerf it, I'd definitely say to put a different "Finisher" to it, because the Free Great person is a huge bonus compared to let's say Honor's "take gold from killing units".

 

[apocalypse105]

This balance problem can easy be avoided by giving the free great person finisher to tradition.

Because you're small empire is mainly focussed on great people so a free one is actually more accurate .


It isn't the free units that are overpowered from liberty but the free person. You will often recieve the free settler to soon when you don't want to expand fast

 

[PhilBowles]

This balance problem can easy be avoided by giving the free great person finisher to tradition.

Because you're small empire is mainly focussed on great people so a free one is actually more accurate .


It isn't the free units that are overpowered from liberty but the free person. You will often recieve the free settler to soon when you don't want to expand fast

They aren't overpowered, they're just very attractive at that point in the game - I see the issue as less whether Liberty is overpowered (I don't think it is, and the GP finisher comes late), and more whether it's just too attractive at that point in the game. I don't think there's anything wrong with Tradition as it is, except perhaps the opener. However, the fact that Liberty can give you both the settler AND the worker makes it just a bit too obvious a choice to go to early game, even though neither ability is overpowered.

And I've rarely if ever encountered the settler coming 'too early'. It requires two policy choices to get there, by which time you aren't really 'expanding fast' to use it. The key advantage isn't that you get a quick settler, it's that you get a settler the same time you normally would, but without having to sacrifice population growth to get it.

And if you genuinely do want to expand fast, you can build a settler as well so that you get two when you would normally get one.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

In my opinion, Liberty gives you an instant bonus while Tradition/Honor are geared toward providing longer term bonuses. With a little foresight, I think Tradition in particular can be just as powerful.

I play on Emperor and I choose about all three equally depending on the civ/situation...in fact, I sometimes avoid Liberty simply because it can be more fun using the other policies.

 

[snarzberry]

If I'm really trying to win then I take liberty almost every time, but there are some exceptions. With hiawatha, songhai, siam, egypt or inca I will sometimes take a mix of tradition and liberty, straight honour or straight tradition. Generally I do this for fun as it's boring playing liberty every time. I like taking unusual choices if there is some synergy with the position even though going liberty-rationalism/piety is so universally strong it might be better. Changing things up is good for a new challenge and a different game.

One thing that I think could be adjusted in order to make honour an attractive tree in a fair amount of games is to slightly buff AI city strength in the early game. I'd like it if you could only archer rush with a high success rate if you took honour. As it stands now I hardly ever fail to take out a close opponents first 2 cities archer rushing, while going liberty as well. This gives you a huge start, 4 cities, a nice amount of units, bunch of workers and one less opponent by turn 60.

I don't feel boxed in to taking liberty-rationalism/piety in order to win, I can win without those trees but it's the go to strategy for a consistently winning game plan.

 

[PhilBowles]

If I'm really trying to win then I take liberty almost every time, but there are some exceptions. With hiawatha, songhai, siam, egypt or inca I will sometimes take a mix of tradition and liberty, straight honour or straight tradition.

Hmm, that's not a bad idea. I tend to think of Autocracy as being especially weak, partly because of the major drawback of sacrificing the Liberty and Freedom trees, but to turn that on its head if you're planning an aggressive game from the start you might want to select a tree that will let you take Autocracy later on.

 

[Kaosprophet]

As the title says, I find that 99% --if not 100%-- I open and finish Liberty first in my Deity games, no matter what kind of victory I am going for, except for OCC cultural victories in which Tradition is better.

How often and under what circumstances do you think Honor or Tradition should be opened instead?

"Instead"? Probably never. There are times when I'll open it *before* while still planning on going into Liberty anyway - mostly when I want to time the free settler or free worker for a bit later than I'd get going straight into Liberty. (Eg. if I'm trying for the GL->NC and I can steal a worker, I'll delve into the wonder-bonus from Tradition and put liberty off until I can get the settler to come in after I'm done.) But it's probable I'm just compensating for having screwed up the timing or not seeing an better alternate path.

Hmm, that's not a bad idea. I tend to think of Autocracy as being especially weak, partly because of the major drawback of sacrificing the Liberty and Freedom trees, but to turn that on its head if you're planning an aggressive game from the start you might want to select a tree that will let you take Autocracy later on.

I think that got changed at some point. Autocracy is now listed as incompatible with Freedom and Order - so Liberty + Autocracy is possible. It's thematically *very* odd, but unless the in-game info is outright lying it's mechanically permitted.

Also, locking out Liberty isn't a *huge* deal; much of what you're getting out of Liberty are either one-time effects (free settler, GP, worker, golden-age) or start bordering on obsolete by the time Autocracy is both available and something you're considering. Might have been different in earlier versions, though (like, ones where Autocracy was mechanically incompatible with Liberty instead of Order...)

 

[apocalypse105]

They aren't overpowered, they're just very attractive at that point in the game - I see the issue as less whether Liberty is overpowered (I don't think it is, and the GP finisher comes late), and more whether it's just too attractive at that point in the game. I don't think there's anything wrong with Tradition as it is, except perhaps the opener. However, the fact that Liberty can give you both the settler AND the worker makes it just a bit too obvious a choice to go to early game, even though neither ability is overpowered.

And I've rarely if ever encountered the settler coming 'too early'. It requires two policy choices to get there, by which time you aren't really 'expanding fast' to use it. The key advantage isn't that you get a quick settler, it's that you get a settler the same time you normally would, but without having to sacrifice population growth to get it.

And if you genuinely do want to expand fast, you can build a settler as well so that you get two when you would normally get one.

Ok fair enough What I was trying to say is the early choises of liberty are far better then tradition.

one of this example is :Legalism

most player's delay this social policy as much ass possible to get a free culture building like temple opera house.


I would like this see legalisme be switched with Landed Elite makes tradition way better


While liberty gives you a direct bonus wich is usally better at higher difficulties because you need to expand fast because of the AI bonusses
large empires are better then small one's in civ 5 so thats maybe a other reason

 

[The_Quasar]

I often take the Tradition opener, then go through the Liberty tree... this helps your first city expand quicker, saving gold on buying a couple of tiles that have luxuries or resources (always useful at higher levels)... and by the time you get to the free Settler, you're ready (can always take the free worker first, if you're not)...

Going to the Liberty opener first, and taking the free Settler immediately, I've found tends to mean having to use that Settler too early, before you've really scouted all around, this leads to having a weaker 2nd city than you might otherwise have had. More than compensation for getting the GP a couple of turns later.

 

[JamesCivFan]

If I'm really trying to win then I take liberty almost every time, but there are some exceptions. With hiawatha, songhai, siam, egypt or inca I will sometimes take a mix of tradition and liberty, straight honour or straight tradition. Generally I do this for fun as it's boring playing liberty every time. I like taking unusual choices if there is some synergy with the position even though going liberty-rationalism/piety is so universally strong it might be better. Changing things up is good for a new challenge and a different game.

One thing that I think could be adjusted in order to make honour an attractive tree in a fair amount of games is to slightly buff AI city strength in the early game. I'd like it if you could only archer rush with a high success rate if you took honour. As it stands now I hardly ever fail to take out a close opponents first 2 cities archer rushing, while going liberty as well. This gives you a huge start, 4 cities, a nice amount of units, bunch of workers and one less opponent by turn 60.

I don't feel boxed in to taking liberty-rationalism/piety in order to win, I can win without those trees but it's the go to strategy for a consistently winning game plan.

As per your archer rush with Honor, I did it just last night with the Ottomans, on the Chinese. Ironically enough, right on the turn that I'd declare on them, they declared, so I avoided the penalty. Result: turn 69 I had 4 cities: My capital, theirs, and another 2 of theirs. And as for your last sentence, that's the main reason I opened this thread. Liberty --or any other choice in general-- should not be the "go to strategy for a consistently winning game plan". This shows that the said choice is more powerful than the others.

 

[PhilBowles]

"Instead"? Probably never. There are times when I'll open it *before* while still planning on going into Liberty anyway - mostly when I want to time the free settler or free worker for a bit later than I'd get going straight into Liberty. (Eg. if I'm trying for the GL->NC and I can steal a worker, I'll delve into the wonder-bonus from Tradition and put liberty off until I can get the settler to come in after I'm done.) But it's probable I'm just compensating for having screwed up the timing or not seeing an better alternate path.



I think that got changed at some point. Autocracy is now listed as incompatible with Freedom and Order - so Liberty + Autocracy is possible. It's thematically *very* odd, but unless the in-game info is outright lying it's mechanically permitted.

Hmm, oh well, deliberately skipped Liberty on my new game as Songhai. Oh well, I won't sniff at 50% extra unit experience or my great general.

 

[snarzberry]

As per your archer rush with Honor, I did it just last night with the Ottomans, on the Chinese. Ironically enough, right on the turn that I'd declare on them, they declared, so I avoided the penalty. Result: turn 69 I had 4 cities: My capital, theirs, and another 2 of theirs. And as for your last sentence, that's the main reason I opened this thread. Liberty --or any other choice in general-- should not be the "go to strategy for a consistently winning game plan". This shows that the said choice is more powerful than the others.

I agree, unfortunately liberty right now is the best choice in the vast majority of games. It's been tricky to balance these opening three trees, there's been a lot of adjustments to them via patches and they haven't got it right yet. I'm sure everyone wants each tree to be situationally the best option, some might even think that is the case now, but I am convinced that liberty wins almost every time. Expansion will shake things up a bit hopefully.

 

[Arilian]

The free settler and +50% setter production is what makes it simply the best choice.
It should be nerfed.

GP is somewhat OK, but moth GE and GS should be a bit nerfed.

Honor is bad

 

[civplay]

The free settler and +50% setter production is what makes it simply the best choice

This policy is so OP. A second city in less then 18 turns. Plus you time the policy for when you start building settlers. Thats three cities. If need be you can build another settler for 4 cities and with the hammers saved and the free worker policy already have enough workers to build up your small empire. And with the money saved by really not having to buy settlers (b/c if you were tradition why would you ever delay growth?) you can buy libraries for NC start, units for early rush (or upgrade), or buy CS's

In the early game, Liberty gives you a higher population then tradition and more production, so more units, so a better army than honor. I think the best way to nerf Liberty would be to start off with 2 settlers, or make settlers easier to build.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Hmm, that's not a bad idea. I tend to think of Autocracy as being especially weak, partly because of the major drawback of sacrificing the Liberty and Freedom trees, but to turn that on its head if you're planning an aggressive game from the start you might want to select a tree that will let you take Autocracy later on.

Autocracy is only mutually exclusive with Freedom and Order, in a previous patch they removed its exclusivity with Liberty.

 

[JamesCivFan]

I agree, unfortunately liberty right now is the best choice in the vast majority of games. It's been tricky to balance these opening three trees, there's been a lot of adjustments to them via patches and they haven't got it right yet. I'm sure everyone wants each tree to be situationally the best option, some might even think that is the case now, but I am convinced that liberty wins almost every time. Expansion will shake things up a bit hopefully.

Were there any announcements for the expansion changing any Policies? I didn't see anything in my search a couple minutes ago...

 

[Kaosprophet]

Were there any announcements for the expansion changing any Policies? I didn't see anything in my search a couple minutes ago...

Nothing official, but it's a reasonable speculation that the additional features will interact with the policy trees in ways that shake up your options a bit. I could see both Tradition and Honor having more interaction with faith & religion than Liberty does, which would give an indirect boost to both of them and plausibly make them more viable opening choices.

 

[Ianwill93]

If I'm really trying to win then I take liberty almost every time, but there are some exceptions. With hiawatha, songhai, siam, egypt or inca I will sometimes take a mix of tradition and liberty, straight honour or straight tradition. Generally I do this for fun as it's boring playing liberty every time. I like taking unusual choices if there is some synergy with the position even though going liberty-rationalism/piety is so universally strong it might be better. Changing things up is good for a new challenge and a different game.

Me too. I usually also play Honor as the Aztecs for fun barb hunting games, and Tradition as the Indians to try to ramp up population as fast as possible. Siam of course screams for Tradition to use the Legalism trick.

All in all, id say Tradition is actually my favorite of the 3 but i usually mix it with Liberty anyway since none of them are mutually exclusive.