That's it - Liberty is complete utter worthless trash

[Browd]

On the settler policy, in addition to the +50% point noted above (doesn't mean "double settlers"), to get the benefit of that policy you have to build your settlers in your capital. Your capital should have the best production, so perhaps that is OK, but there are often so many other things you would also need/like to build in your capital.

I've found that wanting to utilize the benefits of that policy can skew what would otherwise be my capital-build preferences, while that is not the case with Tradition, where I might pump out settlers from a couple of expos while letting my capital build, e.g., National College (or whatever). You can certainly do that with Liberty as well, but psychologically it can feel like you are playing sub-optimally by not taking advantage of one of Liberty's most notable policies. I think that psychology is also what leads many Liberty players to defer building their first settler until they get their free settler, even though it may be quite beneficial to pump out (perhaps forest-chop) your first settler earlier.

On Redaxe's religion point, yes, you can use other tools (like religious beliefs) to mimic some of Tradition's benefits, but you could also take those same religious beliefs with Tradition and enjoy a "super-Tradition" game. (Just like with the Aztecs, you can take the Honor opener for super-culture from barbarian kills, or you can skip Honor and still get culture from kills.) Not sure that proves much either way.

 

[inthesomeday]

Optimal liberty build order is scout>monument>shrine>settler. In single player I imagine people often skip shrines, in which case it might be scout>scout>monument>settler, scout>monument>scout>settler, or substituting one of the scouts for a worker if there's enough hammers in the cap and no city states nearby. Either way, settlers come relatively early, and usually should in single player as well; the reason there's no guilt doing this is because of the extra settler. Very very commonly I'll get it on the very same turn I'm done hard building the first, and if not it'll be give or take 1-2 turns. This remarkable timing makes it so that you're still essentially getting two settlers for every one tradition settler, the extra one filling in for the first. After the first two, you might build another worker, use CS slave chops to rush Pyramids, or often times build a granary if it works in the capital. After whichever of these comes another settler, this time taking about 3-4 turns usually, then maybe some other infrastructure building or sometimes Pyramids if they aren't taken yet; after this comes settler spamming until you've filled your spots, with more worker steals if necessary to keep up the happiness in the expands. This can erode at your CS influence standing, but because it's localized, there are other CS elsewhere to ally. Maritime and mercantile are very useful going wide.

 

[beetle]

You can certainly do that with Liberty as well, but psychologically it can feel like you are playing sub-optimally by not taking advantage of one of Liberty's most notable policies. I think that psychology is also what leads many Liberty players to defer building their first settler until they get their free settler, even though it may be quite beneficial to pump out (perhaps forest-chop) your first settler earlier.

I am definitely hung up on waiting on Collective Rule. It does seem to me that my first Liberty settler is after my first Tradition settler -- so that is not good!

But I don't think it is just psychology. Objectively, all the following are true:

1. CR is a valuable hammer-heavy SP.
2. The number of good expos spots for any given game is fixed.
3. Any settlers before CR or settler build outside of cap decrease the hammer value of CR.

It therefore follows that, to maximize benefit from Liberty, it is logical to wait on CR for your settlers.

OTOH, maybe chopping an early settler gets you an extra expo spot (so that breaks 2 above)?
But on the other-other hand, should you not be able to guard spots with a couple scouts and your warrior?

Rationally, not emotionally, it does not follow that sabotaging the value of CR is required for optimal play. But I agree one might need to open to the idea, just that it should not be the plan from T0.

Optimal liberty build order is scout>monument>shrine>settler.

If you plan from the start to build your first settler, that means from the start that CR is only of marginal value to you. But CR is agreeably the strongest policy in the tree! So why run Liberty in that case at all?

 

[inthesomeday]

That's completely inaccurate, you'll be building x number of settlers regardless of how many you build before collective rule, and building one before the policy is unlocked is proper common sense, not suboptimal play. The free settler and the end of the tree just compensates the theoretical lost production; if you think of the policy as "double settlers" then you should very well be building one before the policy because the policy then provides one free to fulfill the double settler qualifier. Don't think about the free settler as itself the policy, but rather as just part of the policy that works to make up for the second bit. It's like building monuments before legalism, of course you could save the hammers but the policy itself is actually for saving 4 GPT; you need monuments early anyways, and building one in the cap and then deleting it for a free one upon getting legalism is typically how people play. It's the same thing with collective rule.

 

[Browd]

I find gamer psychology (especially my own) endlessly interesting. With Tradition, do you feel compelled to make sure every city has a garrison (to maximize the value of Oligarchy), even if you might have a more pressing need for units near a frontier city, or to sink hammers into every wonder (to maximize the value of Aristocracy), even if those hammers would be better employed elsewhere? Most would say "no" to each of these and yet we often feel some compulsion to treat Collective Rule (and some other policies) differently. After all, you sank just as much culture into those Tradition policies as you sank into Collective Rule, but ... it somehow seems different.

I think the fact that we can be quite dispassionate and rational about some things and not others can be chalked up (in part) to the all-too-human fixation on sunk costs -- I've invested so much in that social policy, that CS alliance, that tech path, that wonder, that war, etc. that I feel compelled to persist in that path, even if circumstances have changed or another course is objectively more beneficial. Many times, when I find myself thinking "I didn't start this war, but I can certainly finish it -- on my terms", I have to remind myself, "But, I do have better things to do, so ... here's your life back, Monty -- you're welcome, and, no, I don't expect you to say 'thank you'."

 

[Redaxe]

Optimal liberty build order is scout>monument>shrine>settler.

Hmmm I'm not a 100% sold on that - pangaea I'd argue that 2 scouts at least is mandantory. There is simply too much to lose if you don't grab enough ruins. Also more scouts running around means a higher chance of finding early citystates, Natural Wonders and worker slaves.

Liberty to me certainly seems quite a flexible tree

1) spread as many cities as you can - if you have the space, else
2) you can use the production for early war, or
3) build early wonders and catch-up with expansion using the free settler

 

[Redaxe]

On Redaxe's religion point, yes, you can use other tools (like religious beliefs) to mimic some of Tradition's benefits, but you could also take those same religious beliefs with Tradition and enjoy a "super-Tradition" game. (Just like with the Aztecs, you can take the Honor opener for super-culture from barbarian kills, or you can skip Honor and still get culture from kills.) Not sure that proves much either way.

You certainly can have a super tradition game but one could argue that a Tradition player might be better spending some of their religious beliefs in Production (I'm thinking Religious Community vs Swords into Ploughshares)

You might also run into happiness problems sooner than you think doing the super tradition - not sure though, its been a while since ive tried that.

 

[beetle]

That's completely inaccurate, you'll be building x number of settlers regardless of how many you build before collective rule, and building one before the policy is unlocked is proper common sense, not suboptimal play.

I would love to seem some numbers. Right, you will be building X number of setters, regardless. So even one settler costing 50% more than necessary should be carefully considered. A third of your first settler hammers before CR are potentially unnecessary. But then you do get the city online Y number of turns sooner, so that recovers some of those hammers. But what else might have you done with those hammers?

It's like building monuments before legalism, of course you could save the hammers

It is nothing like building Monument before Legalism! That practice is trading a short term gain for a longer one (the free Amphitheater). The extra hammers you spend on a settler before CR are never recovered. So you need a compelling reason for that play -- and that has not been documented. (Unlike monument before Legalism.)

...building one in the cap and then deleting it for a free one upon getting legalism is typically how people play.

That is not typically how people play! But yes, run the math, and it works out. OTOH run the math against the free Amphitheater, and that is even stronger play. (Unless you would otherwise never build an Amphitheater in your cap.)

Either way, Monument before Legalism is perfectly defensible. Now, how about showing the math supporting extra hammer on the settler before CR is a net advantage?

Most would say "no" to each of these and yet we often feel some compulsion to treat Collective Rule (and some other policies) differently. After all, you sank just as much culture into those Tradition policies as you sank into Collective Rule, but ... it somehow seems different.

It does seem different. I think because those particular Tradition policies are plainly of marginal utility. The better comparison might be waiting to build an Aqueduct (or two) because the free one in the queue -- but not for several many turns. But you make a very valid point in the vein of “good money after bad” which also about the psychologically aspect trying to recover sunk costs -- when that might not be possible.

 

[Chum]

If you were to play Liberty to 4 cities, I'd be focusing heavily on religion & wonders to buff my civ. You can build early Wonders without falling behind on settlers.

Temple of Artemis
Pagoda's for happiness
Swords into Ploughshares
Tithe

There you go - now you have 4 city Liberty with all the benefits of Tradition

This touches on an important point - liberty is EXCELLENT for ensuring a religion.

Now, to be fair, deity play heavily favors early pantheons that are essentially impossible for the players to compete with, but lower difficulty and Acken's mod remove this trouble, and so are easily 90%+ of the scenarios I play on (since I play Acken's mod nearly exclusively these days, and I'm only playing unmodded when a particularly interesting map comes across my monitor), but religion and liberty work very well together. Spawn in the middle of the desert, and 5 of your expansions are going to be working nearly all desert tiles? You're going to have 10k faith when the industrial era rolls around. Large quantities of faith bearing luxes (gold, silver, gems, etc)? These things are all tiles you're going to work almost immediately with liberty to ensure you don't outgrow your happiness. Even if none of the above apply to you, you're going to have a much better chance of getting a religion with 8 shrines instead of 4. I am almost always able to get AT LEAST 2 happiness per city from a religion, and usually 3 or 4. This completely negates the liberty per city disadvantage, and now all of a sudden, you don't need luxes. I routinely settle cities with no luxes, if the situation calls for it. Lots of pastures, hills, river, etc? Drop a city. No lux? No problem, religion will cover it until Ideology.

Again, this is one of those points I was trying to make early on that certain people didn't want to hear - your criteria for a "good" spot to settle is different for liberty than tradition. You don't need a river/mountain/hill/coastal/2 unique luxes with 36 workable tiles around it for liberty. If you have a river and horses, you're halfway there. If it's got some good food and good production, it's going to be a fine city. You don't need this sprawling empire taking up 1/4 of the map for liberty to be viable. It's just fine to settle cities ~5-6 tiles away.

 

[sugerdady87]

To balance out liberty, I think that collective rule should come sooner. This tree is suppose to be about rapid expansion, but the main policy which helps with that arrives too late. By the time I get it, I'm already working on getting a third expo from hard building settlers. Perhaps CR should be located to where republic is now, then move citizenship below it. Also, like Browd said, because you're producing settlers out of the capital to make use of the bonus, your capital will fall so far behind. Perhaps the production bonus should be applied empire-wide instead of just the capital alone.

Another problem is while they may be enough land to grab, there may not be enough unique luxuries. If you're using liberty for early war, there's no guarantee that you will be able to trade your duplicate luxuries once the warmonger penalty hits.

 

[SoonerJBD]

Everyone who says they can get a decent number of cities by peaceful expansion is playing on Huge maps.

Who here can say they can consistently grab 8+ cities on a Standard size map, where at least 7 of the cities have either a unique luxury, or a copy of a luxury that is immediately tradeable, or a natural wonder, peacefully, without going to war? (I'll be especially impressed if you can do it on continents/hemispheres, and not just pangea)

Can anyone say that?

So it seems to have been established in this thread - peaceful expansion on Standard sized maps is basically impossible, and everyone is using Liberty for war. So Liberty is everyone's go-to for early warfare.

Why are you so insistent on using one map size for every game? You are willing to try new strategies, but you aren't willing to alter your game settings whatsoever? I don't understand this. Tradition is obviously much easier on standard map size and speed. If you want to try Liberty, what is stopping you from upping your map size? I've found bumping the map size to large makes Liberty much more viable depending on the Civ and the starting conditions. You are complaining because you can't shoehorn every possible strategy into the one setting you want to play every game with. That's your problem, not the game's problem.

 

[beetle]

If you want to try Liberty, what is stopping you from upping your map size?

If Liberty did not ever work at Standard size or speed, then OP would more correct than not. But one does not need to play large or huge maps to get value from Liberty. It is completely tangential to OP's assertion to point out that Liberty works better if you have a bigger map. You might as well be observing that Liberty works better on standard maps if you disable a couple civs. Yes, what you are saying is true. But that is trivial.

Also, like Browd said, because you're producing settlers out of the capital to make use of the bonus, your capital will fall so far behind. Perhaps the production bonus should be applied empire-wide instead of just the capital alone.

No one asserts that a Tradition cap falls so far behind because of three settlers (3x106 for 318 hammers), so why is it an issue for the Liberty cap to build four settlers (4x71 for 284 hammers) when that is less hammers?

 

[Browd]

To balance out liberty, I think that collective rule should come sooner. This tree I suppose to be about rapid expansion, but the main policy which helps with that arrives too late. By the time I get it, I'm already working on getting a third expo from hard building settlers. Perhaps CR should be located to where republic is now, then move citizenship below it.

Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same. What you are advocating is a return to the structure of Vanilla Liberty, where CR and Citizenship were flipped from how they are now (in G&K and BNW). Of course, Firaxis made that change (and also buffed Tradition) because NO ONE ever took Tradition in the Vanilla game. It was comically unbalanced, really -- everyone auto-took Liberty because it was a complete no-brainer.

At least now there is a lively debate about the two trees' relative merits and demerits -- it is that debate that led to the subsequent slight nerf to Tradition (moving Oligarchy to be a prerequisite for Legalism, which has encouraged folks to think a bit longer about which tree to take).

 

[sugerdady87]

No one asserts that a Tradition cap falls so far behind because of three settlers (3x106 for 318 hammers), so why is it an issue for the Liberty cap to build four settlers (4x71 for 284 hammers) when that is less hammers?

In this thread, liberty has been advocated with getting 7-8 cities. That's a lot more than tradition. If you were to only get 4 cities, why even open liberty?

Also with tradition, some of us build settlers outside the capital. If you were to do so with liberty, it would negate the benefit of CR, in which point again, why even open it?

 

[beetle]

If you were to only get 4 cities, why even open liberty?

Agreed. Liberty CR and 280 hammers is six cities total (don't forget the CR freebie). Liberty CR and 350 hammers is seven cites, so maybe three more turns of zero growth for the cap than with 4 city Tradition.

Also with tradition, some of us build settlers outside the capital.

Yes, but that is not the usual pattern.

If you were to do so with liberty, it would negate the benefit of CR, in which point again, why even open it?

Agreed, try not to do that!

 

[SoonerJBD]

If Liberty did not ever work at Standard size or speed, then OP would more correct than not. But one does not need to play large or huge maps to get value from Liberty. It is completely tangential to OP's assertion to point out that Liberty works better if you have a bigger map. You might as well be observing that Liberty works better on standard maps if you disable a couple civs. Yes, what you are saying is true. But that is trivial.

I don't disagree with you that Liberty can be viable on standard maps and speed at least a good portion of the time. But I don't think it is trivial to point out that the OP is arbitrarily constraining himself to one setting and then posting a thread titled "That's it - Liberty is complete utter worthless trash." The OP is fixated on making one strategy work every time on one specific map setting, which simply makes no sense to me. The assertion, whether true or not, is of no value. You can choose any map size in the game just as you can choose to play with any Civ and open any SP. Complaining that one policy tree doesn't work as well on one map setting, even if you concede that assertion, is rather pointless. It's a bit like complaining that it is tough to win a diplo victory with a Civ built for domination. Some Civs are built to favor certain victory conditions. Some will do better on small island maps, and others will do better on large Pangaea maps. Policy trees are another variable. If you don't like how a policy tree performs on one setting, change the setting or change the policy tree. You are free to do either. Complaining is pointless.

 

[Klesko]

Optimal liberty build order is scout>monument>shrine>settler.

Going to respectfully declare this statement as false and/or misleading. Shrine doesn't even figure into every game and you've left out so many scenarios in which... a double scout start is necessary (Spain/Shoshone come to mind) ....a warrior build is necessary (Huns for double the chance at an early ram) ...a jaguar spam is necessary (Aztecs of course) ...a GL rush (Egypt or Babylon pick perhaps?) ....the list goes on. Additionally, hard building a settler that early (before free settler policy) seems counter intuitive.

That's completely inaccurate, you'll be building x number of settlers regardless of how many you build before collective rule, and building one before the policy is unlocked is proper common sense, not suboptimal play.

I have to respectfully disagree once again. It is in fact suboptimal play. Each turn that you're producing a settler you have growth of the city set at 0. You want that city growing in the early stages while settler production cost is at full price. You then switch to settler production mode when that cost has been cut in half. The discussion and rationale for this is much more in depth than what I've covered in this brief paragraph but it all has to do with opportunity costs.

 

[ShakaKhan]

I find gamer psychology (especially my own) endlessly interesting. With Tradition, do you feel compelled to make sure every city has a garrison (to maximize the value of Oligarchy)

That's so funny - not that I try to put a unit in every city - no reason to. However, what comes up every... single... game.... is that I'll have an archer in the city in the back of my empire. As the frontier cities become contested, they'll upgrade, but no one ever threatens that little city boxed off by, well, my entire empire. So then we get to the information era, the frontier cities have modern infantry, stealth bombers stationed, nuclear weapons, and this dude with a 5000 year-old bow and arrow is chillin' in the back of my empire. The thing is... it would be cheaper (w/ purchase policies/wonders) and have more upgrades disbanding him and buy the modern unit, but there's no need for a unit there. So then we could just disband him, but he's costing absolutely nothing, so again, no reason to. I often disband him simply because it's kind of embarrassing having him around. But, as you said, it's all individualized gamer psychology.

As for the OP, I've simply come to the conclusion that Liberty is sub-optimal for single-player, deity level games with a moderate+ amount of civs (say, 4 or more). Seems many agree, others vehemently oppose, and I'm not saying that I'm/we're right or anybody is wrong, but those are my personal findings and it seems the findings of many others. Liberty is better than tradition for multi-player 1V1, the Liberty player will win the vast majority of those games, to the extent of beating opponents who are better than they are. It's just OK in MP with more opponents because you can usually overpower a tradition neighbor, but that worries everyone else and they team you. It's also practical, or at least quicker, in single player duels. And on lower difficulties, it can be good enough to win with.

From the time Civ5 Vanilla came out, I thought tradition was more beneficial than Liberty, but it was much closer at that time. Since then there have been two changes to general game mechanics, not SP-specific, that (inadvertently?) killed Liberty -

1.) riverside tiles and coastal tiles no longer have a base of 1 gold (2 during GA): This killed the liberty economy. As long as roughly 1-in-3 of your cities had multiple riverside tiles (which were always improved first), Liberty had a much better economy than tradition which compensated for the extra problems with happiness.

2.) PERCENTAGE increase in technology cost per additional city: Increases in SP cost always came with the territory (no pun intended), but this came later and is what makes liberty unplayable for me in SP-deity. No tradition bonuses plus further growth penalties because, on most maps, you can't stay "always happy," but at least there's more cities. Now your penalized for the only bonus you had.

It's confusing as to why these two mechanics were implemented. It seems that they were to intended to fix the problem of Liberty being more powerful than Tradition, but most of us didn't think that was the case before their implementation, at least among SP-deity players. I think they also may have removed the riverside economy because they thought trade routes were going to be the neatest thing ever, but having the number of trade routes as a function of tech rather than of number of cities makes it much more beneficial to smaller empires.

I'd like to play CiV5 BNW, with all the current patches and stuff, but without the above two changes that made Liberty unplayable. Without those changes, I'm predicting it's not going to reverse the situation, making Liberty always better than tradition. Rather, it's going to create a situation where tradition is the optimum choice when happiness options are scarce, but Liberty is the optimum choice when happiness options can support it. Which means every game there's a choice to make based on individual circumstances, instead of just go-to, cookie-cutter games.

 

[americanlt]

Why not just cut the number of city/states by half?? It may make DV a bit harder but you will have much more room to expand when you pick Liberty.

 

[SoonerJBD]

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but Liberty seemed to be ridiculously OP in Vanilla, which is why they nerfed it. Getting a free settler and worker out so fast just made an unstoppable train. The finisher gave you a Great Engineer just in time to get Porcelain Tower in most cases. RAs were way overpowered in Vanilla as well.