That's it - Liberty is complete utter worthless trash

@OP, no need for large or huge maps. Hemisphere is probably terrible though. I have had continents maps where Liberty worked out okay. You could farm the DCLs for interesting maps where Liberty is viable.

I think I find only 1 in 3 or maybe even 1 in 4 where Liberty is okay. But it definitely works out okay. That said, Tradition is easier and stronger every time I play a map both ways. But that is long way from Liberty being complete utter worthless trash.

Chum said:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=559009
Here, read. There's no reason to rehash this stuff when it's all already been said.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that! I cannot believe it took to the third page for someone to mention that great guide!

sugerdady87 said:

Dude, the guy is using a mod.

Click to expand...

Yes, Acken made a mod in part because he was frustrated with Liberty not being balanced. But that guide is base on the standard game.

A few words first:
-Liberty wide is just harder to play to achieve competitive results. There is no way around it...
-There is no strong evidence, afaik, that it is 100% competitive for the fastest times.

Click to expand...

None of that means Liberty is terrible (as OP asserts), just that it is harder to play.

That said, Tradition is easier and stronger every time I play a map both ways. But that is long way from Liberty being complete utter worthless trash.

Click to expand...

Actually no, that suggests one of the two options is a false choice, and a trash conclusion would be appropriate if that were measured consistently.

Liberty wins out on early rushing type plays but not-tradition was balanced out of the game and left there for most SP games where you're not expressly gunning early domination.

TheMeInTeam said:

Actually no, that suggests one of the two options is a false choice

Click to expand...

Maybe if I were a top player, but even then I don’t think so. Even if Liberty (as compared to Tradition) means a lower score or more turns to VC, it still offers a much more interesting and varied way to play. E.g., I can mix Piety in with Liberty without wrecking my game. Tradition requires running straight through it, and if you don’t do that, well then the whole point of Tradition being stronger play is moot.

I mean, it is a game. If Liberty’s only value was that it is more fun, that is enough!

...and a trash conclusion would be appropriate if that were measured consistently.

Click to expand...

That is not correct. “complete utter worthless trash” is not a fair analog for “weaker than”.

My latest game I played settings that were more opportunistic for liberty. I played a huge pangaea map for space and just to see how far I could expand with my Celts/religious strategy.

It performed phenomenally, to the point that I was able to buoy happiness to the point that I could easily found 12 cities by T100. AND still had 30 happiness to spare and let them grow BEFORE building local happiness. It's so fun. The policies and choices I've made make the founding penalties close to nothing and I can literally just keep settling forever. I've pulled back a bit though to see how this strat performs on time and science. The cities have grown steadily to pop 10 on average now and my happiness is now 40 and climbing, very close to industrial now by T160 on standard speed. in fact, I might even be able to beat a tradition build on science this game if I played it optimal I'm realizing because I was just messing around with this game.

Honestly, I've come to realize the ONLY reason people undervalue liberty is because they like to play quick games on small maps. With the space of large or huge maps, with the slower game speeds, etc...I reckon you will actually fall behind with a standard tradition strategy against the hyper-expanding AI. You need liberty and many cities to have the production capacity and subsequent science to compete with them because the penalties are not as much for larger maps. Tradition you are free to expand as well but you waste a ton more hammers building the settlers and don't have the empire-wide boosts that liberty gives. Have fun growing your 4 cities a bit faster, there's still no way you can compete with my constantly growing 20-city empire on this map. The few immortal AI neighbors that chose to do that are falling behind fast now and I may just take them out with war. There's no way they can compete.

Some of you may say this is cooked settings but seriously? Large and Huge maps are normal choices. I'm even playing standard speed though slower speeds are perfectly legitimate and benefit liberty even more making those tile improvement increases and hammers make even more difference. It's player preferences to choose the smaller maps because they are easier. If anything, doing that you're stacking the deck for tradition in my opinion. I like longer more eventful games with big empires and huge wars.

There is a trend going on with this board lately which is disturbing to me.

It's people who basically start a thread saying that X isn't viable (or utter trash) and that you can't win games with it. There was a certain poster a year or so ago who insisted that spawning next to Shaka meant instant concede, or that Alexander makes a game unwinnable. There was a post last week about a game being unwinnable on Emperor difficulty. When faced with opposition for their point, these people double down on their point that "it's impossible to win, no one can win this" and the burden of proof then shifts to the knowledgeable people to prove them wrong.

It's getting kinda outta hand, honestly. That kind of posting shouldn't be encouraged, and we as veterans of the game shouldn't be encouraging it. The reality here is that the ORIGINAL POSTERS of ALL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED THREADS (and more, there's been more than that), can't make whatever strategy work. Instead of asking for help on what they can do about making it work, they just double down and sidestep arguments and sit here and cry about how their skill or lack thereof makes it so that the game is impossible.

The game is not impossible. Whatever you choose to do in the game is not impossible. What is happening is that you are not good enough at whatever strategy you are trying to execute. Practice and advice goes a LONG way towards making that happen.

When I came to this board, it was because I was having trouble competing on King. I could win if everything went right, but if I had a runaway on another continent or out of my reach, I would lose. I didn't seem to have enough food, or science or gold or military to do things about it. I couldn't execute a proper worker steal, I was losing wars. Advice from the original veterans of Civ 5 helped me out so much. Grow grow grow, stop building wonders, stop losing military units, be more efficient with your science. Watch your SP acquisition. Look at timing of different events in the game. The list goes on.

I smash high difficulties effortlessly now. I don't play large or huge maps, I play mostly pangaeas and ovals, on Ackens mod. And I put down 8-10 cities every single game. Do I go to war most of those games? Yes, but I go to war most of my tradition games as well, so saying I'm going to war simply because I'm going liberty is incorrect. I put in the time to learn how to play liberty. Of course it plays differently than tradition, IT'S A DIFFERENT TREE. If you're not taking the time and doing what it takes to play it well, you're not going to have good results with it. OF COURSE THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE. What did you expect was going to happen?

If you want to sit there and insist on a certain map type and a certain playstyle that's not conducive to a liberty start, then don't complain about it not working. That shouldn't be okay. For some reason, it is. You can sit here and cry and complain about how you're not good enough to win, and when people tell you ways you can do it better, you can just ignore them and double down. I don't know why it's okay, but the mods tell me it is. Fine. But here's what I can do.

You can't win with liberty? It's because you're not good enough. Acken can, and he wrote a guide to do it. You can't tell me that Liberty isn't winnable, because someone can do it, and if someone can do it, it means the tree isn't broken, it just means you're not good enough.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=559009

You can't win with Honor? It's because you're not good enough. Peddroelm can, and he wrote a guide to do it. You can't tell me that Honor isn't winnable, because someone can do it, and if someone can do it, it means the tree isn't broken, it just means you're not good enough.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=529482

You can't win with Piety? It's because you're not good enough. Adwcta can, and he wrote a guide to do it. You can't tell me that piety isn't winnable, because someone can do it, and if someone can do it, it means the tree isn't broken, it just means you're not good enough.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=521674

That's every starting tree, right there. Base civ, no mods. These players are all better than me, and do you know what I do when I'm having trouble working out a strategy? I swallow my stupid pride and I go looking thru their vast experience database for help with my problems. I don't start threads with inflammatory titles looking to start fights because I'm incapable of doing something. I just go learn from people who are better than me.

This forum could use a lot more of that attitude, and a lot less of this "I can't do it so it can't be done" attitude.

I'm sure this will give me yet another infraction for trolling, so hey, see you guys in a month when those expire. Feel free to keep reporting my posts when you lose arguments.

^^I definitely hate starting next to Shaka, but you are right--plenty of folks have been able to take him out. So far as Alex--I've learned to take him out as quickly as possible.

Like you, when I'm having trouble with a strategy, I come here and learn. In fact, I've learned a lot on these forums.

So far as Liberty, I've only played around with it, and haven't been too successful. But I will be looking at that guide you posted, and following this thread.

Chum said:

...

Click to expand...

It's not really that opening honor or piety are unwinnable. It's that they're terrible in comparison to tradition and liberty. Piety especially so. Of course you could still win opening it, but the odds of doing so spawning next to Shaka or trying to expand to 7 cities with liberty, both on deity, just doesn't make sense unless you're especially looking for a challenging experience.

sugerdady87 said:

It's not really that opening honor or piety are unwinnable. It's that they're terrible in comparison to tradition and liberty. Piety especially so. Of course you could still win opening it, but the odds of doing so spawning next to Shake or trying to expand to 7 cities with liberty, both on deity, just doesn't make sense unless you're especially looking challenging experience.

Click to expand...

I never thought honor or piety were supposed to be valid openers but supporting trees that you mixed in as you wished. People act like picking a tree you need to commit to taking every policy. I think in original game design it was supposed to be valid to mix picks from multiple trees. Tall/Wide is an empire style choice that you make immediately and usually commit too. Whereas Piety and Honor represent religion and war, two things you can do in addition to everything else. Unlike liberty/tradition you usually aren't "comitting" to warring forever or only having a religion. It just helps make both easier.

So I see them as supporting trees to take in addition to either liberty or tradition. Does anyone feel differently or think they should be balanced with liberty/tradition bc I don't personally...

I could see honor being made balanced but never piety as a religion is usually something you can get along with everything else. You don't have to give up much to go for a religion and I like it that way as it feels realistic.

sugerdady87 said:

And you certainly shouldn't be prioritizing workshops before universities.

Click to expand...

I disagree with basically everything this inthesomeday has been trying to argue and I commend you for pointing out his numerous fallacies, however, I must take issue with this particular point you brought up.

1,800 hours played has led me to understand that earlier workshops, first access to Great Wall and first access to Notre Dame trumps a top-tech beeline for universities. Production, protection and prosperity (happiness to be more specific) are king. This holds even more truth when you look at the exclusivity of some of those bonuses. No one else will have the Great Wall effect. No one else will have access to that same +10 happiness. Few will have the kind of production that you will enjoy for some period of time by their circumvention of the lower half of the tech tree.

Put another way: You can have BOTH workshops and universities built in your cities by an earlier turn number by teching metal casting first then if you were to speed towards education first instead.

I've always managed a much quicker engineer going this route (perhaps you might feel inclined nabbing a tech wonder to slingshot yourself back into tech lead?)

With the exception of science civs (I'm looking at you Babylon) there's no one that can't be caught in tech with the use of spies when you're building the most prosperous empire in the game (remember that Notre Dame we just talked about?). Seeing Babylon in my game completely and fundamentally changes my approach to the game so I suppose there's always an exception to the rule.

When you play in enough cutthroat FFA multiplayer matches you will come to learn the value of having the safety net that the Great Wall provides along with the higher production to hastily crank out units when circumstances dictate that a university beeline simply does not afford you.

Cheers.

I didnt read the rest of the thread, just the opening post, but (from a single player perspective) i agree. The free settler simply comes too late even if you start with a monument. The border expansion sucks too bad. It should give 2 culture per city from the opener.

Chum, I certainly did not state, and I saw no one else stating, that it is impossible to win with Liberty. I also never stated that I prefer quick speed, or small maps, or that I'm even terribly fond of Tradition.

I think I've said this twice now, so I'll say it a 3rd time: If you are going to be boxed into about 4 cities I see no point in taking Liberty. If you are going to self-settle about 3-4 cities, and then engage in a game of constant warfare I would argue that Honour is more suited to that type of game - constantly at war - probably going for a domination win.

To me it seems Liberty's entire purpose is to expand faster and farther than other AI's, to grab more land and settle more cities and be a larger empire, but not one focused completely on domination. My problem with it, as I've stated over and over again, is not that I don't understand the tree or that I can't manage a large empire, it is

THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH CITY EXPANSION SPOTS AVAILABLE, on continents/hemispheres, standard size.

I realize pangea isn't as bad with this, and I realize huge maps are fine. So we've all figured it out now, the thread can basically be closed. If you want to play Liberty, play on a map larger than standard and preferably pangea. If you don't like pangea (like me) and you prefer to play on standard sized maps (like me), Liberty is a massive pain in the butt and these maps are not balanced for it very well.

Case closed.

noto2 said:

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH CITY EXPANSION SPOTS AVAILABLE, on continents/hemispheres, standard size.

Click to expand...

I've gotten tired of hearing this, you should post some examples and we'll see what we can do with them

noto2 said:

If you want to play Liberty, play on a map larger than standard...

Click to expand...

Totally unnecessary.

If you don't like pangea (like me) and you prefer to play on standard sized maps (like me), Liberty is a massive pain in the butt and these maps are not balanced for it very well.

Click to expand...

Liberty is harder, no disagreement there, but I don’t think it is “a massive pain in the butt”. I agree that hemispheres might not work well for Liberty most of the time, but there are plenty of non-Pangea maps that do work okay much of the time.

noto2 said:

I think I've said this twice now, so I'll say it a 3rd time: If you are going to be boxed into about 4 cities I see no point in taking Liberty. If you are going to self-settle about 3-4 cities, and then engage in a game of constant warfare I would argue that Honour is more suited to that type of game - constantly at war - probably going for a domination win.

Click to expand...

Why do you need constant warfare? Can't you just take 1-2 capitals and some expos by medieval era and then get on with your game (whether you want to win by Science or Cultural, etc)? Liberty is perfect for that.

noto2 said:

To me it seems Liberty's entire purpose is to expand faster and farther than other AI's, to grab more land and settle more cities and be a larger empire, but not one focused completely on domination. My problem with it, as I've stated over and over again, is not that I don't understand the tree or that I can't manage a large empire, it is

THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH CITY EXPANSION SPOTS AVAILABLE, on continents/hemispheres, standard size.

Click to expand...

Liberty is not just for that, it's also for setting up your empire fast. This works well for wide empires since they would normally take longer to set up. But you can get wide by self funding cities, but you can also conquer a few and liberty is good for both.

When you say that there are no spots for more than 4 cities, do you consider overlap? On wide empires your cities probably reach 20 pop. With working specialists you don't even use all of the 1st and 2nd ring, so you can safely overlap your cities in most cases. The best spots for cities in a tall game are not necessarily the best spots in a wide game, and in the same space where you settle 4 cities in a tall game you can settle 5 or even 6 if you want to go wide.

noto2 said:

I realize pangea isn't as bad with this, and I realize huge maps are fine. So we've all figured it out now, the thread can basically be closed. If you want to play Liberty, play on a map larger than standard and preferably pangea. If you don't like pangea (like me) and you prefer to play on standard sized maps (like me), Liberty is a massive pain in the butt and these maps are not balanced for it very well.

Click to expand...

That is not true, you don't need to increase the size of the map to make liberty competitive. It is very viable on standard size even continent type maps. On continents you can easily take out the entire continent before meeting the other half of the world.

noto2 said:

Case closed.

Click to expand...

It is not closed with those conclusions.

Of course I overlap, but this is Civ5. It's not Civ4 or 3. Early game you can't just go plopping cities wherever you like. Basically you need one luxury resource per founded city in the very early game, which is the part of the expansion phase that matters most. If you wait until turn 50 to get to colosseums or get happiness from city states, your neighbours have already grabbed the best city sites.

You can push it a little, you can settle one, maybe two cities not near luxuries, in very lucky conditions. In any case, when I want to play peaceful expansion it is actually acquiring the spots that is the most challenge. I have done it. I'm playing a Liberty Byzantium game right now, and I think I grabbed about 8 cities before wars started, so technically it is possible, but this is after playing about 7 games where it just wasn't feasible to get more than about 5. Also, a lot of the time I expanded hard I got attacked immediately, and if I'm going to spend a lot of effort destroying a civ's military, then I might as well go an conquer them, right? So I didn't need Liberty to do that.

Liberty is heavily dependent on map type. It's probably amazing on a huge/pangea map, hell, it's probably amazing in archipelago as well, as cities are much more hammer starved. In standard/continents or standard/hemispheres, though, it's heavily nerfed.

I've rolled many, many hemispheres maps where there were only about 7 luxury resources on my entire continent, to be shared by 3-4 civs, and the most I could hope to get would be 3-4 of them. That really limits your early expansion options. Continents/hemispheres is also more difficult than pangea because grabbing multiple copies of the same lux doesn't mean you can trade them for anything, at least not until astronomy.

I used to play pangea a long time ago, it's so different, it's like playing a different game.

So the thread should be titled "Liberty sucks on standard/continents, standard/hemispheres"

noto2 said:

Also, a lot of the time I expanded hard I got attacked immediately...

Click to expand...

That is the “reckless expander” trigger which is not terribly well documented. It is a bright red hit for having more than the average number of cities. Nowadays when I have the space, I take more time to claim it, and that seems to help tremendously if I am in the mood for being a peaceful builder.

In standard/continents or standard/hemispheres, though, it's heavily nerfed.

Click to expand...

Please remind me, what are the salient features for hemispheres?

Liberty, in my personal experience, works just fine on continents -- when it happens that I spawn on my own continent and it's largish. That describes maybe one in five continents map? I will settle 6+ spots aiming to get every lux and strategic resource along the coast within reach of city radius. I actually spread out as much as possible too. Then I keep some cash on hand to buy tiles in the event that some settler lands on my continent. The last spot or two I settle are in the middle of my territory, and then again only because an AI will if I don't.

sugerdady87 said:

And you certainly shouldn't be prioritizing workshops before universities.

Click to expand...

Production is always more important for Liberty. You should always build a workshop in a Liberty city before a university.

In fact if it wasnt for the whole National College forcing players to prioritise libraries I'd argue that the Colosseum is a better investment for a Liberty city then a Library is.

Think about it - if you are planting lots of cities everywhere but each city is constrained to a size of 4 because of happiness.
You can build a Library - 75 for +2
or
a Colosseum for 100
You can now grow this city 2 people larger which gives you your +2 , you'll also produce more gold & production from tiles and city connections.
Bottom line is your expo (even if it gets happiness capped at size 6 now) will still be able to get through the build queue more quickly, thus when you do get more sources of happiness that city will be able to catch up more quickly.

Still haven't seen any of these supposedly non-liberty friendly maps

OP should just post maps that he thinks are non liberty friendly and others should show him the way to play.

Alright, that's fair, I'll do that, give me a little time though. I want to finish my current game.