Social Policy : Progress

[Gokudo01]

Hey I want to ask you some questions about Progress :

- When is it better to use it over Tradition or Authority ?
- Which nations can exploit Progress better.
- What's the way to use it effectively. ( after some games, I feel like you shouldn't beline with Progress because you lose some value to your opener and your capital should focus on growth early to get the best of your opener).

 

[Enginseer]

- Tradition is traditionally for getting Great People much earlier and making your capital greater.
- Progress is exploited better in civilizations with big production. Egypt comes into mind due to their free stonework regardless of technology and production caravans.

 

[Funak]

Progress generally means that your satellites are going to come online a lot faster. After trying both of them out it is pretty clear that tradition expansions suffer a lot especially if you can't afford to get improvements. Progress cities are pretty fine without improvements and progress builds improvements a lot faster.

 

[Bridger]

Why not both?

 

[Gokudo01]

I don't want to be an ass but you are staying general when my questions are kind of precise.
Just answer them one by one, it's easy you will see.
Enginseer, at least, tried ^^

Ex : When do you pick tradition as a starting policy ?
When I want to get Golden age more often , when I want to start with only 4 or 5 cities., when I want to get a Megalopolis.

Which nations can exploit tradition ?

Brazil with their bonus on golden age, Siam because you can get a lot of culture without many cities via your UA, etc ...

What's the way to use it effectively ?

don't get the workers out too soon.
work your engineer/scientist specialist slot asap.
etc ...

 

[Funak]

I don't want to be an ass but you are staying general when my questions are kind of precise.
Just answer them one by one, it's easy you will see.

I'm sorry I just tried to not be an ass and make it clear how silly your original questions looked, but sure, here I'll go.

- When is it better to use it over Tradition or Authority ?

Completely map-dependent, if you have a lot of room to expand progress is usually a better choice than Tradition. If you have no intention of hunting for barbs or warring early on, progress is a better solution than Authority.

If you need to soak up a lot of space, with limited good workable tiles (jungle or so) progress gives you advantages over tradition. If you need to improve a lot of tiles (or remove jungle) Progress have an advantage over tradition. If you're fairly certain that your neighbor will attack you at some point and want your forward-expansions towards him to get their infra-structure up in time progress is probably a better solution.

- Which nations can exploit Progress better.

We worked really hard to make sure some civs are not locked into policy-trees so in theory there shouldn't be a good answer to this.
In practice there are quite a few civs that does well with Progress, most civs with unique improvements for example.
Attila, Pocatello and William for example. Brazil is kind of a mix, on one hand getting a powerful capital helps him a lot, on the other getting jungle-cities up and running is a lot easier with progress.

In general I'd say that civs that rely on great people births should probably favor tradition over progress, but honestly you can make progress work with all civs.

- What's the way to use it effectively. ( after some games, I feel like you shouldn't beline with Progress because you lose some value to your opener and your capital should focus on growth early to get the best of your opener).

It's a split for me and I haven't found a good solution to it.
On one hand grabbing all early techs is going to give you faster policies, on the other hand saving all the early techs until you have 3 points or so into progress gives you a lot more culture for those techs. I'd probably worry less about playing the early game around your policy-choice and worry more about playing it around your starting location or your civilization.


On synergies tradition seems to synergize a lot better with Aesthetics than progress does. Aesthetics have a lot of policies benefiting from extra great people.

On negative synergies, Tradition is probably the worst starting-tree to go into imperialism, both the other choices end up giving you extra yields on worked specialists.

 

[Gokudo01]

I'm sorry I just tried to not be an ass and make it clear how silly your original questions looked, but sure, here I'll go.




Completely map-dependent, if you have a lot of room to expand progress is usually a better choice than Tradition. If you have no intention of hunting for barbs or warring early on, progress is a better solution than Authority.

If you need to soak up a lot of space, with limited good workable tiles (jungle or so) progress gives you advantages over tradition. If you need to improve a lot of tiles (or remove jungle) Progress have an advantage over tradition. If you're fairly certain that your neighbor will attack you at some point and want your forward-expansions towards him to get their infra-structure up in time progress is probably a better solution.



We worked really hard to make sure some civs are not locked into policy-trees so in theory there shouldn't be a good answer to this.
In practice there are quite a few civs that does well with Progress, most civs with unique improvements for example.
Attila, Pocatello and William for example. Brazil is kind of a mix, on one hand getting a powerful capital helps him a lot, on the other getting jungle-cities up and running is a lot easier with progress.

In general I'd say that civs that rely on great people births should probably favor tradition over progress, but honestly you can make progress work with all civs.


It's a split for me and I haven't found a good solution to it.
On one hand grabbing all early techs is going to give you faster policies, on the other hand saving all the early techs until you have 3 points or so into progress gives you a lot more culture for those techs. I'd probably worry less about playing the early game around your policy-choice and worry more about playing it around your starting location or your civilization.


On synergies tradition seems to synergize a lot better with Aesthetics than progress does. Aesthetics have a lot of policies benefiting from extra great people.

On negative synergies, Tradition is probably the worst starting-tree to go into imperialism, both the other choices end up giving you extra yields on worked specialists.

thanks dude, it was the kind of answer that I was looking for.
See, not that hard

 

[hokath]

Yeah Funak covered it pretty well. I would add that Tradition gets that early +2 faith from the Court Chapel, which you may want to think about if you are going religious.

I've come to the thinking recently though that it can often be a really bad idea to say "oh I'm Genghis, let's go Authority", only to discover that I'm blocked off from my neighbours by a large mountain range or a small land bridge. For this reason I've been delaying the monument until after the scout, shrine and sometimes worker, so I can make a choice that is more based on geography. Depends on what map you pick, I guess. Clearly if it's Pangaea you don't need to do that.

On negative synergies

Also bear this in mind. But by the time things get to that point you may be adjusting your strategy. Rationalism is quite flexible, but Imperialism and Industry are going to be strongly dependent on your terrain. If Villages are suddenly good, but you were covered in farms, perhaps consider building workers to replace some. Perhaps now an internal trade route is needed to sustain growth, but what about those Corporations? Hang on, I can take Freedom and then Transnationalism will do it, oh but I want to win the Space-Race and I don't have much GPT, is Space Procurement as good as Spaceflight Pioneers? But I'm tall, isn't Order better for wide? Oh bother the world ideology is Autocracy, why didn't I take Statecraft over Piety? Oh yes it was because Piety buffed my specialists.

 

[Cerest]

In simple terms,

Tradition is best suited for: Tall Peaceful Play

Progress: Wide Peaceful Play

Authority: Wide Aggressive Play

While you can surely play a diplomatic game with authority (big stick policy) these are just general guide lines. Progress provides benefits for wide civilizations without giving the aggressive bonuses of authority.

Also, please try not to be so passive aggressive.

 

[Funak]

In simple terms,

Tradition is best suited for: Tall Peaceful Play

Progress: Wide Peaceful Play

Authority: Wide Aggressive Play.

That's way oversimplified and actually in most cases not even true.

 

[Gokudo01]

In simple terms,

Tradition is best suited for: Tall Peaceful Play

Progress: Wide Peaceful Play

Authority: Wide Aggressive Play

While you can surely play a diplomatic game with authority (big stick policy) these are just general guide lines. Progress provides benefits for wide civilizations without giving the aggressive bonuses of authority.

Sorry I'm looking for more developed advices. more like funak's last post or Hokath's one.

I want your feeling. I want to know what you made your choice for.
Which set-up push you into Progress : Heavy hill ? Jungle start ? Forest start ? Coastal start ?
Some nations can be really good with Progress ? explain me why ?
What are you prioritising when you are playing progress ? production ? food ? When do you change your focus.
Does Progress have any good synergy or bad one ?

Also, please try not to be so passive aggressive.

Sorry, if I hurt you, I'm black and being blunt is a cultural thing. I'm never "passive", I've never meant to hurt anybody. I'm looking for advices.
What I want is a real peace of your mind, not just some generalist advices, CBP's tool-tips are good enough

ps : Try to smile, I can feel it when you're writing while edgy.

ps 2 : Fear not, I will "try" to contain myself.

 

[Amask]

There was nothing uncalled for in what you said, and I would advise you not to to worry too much about people getting upset over the most trivial things. Happens all the time in this subforum to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[Gazebo]

There was nothing uncalled for in what you said, and I would advise you not to to worry too much about people getting upset over the most trivial things. Happens all the time in this subforum to the point of ridiculousness.

Happens all the time on the internet to the point of ridiculousness.

G

 

[OYAKATASAMA]

- When is it better to use [Progress] over Tradition or Authority ?

I play emperor, huge maps with 22 civs, and I have been trying to make Progress work for a while now. The locations of other civs tends to be more important than terrain in my opinion. I find it tends to run into similar problems as Authority, in that you can be hurting on gold and sometimes happiness, so you have to compensate for them with whatever you have available.

For example:

In the game I am currently playing I was surrounded by peacemonger civs(Brazil, Netherlands, Ethiopia) who mostly had no early game units or combat UA bonuses. I was playing as the Celts, so I went Authority and started pumping out groups of 2+ Pictish Warriors and started roaming around burning every undefended settlement I could find. They could easily take cities that were built on flat land or hills without a garrison unit. I got incredibly fat off that early on from all the sick gains I was raking in from on-kill bonuses from Pictish Warrior's ability, Morrigan pantheon, and the left side of Authority.

Of course, I knew from the start that I would be considered a genocidal maniac no matter how much I told the other ~4 civs on my continent to "chill out bro, its just a game," so I resigned myself to only being able to make friends later on once I removed the unwanted elements from my own continent. This also means no foreign trade routes to make mad dosh per turn, so I had to use my religion to grab Thrift and Tithes.

If I were playing without the extra civs added, I probably would've gone progress instead to fill in the land without all the burnable baby cities. Sometimes I get starts where Continents decides to throw me in the rage cage with 1 other civ trapped on a smaller continent apart from the main ones. I'll attempt to knock them off early in that case, giving me very little lasting need for the bonuses from Authority, but enough room to expand quickly and want infrastructure in those cities immediately.

- Which nations can exploit Progress better.

I think that you don't necessarily have to be a particular civ to want to grab Progress, it is more about if the game is going to allow you to use it. If you are going to quickly get hemmed into a corner and can't or don't want to push back, Progress is probably a mistake. If you want to do a slow conquest to avoid having everyone you meet think you're bringing on a new dark age, Progress is a decent choice.

- What's the way to use it effectively. ( after some games, I feel like you shouldn't beline with Progress because you lose some value to your opener and your capital should focus on growth early to get the best of your opener).

I feel like Progress can be a solid second choice, but only if you aren't going to gain much from Piety/Statecraft/Aesthetics. The opener in particular has some synergy with Tradition as a whole, but I haven't done testing to see if it is worth it in practice. Progress does feel a bit weak on its own as a starter, but that is most likely because of my game setup.

 

[Cerest]

That's way oversimplified and actually in most cases not even true.

These aren't oversimplified. Good players will have an idea of how they want to win with a given civilization at game load and will pick their first policy tree based on this. IE: Good players have goals and then try to obtain the means to help them achieve these goals.

I would be an utter and complete moron to pick authority as Venice if I had no intention of expanding through conquest.

It would be silly and masochistic to not pick authority if I intended to piss off neighbors as expansionist America in a high difficulty game.

A scientific Korea that doesn't pick Tradition is weird.

An aggressive Songhai that doesn't pick up authority to farm barbs in a map that supports barbs is bad.

For nearly every civ in the game, if you have an intended victory type with that civ there are policy trees that you simply either A) need to choose or B) shouldn't choose. This is irrefutable.

I urge you Funak to generate a list of situations of where a civ has A) an intended victory type and B) all 3 policy trees are optimal. I guarantee that my list of situations where a civ has A) an intended victory type and B) there a policies that that civ should or shouldn't choose will be bigger.

Your intended victory type can change throughout the game and your actual victory can be different as well (culture victories seem too easy still). But by the time you pick your first policy you start understanding your limitations.

In simple terms,

Tradition is best suited for: Tall Peaceful Play

Progress: Wide Peaceful Play

Authority: Wide Aggressive Play

While you can surely play a diplomatic game with authority (big stick policy) these are just general guide lines. Progress provides benefits for wide civilizations without giving the aggressive bonuses of authority.

If you want to do a slow conquest to avoid having everyone you meet think you're bringing on a new dark age, Progress is a decent choice.

Oh, look, Wide/Relatively Peaceful.

To OP: I'm not particularly upset, hence my use of words like "please." But if I ask people anywhere for help and guidance I try not to say things like:

I don't want to be an ass but you are staying general when my questions are kind of precise.
Just answer them one by one, it's easy you will see.
Enginseer, at least, tried ^^

Instead, maybe perhaps, "could you be more specific and elaborate? Thanks!" This will prevent you of getting responses like:

I'm sorry I just tried to not be an ass and make it clear how silly your original questions looked, but sure, here I'll go.

I also don't understand how you believe that the comment below can't be taken negatively.

Sorry, if I hurt you, I'm black and being blunt is a cultural thing. I'm never "passive", I've never meant to hurt anybody. I'm looking for advices.
What I want is a real peace of your mind, not just some generalist advices, CBP's tool-tips are good enough

ps : Try to smile, I can feel it when you're writing while edgy.

ps 2 : Fear not, I will "try" to contain myself.

I'm still going to try and help you however!
Because you don't like "generalist" advice (you should look up that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means)...

Anytime you play a civ with free city connections or situations where city connections are widely abundant AND you intend on playing peacefully you get more from Progress than Authority.

This is because A) you milk the Progress policy that gives you free science per city connection more easily and B) the Authority policy that gives 50% reduced road maintenance is of diminished value.

Examples:
Iroquois with lots of Forests, the Progress's production/building bonuses synergies extremely well with their Longhouses.
Carthage with mainly coastal cities, the lack of a gold boost until Progress's finisher is offset well due to Carthage's UA.
Sometimes Songhai should get Progress, but most often authority is better due to barb farm.

 

[Funak]

These aren't oversimplified. Good players will have an idea of how they want to win with a given civilization at game load and will pick their first policy tree based on this. IE: Good players have goals and then try to obtain the means to help them achieve these goals.

I understand that you're not trying to be a dick, but you're being a dick.
If the OP was a 'Good player' he clearly wouldn't be asking basic questions, so your whole point about good people knowing how to play is somewhat unnecessary.

I would be an utter and complete moron to pick authority as Venice if I had no intention of expanding through conquest.

There are plenty of reasons to grab Authority without the plan to expand through conquest early on. For one you get a free MoV from the second policy on the left side. you have a way easier time keeping barbs out, something that can be quite a problem depending on your starting-location. Discipline is a good and cheap way to keep your puppets borders growing when they refuse to build culture-buildings. Reduced maintenance never hurts, especially if you're forced to build long roads to connect your puppets. The free soldiers from population-growth is nice to have as you're usually starved for hammers in your one city that can actually produce things.
The ability to buy mercenaries is awesome as Venice as you're usually high on gold from your extra trade-routes.
All that said, going for early peaceful Authority also does help you once your over-expanding neighbor decides to attack you, because he is going to.

It would be silly and masochistic to not pick authority if I intended to piss off neighbors as expansionist America in a high difficulty game.

I would personally say that Progress is just as good for defending yourself from aggression as Authority is. The infra-structure bonuses allows your satellites to come online earlier and gives you more cities capable of producing military.
In fact the few times where I'm over-expanding and have not been punished for it have been when I'm using progress. I guess the AI judge your combat-readiness before they attack.

A scientific Korea that doesn't pick Tradition is weird.

Korea gets great benefits from Tradition, but that has nothing to do with play-style, more with the fact that Korea benefits greatly from working specialists.

An aggressive Songhai that doesn't pick up authority to farm barbs in a map that supports barbs is bad.

I really seldom go for Authority and I don't think I've ever done so as Songhai, probably coincidence but I just think there is way too much merit to the economic stability of tradition or progress. Then again I usually try to get me infrastructure and economy going in the early game and attack a neighbor with the MandeCav.

 

[Gokudo01]

First, thanks for your contribution, I read everything.

I think that you don't necessarily have to be a particular civ to want to grab Progress, it is more about if the game is going to allow you to use it. If you are going to quickly get hemmed into a corner and can't or don't want to push back, Progress is probably a mistake. If you want to do a slow conquest to avoid having everyone you meet think you're bringing on a new dark age, Progress is a decent choice.

Do you mean that I should pick progress when I've got space !?

Let's say I'm on a continent map, I'm able to scout two other nations on my continent.
Here the setup : (check the picture )

What is the good call in those different situations ?

IE: Good players have goals

If I was good, I wouldn't be here asking many questions.

....

Funak and the fan of Sangoku basara , I understand what you try to explain me overall :
Choosing my first branch is all about opportunities : space, resource, barbarian presence, starting position, civ's UA and neighbours' behaviours.

But I'm not able to link the theory and the practice yet, and that's the reason why I'm asking so many details

 

[Funak]

First, thanks for your contribution, I read everything.



Do you mean that I should pick progress when I've got space !?

Let's say I'm on a continent map, I'm able to scout two other nations on my continent.
Here the setup : (check the picture )

What is the good call in those different situations ?

I don't necessarily think progress requires mass expansion. Tradition is clearly better if you're playing a one city challenge setup but if you have 3 or more cities I think they even out pretty well. One big difference however is that progress allows you to be more greedy when you settle cities, as you'll have an easier time to get them going, meaning both that they will be productive faster and that you'll get walls up to be able to defend them faster.

 

[Tucker89]

Tradition is clearly better if you're playing a one city challenge setup

I am playing a OCC setup as Byzantium with Tradition opener on King and it feels more difficult than OCC from vanilla BNW. Then again this is my first time doing OCC as Byzantium, so maybe it's a subpar civ to do it with.

Should OCC games prioritize science over just about everything? I remember my Korean OCC on Epic or Marathon went REALLY well.

 

[Funak]

I am playing a OCC setup as Byzantium with Tradition opener on King and it feels more difficult than OCC from vanilla BNW. Then again this is my first time doing OCC as Byzantium, so maybe it's a subpar civ to do it with.

Should OCC games prioritize science over just about everything? I remember my Korean OCC on Epic or Marathon went REALLY well.

I have not done any OCC in CBP, seems a lot harder than vanilla for diplomacy reasons, you have no way of keeping the AI occupied. I also fear that you're going to run into major science-problems with only one city, I mean the science works a bit different in CBP compared to vanilla.

By the way do the national wonders till have population-requirements on OCC? I remember talking to Gazebo about that over a year ago and I don't remember if it actually got resolved.