A Guide to Playing “Small” on Deity (feat. Piety)

[adwcta]

I don't know, tommy. I've been told many many times around here by immortal and deity players that half the stuff in this guide can't be done. You may know better, but I don't think most people do. If I had a dollar for every time someone says you can't open peaceful Piety on Deity...

I explicitly say several times that this isn't better than other strategies. It's different. Everyone complains the entire game is about early science or domination. Well, I'm putting something out there that explicitly does the opposite. What does "play bad" mean to you tommy? Small? Then yes, the guide about starting small does indeed tell people how to best play small.

It's viable on Deity, consistently reproducible, doesn't require a particular map.

This guide is very clearly not for you, tommy. It is not designed to get sub 200 turn times, or anything close to that. I am sorry that BNW made more diverse strategies viable on Deity, but that's not my doing. I'm just adjusting to the reality of what Deity is now. You don't have to come along.

Hell, back in G&K, I did the same thing with tradition opener and a faith civ, and it was even easier, because AIs who liked you could actually vote for you and the vote threshold was way lower. I think your complaint is with the devs, and not the strategy itself.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Gori the Grey]

there are other even more easy (and obvious) ways to do

For me, tommy, that's the point, and value, of this guide. By this stage in the game's life cycle, it has become easy to beat it using the obvious methods. (And the AI's weaknesses are advantages to all of the strategies.) It's nice to see alternate ways of playing to victory. It's a way of keeping the game fun for longer. I appreciate your work, adwcta, and the lucidity of your prose.

I can't keep up with you. I have just started messing around with liberty starts, as a result of your contributions on the Liberty is Hard thread. (I've gotten bored of doing the same Tradition start all the time.) Now I have to try this too.

Edit (in response to post #21, with which I crossed). And yes, part of the value of this guide is how many things in it are counter-intuitive or go against received wisdom about the game.

 

[Browd]

As a person who finds this game's mechanics endlessly fascinating, I appreciate the effort and care you put into this strategy -- very interesting and fun as a change of pace.

But I also want to respond to a couple of points you just made to tommy:

• You say "It's viable on Deity, consistently reproducible, doesn't require a particular map." But in your OP you state: "This is all to prove a point, that going “small” is viable, regardless of any dirt-related conditions besides the pantheon. (emphasis supplied)" You also state: "I started with only one rule, which is that I needed a start where my land would give me a real faith pantheon (so, not sun-god). Without this dirt, or a faith UA/UB, I would not recommend this strategy." You make similar statements elsewhere, so the only conclusion a reader should reach is that this strategy is situational, as it depends on getting a good terrain-based faith-generating pantheon. If the dirt isn't right, re-roll; if you are beaten to the pantheon you need (based on that dirt), re-roll. I've no objection to re-rolling maps (HOF competition lives and dies by re-rolling maps), but that, to me, is not "consistently reproducible" and does "require a particular map".
  
  
• You ask "What does "play bad" mean to you tommy? Small?" (even though tommy's counterexample was 2-city Tradition). I suspect what tommy finds objectionable is not so much the turtling "smallness" of the strategy, but its reliance on deliberately nerfing population growth and science until you can slingshot your way to a competitive position using tech cost discounts (based on other AI-discovered techs) and Scholars in Residence (at least that's how I read it).
  
  Let's put aside whether you should (or even can) avoid taking advantage of the beaker overflow bug (particularly when using Scholars in Residence). Yes, this approach can work in the right circumstances, as you have shown, but it is a risky strategy (and thus arguably suboptimal -- and tommy obviously cares very much about optimal play) and a "gamey" strategy -- probably as "gamey" as the Sacred Sites/ICS culture victory strategy on lower levels -- in that it relies on two related game mechanics (tech discount and Scholars) and generally takes advantage of the AI's ineptitude. (Don't get me wrong, BTW -- I think "gamey" can be good fun.)
  
  To me, this is interesting from a game-mechanic perspective (you do end up putting far fewer beakers into your techs than the AI does) and a potentially useful approach in the right circumstances, but arguably "bad play" if applied to any other situation.

 

[adwcta]

Thanks!

For the record, I am not using the overflow bug... That requires single turn techs. You don't quite get there with this, because you don't have that many scientists, and you're getting biology without using any, so the science isn't that high that the bug triggers. No exploits are necessary here.

As for the map, I wasn't clear in my last post, but I meant map type, not the dirt. So, this isn't a Pangaea only strategy, or a Continents only strategy. It does require a faith pantheon start. You can't roll a random start and expect to do this every time, but you'll know if you can before you have to pick your first SP. At that point, its consistent and reproducible.

One last point is that what's optimal is highly debatable. Is it more secure to propose world religion and ideology yourself and risk war? The world leader vote triggers itself, so getting there early with 2 less votes has the same security win-wise as getting there 20 turns later. I would argue that unless you're going to use an aggressive military (which, I always view as a backup because there is no bigger exploit in the game than going to war with the awful AI; not a design choice by the devs, so much as a technical limitation of the game), this way of playing is more secure than tradition, because staying safe and getting/spreading religion (which Piety helps with) is more difficult than teaching to globalization before the vote (which tradition helps with)... and for maximum non-aggressive security, both are equally desirable otherwise.

Sent from my Nexus 5 musing Tapatalk

 

[tommynt]

It's nice to see alternate ways of playing to victory.

Sry, again u dont need a guide for this.
Obviously u can do whatever and still win.

I m pretty sure that winning without picking a single policy is possible, even on deity.
(Honor challenge kinda showed)

Again I rly dont see why one needs write 18.000 words when he could say:
"Do something and still win, because ai doesnt."

Like half an year ago there was this one guy posting a "strategy" where he just turtled while disabling all win conditions execept military and then nuked every1 to death in turn 500 or so.
Probably a nice accomplishment for him. But dont u think he might instead have been better of learning game mechanics a slight bit?
This "guide" isnt much different.

 

[adwcta]

Tommy, out of curiosity, have you ever read Brave New World? It's very appropriate. We're playing different games, tommy. If you haven't, you should really read at least a summary of it. If you have, then you should understand where I'm coming from. I'm not even using a vague allegory or analogy here... my point is quite direct.

"Do something and still win." Is that a bad thing? That pretty much describes every strategy, no? Attack the AI in ancient era with the Huns, and still win, build culture wonders then tech to Internet, and still win, open tradition beeline science techs, and still win. There are guides for all of these things. I'm not sure they're needed either, but I appreciate their existence.

In Civ V, diplo is a game mechanic, religion is a game mechanic, ideological pressure is a game mechanic, espionage is a game mechanic.... not sure you'll find a lot of people who think otherwise.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[TLHeart]

I actually enjoyed reading this guide. A different way to play the game. No it is NOT a standard diety win in the shortest turn type guide.

What it did do for me though, was understand the "war" of religion. And how to dominate that war. Taking evangelism turns missionaries into prophets, which makes it much easier to keep your religion spread... and eventually the other AI civs just stop spamming, as they can not keep up.

It helped that I built Stonehenge, +5 faith, then built the great mosque, and borobudur. Missed the hagia sophia by 5 turns.... but built notre dame.

It is an enjoyable game for me playing this way...

Even if Tommy does not like it.

 

[hai 1]

Awesome write-up adwcta. Don't get discouraged by naysayers. There is a community that looks forward to trying out strategies like this, and gets inspired by them.

I completely disagree that taking advantage of science catch-up mechanics is 'gamey'. It is both intuitive and reflective of the real world in that as new technological paths are paved by progressive nations, others quickly adapt. It would be perfectly feasible for a nation to use the philosophy that 'hey, we are going to focus on our economy and infrastructure while these other nations dump resources into science... and then mooch off them.' Sure, that is not to say it would be the optimal decision, as there would still be a time in which other nations would have a tech advantage (something the game no doubt also reflects, given the power of science-driven strategies); but they would, in a sense, be getting the most bang for the buck with their limited resources. Even if you find my argument unconvincing, I still have a hard time seeing how it is any more gamey than countless other aspects of any good Diety guide (especially since he doesn't use the overflow bug).

On the subject, I am fascinated by these science catch-up mechanics. I never put much thought into them, but they really open up all kinds of unorthodox strategies. They put less pressure on a timely NC, gold-purchasing science buildings, tech orders, etc., if utilized correctly. I am not saying they re-write the book- in the game's current state, science-driven strategies are still optimal. Still, it kinda makes you wonder: maybe the devs didn't drop the ball with regard to the eminence of science over everything else quite so hard as we all thought; or at the very least, systems are in placed where with better fine-tuning the science system will be in a very good place (in future iterations of civ).

 

[ScantilyCladLad]

Tommy you are such a buzzkill... it is nothing like turtling till 500 turn with all victory conditions off, that is a stupid analogy.

Its clearly not as simple as "do this and win" for the vast majority of players on these forums. Having it explained helps us to follow his strategy.

Anyways tommy, this is a forum for strategy guides/discussion. The OP has produced a guide that works to beat deity. I really dont see what the problem is, maybe you would like it more if we deleted every thread except the one with fastest turn times

 

[tommynt]

The OP has produced a guide that works to beat deity

so did the guide from my anaology

so does my new guide:
Do whatever

Apart that I give adwacta credit for putting up so much work!

especially since he doesn't use the overflow bug

its impossible not to use it when behind in tech, it comes naturally.
Even more if u use a scientist but even without u ll allways have some overflow.

 

[hai 1]

The benefits of the overflow bug would be negligible in this case, unless I understand the math behind it wrong. You have to exploit it with GS bulbing to have a tangible impact.

 

[Browd]

I guess tangible is in the eye of the beholder, but in fairness, in this strategy you will have (by necessity) hard researched all of the massively cheap techs (e.g., sailing, optics, bronze working, etc.) to stay in medieval as long as possible (to keep religious unit costs as low as possible for as long as possible), so the worst of the exploit is not available. But anytime you generate beaker overflow with the tech discount and Scholars, even "ordinary" overflow when you complete a cheap tech, you are getting additional benefit, however modest.

As others have noted, even without Scholars, we've all enjoyed some benefit from this bug in every game where we've beelined later era techs and ignored the bronze working and sailing lines until we had no choice but to take them. Whether you meant to or not, if you were generating 500+ beakers per turn and circled back to research sailing, optics, compass, etc. at turn 175, you were generating significant bonus overflow beakers. We just never noticed it until recently, when Scholars juiced it out of control.

 

[hai 1]

I rather liked the idea of miring in the Dark Ages (delaying enlightenment and higher education) for a while with this religious playstyle... Anyway, I probably am underestimating the effects of the overflow bug even when it isn't being actively exploited. Still, it isn't like his bpt is very high when he hits those techs, and he actually isn't delaying them as much as in other strategies where they are ignored for as long as possible. Someone better at math than me should tackle this issue

 

[adwcta]

Hmmm... I guess it must overflow a bit regardless, but it's not any more than you would naturally do (the net effect will be under 1k total beakers, I estimate). If you look at my turn 219 beaker count, you'll see that the teching comes very late, and I don't leave techs to hang for that long.

I posted this guide half to have some evidence that these things can be done, and half to see how certain players would react. I love the poetic parallel between BNW the book, where the institutionalized domination of science has suppressed people's natural inclinations toward exploration of the self, and the civfanatics world, where the idolatry of science and domination has suppressed the legitimacy (or in some cases, even acknowledgement) of divergent paths. No one's doubting the power of science and domination, but it can't define what this game is about, even on Deity. There's simply more to the game that the devs put in, and we miss a lot of it with a focus on early science, domination, and turn times.

This is my personal effort to shine a light on what is actually possible on deity level play. Its a deeper and more flexible difficulty level than what most posts around here would lead you to believe.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Justice1337]

Just... groundbreaking. Right now I am just loving the relative silence. Sort of how when Immanuel Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason", and it took a decade for anyone to respond. A critique of power-gaming.

 

[adwcta]

Just... groundbreaking. Right now I am just loving the relative silence. Sort of how when Immanuel Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason", and it took a decade for anyone to respond. A critique of power-gaming.

Haha, I appreciate the analogy.

I think most people are still working through the very treatise-sized wall of text that is this guide, but hopefully they'll find fun, challenge, and success with this when they try it out.

I'm half expecting tommy to post a screenshot of a sub-turn 200 peaceful piety diplo win next week to both show me up and miss the point at the same time.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[pvtjava]

@adwcta - Love the guide so far. Absolutely love the way the quotes lead you into the next section. Awesome parallels. I haven't quite read it all yet, but so far, so good. I just had to skip ahead to see what kind of comments you were getting. I don't take Piety but this is similar diplomacy to what I do. In fact, I got my first and only Deity victory (T297 Diplo) being behind the whole game (pretty sure I was 8th in all demographics except happy)and letting AI's get the techs needed for vote. I was not behind on purpose, though. Have you had games with multiple warmongers where you can get a good guys vs. bad guys situation to develop? Gives games a cold war type feel.

Also, does it seem any more difficult to get all CS allied post-patch? I know it's not the ptp nerf because I only discovered ptp days before patch. I had exactly one game of perma-friends before patch came through. It just seems like the quests don't line up quite as neatly as they did before. Or maybe I have become even more lazy and passive in my play.

-----------------------------------

...Because of the DP (defensive pact)I was automatically at war with him too (apparently without a warmonger penalty)...

Added blue text to quote to clarify abbreviation.

Is this true about the warmonger status in this situation? What about the civ you go to war against? What about that civ's friends, if any?

-----------------------------------

Regarding the science exploit:

Imo, if you're hard researching a cheap tech, no matter what your overflow is, it can't really be considered an exploit. Bug, maybe. You paid the opportunity cost(not much, I'll admit) for not having the tech when everyone else did. You can only get so far up the tech tree before you have to go back. But, if you do a cheesy GS bulb to research Sailing(or even to 1turn finish a late tech), when you're already generating x hundred bpt, it is absolutely an exploit.

Also, the better players will always get more out of the science overflow than mere mortals like me. I have never generated the kind of science numbers that the pros do. To be honest, I don't think I've really even tried to. I usually stop at 2 or 3 cities and rarely build next to mountains, maybe one city, usually late to Astronomy anyway, especially on Pangaea.

 

[gambit_asdf]

Adwcta - great writeup and wonderful contribution to further civ 5 strategies! I will be trying this out in the near future, you've explored a mechanic of the game that others have ignored, full credits to you.

If this was the United Nations I'll vote to embargo tommy from this thread, I realise he's supposedly a star of the game but he's just trolling here. Quite arrogant really.

 

[Justice1337]

As a person who finds this game's mechanics endlessly fascinating, I appreciate the effort and care you put into this strategy -- very interesting and fun as a change of pace.

But I also want to respond to a couple of points you just made to tommy:

• You say "It's viable on Deity, consistently reproducible, doesn't require a particular map." But in your OP you state: "This is all to prove a point, that going “small” is viable, regardless of any dirt-related conditions besides the pantheon. (emphasis supplied)" You also state: "I started with only one rule, which is that I needed a start where my land would give me a real faith pantheon (so, not sun-god). Without this dirt, or a faith UA/UB, I would not recommend this strategy." You make similar statements elsewhere, so the only conclusion a reader should reach is that this strategy is situational, as it depends on getting a good terrain-based faith-generating pantheon. If the dirt isn't right, re-roll; if you are beaten to the pantheon you need (based on that dirt), re-roll. I've no objection to re-rolling maps (HOF competition lives and dies by re-rolling maps), but that, to me, is not "consistently reproducible" and does "require a particular map".

• 
  
  Well, since adwcta hasn't gone there, I will. You can found a religion ~90% of the time on Deity just by opening Piety and building enough cities. I know this because of all the times I've tried CV with civ's like France, Polynesia, Brazil, who get no Faith bonuses. You can't guarantee a Religion, but you can essentially guarantee a certain Faith output by a certain turn, and that Faith output is enough unless you open a map with Ethiopia/Maya, etc, etc all in one.
  
  And yes, you do have to sacrifice Science to do this. Once Religion is your first priority early-game though, things fall into place much more consistently than is generally thought. That's the spirit of this guide, even though the OP did have Faith pantheon in this instance.
  
  
  

  You ask "What does "play bad" mean to you tommy? Small?" (even though tommy's counterexample was 2-city Tradition). I suspect what tommy finds objectionable is not so much the turtling "smallness" of the strategy, but its reliance on deliberately nerfing population growth and science until you can slingshot your way to a competitive position using tech cost discounts (based on other AI-discovered techs) and Scholars in Residence (at least that's how I read it).
  
  Let's put aside whether you should (or even can) avoid taking advantage of the beaker overflow bug (particularly when using Scholars in Residence). Yes, this approach can work in the right circumstances, as you have shown, but it is a risky strategy (and thus arguably suboptimal -- and tommy obviously cares very much about optimal play) and a "gamey" strategy -- probably as "gamey" as the Sacred Sites/ICS culture victory strategy on lower levels -- in that it relies on two related game mechanics (tech discount and Scholars) and generally takes advantage of the AI's ineptitude. (Don't get me wrong, BTW -- I think "gamey" can be good fun.)
  
  To me, this is interesting from a game-mechanic perspective (you do end up putting far fewer beakers into your techs than the AI does) and a potentially useful approach in the right circumstances, but arguably "bad play" if applied to any other situation.

  
  On this, the only "gamey" thing here seems to me like Scholars in Residence. Once again, I can put the force of my experience behind the idea that this isn't necessary either. In fact, I personally don't like Scholars in Residence even when I am behind, because it also helps the #2-#4 AI's, and even the #1 AI to some degree. It helps you its full 20%, but the alpha AI's researching off-techs shouldn't get a pickup. This essentially speeds up the game. The only clear time to advance it, to my eye, is against one maybe two clear runaways, or if you have befriended an expansive/militaristic AI lagging in tech that you want to be able to throw at a tech/culture leader. (There's also to deliberately exploit overflow) Overall though, it's much more situational than it is a gospel-true part of the strategy, in my mind.
  
  The other aspects of playing from behind hit much harder. Actually being able to use your spies to steal techs, first of all. The effective "beaker-yield" of a thieving spy is actually pretty impressive, and double steal-rate in Autocracy is a policy I've used quite often to good result. It's so effective that I don't think any other single aspect of the strategy is necessary to get as much tech as you need. The beakers in Protectionism and Rationalism are nice, but mostly the concept of playing from behind can be entirely seeded in the fact that the tech tree is so incredibly back loaded. I did a spreadsheet on it a while back, and on raw beakers, the same number needed for all SV techs is actually twice what is needed to get halfway through Atomic Era. An Education beeline is only about 3% of the Beakers needed for SV, and getting it 30 turns earlier is generally worth only about one Industrial Era tech. That's looking at the opportunity cost in raw beakers. The lesson there is that certain VC's don't need nearly the same amount of total beakers as others, and Diplo and Domination seem to need far less than even Cultural. You do not even need Globalization the way you need Telecommunications and the Internet. The optimal way to play the tech game imo is realizing that you don't need techs before the point in the game where you have the other empire metrics to actually use what they unlock. A religion opener needs Philo, that's all.
  
  And it's not about deliberately nerfing Beakers and Growth. Simply doing other things with the opener doesn't automatically follow that you're overtly avoiding anything. That begs the question. The idea is to focus on other empire metrics first. If you're working a 2f2h tile instead of a 4f Farm, that's not nerfing Growth, that's making a deliberate evaluation of what's more important to you at that point.
  
  
  

  Sry, again u dont need a guide for this.
  Obviously u can do whatever and still win.
  
  I m pretty sure that winning without picking a single policy is possible, even on deity.
  (Honor challenge kinda showed)
  
  Again I rly dont see why one needs write 18.000 words when he could say:
  "Do something and still win, because ai doesnt."
  
  Like half an year ago there was this one guy posting a "strategy" where he just turtled while disabling all win conditions execept military and then nuked every1 to death in turn 500 or so.
  Probably a nice accomplishment for him. But dont u think he might instead have been better of learning game mechanics a slight bit?
  This "guide" isnt much different.

  
  To start, let me first say this. The approach that all you need to do to win is not lose is patently circular in the first place. The fact that you can win by not losing will never change, due to the definition of the terms. What's being discussed is what the best way to avoid losing is.
  
  And, let's be honest. The camp saying that a tech lead from Turn 120, first-picking Ideology, founding few cities, and so on, is flat-out lying by now if they're still saying that is the best way to avoid losing. I can't see it as anything other than a lie at this point, whether it's deliberate or not.
  
  Because how many times has this happened to Deity players in these forums. They get to Turn 160, first-picked such and such Ideology, have their uber Worker's Faculties build set up, and then two AI alphas pick the other Ideologies and simul-DoW with a carpet of Riflemen/Cannon on both ends of the 4-city empire. That's THE way to lose on Deity right now. If Turn 60, Turn 100 or whatever else DoW's were the way to lose on Deity in G&K, then Turn 160 Ideology DoW's are the way to lose now. If people would just be honest about how often this happens to power-gaming empires, or what their actual chances are like fending this off with the 6-8 military units that a gold-economy tech-giant has, then the paradigm would've already changed by now. What I suspect is happening instead is just reload after reload to the turn before the AI DoW's, then bribing them off. That on top of the rerolls where that's impossible, and onto a game with less aggressive AI personalities. When teching up still does work though, it's not because you teched well, it's because you bribed the AI off or otherwise played Diplo well. This guide tells you how to play Diplo well.
  
  The thing about teching out max-speed is that max-speed, by definition, is sacrificing everything else. If you're working Farms instead of the Writer's Guild, then you're not teching as fast as you can. But then, you suffer Ideological pressure and have ZERO Ideological allies due to the very fact that you valued Tech over Culture. You don't found cities beyond a certain turn count because you don't see the Hammers or space as worth the tech-hit, but then, your 3-4 city empire struggles to field and army, and certainly can't lose a city.
  
  When losing the tech race doesn't make you lose the game, and not losing the game is the single way to win it, how is the best strategy still tech? Your empire may outperform others in every measurable facet, but you still lose because that's not how the game works anymore.

 

[adwcta]

Well, since adwcta hasn't gone there, I will. You can found a religion ~90% of the time on Deity just by opening Piety and building enough cities. I know this because of all the times I've tried CV with civ's like France, Polynesia, Brazil, who get no Faith bonuses. You can't guarantee a Religion, but you can essentially guarantee a certain Faith output by a certain turn, and that Faith output is enough unless you open a map with Ethiopia/Maya, etc, etc all in one.

And yes, you do have to sacrifice Science to do this. Once Religion is your first priority early-game though, things fall into place much more consistently than is generally thought. That's the spirit of this guide, even though the OP did have Faith pantheon in this instance.

...

The thing about teching out max-speed is that max-speed, by definition, is sacrificing everything else. If you're working Farms instead of the Writer's Guild, then you're not teching as fast as you can. But then, you suffer Ideological pressure and have ZERO Ideological allies due to the very fact that you valued Tech over Culture. You don't found cities beyond a certain turn count because you don't see the Hammers or space as worth the tech-hit, but then, your 3-4 city empire struggles to field and army, and certainly can't lose a city.

When losing the tech race doesn't make you lose the game, and not losing the game is the single way to win it, how is the best strategy still tech? Your empire may outperform others in every measurable facet, but you still lose because that's not how the game works anymore.

Yep, the pantheon isn't necessary to establish religion. Tradition with a pantheon is only slightly better at getting religion than Piety without one, and Piety will be better at spreading regardless. I agree with the point 100%, and tested it myself, just left it out of the guide to keep it slightly more focused. Heck, a neighbor isn't even necessary. It's when all those factors start adding up that you'll really be much better off opening with another tree. For me, Piety can handle itself in almost all situations, but it really shines in situations where other openers go "oh crap, this'll be rough". But, Browd knows this. He's been around the block.

The key this is that even if you fail, you've lost nothing (you should probably stop going down Piety though and jump to Patronage ASAP). When early growth isn't important to your strategy, there's not much lost by failing at anything. You're pretty much where Tradition opener is if you miss religion because you didn't have a pantheon start. That's the security of the strategy. Nothing phases you.

I get the feeling that people like tommy only play with amazing starts and quite frankly don't lose games (esp because tommy seems to prefer military-laced games, so it's very secure), so the tradeoffs that mere mortals like us have to consider when playing Deity are literally meaningless to him. It is heavily misguided to recommend to most players to play like that though, and I see it everywhere on these forums, it's like an oppressive cult... of growth and science. Hence, my BNW metaphor.