Discussion in 'Strategy Section' started by Stalker0, Feb 19, 2020.
Option 3....ain't broke don't fix it
I like how a thread titled "Deity Build Order Checks" has derailed into "How should Progress be Rebalanced"
I think there are many instances of this within social policies.
Authority should take that settler early. Otherwise the policy is quite weak.
Tradition should take the writer before the merchant.
You could just redraw the social policy paths to make the ideal order more clear, but I don't agree its a problem. Sometimes it is good to leave an easy decision in the game. For instance card games intentionally print bad cards, because they help players learn and realize what is important and what is not. I actually remember having a brain rush when I realized why taking the worker first is actually the higher production play.
Every thread on the forum becomes a rebalancing thread after a few posts. That is the nature of things here.
I'm a deity player (mostly, on some days, in some games) and I... think I've been playing progress wrong now.
I'm not sure how far the printing of bad cards metaphor goes...I'd prefer to think that a well-designed game would have a full load of pertinent and relevant cards for all times, but that the effectiveness or suckiness of a particular card is dependent on your situation and your previous choices.
Anyways, inasmuch as the Worker is the higher production play (I agree), why not move the Gold bonus from there to the Production side, or to the Happiness policy? I'd probably still pick this policy anyways - it's the easiest way to get a quick worker.
I'm curious about your experience?
In this regard, I think Tradition is a more honest tree. The real choice is in tier 1. Then science is always tier 3. Tier 4 is almost always the extra GAP, but I can see going for extra culture first.
Authority just depends how much you plan to fight. Yep, I can take Authority and not thinking about fighting for a while, it's just a strong start that can fix some weaknesses from some civs.
But science from connections is just too good to let it delay: the extra food makes it easier to handle happiness, the extra science turns into culture and advance fast to the next era, making every building cheaper.
I wouldn't say this internal imbalance is a problem, it doesn't make the game unplayable or anything, but it is a game design issue.
What if we swap the science from connection with the building production bonus? This way, the free worker is not in the same side, making it harder to decide.
I've usually gone the left side of the progress tree and been fine. It's better for culture when the empire becomes too big and the culture gained from gaining tech's gradually decreases. Generally, if I build more than 6 cities as progress initially, the AI becomes unhappy and I have happiness problems. I would still go the left side of the progress Tree for certain starts but I'd be more likely to try the right side and see how to make it work.
I strongly disagree. The GAP can wait. How many great people are even born between these two policies? Usually at most two for me. The writer's culture is just a better policy, I think there's really no comparison. 5 food in the capital is really important, and it is a massive boost to your culture output.
Doing this would really hurt progress in the early game when compared to authority or tradition.
Agreed. Its a big culture boost, which means you'll get that final policy (and your finisher), all the sooner.
All I'm going to say is...zug zug.
So here's it again. A choice that it's not a choice once you know which path is always best. At least with the choice between the artist and the engineer there are cases where one is better than the other for your current strategy.
Reviving the debate of Progress left side vs right side. As suggested by CrazyG, I tried the 2 approaches from the same start and made an effort to play the same way otherwise. That means I settled all the cities in the same order, same for the buildings. I ended up rushing with gold shrines and monuments in every city. That position was interesting for that comparison because my 2 starting luxuries required second tiers techs (Calendar and Construction) and Goddess of Nature, which doesn't benefit from an early worker, was a decent pantheon here. Also, no horse or iron workable by my capital, only a sheep 3 tiles away from it. My plan here was initially to compare how fast I could found a religion with the 2 different paths, which involved settling cities in priority to benefit from Goddess of Nature, regardless of other considerations. I met no religious C.-S. in the process, and ancient ruins were disabled.
Spoiler Austria Immortal Standard Pace Large Pangea, version 2-18 without hotfix :
This screenshot is at turn 105 when I could found a religion, after opening with the RIGHT SIDE of the tree. As I was expecting the early worker was unable to improve any tile once I got him. However, I did put him to good use by preparing a road between Vienna and the second city Salzburg. I unlocked Calendar before completing the road sections though. After improving the available Citrus tiles, I completed the road. It didn't pay for itself in gold at first, but the early science from it with Fraternity policy (+3 food in every city, +3 science from city connections) was significant at that stage of the game, so I estimated it was worth it. On the west you can notice I'm allied with Hanoi and even managed to get a diplomatic marriage (first time I do that, very nice mechanic). Unfortunately I failed to repeat this with the second try and it sucks because the extra science from that one militaristic C.-S. made too big of a difference for the comparison I wanted to do here.
I tried playing the same way with the LEFT SIDE of the tree, but I noticed a significant difference on the barbarians camps locations, their units and the quests for destroying these camps. Part of it is probably because I simply didn't scout the map the same way. But the biggest difference is while I got no barbarian horseman on the RIGHT SIDE try, I had to kill like 5-6 of them on the LEFT SIDE try, and they even managed to pillage a few of my tiles and they killed my pathfinder. Despite all of this I still managed to found a religion earlier than in the first try, on turn 103. And it is important because William founded on turn 104 and picked Thrift, which I wanted for the marriages. So I basically have a choice between getting a better religion or having more culture, 3 more techs, higher tech units and a diplomatic marriage in effect. The second option is probably better but I'm strongly considering just starting over with a different pantheon, probably Goddess of Springtime which I saw as the best choice before I decided to try this comparison.
I appreciate tests like this, but I think we'd need to tailor real tests to be clearer:
-CS should offer no quests
-The Civ picked should be a blank slate
We'd need a map and mod intentionally designed to test stuff like this.
A better test would probably require disabling barbs, no CSs, no ruins, and maybe even no other AI if possible to avoid lower tech costs from meeting them. Have a standard build order for every city that you try to abide by. At that point the main variable is your starting terrain which is probably the most interesting variable to isolate for when deciding if left or right first is best.
Edit: aaaaaand I see my post is redundant right after submitting
No other AI is unnecessary as long as you never meet them.
We also need some barbs, but they have to be the same ones coming on the same turns.
You might want other civs invovled so you can buy a luxury or two. Going food first does pressure your happiness more.
Just want to say, these tips helped me a lot. Just getting back to playing again =)
I take shrine first basically everytime now since i play with ruins. some of these pantheons are just way too strong to be delaying. Like goddess of all creation becomes fully operation by like turn 27 its insane.
I'm really like your line of play. I'm rushing to trade by going for pottery first, taking a settler as soon as i get 4 pop and settling on a production hill luxury like marble then rush for granaries. And meanwhile, my capital is in time with a trade caravan to try and get food delivered to the capital. I'm still having a hard time adjusting to losing a pop everytime I make settlers, but this makes it feel much easier to go wider.
After I've been trying to settle once after every policy by the point i got to finish my 5 policy in progress, I've had enough leniency in my game to make several settlers in cities other than my capital for my last wave of city spots. That feels so nice. I feel like trying to rush settlers any faster just guts my development.
I've also been liking going for early writing as soon as i hit enough national population to make scriveners. And You are so right that emissaries are cheap early in the game. In fact, I feel like they are so good I think sinking all my gold into emmisaries as much as I can before I hit medieval era is better than mostly anything. I sunk like 1200 gold into emmisaries while I was in classical and don't regret it one bit.
I also want to say going to early wars is terrible now with city health being as high as it is. skirmishers and even horse archers are just inadequate at dealing with the shear health cities have and with how conservative the ai plays. Also, trying to invade with catapults is way to costly, and going for that bottom tech is a lot of investment in and of itself. Instead, having enough military to try to pressure ai to not foward settle me felt like the way to go. minimal military saves money. That way I can sell all of my horses and iron. For emmisaries ! Making all the city states near me allied pays off so well and gets much better once i get to medieval, renassance, or especially once i get chanceries in my cities.
I'm only playing one game now, but this feels like they way I want to go with progress everytime.
Glad that I helped!
dude I want to know all your starts with your thought process
Separate names with a comma.