Freedom vs. Autocracy vs. Order

[insaneweasel]

Which of the three last (mutually exclusive) policy trees do you find to be the best overall. I know you might say that they all have their place, but I find freedom to be the best because the others tend to be horrible. It has everything - happiness boosters, great person support, defense, and unit maintenance reduction. Best of all, the finisher allows your mid/late game great people to have huge advantages AND have longer golden ages.

In comparison, order forces you to go through a lot of crap to get to nerfed-down communism, and autocracy still stinks.

What do you choose?

 

[Brichals]

I also find this very interesting. I do believe Freedom is mostly for tall/cultural empires and Autocracy for warmongering. I was extremely tempted by Freedom in my latest game but I thought I can never get my many cities large enough to benefit (I wanted to run a specialist economy but I thought in the end I can't sustain it happinesswise with 20+ cities, so I went Order instead).

Now these 2 help win the game by culture or domination. But what does Order help with. You get a very strong large empire but you don't win by this. I believe these are the best policies for win conditions.

Domination - autocracy
Science - rationalism
Cultural - freedom
Diplo - patronage
Points victory? - order?

 

[snoochems]

Freedom. Aut has always stunk, and they nerfed order out of the game.

 

[ColinTH]

I think we will be feeding on late Policy scraps post patch and filling out any of these Policy Trees will be vey difficult.

I do like Planned Economy in the Order Policy Tree (for the extra Science).

I don't think Freedom does enough to aid an early culture victory, maybe that is a good thing!

Autocracy has improved significantly for Industrial era - late game offensives.

Enabling Policy saving and filling out the Autocracy Policy Tree could be the way to go on a continents map.

 

[snarzberry]

I take Order vastly more often than the other two. My most common game plan is to engage in wars in the early game and consolidates/defend my acquired lands for the rest of the game. Order really helps for this type of empire. Often over 20 for the opener alone.

 

[Montov]

Freedom is good, but only when you have specialists/wonders in a somewhat smaller cultural empire. The game I'm in, I don't have a lot of food, and thus a few specialists, so I will be going for Order. Order works good with Rationalism, with the +1 happiness per city to keep the 15% science from happiness flowing, and the 25% science for factories. Also the hammers for the space race are usefull, and fighting in friendly terr. to keep off aggressive civs while you win the race.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I take Order vastly more often than the other two. My most common game plan is to engage in wars in the early game and consolidates/defend my acquired lands for the rest of the game. Order really helps for this type of empire. Often over 20 for the opener alone.

Yeah. Even if you are warmongering, Order's still a very good pick. Along with Liberty (Meritocracy), you can wipe out 2/3 of the unhappiness caused by number of cities. If you also take Honor, then garrison removes the remaining 1/3 of unhappiness.

This means a player can go ICS however he wants as long as he controls the pop upper limit (i.e. the sum of all building happiness).

On the other hand, I'd say two of the Order policies are pretty bad: United Front and Nationalism

 

[turtlefang]

Autocracy "solves" your happiness problem if your annexing and taking over captured cities. With courthourses @ 1/2 cost, eliminating the happiness pentalty and ADDING 3 happiness plus the other happiness buildings you can build, you can really go on a conquest spree - and never have a happiness problem. Especially if you have enough money to rush build the courthouse. Its far more useful than before and fits the war making style better than the other two for large, take over empires.

Basically, ever new city you conquer doesn't add any city unhappiness to your total - just population. Add in the honor tree & piety tree plus the regular happy buildings, and you can create a very wide empire. (4 for walls buildings group, 2 for temples, 11 for col buildings, 1 for garrison, and no unhappiness for 19 population city - and if you get a circus or monestry or lux, it can go higher).

And this generates a ton of money from new trade routes.

I've built larger empires this way than any other way since the patch.

You give up a lot in controlling unhappiness in your original cities (I hate giving up the Freedom branch and 1/2 cost on specialist), but if you planning on wining a domination victory and keeping the cities you take, autocracy the way to go.

 

[Strategist83]

In response to OP: The idea behind the three policies is they are follow-ups to the initial counterparts - Freedom is a good follow-up to Tradition (Tall empire), Order is a good follow-up to Liberty (Wide empire), Autocracy is a good follow-up to Honor (Warmonger empire). This is overly simplified, of course, it is quite possible you might switch styles during the game but it is the general idea. Thus, Freedom, Autocracy and Order all reflect completely different empires.

Now, as to whether Freedom is too strong and the counterparts too weak: No. For several reasons.

First of all, Freedom, being focused on specialists and great people, benefits small empires far more than large ones. If you are running a truly vast empire, it makes little sense to adopt Freedom. Wide empires typically have less developed cities with less population and less infrastructure (and associated specialist slots), not to mention fewer wonders, all of which are factors which mean less specialists. A small, tall empire is much more likely to be generating a large number of great people points - in cities with wonders and good multipliers for those, such as the Garden and the National Epic. It is far more useful to be generating great people in a such super-city than trying to do so across a large number of underdeveloped cities. That is one of the main reasons why Order is a better choice for a wide empire.

Beyond that, Order makes sense for several more reasons. Nationalism and United Front are some of the 'crap you have to go through', I suppose. They are crap, in a sense, but at the same time they really aren't. The reason why I say this is it's true you may not need them against the AI. But is that a problem with the policies? No. That's a problem with the terrible AI which you can beat with hands tied behind your back. Both policies are in fact incredibly useful for defending your empire - it's just the fact you're playing against the underpowered AI that makes you think otherwise. In that regard, you might call the Freedom policy Universal Suffrage 'crap' as well, because you'll be able to defend your cities just fine without the extra strength. In multiplayer, though, or against a possible future working AI, these policies are invaluable.

The case is the same for Autocracy. In my opinion, Autocracy is not weak, no, it is in fact one of the most powerful trees in the game. The Autocracy opener alone is the single biggest economy boost in the game. The unit cost reduction beats anything else hands down, including Freedom's Free Speech.

Beyond that, the rest of Autocracy is pure awesome. Populism gives you a semi-Bushido unique ability for your whole army which will make the difference between victory and defeat in close battles (read: Non-AI battles). Militarism is, once again, one of the biggest gold-boosters in the game. Fascism enables you to have a much larger army than anyone else (which you'll need!). The new Police State policy is likewise one of the best happiness boosters in the game. Total War received an insane boost, enabling you to have not only a much bigger army, but a much *better* army as well. As such, it would be idiotic to try for a domination victory using Freedom. Order could possibly work, and Autocracy would be ideal. Order is more geared towards a somewhat peaceful approach, however, which is why its military policies are defensive in nature. Probably better suited for a science win.

Now, once again, despite how absolutely awesome Autocracy is, it runs into the same problems as Order: You don't need a large army against the AI. You don't need lots of upgrades and special abilities for your army. You'll beat it easy anyway with just a fraction of the number of units the AI has. In that sense you are right, Autocracy 'stinks'. But you're delluding yourself if you think that's the truth. Reality is the AI stinks, not the non-Freedom policies.

 

[Strategist83]

Now these 2 help win the game by culture or domination. But what does Order help with. You get a very strong large empire but you don't win by this. I believe these are the best policies for win conditions.

Science victory. A giant Order empire puts out a ton of science - and, especially, a ton of production. Very good for getting your space ship assembled in an instant. Also, you have your United Front and Nationalism policies to make sure nobody will be able to attack you and stop you from building the ship.

It is no coincidence that the Porcelain Tower, the best science wonder in the game, is a Chinese (communist/order) wonder. Same story with the Kremlin for Russia: Hunker down, defend your empire and launch the space ship.

Communist Russia was first to put a man in space, which they modelled admirably in Civ5.

 

[Glassmage]

Domination - autocracy
Science - rationalism
Cultural - freedom
Diplo - patronage
Points victory? - order?

Domi - honor AND autocracy
Science - rationalism AND order
Cultural - piety AND freedom
Diplo- patronage AND commerce

Don't forget that early policies are as vital as later ones.

 

[KaiserKevin]

Freedom definitely looks the best, and that's the route I usually take. I went Auto with a large German empire last game and found the new police state a lot more beneficial. Think it should also eliminate the revolt period accompanied by taking of cities, would make it a lot more useful. Populism needs a boost but everything else I found quite useful.

Order seems too unfocused, its benefits are all over the place, and its finisher is fairly crappy. Didn't see much of a difference in tech or commerce after completing it the times I have adopted it.

 

[insaneweasel]

The case is the same for Autocracy. In my opinion, Autocracy is not weak, no, it is in fact one of the most powerful trees in the game. The Autocracy opener alone is the single biggest economy boost in the game. The unit cost reduction beats anything else hands down, including Freedom's Free Speech.

It's only a bigger boost if you have more than 24 units. I never do multiplayer (is it still awfully buggy?) and you only need 20 units to dominate the AI...as long as 9 of them are artillery.

Beyond that, the rest of Autocracy is pure awesome. Populism gives you a semi-Bushido unique ability for your whole army which will make the difference between victory and defeat in close battles (read: Non-AI battles).

So you're saying that autocracy and order are much better in MP? I only have SP experience.

As such, it would be idiotic to try for a domination victory using Freedom.

Not only have I done this, but I found that freedom is a great way to have a huge science, gold and hammer output from a core empire. I dealt with the happiness problems by razing non-essential cities.

But you're deluding yourself if you think that's the truth. Reality is the AI stinks, not the non-Freedom policies.

Very true. If the AI wasn't so terrible, SP autocracy would have a lot more merit.


However...freedom is the only late game policy that you will likely finish. Order and autocracy are geared towards military and large empires. Late game, you need a strong cultural output with fewer cities in order to get later policies. Neither order nor autocracy support smaller empires, and unless I am mistaken, you would be very lucky to get even 3 policies deep in either of the last two trees. In comparison, freedom allows you to have incredibly productive cities that can be used for anything.

 

[chazzycat]

I didn't use to like autocracy much either, but the right side is pretty useful now for warmongers even against the AI. +3 happiness per courthouse is pretty huge, and the other two both help significantly with Gold. I agree the left side would be much more useful against humans. I probably won't finish the tree very often in single player but the right side sure is tempting given the right situation.

Order is a little less production focused then it was, but now has a very nice science boost. It's pretty useful for wide empires settling into the space race as others have suggested. Hapiness & building maintenance reduction always come in handy, but then again, there are a couple not-so-useful policies here too. I won't be finishing this one most of the time either.

But let's look at Freedom. Honestly, the policies on the left and middle kinda suck. The ones on the right are great and the opener/finishers are great as well, but I'm not sold on the overall strength. So we have three separate branches with a few good policies and a few bad ones, and it will probably depend on the situation 99% of the time which path is ideal. I think at least in the short time playing post-patch, it seems somwhat balanced.

 

[insaneweasel]

But let's look at Freedom. Honestly, the policies on the left and middle kinda suck.

Constitution isn't very good (not to mention poorly named) and requires a buff, but free speech is certainly not sucky. When you get it, you will save between 25-30 gpt, and it goes up to 50+ gpt as the game goes on. Compare that to the later savings of socialism, and it probably comes out favorably. The middle one is situational; not quite as good as nationalism or populism, but it has its uses, especially with oligarchy or professional army (happy walls).

 

[Furycrab]

Personally I've felt that Order and Autocracy are really good, however they both come reaaaaaaaaally late in a game. Freedom can easily be your third policy tree to fill, with Order you are lucky if it's your 4th.

Autocracy can still be useful going into a domination victory since the first point is still very powerful. Personally I would love it if they made Order, Freedom and Autocracy have the same Era req and rebalanced it.

 

[Strategist83]

It's only a bigger boost if you have more than 24 units. I never do multiplayer (is it still awfully buggy?) and you only need 20 units to dominate the AI...as long as 9 of them are artillery.

You are playing the AI. The AI is not, I repeat, NOT representative of a real opponent. Which, obviously, is by far Civ 5's greatest shortcoming since 99,9% of games are played SP.

An Autocrat without 50 - possibly many more - units will never happen.

So you're saying that autocracy and order are much better in MP? I only have SP experience.

That's your problem right there. Without MP experience (or, experience against a strong AI, which we unfortunately don't have) you get a distorted picture of the amount of units needed to conquer anything. Against proper opponents - multiplayer - you need a substantially larger and/or higher tech army to even stand a chance of taking a city. Conquest is hard against a defender who knows what he's doing. Just look at how easy it is for you to defend against the AI despite it outnumbering you.

You really should try to play just a single game of MP - if for nothing else then to get a more realistic idea of the game balance.

Not only have I done this, but I found that freedom is a great way to have a huge science, gold and hammer output from a core empire. I dealt with the happiness problems by razing non-essential cities.

You know, I could beat the game without using a single policy. That doesn't mean Freedom is useful for conquest - just that the game you're playing is too easy (see above).

However...freedom is the only late game policy that you will likely finish. Order and autocracy are geared towards military and large empires. Late game, you need a strong cultural output with fewer cities in order to get later policies. Neither order nor autocracy support smaller empires, and unless I am mistaken, you would be very lucky to get even 3 policies deep in either of the last two trees. In comparison, freedom allows you to have incredibly productive cities that can be used for anything.

Freedom allows you to have a smaller number of highly developed cities. However, Freedom empires cannot match the sheer military might and production capacity of Order and [succesful] Autocracy empires. The real benefit of Freedom empires is they allow you to have superior culture, or rather, a larger number of social policies. It is also very easy to hold you ground in a Freedom empire due to increased city strength. Basically, Freedom allows you to be a small empire that the others will want to leave alone because trying to attack you is too much trouble, allowing you to pursue your cultural victory.

It is also incorrect that you are unlikely to finish Order or Autocracy trees - it just won't happen very quickly. Expect finishing either tree somewhere in the 20th century which - tadaaa! - is when you are also supposed to be when you complete them according to history. Both trees unlock only in Industrial Era for a reason. Once again, I think you have a distorted idea of how easy it is to win a game due to how bad the AI is. You are not supposed to be able to win ie. a Domination victory prior to at least the Industrial Era - more likely you'd require nukes or Death Robots for that. Essentially, real games against real opponents are going to require much more effort - and time - to win.

The difference between Freedom and Order + Autocracy empires is how they gather culture. Freedom has a few cities filled with nice wonders + Piety and Freedom boosts. Order and Autocracy empires are rather more based on the average level of your basic culture building (monument - Temple - Opera - Museum - Tower) since your culture per turn approaches that of your current basic culture building level per turn for very large numbers of cities. They will get their policies as well, but it will (and should!) take much longer.

 

[insaneweasel]

That's your problem right there. Without MP experience (or, experience against a strong AI, which we unfortunately don't have) you get a distorted picture of the amount of units needed to conquer anything.

That's probably true, but in my OP I had SP in mind because of all the complaints I've heard.

You really should try to play just a single game of MP - if for nothing else then to get a more realistic idea of the game balance.

If I play an online MP game, I'll probably choose team fortress 2

You know, I could beat the game without using a single policy. That doesn't mean Freedom is useful for conquest - just that the game you're playing is too easy (see above).

I play almost exclusively emperor on small maps - any higher difficulty/larger map means too many units for my comp to handle (and it's a good comp!)

Basically, Freedom allows you to be a small empire that the others will want to leave alone because trying to attack you is too much trouble, allowing you to pursue your cultural victory.

I never go culture, too boring I find the super-manufactories and buffed up custom houses give enough gold and production to go for space or UN

Once again, I think you have a distorted idea of how easy it is to win a game due to how bad the AI is.

This is probably true. Since you play MP though, could you tell me how planned economy and socialism are better than other options in autocracy or freedom?
If you're going for a large empire, each city will likely not be producing too much science. How would a small boost from a factory vastly help? On top of that, how would you have enough buildings to justify the 15% reduction in upkeep costs? Even as a builder, it most likely won't save more than 30 gpt?

 

[Strategist83]

I haven't been active on the multiplayer scene for a while, actually. Like you say, MP isn't an ideal environment either - it runs awfully slow and players will often quit mid-game if things aren't going their way (would be fun if the AI was able to ragequit as well, hah - guess we could never finish a game!). It's frustrating, to say the least. What MP does, however, is to provide a perspective on what the combat and general gameplay would look like if the AI was better. The difference in that regard between SP and MP can't possibly be overrated. The current poor AI means the game plays out nothing like what it really should. That's why many see balance problems where there in fact are none; it completely changes the game. An example of this is the Lancer unit; most people never use it but in a close battle it just might be what you needed to swing the odds in your favor since it's actually a *very* powerful unit.

This is probably true. Since you play MP though, could you tell me how planned economy and socialism are better than other options in autocracy or freedom?
If you're going for a large empire, each city will likely not be producing too much science. How would a small boost from a factory vastly help? On top of that, how would you have enough buildings to justify the 15% reduction in upkeep costs? Even as a builder, it most likely won't save more than 30 gpt?

Like I wrote above, the policies in Order reflect a completely different empire with different goals than the other two types. The whole idea behind Order is to build as many cities as possible as large as possible as quickly as possible. Order players have a lot of buildings. That's why it makes sense to get a discount for building upkeep. I'm actually playing an Order game right now as Catherine. Even though I have the largest army in the world by far, my building upkeep is twice as great as unit upkeep. So, in my particular situation, that 15% reduction is nearly as good as the excellent Autocracy opener - it's saving me a whopping 42 gpt currently and steadily rising.

The Factory bonus from Planned Economy is pretty clever because it has a great synergy with the Order idea of spamming buildings. What it basically does is allow you to skip or delay the Public School (which costs nearly as much). You'll typically get roughly the same science output *but* you now have a Factory in your city - the single most important building from industrial era onwards. So, the policy basically allows you to prioritize factories higher than usual while still keeping up in science. That's a massive advantage and it helps offset the fact Communism now gives lower base production - you'll get that from the Factories instead.

 

[Hasire]

I have played about 30 MP games. I have never had a game that got to the industrial era. I have only played one game that got to the renaissance era. Most MP games are decided by sword rushed, in my experience.