How do you decide your policy?

[Gazebo]

Well for Tradition I would recommend (and this is just my strategy for tradition) a maximum of of 5-8 cities depending on how many guilds you're willing to but in a single city: 3 in capital, 1 or 2 in each other city depending on how many you've set up.

And as for the vs huge empires thing....I have no idea. VP is biased in favor of wide empires that way sadly.

That's an oft-repeated line (VP = wide), but it isn't really all that accurate. Tourism scales (both ways) based on wideness, and CV is one of the easier VCs to get. The AI loves to attack weak spots, and a wide empire has way more ground to cover. Many late-game bonuses are % or per-pop based, favoring larger cities. The supply cap is about 50/50 flat v. per pop, thus you can't just expand wide and have a bigger army every time. Gold purchase costs for units and buildings, and unhappiness from yields, go up slightly for every city you found. And so on.

I'd say that the definition of 'tall' in vanilla was 4 cities, however the definition of tall in VP is ~6 cities.

G

 

[ElliotS]

I'd like to point out that people also have a misconception that authority is the only branch good for warmongering. Progress can be very good as well if you're looking for a slightly later timing. If you're planning your first real war in medieval or later, progress is probably better.

Also Tradition Assyria can be a scary warmonger.

Just because Authority gets the direct combat bonuses doesn't mean I haven't murdered Authority civs with progress or tradition on immortal and deity.

 

[PapaRockett]

I'd like to point out that people also have a misconception that authority is the only branch good for warmongering. Progress can be very good as well if you're looking for a slightly later timing. If you're planning your first real war in medieval or later, progress is probably better.

Also Tradition Assyria can be a scary warmonger.

Just because Authority gets the direct combat bonuses doesn't mean I haven't murdered Authority civs with progress or tradition on immortal and deity.

I gotta say Tradition Assyria sounds very appealing. All those great works and XP bonuses... dayuuum

 

[ElliotS]

I gotta say Tradition Assyria sounds very appealing. All those great works and XP bonuses... dayuuum

You've yet to feel unstoppable until every unit you build starts at level 4 and thus can have logistics/blitz/march/whatever. It's actually bonkers good when it gets going.

 

[Gazebo]

I'd like to point out that people also have a misconception that authority is the only branch good for warmongering. Progress can be very good as well if you're looking for a slightly later timing. If you're planning your first real war in medieval or later, progress is probably better.

Also Tradition Assyria can be a scary warmonger.

Just because Authority gets the direct combat bonuses doesn't mean I haven't murdered Authority civs with progress or tradition on immortal and deity.

Tradition Assyria is actually the intended design.

G

 

[CrazyG]

I've actually had some pretty wide empires as China with Tradition, it sounds really weird but it went really well, much better than my attempts with Progress went. I've also had succesful war games with tradition. A thing with Authority is you need to kill to develop your culture, if barbarians aren't really available you can stagnate

There are situations where tradition can even work better for an early warmonger, I can specifically recall a game where I started as very low food tundra without much room to expand or hunt barbarians. Took tradition, grabbed that engineer and pumped out archers and spearmen to take the nearby cities

Likewise peaceful authority isn't as crazy as it seems, its all about finding the right civ for a job.

 

[Gazebo]

I've actually had some pretty wide empires as China with Tradition, it sounds really weird but it went really well, much better than my attempts with Progress went. I've also had succesful war games with tradition. A thing with Authority is you need to kill to develop your culture, if barbarians aren't really available you can stagnate

There are situations where tradition can even work better for an early warmonger, I can specifically recall a game where I started as very low food tundra without much room to expand or hunt barbarians. Took tradition, grabbed that engineer and pumped out archers and spearmen to take the nearby cities

Likewise peaceful authority isn't as crazy as it seems, its all about finding the right civ for a job.

I think it is a testament to the VP, and to the enormously awesome feedback of the community, that the key point we all keep coming back to is that skill matters as much, if not more than the OP/UP nature of policies/beliefs etc. in determining a player's success or failure.

G

 

[ElliotS]

Tradition Assyria is actually the intended design.

G

Speaking of why, I've noticed this:

Spoiler Image :

However I never see that many new great works in my civilization afterwards. (I don't just check that city, but also other cities in my empire in case they jumped.)

Any idea what's going on here?

 

[Gazebo]

Speaking of why, I've noticed this:

Spoiler Image :

View attachment 466103

However I never see that many new great works in my civilization afterwards. (I don't just check that city, but also other cities in my empire in case they jumped.)

Any idea what's going on here?

You may or may not pillage more than you can actually hold when you take a city.

G

 

[Dawnpromise]

That's an oft-repeated line (VP = wide), but it isn't really all that accurate. Tourism scales (both ways) based on wideness, and CV is one of the easier VCs to get. The AI loves to attack weak spots, and a wide empire has way more ground to cover. Many late-game bonuses are % or per-pop based, favoring larger cities. The supply cap is about 50/50 flat v. per pop, thus you can't just expand wide and have a bigger army every time. Gold purchase costs for units and buildings, and unhappiness from yields, go up slightly for every city you found. And so on.

I'd say that the definition of 'tall' in vanilla was 4 cities, however the definition of tall in VP is ~6 cities.

G

This actually the first post I've seen that actually presents a solid argument for Tall vs Wide being balance. Normally people just re-post the culture/science cost increase argument that doesn't hold up. I'll admit my views may be slightly skewed due to always disabling culture victory (which may be the only win condition Tall has definitive advantage in) but the supply cap changes do put forth a better logic for making a tall empire easier to defend along with the buy-cost detail (does this cost increase apply to faith purchases as well? And what exactly is the scaling on buy-costs?). I still believe Tall is at a disadvantage on most win conditions, but I'll concede it's not as bad as I was believing.

 

[ElliotS]

This actually the first post I've seen that actually presents a solid argument for Tall vs Wide being balance. Normally people just re-post the culture/science cost increase argument that doesn't hold up. I'll admit my views may be slightly skewed due to always disabling culture victory (which may be the only win condition Tall has definitive advantage in) but the supply cap changes do put forth a better logic for making a tall empire easier to defend along with the buy-cost detail (does this cost increase apply to faith purchases as well? And what exactly is the scaling on buy-costs?). I still believe Tall is at a disadvantage on most win conditions, but I'll concede it's not as bad as I was believing.

Well do note that tall can win science faster than wide. Though wide's natural science gain often out-scales the % increase, 4-6 cities has a definite advantage for these reasons:

• Academies are more potent in tall empire (as are all GP improvements)
  
• Statecraft flat science gain is more potent
• Sainthood science is doubly more potent (More foreign cities to spread to, and lower tech costs for the science gain)
• Way of Transcendence is better in tall (and really good for SV)
• Every other flat science gain or buff is better for tall (Military CS allies or Trade routes for example)
• Science wonders are better for tall empires
• It's easier to stay at or above +10 happiness in a tall empire (for more science and rationalism)
• Vassals Science gain is better for tall empires.
• Puppet cities are better for tall empires.

In short since none of those scale with the size or science output of your civ, you're getting more than a wide empire will regardless. An empire with 21 cities will have a ~220% science cost increase (does the first city count?), and a civ with 5 cities will see a 44% increase. That means that flat science increases are 80% less effective for the wide empire. 75 science per turn for the tall empire is equivalent to 15 science per turn.

The fastest SVs always tend to come from tall civs for this reason. Just look at the games people have played and you'll see that.

Also a point that can't be overlooked is that for a SV tall warmongers that get lots of puppets and vassals go faster than peaceful tall civs from my experience. Add in that conquest hurts your opponents and remember not to overlook the option.

 

[Txurce]

Well do note that tall can win science faster than wide. Though wide's natural science gain often out-scales the % increase, 4-6 cities has a definite advantage for these reasons:

• Academies are more potent in tall empire (as are all GP improvements)
  
• Statecraft flat science gain is more potent
• Sainthood science is doubly more potent (More foreign cities to spread to, and lower tech costs for the science gain)
• Way of Transcendence is better in tall (and really good for SV)
• Every other flat science gain or buff is better for tall (Military CS allies or Trade routes for example)
• Science wonders are better for tall empires
• It's easier to stay at or above +10 happiness in a tall empire (for more science and rationalism)
• Vassals Science gain is better for tall empires.
• Puppet cities are better for tall empires.

In short since none of those scale with the size or science output of your civ, you're getting more than a wide empire will regardless. An empire with 21 cities will have a ~220% science cost increase (does the first city count?), and a civ with 5 cities will see a 44% increase. That means that flat science increases are 80% less effective for the wide empire. 75 science per turn for the tall empire is equivalent to 15 science per turn.

The fastest SVs always tend to come from tall civs for this reason. Just look at the games people have played and you'll see that.

Also a point that can't be overlooked is that for a SV tall warmongers that get lots of puppets and vassals go faster than peaceful tall civs from my experience. Add in that conquest hurts your opponents and remember not to overlook the option.

Great breakdown. When I was regularly playing Tradition, Transcendence/Sainthood and Statecraft (along with Rationalism) were mainstays in pursuing a SV. It's easier than Progress, in that it's simpler. Progress calls for more flexibility... and Tradition's relatively straightforward path often doesn't work with it.

 

[Dawnpromise]

Well do note that tall can win science faster than wide. Though wide's natural science gain often out-scales the % increase, 4-6 cities has a definite advantage for these reasons:

• Academies are more potent in tall empire (as are all GP improvements)
  
• Statecraft flat science gain is more potent
• Sainthood science is doubly more potent (More foreign cities to spread to, and lower tech costs for the science gain)
• Way of Transcendence is better in tall (and really good for SV)
• Every other flat science gain or buff is better for tall (Military CS allies or Trade routes for example)
• Science wonders are better for tall empires
• It's easier to stay at or above +10 happiness in a tall empire (for more science and rationalism)
• Vassals Science gain is better for tall empires.
• Puppet cities are better for tall empires.

In short since none of those scale with the size or science output of your civ, you're getting more than a wide empire will regardless. An empire with 21 cities will have a ~220% science cost increase (does the first city count?), and a civ with 5 cities will see a 44% increase. That means that flat science increases are 80% less effective for the wide empire. 75 science per turn for the tall empire is equivalent to 15 science per turn.

The fastest SVs always tend to come from tall civs for this reason. Just look at the games people have played and you'll see that.

Also a point that can't be overlooked is that for a SV tall warmongers that get lots of puppets and vassals go faster than peaceful tall civs from my experience. Add in that conquest hurts your opponents and remember not to overlook the option.

Another minor detail is that Domination wins are given based on the last civ to hold their capital, not by taking everyone else's. I do have a memory of once stealing domination victory from Songhai via a rapid blitz on their capital one game. Not sure if that was VP or not though, but I'm fairly certain it's still possible unless Domination victory condition was changed.

 

[FoxOfWar]

Yeah, I have to admit that I rather like the fact that to a fairly decent degree, you can go various strategies with various trees - or even mix-and-matching policies if particular finisher/finisher wonder is not your cookie this time around. 'Border blobs' probably being the most oft-cited example around here, and for a good reason - it can be ludicrously effective.

Probably my most-played is going rapid-expansion Progress and then spending first half of the game trying to not lose my 12+ cities as they build up. It's fun trying to keep that balance of power, and when that pays off (when you have Progress finished and most basic infrastructure done), it really starts paying off and you have a lot of turf to work with. Extra bonus fun now with the army cap mechanics, it matters even more what buildings you make and in which city.

 

[CrazyG]

This actually the first post I've seen that actually presents a solid argument for Tall vs Wide being balance. Normally people just re-post the culture/science cost increase argument that doesn't hold up. I'll admit my views may be slightly skewed due to always disabling culture victory (which may be the only win condition Tall has definitive advantage in) but the supply cap changes do put forth a better logic for making a tall empire easier to defend along with the buy-cost detail (does this cost increase apply to faith purchases as well? And what exactly is the scaling on buy-costs?). I still believe Tall is at a disadvantage on most win conditions, but I'll concede it's not as bad as I was believing.

For science victory it certainly holds up, I got a 298 spaceship as India with tradition, on immortal this patch. I'm one of those people who reposts the same argument, looks like it hasn't been articulated well. Does EliotS's post address your thoughts?

 

[Strigvir]

In short since none of those scale with the size or science output of your civ, you're getting more than a wide empire will regardless. An empire with 21 cities will have a ~220% science cost increase (does the first city count?), and a civ with 5 cities will see a 44% increase. That means that flat science increases are 80% less effective for the wide empire. 75 science per turn for the tall empire is equivalent to 15 science per turn.

You forgot to mention the part where having 21 cities results in roughly 10x more science output. So a wide empire on average has 5x better effective science gains per turn. It's not "tall is better for SV", it's "old China is better for SV and only because "tall" strategy is easy to test and reroll".
In all of my games the only AI "tall" science runaway civ ever was Korea (unsurprisingly). In all other cases the size of an empire directly correlated to the science advancement.

 

[Dawnpromise]

For science victory it certainly holds up, I got a 298 spaceship as India with tradition, on immortal this patch. I'm one of those people who reposts the same argument, looks like it hasn't been articulated well. Does EliotS's post address your thoughts?

Well his posts pointed out more ways to make a tall empire viable in the face of wide opponents.

Only major point I'd disagree with is the Academy detail. Personally I find academies to be a very weak improvement overall as pure science isn't that great of a tile yield when I could trade it for 1-2 techs worth of bulk science. Basically I never work academies unless I've gone Tradition/Aesthetics AND I've placed it on a strategic resource tile.

You forgot to mention the part where having 21 cities results in roughly 10x more science output. So a wide empire on average has 5x better effective science gains per turn. It's not "tall is better for SV", it's "old China is better for SV and only because "tall" strategy is easy to test and reroll".
In all of my games the only AI "tall" science runaway civ ever was Korea (unsurprisingly). In all other cases the size of an empire directly correlated to the science advancement.

And it gets even more biased in wides favor depending on map size as bigger maps have a smaller per city penalty. Theoretically, smaller maps would favor Tall more but less players tends to make the game kinda dull.

 

[CrazyG]

Only major point I'd disagree with is the Academy detail. Personally I find academies to be a very weak improvement overall as pure science isn't that great of a tile yield when I could trade it for 1-2 techs worth of bulk science. Basically I never work academies unless I've gone Tradition/Aesthetics AND I've placed it on a strategic resource tile.

I would compare this to someone suggesting Authority is weak then saying that they never clear barb camps. Its a fundamental part of that strategy, of course tradition will disappoint if you don't play to its strengths. The academy is probably the strongest great person tile; usually I go for bulk science only after my research labs are built.

 

[Dawnpromise]

I would compare this to someone suggesting Authority is weak then saying that they never clear barb camps. Its a fundamental part of that strategy, of course tradition will disappoint if you don't play to its strengths. The academy is probably the strongest great person tile; usually I go for bulk science only after my research labs are built.

Would you care to clarify how the academy is so good then?

 

[Gazebo]

Would you care to clarify how the academy is so good then?

It does eliminate illiteracy almost by itself (at least in the first half of the game).

G