How to make proper use of Progress?

Not always. Sometimes there is no CS in my same land mass (trade cargoes don't account for villages), sometimes there is a foreign city between me and that CS. Theorically you can send caravans there, but if that neighbour declares war on you, bye bye caravan.

I must be luckier than you, then. Anyway, assuming you have at least one CS to trade with, do you try and send as many routes as possible to it, or do you keep some internal routes (in the early to mid game)?
 
I must be luckier than you, then. Anyway, assuming you have at least one CS to trade with, do you try and send as many routes as possible to it, or do you keep some internal routes (in the early to mid game)?
I love to trade to city states. They don't require the departure city to have anything, thou trading buildings help. They enhance villages in the borders of your empire. In a tradition game, I might do more internal trading (feeding capital, sending production to younger cities). In an authority game, internal trading when safer.
 
I was a tradition nut, usually turtled, played tall and wonderspammed. I thought progress was weak and authority had its uses if I wanted more violent game. Then progress received some buffs and after trying wide gameplay with progress I cannot return to tradition any more. What I see is, progress struggless initially, but after medieval when bonus are doubled and you have some infrastructure, it really closes gap fast.


I must be luckier than you, then. Anyway, assuming you have at least one CS to trade with, do you try and send as many routes as possible to it, or do you keep some internal routes (in the early to mid game)?
I send all caravans to close allied/friendly CS from various cities to maximize villages that have a trade route. So early medieval, 7-8 villages like that really beefs my gold as well as moderate production (+1 from trade +1 from city connection per village). Cities that have trade route also do not produce poverty at that point.
 
Last edited:
I was playing a progress game and I built terracotta army, it was really nice, a lot better than when it was restricted to authority. You can get a lot of hammers from it, getting a free army, letting all your other cities build infrastructure. It also gives you a burst of culture, which progress really likes. It is also on the way to currency,which i consider a really important tech for progress.
 
I was playing a progress game and I built terracotta army, it was really nice, a lot better than when it was restricted to authority. You can get a lot of hammers from it, getting a free army, letting all your other cities build infrastructure. It also gives you a burst of culture, which progress really likes. It is also on the way to currency,which i consider a really important tech for progress.
You forget the most important: massive supply.
 
The only issue I sometimes have with Progress is that it is quite expensive and cumbersome of cities to expand their borders, but with the opening of the Medieval policies you will start to earn enough money to flat-out buy the tiles you need, and also Circus gives you a nice burst of tile expansion.
 
So let's say I settle 8 cities with progress. If i go to war and capture some cities, should i puppet them all except for the capitals or should I just raze them and leave them as is? (Essentially what should i do with captured cities?)
 
So let's say I settle 8 cities with progress. If i go to war and capture some cities, should i puppet them all except for the capitals or should I just raze them and leave them as is? (Essentially what should i do with captured cities?)

I think decision about what should you do about the city you just conquered needs more thing to consider than just going progress. When annexing non capital, see if you can resist their unhappiness and if the city placed in strategic location so you are able to quickly buy and train more units. I'm assuming you are not taking the whole civilization in one war though.
 
Back
Top Bottom