Is it normal for a Tradition player to start way behind most or all of the AI on King/Emperor?

[ridjack]

Tradition is my 'just can't get the hang of it' policy tree. On King, which is my default difficulty at the moment, I can use Progress or Authority and be near the top of the pack by the Medieval; with Tradition, I'm generally still lagging behind pretty badly even into Renaissance or Enlightenment. I've successfully won One-City Challenge using Tradition with Venice and I thought that taught me some of how Tradition should work, but I still don't seem to have a grasp on it.

So is that pretty standard, to be lagging behind in the midgame? Or am I doing as badly as I think I am?

 

[tu_79]

Have you tried with the november releases? Those of december come with an experimental difficulty feature, maybe it's that.

Other than that, Tradition is quite strong if you focus on developing your cities instead of expanding. Settle just for the monopoly and build up.

 

[Blue Ghost]

By what measures are you lagging? It’s normal for Tradition to be lower on the scoreboard, since you have fewer cities, less overall population, and less military. But on the front of science and culture, I don’t think tradition is any weaker than the alternatives, and is perhaps stronger.

 

[ridjack]

Have you tried with the november releases? Those of december come with an experimental difficulty feature, maybe it's that.

Other than that, Tradition is quite strong if you focus on developing your cities instead of expanding. Settle just for the monopoly and build up.

I've tried Tradition on and off several times over the last few months, and it's generally been the same story. The difficulty scalers in the newer releases haven't actually seemed to have a drastic effect on this, although my Progress/Authority games are a different story.

By what measures are you lagging? It’s normal for Tradition to be lower on the scoreboard, since you have fewer cities, less overall population, and less military. But on the front of science and culture, I don’t think tradition is any weaker than the alternatives, and is perhaps stronger.

Science is the big one for me; I'm *constantly* doing horribly on science, and maybe so-so at best on culture. From what you're saying, it is an actual failing on my part; I just wish I could figure out what that failing is. I've been reading the threads and looking at the photojournals on here; my Emperor game has improved from them, but my Tradition game is still stagnant.

 

[Txurce]

I've tried Tradition on and off several times over the last few months, and it's generally been the same story. The difficulty scalers in the newer releases haven't actually seemed to have a drastic effect on this, although my Progress/Authority games are a different story.



Science is the big one for me; I'm *constantly* doing horribly on science, and maybe so-so at best on culture. From what you're saying, it is an actual failing on my part; I just wish I could figure out what that failing is. I've been reading the threads and looking at the photojournals on here; my Emperor game has improved from them, but my Tradition game is still stagnant.

It's very easy for me to fall way behind playing Tradition on Emperor. Usually it has to do with growth. Do you focus on high-growth city placement, then build plenty of workers early on? If not, try playing a game where early growth is your main goal (apart from founding a religion).

 

[ridjack]

It's very easy for me to fall way behind playing Tradition on Emperor. Usually it has to do with growth. Do you focus on high-growth city placement, then build plenty of workers early on? If not, try playing a game where early growth is your main goal (apart from founding a religion).

I have been focusing on growth; perhaps the 'plenty of workers' if where I'm hitting a snag. Even with Progress or Authority, I have a tendency to make workers a lower priority than I probably should. I usually end up stopping at one per city.

I've opted to not even attempt a religion at the moment; I still build my shrines and try to get decent faith pantheons, but I don't make it a priority.

EDIT: Currently playing a Brazil game on King; one of Spain's (who went Authority) expansions has more pop than my capital. Maybe I'm not focusing it as much as I need to be, somehow.

 

[Txurce]

I have been focusing on growth; perhaps the 'plenty of workers' if where I'm hitting a snag. Even with Progress or Authority, I have a tendency to make workers a lower priority than I probably should. I usually end up stopping at one per city.

I've opted to not even attempt a religion at the moment; I still build my shrines and try to get decent faith pantheons, but I don't make it a priority.

One per city's usually enough, although of course you could have more; the key is to get them working sooner rather than later. It's tempting to build just one more building.

There's no point in building more than one shrine early on if you're not going for a religion. But it's tough to do well without one these days. You may also try playing with a religious civ a few times, so that part of the game is in the bag, and see how much of a difference it makes in your early progress.

 

[ridjack]

One per city's usually enough, although of course you could have more; the key is to get them working sooner rather than later. It's tempting to build just one more building.

There's no point in building more than one shrine early on if you're not going for a religion. But it's tough to do well without one these days. You may also try playing with a religious civ a few times, so that part of the game is in the bag, and see how much of a difference it makes in your early progress.

I did try using India for exactly this reason (and because he seemed to scream 'Tradition' to me). It didn't seem to go any better than any of the others, but I've also been regularly restarting around the Medieval when I felt it was clear I wasn't going to be catching up. Based on this thread, that seems to have been the right call, but who knows.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Re: Workers, they're a priority build. A worker is *almost* like another City - it introduces an entirely new 'build order' (although of Improvements), in a way no other building does. If you're going for a Religion, then a Shrine is normally a higher priority than a Worker, and very early in the game, a Monument is normally a higher priority than a Worker because of the advantage of earlier Policies, but a Worker is normally going to be third on the list. Occasionally you might want to take a Council first if it is early game because you'll trigger the Science on Citizen birth slightly more often, or a Barracks first because they're, like, an absolutely incredible building, but normally I'd still take the Worker. I do think one of the biggest improvements you can make to your game is making Workers higher priority; I think a lot of players don't really understand how to make the intuitive comparison between Workers and a building in the way they feel comfortable of making inter-building comparisons.

Aside from that, Tradition does need Growth, and it needs Growth ASAP. Some starts are just not Tradition starts. Don't force a Tradition choice when it isn't there. The best Tradition starts are normally those with a Plantation Lux, because you can go Wheel -> Pottery -> Calendar -> Animal Husbandry -> Military Theory (can shift the order of these five around to an extent) -> Mathematics and pick up both Artemis and Hanging Gardens, which have crazy good synergy together and have a big impact on my Tradition games. The AI rarely rushes Mathematics, either, they see it as a low priority, so I find Hanging Gardens can be one of the few 'safe' Wonders even on higher difficulties.

Which Civs are you trying? For good Tradition Civs, I like Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, Venice, India, and Korea. I do feel Tradition is a bit more 'specific', a lot of Civs are just fundamentally not built to take advantage of it.

 

[Legen]

Science is the big one for me; I'm *constantly* doing horribly on science, and maybe so-so at best on culture. From what you're saying, it is an actual failing on my part; I just wish I could figure out what that failing is. I've been reading the threads and looking at the photojournals on here; my Emperor game has improved from them, but my Tradition game is still stagnant.

Odd, Culture is arguably the main advantage of Tradition, if you're not facing dedicated cultural civs without playing one yourself. The main weakness tends to be production/gold on secondary cities.

Tradition is a tree oriented towards Growth, Great People and Golden Ages, usually fit for Culture and Science victories. Culture comes easily thanks to early cultural specialists. You need to focus heavily on growth to not fall behind; Tradition struggles to maintain a large number of cities, you have to rely on population instead. My experience on Tradition is that common pitfalls are not focusing enough on growth, followed by not being able to produce enough on secondary cities. Tradition also falls behind easily (in score) if you don't wonderwhore enough.

There are civs that helps getting used to Tradition, you may want to try them first before attempting to do with whatever civ you have in mind. I personally recommend Brazil, because the civ's uniques cover many of Tradition's weaknesses. More specifically:

• early Brazilwood Camps address Tradition's struggle with gold, and the civ's uniques give you plenty of gold to address your overall infrastructure throughout the whole game
  
• Brazilwood Camps also conditions you to build workers at the ratio you should, which you mentioned to be an issue for you
  
• your secondary cities begin contributing to your empire much earlier than usual, as the worker's 8-turn speed (standard speed) on Brazilwood Camps is way faster than a 17-turn shrine/monument/council production queue. Also gives more yields and can happen alongside the city's queue and other workers.

Not every Tradition-oriented civ is easy to begin playing with, as they may focus too much on Tradition's strengths and not cover its weaknesses. Korea is an example, India might be as well. I remember someone mentioning Iroqouis being a good Tradition civ as well due to its early access to production (tied to a food building even). Arabia is a clear Tradition civ with a decent shot at religion thanks to the Bazaar, you may prefer it over India.

 

[Txurce]

To follow up, Hanging Gardens really helps, for obvious reasons, and should be available if you make it a priority. I recently founded with Morocco and managed to get the HG, and won a SV with a 5-tech lead, with 5 cities and 4 puppets.

 

[ridjack]

Which Civs are you trying?.

India is one I've been trying, with the idea of pretty much guaranteeing a religion, since I know religion is hard for Tradition. I tried Babylon recently, but I mostly just didn't find him fun to play. Currently trying with Brazil; I think I really need to change up my tech order. I've always started with Trapping (to reveal easily-improvable bonus resources and access Archers early) and usually hit Animal Husbandry to reveal Horses, then changed up my order depending on what was needed/how close my local warmonger ends up being. This works fine for Authority/Progress, but it seems like it's completely out of whack for what folks here are suggesting for Tradition. I also generally don't prioritize *any* early-game wonders(sometimes Pyramids because I hate missing Progress' faster workers), and it sounds like that might be a difference in my Tradition game.

Overall, I'm gathering that I probably need to re-prioritize a lot for Tradition, particularly with regards to infrastructure (workers and growth.) I guess I hadn't realized just how much the other two policy trees help with that.

 

[CrazyG]

Aside from that, Tradition does need Growth, and it needs Growth ASAP. Some starts are just not Tradition starts. Don't force a Tradition choice when it isn't there. The best Tradition starts are normally those with a Plantation Lux, because you can go Wheel -> Pottery -> Calendar -> Animal Husbandry -> Military Theory (can shift the order of these five around to an extent) -> Mathematics and pick up both Artemis and Hanging Gardens, which have crazy good synergy together and have a big impact on my Tradition games. The AI rarely rushes Mathematics, either, they see it as a low priority, so I find Hanging Gardens can be one of the few 'safe' Wonders even on higher difficulties.

I have to respectfully, 100% disagree with this (not your wonder ideas, those are spot on)

Growth isn't really that important early on. Because you are going to grow pretty much no matter what you do, you should work the power tiles like marble or mines and your specialists instead. There are some great plantations (like Cocoa), but in general I'd rather take mines or even quarries. You need to get ahead in production, culture and science ASAP. Once you have more specialists and some improved tiles available (around late classical or medieval), growth becomes important, but emphazising it early on accomplishes very little in my experience. I know someone is going to say something about long term food gets more specialists, but I've tested by reloading and you almost always do better by emphasizing culture and production early on instead of food. I usually don't prioritize growth at all until around the medieval era, there are just too many powerful buildings and wonders available to pass up any production.

The most common start which is bad for tradition is a really water heavy one, just because coast tiles aren't worth working for this type of empire. Really bad tundra or desert can apply as well

 

[CrazyG]

India is one I've been trying, with the idea of pretty much guaranteeing a religion, since I know religion is hard for Tradition. I tried Babylon recently, but I mostly just didn't find him fun to play. Currently trying with Brazil; I think I really need to change up my tech order.

I find many of the civs with Unique Improvements to not work that well as tradition, just because you often won't have the population to work both brazilwood camps and specialists.

Trapping is good if you expect deer, otherwise it can wait. Mining is commonly my first tech, especially if I'm not settled on a river. Or I might rush calendar to get a herbalist quickly if that is relevant for my start. Artemis and Mausoleum are both really good wonders to consider if your tech path leads that way. Right now the AI difficulties are in a weird place, but if its buildable pottery first and stonehenge can be a good opening strategy too.

 

[Txurce]

I have to respectfully, 100% disagree with this (not your wonder ideas, those are spot on)

Growth isn't really that important early on. Because you are going to grow pretty much no matter what you do, you should work the power tiles like marble or mines and your specialists instead.

This is an important distinction, which I didn't make. "Growth" really means development, and in the early stages two mines' hammers have much more of an effect than an extra city worker or two. To put it differently, I have my workers focus on maximizing hammers before they start farming.

 

[ridjack]

I find many of the civs with Unique Improvements to not work that well as tradition, just because you often won't have the population to work both brazilwood camps and specialists.

Trapping is good if you expect deer, otherwise it can wait. Mining is commonly my first tech, especially if I'm not settled on a river. Or I might rush calendar to get a herbalist quickly if that is relevant for my start. Artemis and Mausoleum are both really good wonders to consider if your tech path leads that way. Right now the AI difficulties are in a weird place, but if its buildable pottery first and stonehenge can be a good opening strategy too.

See, and mines on resourceless hills are an improvement I've almost always ignored entirely, starting in vanilla and carrying on to here. It's always just seemed bad to me to have a citizen working a tile with only 1f on it; I end up preferring hills next to a river so I can stick a farm on them.

EDIT: I'm also curious to know where y'all fit military into these priorities. One of the reasons I never have a worker early is because I always end up retreating him into the city to avoid barbs, who then pillage my early improvements because I don't have a warrior to protect anything. I end up doing usually a warrior and an archer before any workers, just to fend off the crazy barbs.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I don’t know if this is optimal, but I tend to build a warrior third, after my shrine and monument. Then either a second warrior or a worker, depending on the density of barbarians nearby. I seldom build archers, because I usually do not prioritize Trapping.

 

[Txurce]

I don’t know if this is optimal, but I tend to build a warrior third, after my shrine and monument. Then either a second warrior or a worker, depending on the density of barbarians nearby. I seldom build archers, because I usually do not prioritize Trapping.

Trapping has one downcurrent lure: it leads to Fishing, which leads to embarked pathfinders, and more ruins, which could guarantee a religion. There's something to be said for going this route relatively early, if there's not some other path that demands primacy, and there are likely offshore ruin possibilities.

 

[CrazyG]

EDIT: I'm also curious to know where y'all fit military into these priorities. One of the reasons I never have a worker early is because I always end up retreating him into the city to avoid barbs, who then pillage my early improvements because I don't have a warrior to protect anything. I end up doing usually a warrior and an archer before any workers, just to fend off the crazy barbs

I don't scout that much, instead I pull the pathfinder back to watch for barbs. A warrior after monument and shrine is reasonable (or an archer instead if your tech path took you to trapping already). Two units are usually enough for a while. If they aren't fighting, put them on hills nearby, camps won't appear on tiles that you can see

See, and mines on resourceless hills are an improvement I've almost always ignored entirely, starting in vanilla and carrying on to here. It's always just seemed bad to me to have a citizen working a tile with only 1f on it; I end up preferring hills next to a river so I can stick a farm on them.

This is how I view this question. A citizen that works a 2 food tile like grassland does almost nothing***. He produces 2 food and he eats 2 food, nothing changes (he might even be a negative because he could make an unhappiness). Why would you try to grow when currently the best tile does basically nothing? In a position such as this, I either need workers, buidlings, or more tiles, not more citizens.

For this reason, I consider a 2 hill better than a 11 plain, and the plain better than 2 grassland. All of these tiles effectively produce 0 yields (it creates 2, but a citizen eats 2 to be alive), you shouldn't be trying to grow unless you have at minimum a 3 yield tile available to work. This is why I don't pursue food that much in ancient era, I usually grow to 3 or 4 population, just to work my really good tiles and my artist or engineer. Now after I have some workers improving tiles, more specialist slots, and a well/watermill (which gives 0.2 and per citizen) growth becomes much better, because citizens are worth 3 or 4 yields, rather than just 0 or 1. Growth was really important in Vanilla because of how science was set up, but in VP its better to wait a little while to really push growth. Tradition's food is there to let you work specialists early on, not to facilitate extremely quick growth.

***Actually if the citizen is in the capital he also earns a small amount of science

 

[Logoncal]

You do have to remind yourself that it doesnt matter if the opponent has more science than you, If he has too many cities his production might not even offset the insane science cost increase.
7% isnt low.