Korea

I assume Arabia probably needs to build a number of wonders and grab a number of dig sites in order to pull off enough historic events to truly shine. Competition for wonders can be fierce and grabbing dig sites can be difficult if you're in wars or don't have open borders for whatever reason. If you pull off both of those then maybe Arabia should be stronger?
You should play Arabia because your assumptions are off. A small number of wonders and great people alone account for a fantastic number of historic events. You can get a religion much easier (less risk). Your UA generates early science and culture which makes the wonders less risky. Korea might have more raw science, but Arabia has better odds to build something like University of Sankore. The historic event income is great even without archeologists.
With Portugal you need to keep those trade routes up and running. You could fall back on internal routes if really necessary but that's not always ideal. If you're at war and your routes are getting plundered then that science gravy train will stop. If you're able to keep your routes up and running the whole game then maybe, again, Portugal deserves that strength?
Is it that hard to protect trade routes? If one dies, just build another one? They are incredibly cheap. Its way easier to keep trade routes running than to keep golden age going.

If you want to talk about risk, how about the risk that Korea appears on a coast with very little land that just isn't viable for tradition? You aren't going to feed many specialists by working coast tiles. If you take progress or authority your unique ability is clearly, dramatically worse than Portugal's.

I maintain that the Seowon needs a buff.
 
You should play Arabia because your assumptions are off. A small number of wonders and great people alone account for a fantastic number of historic events. You can get a religion much easier (less risk). Your UA generates early science and culture which makes the wonders less risky. Korea might have more raw science, but Arabia has better odds to build something like University of Sankore. The historic event income is great even without archeologists.

Is it that hard to protect trade routes? If one dies, just build another one? They are incredibly cheap. Its way easier to keep trade routes running than to keep golden age going.

If you want to talk about risk, how about the risk that Korea appears on a coast with very little land that just isn't viable for tradition? You aren't going to feed many specialists by working coast tiles. If you take progress or authority your unique ability is clearly, dramatically worse than Portugal's.

I maintain that the Seowon needs a buff.

Out of the three, Korea is the only one I haven't played recently. I won my games as Arabia and Portugal pretty handily from what I remember.

I think in my Arab game I got something like 75% of the dig sites on the map as I made it a big priority, and also got a number of wonders throughout the game. I assumed that victory was from playing fairly well but maybe Arabia is just that strong.

The Portugal game also felt easy, but often diplomacy games are easier for me for whatever reason. I got Petra and Colossus though, which is maybe just too strong in Portugal's hands. I do remember being at war a lot, though, and having to rebuild plundered CS trade routes often. CSs are often spread all over the map and the AI tends to have units all over the place ready to plunder.

In any case, I could see those games being tougher if things hadn't gone so right. Usually the AI claims dig sites faster or usually I wouldn't get Petra and Colossus for such an early boost.

For Korea, if starting location is a problem I am usually fine with a restart if needed. I just recently played as the Inca and restarted a few times because I would be damned if I couldn't find some mountains for goddess of nature and Machu Pichu. I doubt it would take many restarts to find a suitable start with ample food.

In any case, I don't doubt that Korea could be weak compared to Portugal/Arabia at deity. But I wonder if less experienced players might disagree if Korea's strengths might be easier to use at lower skill levels. And again, I haven't played Korea lately so maybe they are just weak period regardless of any skill associated with their strategy.
 
Decided to try out Korea recently. In Renaissance right now, went Tradition into Artistry. Managed to found with Fertility; figured I should get more Growth for more Specialists.

Now I am in Industrial, managed to pick up plenty of Tourism Wonders. Have 6 Cities, all but 1 are 20+ Pop. Hoping Factories, Seaports and Industry will fix my somewhat lackluster Production.

Science wise I am at the top, though not by much. Seowon is basically a Synagogue, giving Science%. Not much of an improvement over the University.
 
In my most recent game I was able to sustain golden age from turn 80 something until turn 185. That was without using artists, monopolies or chichen itza, though I did use Notre Dame. Then I only had to wait 3 turns until an artist was born and its going strong again. 50 GAP scaling with era adds up big time. Lack of golden age isn't really a problem.

Hmm... hard to say if it’s legitimately because progress is a better match, or just tradition being generally weaker. The synergies with tradition are so obvious (more and faster specialists, a source of GAPs, food for GP tiles, more +25%GPPs) it’s hard to argue they don’t have good tradition play.

I maintain that the Low tier UB is holding the civ back more than any lack of synergies.

My impression was off then. Shouldn't Seowon's +15% :c5science: and double science from citizen birth make it strong then? With a consistent boost to science going alongside a GA's boost to production and gold, you'd expect that alone to push Korea situation above a lot of other civs that people played with Tradition before, like Austria and Egypt. These civs were also struggling with this tree in the prior patch, so I considered this situation a Tradition issue, not a civ issue yet.

Korea's toolkit isn't that different from when it was among the top civs, and the science boost on Seowon, as well as the extra GAP on GP birth, wasn't there yet. At one point, the Seowon also had the GP boost during golden ages at +50%, which meant it was a top tier UB. It went to the UA (lowered to +30%), replacing the science on GPTI that people considered negligible to Korea at the time. The Seowon did use to have an extra scientist slot, though.

It looks to me that it was Korea being inflexible about policy choice, not the uniques themselves; Austria can at least go for Authority and still benefit a lot from their UA. So, my question is if Korea has anything that would still need a buff if Tradition/Tall were in a better spot, enough for those other civs as well.
 
It looks to me that it was Korea being inflexible about policy choice, not the uniques themselves; Austria can at least go for Authority and still benefit a lot from their UA. So, my question is if Korea has anything that would still need a buff if Tradition/Tall were in a better spot, enough for those other civs as well.
I found that tradition with the Goddess of Fertility leads to a strong opening. Tradition's beginning is quite strong, especially if you can build a well. I had 7 population before I built settlers, meaning my well was giving me 3.4 hammers and I had strong culture too. I couldn't build wonders because I was so far behind in science though.

+15% science during golden ages is strong but the doubled science from growing is pretty negligible. I would add a scientist specialist to help in the mid to late game.
 
I found that tradition with the Goddess of Fertility leads to a strong opening. Tradition's beginning is quite strong, especially if you can build a well. I had 7 population before I built settlers, meaning my well was giving me 3.4 hammers and I had strong culture too. I couldn't build wonders because I was so far behind in science though.

+15% science during golden ages is strong but the doubled science from growing is pretty negligible. I would add a scientist specialist to help in the mid to late game.
Why not an engineer slot if he's struggling that much to build things? Or do the same thing that was done for babylonian walls, add +1 production to scientists in a city with a University.
 
Why not an engineer slot if he's struggling that much to build things? Or do the same thing that was done for babylonian walls, add +1 production to scientists in a city with a University.
You cannot have two different kinds of specialists in one building.

I think Korea is fine, G has changed the Seowon for next patch. Its available at philosophy and gives great works +1 production.
 
I'm not particularly crazy about railroading Korea further into Tradition -> Artistry. What about +1p/+1s on pastures and fishing boats to make a slightly wider Fealty Korea more viable?
 
The Seowon being at philosophy opens up some interesting options if you don't take tradition. You can potentially skip researching education for a long time, instead going really hard into the bottom of the tech tree and getting a strong military. Your UA is weaker, but it would be interesting at least.
 
I think Korea does perfectly fine with Progress or even Authority. Yes, you can't take advantage from early specialists and all that extra Golden Age but on the other side your infrastructutre is so much better. And after you get to Renaissance - you'll have all those benefits from your specialists.
 
Korea has bonuses for GAs and GPs, so it's tailor-made for Artistry. Going any other route with Korea is imho suboptimal.
That's why I'm advocating for less Artistry synergy... It's boring. I like the idea of fealty Korea (more food for those extra specialist is good, could help get strong religion with way of Transcendence, etc) but the golden age bonuses and now the great work bonuses push Artistry over the edge as the only medieval tree for Korea.
With Seowon at philosophy, Korea can be potentially soooo much more flexible and interesting (skip education, and beeline hwacha for some fun) , it's a shame to railroad it into a specific strategy. I don't mind that Korea is a default tradition civ but interesting mid game policy and religion choices are what keep me coming back to VP
 
I think it's fine that the occasional civilization has a lot of synergy with one particular policy tree, especially when it's thematically appropriate.

Carthage and Progress is another that comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
I think it's fine that the occasional civilization has a lot of synergy with one particular policy tree, especially when it's thematically appropriate.

Carthage and Progress is another that comes to mind.

Agreed. To me as long as their a good variety of civs with strong synergies as well as civs with more flexible ones we are doing good.
 
Okay, here's my last suggestion for a potential fealty Korea:
Seowon gives +1 food to nearby luxury resources.
This is a good compromise because it can support a GPTI centric Korea that is good with either artistry or fealty. Holy site spam would synergize well with either social policy. Either way, this would lead to better academies that can help feed the extra scientist.
I think this is a much better idea than buffing great works (which is pretty "win-more" anyway) and helps cover Korea's weakness
 
I don't think Korea needed a buff, its problem seemed to me about how weak is favorite trees (Tradition, Rationalism and Freedom) were relative to their competition. Not that different from other civs that also favored 2 or 3 of those trees. With buffs to Tradition and Rationalism, plus Order being looked at, Korea already looks as one of the main winners in the recent patches without buffs to Seowon.
 
Back
Top Bottom