Liberty is very hard...

[hai 1]

I wasn't aware you were an advocate of the hybrid strategy, tommy. That makes me feel a bit more validated I can see how it is reliant to a certain extent on grabbing a culture ruin (Shoshone!!). But that is the beauty of it- it is flexible. You open tradition anyway and if you have had no luck getting a culture ruin, you can go on your merry way through tradition. I often do this. Other times, I might go for collective rule anyway (ridiculously cramped, and slow growth start). I sorta feel it out There have even been a few times, where I've pulled the f it card and finished liberty after opening tradition (couldn't resist seeing if I could get a GE in time for Petra in my cap with like 11 desert hills, for example). It would bore me to death going into every game knowing exactly what my build will be. Even if it is slightly sub-par (which I really don't think it is... sometimes I bet it is even optimal), I still prefer it for the flexibility.

 

[adwcta]

No resistance, you need happiness buildings anyway, a conquered city is not less happiness, you actually need one more building than normal, which costs as much as a settler with no liberty bonus, and it has a hefty upkeep, the only cost is the settler, the hammers come free after that (same as the "free" buildings you get from conquest, but 100% of them, not just the AI's 35% build bonus on deity, which is less than the amount of buildings lost on conquest)...

Is that not enough? Oh you also get to select which buildings to actually build, you don't lose half the population (AI growth bonus is far less than 100%), and you get to select a good city placement, instead of the crap the AI does.

I mean, I think you should think outside of the things-from-war-are-free sandbox.

If two cities go up at time X, one is yours and one is the AI's that you capture 50 turns later... You'll get much more on a net basis from the one you found yourself, almost always. Exceptions are roads/improvements (usually the cost of a mid-game worker) and possible wonders (which AI predominantly builds in capital, so you never had the choice to settle there in the first place).

I think this statement holds true until about 100 turns before victory, when its just a net loss to found OR conquer a city founded at that time. If you are instead talking about CB rushing an AI on top of founding your own cities, then sure... But you can always do both. It's just nicer to not have to spend any hammers at all on an army (and upkeep) imo, and not incur warmonger diplo penalties (which results in a gold and science bonus). It has to be some capital to make up for those penalties.

 

[Thugmcgee]

Space and science are your problems. Still, you can expand to 8-10 without being too hurt by those.

Any ideas on how to keep yourself in a competitive position science wise playing wide with 8 cities? I usually keep a 3 tech lead but I want to widen the gap compared to the AI and players i play with who normally play a tradition opener

 

[BenitoChavez]

Based purely off my own personal experience, whether I go liberty or tradition I tend to do better going wide. And by wide I mean found 3-4 cities of my own and conquer some AI cities (preferably capitols).

If I had to theorycraft it I'd say its because founding >4 cities in good spots is quite difficult, even on large/huge maps. The AI tends to gobble up the better spots anyways, and by conquering (or razing then re-settling) I get the better spots while simultaneously weakening someone else which puts me in a better position to win. And winning is really my only measure of success as I'm not good enough to win consistently enough to have turn times matter to me.

 

[Stacked_Deck]

2 mercantile CSs. 10 happiness each, 16 min. Colosseums and circuses priority, +5 for national wonder. You start with 7 and a bonus lux resource (the one that's everywhere around you), so that's 32 happiness at city cost of 2 base, once reduced by Colosseums, not counting luxuries. Assume one unique lux per 2 cities, that's your per city cost right there, with an extra 2 pop per due to religion and liberty. So, you have 32 extra pop to distribute (plus 2 per circus) beyond 2 pop per city. That's more than enough for medieval / classical.

So, the real answer is... As many as you have room for, at an approx clip of 1 every 10-12 turns after liberty's free settler.

Happiness is not the problem. Space and science are your problems. Still, you can expand to 8-10 without being too hurt by those.

Interesting. I'll try to more aggressively go for the merc CS'. But what about the science?

 

[adwcta]

You don't keep science parity with tradition. You can't. Being Maya helps, but for the most part you'll be playing from behind until industrialization/modern era. But, because your total science output is higher now (and techs other civs researched are cheaper), you'll slingshot past tradition in the end, especially with the help of GS, which work off of your larger science per turn output multiplicatively. That's what makes it more secure than tradition if you've managed to set it up.

If you want certain wonders (the non sp-tied ones) in Renaissance/Industrial you'll need to burn some GEs. But, your total tourism will be way more than tall play anyway, so it's not the end of the world to lose 1-2 for CV. It's not that there aren't weaknesses. It's that a great tradition player vs a great liberty player, the liberty one will always amass far more resources before turn 300 (which is what security is all about).

I went down 2 difficulties when moving from tradition to liberty and worked my way back up. I think it'll be a shock to try to play wide on deity if you've never done it before. But, it's more or less competitive wig Tradition in the end. The title of this post is right, Liberty is hard. The payoff isn't as large as the additional difficulty should garner... But that doesn't mean there isn't a net payoff at all for your efforts. People who go tradition always are either lazy (which is fine, you don't need liberty's payoff to win, tall tradition SV is mostly hitting the next turn button after the first 100 turns, it's formulaic, divorced from the AI, and easy if you have a good start. so why bother with anything else) or not good enough with wide mechanics to see any payoff (or they fail at the setup).

 

[Cromagnus]

Well, the current g-minor HOF game is a perfect opportunity to test this theory. It's a King map, so you'll have plenty of room to expand, won't get beaten to whichever wonders you want, etc. etc.

In other words, if you really believe in 8-10 city liberty science, participate in this HOF game. There will surely be many entries where people opened with 3-5 cities Tradition, so here's your chance to best them. All risk is taken out of the equation because you can replay as many times as you want to get a better score, but that should actually benefit Wide, because conditions that make wide viable (like say 8 good observatory spots...) are rare.

At the very least, it would be an opportunity to demonstrate the strategy you are such a strong proponent of.

 

[kb27787]

Well, the current g-minor HOF game is a perfect opportunity to test this theory. It's a King map, so you'll have plenty of room to expand, won't get beaten to whichever wonders you want, etc. etc.

In other words, if you really believe in 8-10 city liberty science, participate in this HOF game. There will surely be many entries where people opened with 3-5 cities Tradition, so here's your chance to best them. All risk is taken out of the equation because you can replay as many times as you want to get a better score, but that should actually benefit Wide, because conditions that make wide viable (like say 8 good observatory spots...) are rare.

At the very least, it would be an opportunity to demonstrate the strategy you are such a strong proponent of.

I don't think King is a good difficulty to measure such things
If anything else, it prevents one of liberty's greatest drawbacks: happiness... there's no way anyone's taking any ideology pressure from AI on King...

 

[Cromagnus]

I believe he will still be hard-pressed to post a competitive time with 8-10 cities simply because of the science penalty. Late cities won't contribute much, and the happiness issues will still be there if he tries to expand before Ideology. And I'd like to see this played out. With screenshots at various times. The best way to convince people something works is to demonstrate it. Even if King makes it easier, I'd like to see it.

 

[adwcta]

I haven't play king since.... I don't even remember how long. Can you post a link to the game and rules for his stuff?

I'm sure I won't hit 250 on king, since everything is much slower... RA's, trade routes stealing techs, etc.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[tommynt]

I'm sure I won't hit 250 on king, since everything is much slower... RA's, trade routes stealing techs, etc.

doesnt matter when u compare yourself to others.

Apart that its 100% not true that winning times are slower on lower lvls, had one of my fastest science finish times on chieftain.

 

[adwcta]

Apart that its 100% not true that winning times are slower on lower lvls, had one of my fastest science finish times on chieftain.

In BNW post-fall patch? 0_0

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Cromagnus]

In BNW post-fall patch? 0_0

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Yep. It was under t190 if I recall. Pretty impressive. I had a pretty decent science game on that Chieftain challenge too. t22x, not bad for no RAs.

But, I just noticed this challenge is quick speed... so timings like t200 don't mean much.

I have no mental map for quick. So hard for me to not get confused and think I'm doing better than I am.

Here's the link - Rules are linked from the post. Read them carefully or risk having your submission rejected. Reloading turns is disallowed, etc. etc.

And don't forget it's Quick. I just wasted a game on Standard speed.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13069025#post13069025

 

[Memoryjar]

And don't forget it's Quick. I just wasted a game on Standard speed.

Me too, and shuffle is a pain.

I don't think it's the good way to try Science liberty. Quick game or not same as normal, moreover on standard map. Production ratio give a different building queue. Everything is faster. Some things useful on Normal are useless on quick.
You must take care about barbs. Tiles looted are really an encumbrance. And in King, there's always barbs.
Also King means less gold and early science (except liberty finisher which helps a lot).

Liberty Science are useless for Korea and Babylon. I think, the most hurting thing are not happiness or science penalty, but increment for GS. You have no profit to build 7 to 10universities and others.

With Babylon, in this minor gauntlet, I had so many GS (science funding on), I didn't need to finish Rationalism or take spaceship pioneers. 4 tall cities. Around 10 GS to bulb after Plastics.

 

[adwcta]

Quick speed is 67% cost I think, so the game should go 50% faster, so the win was the equivalent of a turn 285 standard win... which would not be impressive at all from a turn time perspective.

I'm not sure why tommy threw that in there like its relevant (esp without disclaiming the game speed... when the claim was about... speed).

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Cromagnus]

Quick speed is 67% cost I think, so the game should go 50% faster, so the win was the equivalent of a turn 285 standard win... which would not be impressive at all from a turn time perspective.

I'm not sure why tommy threw that in there like its relevant (esp without disclaiming the game speed... when the claim was about... speed).

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

No, the current HoF game is quick. Tommy's win was 190 on standard. Sorry for confusing the issue. I just meant that the whole discussion of a t250 win is moot. But if your math is right, then t166 is a good time. I think that is right. T90 on quick is 500 AD. T135 on Standard is 500 AD if I recall. So a good target for education would be t66? I think quick might slow things down because of scouting delays though, so I'm guessing a t126 win ain't gonna happen...

 

[GhostSalsa]

I don't think King is a good difficulty to measure such things
If anything else, it prevents one of liberty's greatest drawbacks: happiness... there's no way anyone's taking any ideology pressure from AI on King...

And exacerbates a lot of others. No early gold from AI when wide-Liberty empires are flat broke. Even less profit from war - if you want to steal Notre Dame, too bad, no AIs have conquered each other so there's no way for you to game diplomacy and get away with warmongering. Of course it's easier to build wonders yourself - but at less efficiency than a Tradition empire would. Playing on King/Emperor feels like starting in a desert. That doesn't prevent the BNW AI from running away sometimes - after all why shouldn't it when it still has growth and production bonuses - so you can get lulled into failure.

It's actually an interesting debate, which difficulty level is the true test of a strategy. Deity play just hands you virtually free workers, science, gold - how is that different from selecting Legendary start? I don't think the game presents an answer. Most strategies only apply completely to one difficulty.

 

[adwcta]

No, the current HoF game is quick. Tommy's win was 190 on standard. Sorry for confusing the issue.

That's impressive, and I can't do that, even with tradition. My best tradition time is 220. My best liberty time is 240. My average finishing time is also about 20 turns apart for the two trees. But, that means there's significant overlap there.

All vanity and style points though (and as far as those are concerned, I consider Piety opener much more stylish than Tradition finishing 100 turns earlier). A science win is a science win.

 

[Justice1337]

2 mercantile CSs. 10 happiness each, 16 min. Colosseums and circuses priority, +5 for national wonder. You start with 7 and a bonus lux resource (the one that's everywhere around you), so that's 32 happiness at city cost of 2 base, once reduced by Colosseums, not counting luxuries. Assume one unique lux per 2 cities, that's your per city cost right there, with an extra 2 pop per due to religion and liberty. So, you have 32 extra pop to distribute (plus 2 per circus) beyond 2 pop per city. That's more than enough for medieval / classical.

So, the real answer is... As many as you have room for, at an approx clip of 1 every 10-12 turns after liberty's free settler.

Happiness is not the problem. Space and science are your problems. Still, you can expand to 8-10 without being too hurt by those.

Be careful when saying that Happiness is available that you don't suggest that Happiness is unlimited, or free.

Sure, there always seem to be things that give more happy. You can trade for luxuries you don't have, ally Mercantile CS's, and build buildings. But at some point, there's not a single luxury you don't have, and you're either allied with all Mercantiles or kept from being allies. Where are you in the game where that happens, and what do you do at that point? Have you ever been in a spot where you wanted to conquer or annex a city, but couldn't because of Happy? Have you ever straight out bailed on a game or bailed on your Ideology because of Happy? When tall Tradition gets into these spots, the ways to get more Happy at this point are very soft and easy. Trade your lux for another lux instead of Gold this time around. Build the Colosseum that you haven't built until now. Wide-Liberty's means of increasing happiness here are very rigid and expensive. Pay GPT out of a broke empire for the luxes you don't have. Build a Zoo/Stadium. Given the admitted higher Happiness overhead of wide play, the questions isn't whether you can get more, it's how much you can get, what you have to pay to get it, and whether what you're getting in return is worth it. Those costs you are paying to get more Happy are costs you can't be paying to get other things. And the game might even dry up on you if you neglected your culture.


One thing I see all the time in LP's is that a player will expand to their 5th city or so around T80, then start building Colosseums, either there or elsewhere in the empire, to keep Happy up. They'll build Granaries on top of that too. So basically, the opening BO of these cities is Monument to counteract the SP penalty and because you're not Trad, then Granary to offset the tech penalty, then Colosseums to keep Happy up to offset that penalty. The input to output analysis of this city is just bizarre. People expand then spend 50 turns counteracting the effects of expansion. This is the kind of thing that people will scratch their heads at. There are long term reasons to expand, of course, but also there should be an immediate benefit to each decision, and the long-term benefits will come as an aggregate of these short term gains. There are times early where expanding is actually a net gain on Science and even on Happy. That's when wide expands. But sprawling out late just to get more tiles is something that hurts your empire in certain metrics. It helps in others, but what one camp is saying is that those it hurts are more important.

 

[adwcta]

Happiness is essentially unlimited once ideology hits... assuming your cities are small. ~5.25 pop (4 per city from ideology, 4 from buildings, 1.25 from liberty). You're only limited until then. Anything else comes off of your total extra happiness pool. So, that's why that 32 pop buffer is important to manage mid game, and this grows somewhat late game as you have more access to happiness (stadiums, which are awful, but available, and a little extra from CSs beyond your first two, international games, eifel, etc).

Of course, there is always cost. My post was specifically addressing another poster's problems with spreading 8-10 cities wide by midgame. That should not be an issue ultimately for happy, science, or gold (you just time shift those things from midgame to late game). You'll actually have significant net gains when calculated in the aggregate.

You should never settle a city post-turn 200 except for purely strategic purposes (anything after 150 is iffy). You should never take over or accept a city in a peace deal with expect resistance time past turn 250, except for the same considerations (and only the good ones past turn 200). On a 300 turn metric. Of course, science and growth are meaningless for conquest victories after a certain point anyway.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk