Well yeah, it's hard to relate the Domination VC to actual empire performance. You're winning out of a combination of tons of space on your side versus AI's who are being hurt directly by what you're doing.
So, the reason for Liberty isn't because it's good at surviving and keeping pace. The reason for Liberty in win-or-go-home Domination games is because after conquering a high city count at great sacrifice to your capital pop, that low population in a high number of cities is right in Meritocracy's sweet spot. So it ends up being good for keeping rebellions from happening and getting a lower turn time in a game you've already won.
Tradition, on the other hand, is good for surviving on Deity and higher difficulties in any number of bad situations that the AI can foist on you. The old "what amounts to skill?" debate. Getting a lower turn time for Domination? Or being able to win any game from any start as any civ? HoF suggests one playstyle, but on the other hand, there are three times as many Let's Play videos out there, all under the idea of being able to win any given game. Most of them go Tradition.
Most people play Tradition because it's easier to manage, easier to learn, easier to wrap your head around how to use it right. Liberty shines when you play aggressively. I don't mean warmongering. I mean pushing the pace. I mean 4 cities with enough CBs to defend yourself on Deity or in multiplayer, early, with a fast NC and a free great person that will boost me in the early game ahead of my opposition, no matter how I choose to use it. Is it as good at record SV finish times? No, clearly not. But the only weakness Liberty has is the science penalty. Otherwise you could easily keep pace in tech for SV. But it has so many other strengths. Tradition isn't inferior, that's not what I'm saying. Liberty is *safer*. People wear Tradition like a security blanket, when in fact Liberty leads to more survivable starts.
The idea that you can win more reliably with Tradition is a joke, unless you're a relative beginner at Civ. Tradition does require less planning, less optimal play to use effectively, I'll give you that. But, conversely, if you ARE good, Liberty specifically shines at surviving the bumps in the road of the early game. And the way Deity works right now, that's the only hard part of the game. I see so many people saying they got overrun by Shaka. Never, ever, ever happens to me when I play Liberty. I have cities out and defenders up and I smack that fool around if he comes my way. Yes, my science victory won't be *as optimal*, but I also didn't lose on t60. Grats on the re-roll.
Whatever, it's a time-honored debate. I exclusively played Tradition (and won on Deity with it) until I got bored of it. I know how to use Tradition. Now I also know how to use Liberty. What I sense from most of the pro-Tradition posts is people who tried Liberty, struggled with it (like I did) and went back to Tradition, deciding it was better, instead of figuring it out. (like I did)
Bottom line: If you threw me in a map with no idea what map type it was, who my opponents were, what my own civ was, whether raging barbs was turned on, etc. etc. and told me to choose, I would *always* choose Liberty in that situation, because it IS better at surviving ANY start, map, opponents or difficulty. If you know how to use it. Just my two cents, and I still regularly play Tradition, FYI. It's not like I'm in one camp. I just recognize that they're both equally valid. Yes, going wide is nerfed, but Liberty is still very strong. It's not all about Domination. Liberty is better at self-defense in the early game.
In fact, it's better, period, at getting an army up, whether your goal is offense or defense. While you're building settlers, I'm killing barbarians, because I have more production and the settler discount frees me up to build about 4 archers instead. That's how you survive a tough start. Can you do it with Tradition? Sure. You can get both an army AND cities up fast with Honor and Piety too. It's just easier with Liberty.
