Liberty is very hard...

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Growth suffers from expontially increase which makes it very very costly to grow cities large, paying hundreds of food for pop means hundreds of production or gold lost.

Having few cities means less focus on one kind of speciallist, 10 cities can gain alot more Great Scientist for example then 4 cities if you want to do so.

Some Buildings like the temple have static yield not depending on how much the city produce so having more cities allows you to get more of these if you want to.

Taking up more land means weaker ai.

 

[casualplayer]

If I want to be building something else when I otherwise would have been building a Settler and 1-3 Workers, Liberty looks tempting. When I want to fire off a Golden Age early, Liberty looks tempting. When I'm settling closely enough that I will have all my cities trade route connected, Liberty looks tempting. When I want a Great Person of choice to push me along towards my win condition choice, Liberty looks tempting.

Liberty is not the grow Tall and grind Beakers per Turn policy tree. If you try to make it work that way, you'll be disappointed.

 

[Cromagnus]

EXACTLY. On immortal and below, this is the strat to go for; get that NC done and over with and your cap around 10 pop, THEN, only then do you expand (and about this time your empire is rather more secure; and if you have to hard build settlers, you do it in 2-4 turns rather than 7-10)

On deity this sometimes results in not having any spot left over to expand, which is the main drawback of tradition (however if terrain allows you to block settlers; you have an isolated spot which only you can access, tradition is clearly better); that's why I love civs like Polynesia or Austria who can "expand" in spots no other AI can reach (although I'm not that fond of Venice)

Exactly? EXACTLY?? What he just said is madness... and you're agreeing?

He said to wait until t80 to plant cities on Deity, and that building them sooner is a sure sign someone is doing it wrong ... Let me be frank. I don't buy that he actually plays on Deity, because that is completely wrong and backwards. If you want to guarantee failure, sure. And to suggest building scout granary NC and only then troops?? You're going to get overrun every time doing that. Surreal conversation. You MUST get at least one settler out before NC if you want to have a chance... And realistically to secure 4 good TALL city spots, you need the other settlers out, ready to plant. Otherwise you'll have nowhere to expand. I dunno lol. Crazy.

 

[kb27787]

Exactly? EXACTLY?? What he just said is madness... and you're agreeing?

He said to wait until t80 to plant cities on Deity, and that building them sooner is a sure sign someone is doing it wrong ... Let me be frank. I don't buy that he actually plays on Deity, because that is completely wrong and backwards. If you want to guarantee failure, sure. And to suggest building scout granary NC and only then troops?? You're going to get overrun every time doing that. Surreal conversation. You MUST get at least one settler out before NC if you want to have a chance... And realistically to secure 4 good TALL city spots, you need the other settlers out, ready to plant. Otherwise you'll have nowhere to expand. I dunno lol. Crazy.

if you read my post, you'll notice the first sentence said "on immortal and below"

On deity, sometimes the AI forces my hand, sometimes they don't. (scout optional shrine/granary optional archer/caravan/library... archers/settlers/workers/water mill/stone works whatever all depending on the game here, then NC then chariots/archers/CB to finalize and secure your position is a normal build..., or Oracle, if things look safe); I sometimes get settlers out before NC and then plant them after NC finishes (but if you somehow anticipate your gold is going to hit 500 during that window, then why bother hard building one? Same with terrain; if you have a spot AI can't/won't reach, why bother settling it prematurely?

Let there be no confusion: a rapid expansion that is not well defended and delays your NC/happiness is not strong, but weak. Sometimes one expansion causes you trouble for the rest of the entire game by starting a chain of diplomatic events. In the same way, letting certain AIs expand into certain positions (esp if they block you from a warmonger) may be worth more hammers and red faces than you realize.

You don't NEED 4 tall cities (you win quicker with 4 but ideology time if something goes wrong it is much harder to fix than 3); I've been getting by with 3 for 50% of my games. If I'm settling a 4th, that city had damn well be worth it (multiple luxes + food + safe position). I've won deity CV and SV even with 2 cities before...

 

[hai 1]

I do not get how this 'ignoring units' nonsense is somehow made legitimate by tradition. If anything, that strategy might be made less awful by grabbing republic for some free hammers for all the buildings you are squeezing in your capital before NC, and citizenship for a free worker so you are not working otherwise unimproved tiles.

To play devil's advocate, maybe something like this could work for Rome, followed immediately by rapid expansion with collective rule once NC is finished? You would be getting the extra hammers out of the UA for all the early buildings in expos. Still, this would not change the fact that on diety it would be highly unlikely very much room for expansion would be left.

Anyway, I have to agree with Cromagnus. It seems kinda crazy.

 

[adwcta]

Exactly? EXACTLY?? What he just said is madness... and you're agreeing?

He said to wait until t80 to plant cities on Deity, and that building them sooner is a sure sign someone is doing it wrong ... Let me be frank. I don't buy that he actually plays on Deity, because that is completely wrong and backwards. If you want to guarantee failure, sure. And to suggest building scout granary NC and only then troops?? You're going to get overrun every time doing that. Surreal conversation. You MUST get at least one settler out before NC if you want to have a chance... And realistically to secure 4 good TALL city spots, you need the other settlers out, ready to plant. Otherwise you'll have nowhere to expand. I dunno lol. Crazy.

Yeah, Justice. Turn 80 is really slow even for Tradition. And I think the vast majority of tradition players in BNW hard build their first settler before turn 50 (your food is very inefficient pre-aqueducts + food routes, so early pop is not terribly important for tradition, I usually hard build two settlers before my 4th policy when going tradition). On more than half the maps, if you gold-buy all of your 3 settlers, you won't actually have enough space to get 2.5 rings on each city... which is kind of necessary for Tradition. You really have space for 3 more cities if you don't check the AI on Deity before turn 80? I find I need at least one city to "block" the AI's expansion routes, usually two. Otherwise, you end up with only 2-3 good cities. Not that that's unplayable, but I doubt it's optimal.

That being said, Cro, you don't get overrun by playing NC first. I don't know what the heck all of you guys are doing getting DOW-ed randomly. Granted, I only rarely play Pangaea, and mostly play land-water balanced maps, but Fractal isn't THAT different imo. Maybe your comments are a Pangaea only comment that's not applicable to other maps? (Honestly, even in the 5 Pangaea games I've played, which include starts with Tradition/Liberty/Piety I was never DoW-ed). I also at MOST build two archers for tradition starts (usually just one). You're always fine defense wise if you actually do diplomacy with the AI.

 

[Cromagnus]

Yeah, Justice. Turn 80 is really slow even for Tradition. And I think the vast majority of tradition players in BNW hard build their first settler before turn 50 (your food is very inefficient pre-aqueducts + food routes, so early pop is not terribly important for tradition, I usually hard build two settlers before my 4th policy when going tradition). On more than half the maps, if you gold-buy all of your 3 settlers, you won't actually have enough space to get 2.5 rings on each city... which is kind of necessary for Tradition. You really have space for 3 more cities if you don't check the AI on Deity before turn 80? I find I need at least one city to "block" the AI's expansion routes, usually two. Otherwise, you end up with only 2-3 good cities. Not that that's unplayable, but I doubt it's optimal.

That being said, Cro, you don't get overrun by playing NC first. I don't know what the heck all of you guys are doing getting DOW-ed randomly. Granted, I only rarely play Pangaea, and mostly play land-water balanced maps, but Fractal isn't THAT different imo. Maybe your comments are a Pangaea only comment that's not applicable to other maps? (Honestly, even in the 5 Pangaea games I've played, which include starts with Tradition/Liberty/Piety I was never DoW-ed). I also at MOST build two archers for tradition starts (usually just one). You're always fine defense wise if you actually do diplomacy with the AI.

Ever since the fall patch, the AI is much more aggressive about early DoW due to unit threshold, and they're better about spending money, so they have more units early. If you have no units and they have lots, Bismarck, Shaka, Monte, etc. are guaranteed to DoW you.

kb - Sorry, the EXACTLY confused me. He was talking about Deity, I believe. Anyway, yes, you *can* win with only 2 cities on Deity. You can win via OCC in extreme cases. But 3-5 is much more reliable. And getting space for those cities, with unique luxuries, and in good spots in general, is tough if you build NC first, because by turn 50 the good spots are often gone. So, unless you're pulling off a freakishly early NC, I think you've got rough times ahead. Now, *can* you win in those circumstances? Maybe. But, it's so much more reliable, and *therefore a better strategy* to get your cities out fast, which in turn means you need units, because someone might get mad. And that's where Liberty comes in.

When I play Tradition, I usually start building my first settler between t28-32, based on when I hit 4 or 5 population. I try to have 3 archers by then, including 1 rush-bought. Those go do quests. Then after my second city is planted, I decide whether I'm doing 2-city NC. If I'm *not*, I build one more settler, then an archer, and try to rush-buy the last settler with trade gold. So, yeah, I'm only building two, if gold is going well. If I AM doing 2-city NC, I'll often build a settler in my second city, if the dirt is right. Either way, I'm rushing out settlers, even if they're going to stand there while they wait for NC to finish. And I save gold for an emergency library just in case I'm forced to plant because of an incoming AI settler. Point is, Deity is much more survivable if you build cities aggressively and units to defend them. People seem to think it's the opposite, that doing this pisses off the AI and is therefore risky. /shrug

 

[kb27787]

get your cities out fast, which in turn means you need units, because someone might get mad. And that's where Liberty comes in.

Point is, Deity is much more survivable if you build cities aggressively and units to defend them. People seem to think it's the opposite, that doing this pisses off the AI and is therefore risky. /shrug

eh why don't we just avoid pissing them off altogether? If someone DoWs me I'd rather have my units in a nice little clump defending one high pop city (with lots of damage) than spread out defending little satellites.

Building cities aggressively rules out a lot of possibilities endgame (including making AIs hate each other, etc.) Even when I expand early, I make it a rule not to settle near someone in such a way that they are able to just walk up and attack it. (need coast, mountain, lakes, obstacles of some kind)

Option 1: You get Shaka 12 tiles away... you open liberty and dump a settler 5 tiles from his borders, a nice flood plains with cotton and Cerro di Potossi... you just can't resist... (then that city cost you 1000 hammers all game defending it and was under fire from ancient to atomic age; eventually your hand was forced and you took their cities... you are now a warmonger and get embargoed in the WC, you then have no choice but to proceed to sink the world into a dark age)....

Which is fine if that style suits you... but

Option 2: You see Monty to the north... you stay put on just your cap, getting archers and chariots and keeping close watch while that NC builds... you even try to funnel his settlers with your scouts in between you two; Monty is happy to grab that nice little piece of land with his cheeky settler.
You did not have to deal with Shaka or Monty for the rest of the game, they both send you trade routes because you are the only neighbor left. You sit behind a wall of units comfortably and expand somewhere else safer when the time is right while they are distracted. Your people are happy and your capitol becomes the shining jewel of the continent.

 

[adwcta]

Ever since the fall patch, the AI is much more aggressive about early DoW due to unit threshold, and they're better about spending money, so they have more units early. If you have no units and they have lots, Bismarck, Shaka, Monte, etc. are guaranteed to DoW you.

Nope, they're guaranteed to DoW SOMEONE. It's your fault if it's you (unless you happen to be the only civ they're close to, which is a super-rare spawn... because they expand so aggressively they'll almost always have multiple borders).

And, they're not really guaranteed to DoW anyone early in the first place. Bismark is actually not terribly aggressive compared to other warmongers. Each leader has a roll for a balance of this type of stuff. The only 2 you have to worry about 100% of the time are Atilla and Shaka. Other leaders are only "prone" to be spawned aggressively, but the actual %s are different for each. I can get into the exactly %s, but that'll take up a ton of space and time.

Anyway, what's the % chance you get a random start where you're next to one of two civs, or another aggressive civ that happens to get an aggressive roll, and they don't have another neighbor? It's less than 5%. The rest is human error (assuming not being DoW-ed is your goal).

And yes, when it's between you and the other neighbor, you CAN do things to maintain the peace. Having an army is only one way (and on Deity early, it's the least effective way unless you're planning a counterattack follow up). I've played a dozen peaceful games on deity since the fall patch and was only DoW-ed once.

 

[Thorak]

When I play Tradition, I usually start building my first settler between t28-32, based on when I hit 4 or 5 population. I try to have 3 archers by then, including 1 rush-bought. Those go do quests. Then after my second city is planted, I decide whether I'm doing 2-city NC. If I'm *not*, I build one more settler, then an archer, and try to rush-buy the last settler with trade gold. So, yeah, I'm only building two, if gold is going well. If I AM doing 2-city NC, I'll often build a settler in my second city, if the dirt is right. Either way, I'm rushing out settlers, even if they're going to stand there while they wait for NC to finish. And I save gold for an emergency library just in case I'm forced to plant because of an incoming AI settler. Point is, Deity is much more survivable if you build cities aggressively and units to defend them. People seem to think it's the opposite, that doing this pisses off the AI and is therefore risky. /shrug

I think this is an incorrect way to play tradition, but I guess it's up to personal style. I usually steal workers as early as I can, delaying scouting if I have to and trade away luxuries to the AI (delaying getting NC if it measn I have to tech resource techs like trapping and so on). This means I will usually be able to buy my first settler around turn 35 or so in a good start if I can get a DoF. Then I usually buy another settler and once the third city is planted I buy library in my third city and build it in my second if it has enough production. (An alternative here would be to skip buying the library in the third city and buy a third settler instead and hard build libraries. I will try this next time I go for trad). This means I will have 3 cities up at NC time and liberty will actually not get 3 cities up quicker than this. The 4 city is usually up earlier for liberty though but the NC a lot later since I usually build oracle before NC if I go liberty.

Anyway, I will try out Maya with a tradition opening once I completed my Maya liberty opening and compare the 2 to see which one gets a science win quicker.

Keep in mind though that I play with raging barbs and low water level on pangea which gives a LOT more room to expand (in my current game I have 8 cities now with room to expand more but my happiness limits my growth). Just declared war against Brazil to be able to take his cities though. Portugal has 11 cities and The huns has 12 cities.

 

[direblade99]

I love watching all the obscenely good players and adwcta argue these points together :') From a relatively nooby point of view it's like whaaat?

 

[Memoryjar]

On Deity, don't expand before NC let you with few space.
On Emperor and Immortal, don't expand before NC ensure you crappy slots.
AI calculate how too ennoy you, not to win. So

 

[Thorak]

At turn 156. Over 400 beakers per turn IF I am happy. However, I have 10 cities with most of them being in the range 10-13 in size (including my capital which is insanely weak compared to a trad start). It seems like I overexpanded however, even with notre dame, forbidden palace and all city states which gives me happiness I am at a negative happiness. Also AI:s declared war on me which caused my gold income to drop dramatically.

And I still haven't finished industrialization. I think raging barbarians combined with low water level might have slowed down the AI too much as I haven't been able to steal any techs from it at all because I am ahead of them in research (never been ahead of the deity AI in techs this early before).

I am starting to feel that collective rule is not worth the 3 policies and instead it might be better to finish tradition as quickly as possible to grab the free aqueduct and stay at 4 cities.

 

[direblade99]

At turn 156. Over 400 beakers per turn IF I am happy. However, I have 10 cities with most of them being in the range 10-13 in size (including my capital which is insanely weak compared to a trad start). It seems like I overexpanded however, even with notre dame, forbidden palace and all city states which gives me happiness I am at a negative happiness. Also AI:s declared war on me which caused my gold income to drop dramatically.

And I still haven't finished industrialization. I think raging barbarians combined with low water level might have slowed down the AI too much as I haven't been able to steal any techs from it at all because I am ahead of them in research (never been ahead of the deity AI in techs this early before).

I am starting to feel that collective rule is not worth the 3 policies and instead it might be better to finish tradition as quickly as possible to grab the free aqueduct and stay at 4 cities.

I can get that same bpt at the same time using 4 cities tradition (assuming average start) and not have to worry about the AI's as much nor the extra science cost with all those cities or happiness problems or gold problems.

Edit: Still thwarted by run on sentences though.

 

[Cromagnus]

I think this is an incorrect way to play tradition, but I guess it's up to personal style. I usually steal workers as early as I can, delaying scouting if I have to and trade away luxuries to the AI (delaying getting NC if it measn I have to tech resource techs like trapping and so on). This means I will usually be able to buy my first settler around turn 35 or so in a good start if I can get a DoF. Then I usually buy another settler and once the third city is planted I buy library in my third city and build it in my second if it has enough production. (An alternative here would be to skip buying the library in the third city and buy a third settler instead and hard build libraries. I will try this next time I go for trad). This means I will have 3 cities up at NC time and liberty will actually not get 3 cities up quicker than this. The 4 city is usually up earlier for liberty though but the NC a lot later since I usually build oracle before NC if I go liberty.

Anyway, I will try out Maya with a tradition opening once I completed my Maya liberty opening and compare the 2 to see which one gets a science win quicker.

Keep in mind though that I play with raging barbs and low water level on pangea which gives a LOT more room to expand (in my current game I have 8 cities now with room to expand more but my happiness limits my growth). Just declared war against Brazil to be able to take his cities though. Portugal has 11 cities and The huns has 12 cities.

It's not incorrect... I play deity almost exclusively, and my goal is almost always to set a personal speed record, because I can win on Deity 100% of the time if I play it safe. What I posted is my compromise between playing it safe and winning fast. It's quite simple:

1) you can always win on deity if you focus on science, no matter how bad your start, unless you get dow'd early
2) the best defense against early DoW is not being 8th in military. The AI will almost never attack if you're 6th or higher.
3) once you survive the game and get universities, you will eventually outpace the AI because they go wide and don't fill specialist slots
4) once you outpace them you win. Period.

I'd like to hear arguments as to why this isn't the most survivable tradition opening but /shrug

 

[Thorak]

I can get that same bpt at the same time using 4 cities tradition (assuming average start) and not have to worry about the AI's as much nor the extra science cost with all those cities or happiness problems or gold problems.

Edit: Still thwarted by run on sentences though.

Well, yeah I agree, I have had quicker science games using tradition openings. I could possibly outgrow a trad opening though since I have more cities, the problem is that happiness is limiting my growth, but I guess it would be fixed once I get an ideology.

But I am starting to lean towards tradition as it is probably easier to use 4 strong cities and if there is a need for more cities after that, then steal it from the AI as it will give developed cities that I don't have to take care of when they are weak. Also, if aiming to get gold early using trad, then liberty will not get 4 cities up much faster than tradition depending on luck and how many culture ruins you find.

The big problem with collective rule though is that it gives no happiness and while you build the settlers your cap won't grow. If you simply buy the settlers it will not hinder your cap growth at all.

For longer games (i.e non domination games), I am starting to lean more and more towards tradition. I will try a tradition opening and compare the results with this one with a science victory in mind.

 

[kb27787]

It's not incorrect... I play deity almost exclusively, and my goal is almost always to set a personal speed record, because I can win on Deity 100% of the time if I play it safe. What I posted is my compromise between playing it safe and winning fast.

In other words, you make life harder for yourself just to win faster no? In that case, one could argue that INDEED, liberty is harder than tradition (which is kinda the OP's point). The same way 4 cities often wins faster than 3 cities, but makes the win much harder under certain circumstances in my opinion come ideology time.

(now as to why some people think it's not the best opening... I just think... well, try playing for peaceful (or even not so peaceful) CV where diplomacy with everyone is really important and you can't go wild on WC and you pick freedom instead of order, and tell me how that kind of aggressive-expansion opening works out for you as opposed to tradition...)

 

[Thorak]

It's not incorrect... I play deity almost exclusively, and my goal is almost always to set a personal speed record, because I can win on Deity 100% of the time if I play it safe. What I posted is my compromise between playing it safe and winning fast. It's quite simple:

1) you can always win on deity if you focus on science, no matter how bad your start, unless you get dow'd early
2) the best defense against early DoW is not being 8th in military. The AI will almost never attack if you're 6th or higher.
3) once you survive the game and get universities, you will eventually outpace the AI because they go wide and don't fill specialist slots
4) once you outpace them you win. Period.

I'd like to hear arguments as to why this isn't the most survivable tradition opening but /shrug

"Incorrect" is probably the wrong word, inefficient would probably have been a better choice. I think building settlers when going tradition is a bad idea altogether. Instead of rushbuying archers, I feel it's a much better idea to build the archer and rush buy settler to avoid hindering capital growth. This way as I said, will get you settlers at roughly the same pace as liberty but you will not have as much gold early on but a bigger capital.

But yeah, beating the AI on deity is fairly simple. I'm not playing to beat the AI though (as the AI is kind of a joke anyway), I am playing to beat my own winning times, and this requires me to reroll until I get a good start, otherwise I won't beat my record.

Still, buying settlers will give much more control as it is instant and you won't risk the AI building a city the turn before your settler finishes.

 

[GhostSalsa]

* You'll get more money from Tradition, but you'll get at least one free worker from Liberty fairly early on, and a golden age to boost money, production AND culture.

Ha! Come on, I'm sure you know the Liberty Golden Age timing is a complete rip-off. On a pure Liberty open, the compulsory Golden Age comes when an aggressive expansionist is still only working about 8 gold-producing tiles - and way too early for the production or culture boosts to be significant. And, usually delays the Liberty empire's next natural golden age until Industrial. It's a huge huge loss of money, production, and culture that Liberty empires don't get to prompt their first Golden Age naturally in what would normally be Medi-Renn, given Liberty happiness levels.

Tradition typically naturally prompts a golden age at about 10 turns after a pure Liberty start and gets more out of it, as well as naturally prompting their next one much sooner.

The Liberty free Great Person is also a bit of a rip-off, for the same reason - nothing good to do with a great engineer at liberty finish time. I increasingly use it for Admiral since AI on continent one never settle their duplicate luxes anymore (not always, just in more cases).

Blended Liberty opens can delay the Golden Age and GPerson into Medieval which is a lot more ideal but by then throwing policies at Liberty has lower return in general.

But, conversely, if you ARE good, Liberty specifically shines at surviving the bumps in the road of the early game.

I agree. Tradition has those once-in-a-while flame-out games where your starting location just wasn't good enough to build a super capital. Liberty is much more flexible with overcoming bad terrain or capricious AI. However if the player tries to leverage those strengths into aggressive expansion then the liberty game can get tanked too. Liberty progress is so dependent on City State friendships mid-game that DOWs on higher difficulties almost always flip you into unhappy. Liberty might not lose a city but you still totally screw up your cities' build-orders into the modern era when you're forced to hack out colosseums and crossbows on turn 120.

True, when your start is hammer poor when doing tradition, you are screwed. Good luck with those jungle starts.

I actually did a recent comparison of jungle starts on two Immortal games, tradition (Aztecs) vs liberty (Shoshone), widish both times (6 and 7 cities), long river next to capital both times, snagged Sacred Path with ruins both times - specifically because I've had a lot of unspectacular liberty jungle games before. I "found" 2 workers in the Tradition game vs 3 in the Liberty. Yet my Tradition game's capital was done with river-farms and jungle tps and 10 pop higher by turn 200, and all my other cities were also better.

Both games hit unhappiness mid-game from over-settling but the Tradition one was just way better at overcoming jungle. Why? Tradition National Wonders don't take 20 turns, for one thing.

 

[direblade99]

Ha! Come on, I'm sure you know the Liberty Golden Age timing is a complete rip-off. On a pure Liberty open, the compulsory Golden Age comes when an aggressive expansionist is still only working about 8 gold-producing tiles - and way too early for the production or culture boosts to be significant. And, usually delays the Liberty empire's next natural golden age until Industrial. It's a huge huge loss of money, production, and culture that Liberty empires don't get to prompt their first Golden Age naturally in what would normally be Medi-Renn, given Liberty happiness levels.

Tradition typically naturally prompts a golden age at about 10 turns after a pure Liberty start and gets more out of it, as well as naturally prompting their next one much sooner.

The Liberty free Great Person is also a bit of a rip-off, for the same reason - nothing good to do with a great engineer at liberty finish time. I increasingly use it for Admiral since AI on continent one never settle their duplicate luxes anymore (not always, just in more cases).

Blended Liberty opens can delay the Golden Age and GPerson into Medieval which is a lot more ideal but by then throwing policies at Liberty has lower return in general.




I agree. Tradition has those once-in-a-while flame-out games where your starting location just wasn't good enough to build a super capital. Liberty is much more flexible with overcoming bad terrain or capricious AI. However if the player tries to leverage those strengths into aggressive expansion then the liberty game can get tanked too. Liberty progress is so dependent on City State friendships mid-game that DOWs on higher difficulties almost always flip you into unhappy. Liberty might not lose a city but you still totally screw up your cities' build-orders into the modern era when you're forced to hack out colosseums and crossbows on turn 120.




I actually did a recent comparison of jungle starts on two Immortal games, tradition (Aztecs) vs liberty (Shoshone), widish both times (6 and 7 cities), long river next to capital both times, snagged Sacred Path with ruins both times - specifically because I've had a lot of unspectacular liberty jungle games before. I "found" 2 workers in the Tradition game vs 3 in the Liberty. Yet my Tradition game's capital was done with river-farms and jungle tps and 10 pop higher by turn 200, and all my other cities were also better.

Both games hit unhappiness mid-game from over-settling but the Tradition one was just way better at overcoming jungle. Why? Tradition National Wonders don't take 20 turns, for one thing.

I don't disagree with the gist of your post but I think that comparing aztec growth to shoshone is a little unfair because the aztecs have the floating gardens for a lot of extra food, whilst the shoshone's benefit is for other things most of the time than growth. I think the most reliable test would be one with the same autosave start as the same civ but with different policies (trad/lib) respectively. That way all the controls are as similar as possible.