Opinions on Ancient Era Policy Choices

[crdvis16]

I wanted to make a post to generate discussion on how people decide which ancient era tree to use for their games. Looking at many of the photo journals or discussions in the forums I've seen a wide array of opinions and wanted to gather more of said opinions in one place. I'll lay out my philosophy on this and then others can tell me where I'm being stupid and put forth their own ideas. I figure healthy disagreement can potentially help people learn something new.

Tradition/Tall
Tradition is pretty obviously meant for tall play, IMO, and by 'tall' I mean settling few cities (3-5ish?) and planning to grow them to large populations, most importantly the capital. In order to grow tall you should have strong food/growth either through the terrain (tiles that can support farm triangles, especially freshwater ones) or through a civ's UA/UB/UI.

Tradition/tall is likely the best option if your civ has synergy/bonuses with working specialists. It also is likely the best option if your civ has synergy with building wonders, especially early wonders, as wonders are often built in a capital and tradition should best support a strong capital. Tradition/tall is also potentially the best option for civs with bonuses to growth simply by virtue of more easily solving the requirement of being able to grow tall and benefit from the extra specialist slots early on.

Civs that I would argue are most naturally tradition/tall:

America (it's UA is great for grabbing early wonders in a strong capital)
Arabia (synergy with birthing great people and building wonders)
Austria (synergy with birthing great people specifically in the capital)
Egypt (all about those wonders)
India (solves the growth problem by default so you can easily work all those extra specialists)
Korea (synergy with working specialists)

Obviously there are many others who could benefit from tradition/tall but these are the ones that I would argue are the most natural/obvious examples.

Progress/Wide
Progress is obviously meant for wide play, IMO, and by 'wide' I mean settling as many cities as possible/reasonable (6-10ish? Maybe more if room or opportunity allows?). In order to go wide you should have many suitable city locations and you need to solve the problem of increased tech/policy costs with each new settled city.

Progress/wide is likely the best option if your civ has synergy/bonuses with being able to make otherwise weak city locations strong, usually by virtue of their UI/UB/UA- this allows them to settle more cities that are a net positive. Progress/wide is also likely the best option for civs whose bonuses scale well with large numbers of cities or who have an easier time getting their secondary cities up to speed with infrastructure bonuses.

Civs that I would argue are most naturally progress/wide:

Carthage (free gold and lighthouses in new cities for rapidly making new cities stronger sooner)
China (a UA that scales well with more cities and a UB that makes new cities stronger sooner)
Indonesia (almost any location is a good one when you get 2 extra luxury tiles)
Morocco (almost any location is a good one when each city is surrounded by Kasbah)
Polynesia (almost any coastal/island location is a good one with Moai)
Shoshone (cities grab extra land to get to good tiles ASAP and a UI that also makes otherwise weak locations good)

Obviously there are many others who could benefit from progress/wide but these are the ones that I would argue are the most natural/obvious examples.

Authority/War
Authority is pretty obviously meant for war, IMO, and by 'war' I mean either conquering cities or killing enemy units. In order to focus on war you should have bonuses for conquering cities or killing enemy units through a UA/UB/UU and you also likely need to have barbarian camps or nearby CSs to feed on.

Authority/war is likely the best option if your civ has benefits from conquering cities or killing units or bonuses that make either activity easier. Authority/war is also likely the best option for civs with bonuses to having puppets.

Civs that I would argue are most naturally authority/war:

France/Japan (bonuses to make warfare easier and bonuses on taking cities or generating great general/admirals)
Greece (tons of culture as long as you're constantly killing units)
Rome (great at converting conquered cities into productive members of their empire and bonuses to killing units)
Sweden (lots of bonuses that just make warfare easier)
Aztec (bonuses for killing units and winning wars)
Zulu (lots of bonuses that just make warfare easier)

Obviously there are many others who could benefit from authority/war but these are the ones that I would argue are the most natural/obvious examples.

The civs that I did not list as natural/obvious examples are ones that I think have synergies with multiple play styles or who are somewhat generic and don't really lean toward any one play style. An example of a civ that I think has synergy to multiple play styles would be Portugal- their Feitoria can support wide because they make most coastal locations good but their trade route bonuses don't scale particularly well with more cities. An example of a civ that I see as somewhat generic that doesn't necessarily lean toward any one play style would be Poland- their bonuses don't really care that much about tall/wide/conquer as free social policies are just universally useful.

 

[pineappledan]

Single most obvious Progress civ is Iroquois, imo. Also surprised Babylon didn't get a mention.
I would argue Indonesia is equally viable as an authority civ. You get the free settler, and your UA gives the free luxuries on capture as well.

 

[Minh Le]

Lot of Civs can be played multiple ways and equally effective. For example, Rome can go Authority or Progress, both are good, China can do almost anything, I can play Tradition China which generate lots of great works, or Progress and settle as many cities as possible, or even Authority and raze the world for food and culture. Youre only limited by your imagination.

 

[CppMaster]

Denmark is strictly an Authority civ, obviously. I guess Assyria too.

 

[Minh Le]

I dont know about Assyria but Progress Denmark is quite strong

 

[YukiN]

Not a big fan of Tradition America. You are much more likely to be buying tiles with wide play while Tradition capitals mostly expand naturally. The bit of extra hammers early on does not justify tradition for wonder spamming in my opinion. Those hammers are better spent on Settlers.

 

[crdvis16]

Single most obvious Progress civ is Iroquois, imo. Also surprised Babylon didn't get a mention.
I would argue Indonesia is equally viable as an authority civ. You get the free settler, and your UA gives the free luxuries on capture as well.

Agreed on Iroquois, they should have been on the natural progress/wide list.

I'd also agree on Babylon as being best played progress/wide as stacking the building investment bonus with forbidden palace is really strong. The "+50% great scientist rate" part of the UA leans tradition/tall though (after you have some number of cities working scientist slots you just aren't going to spawn any extra scientists so it doesn't scale well with larger number of cities). So I didn't see Babylon as a 'pure' example of progress/wide I guess.

Are you sure Indonesia gets those bonuses luxes on conquered cities? The UA on the VP wiki specifically says "found". I haven't played Indonesia recently to know from experience. If it does work on conquered cities then I'd definitely agree that they are equally authority/war.

 

[crdvis16]

Lot of Civs can be played multiple ways and equally effective. For example, Rome can go Authority or Progress, both are good, China can do almost anything, I can play Tradition China which generate lots of great works, or Progress and settle as many cities as possible, or even Authority and raze the world for food and culture. Youre only limited by your imagination.

Very true. It's hard to nail down completely pure civs that only benefit from one play style. I think you're right that Rome and China are more mixed than I gave them credit for.

 

[infidel88]

Denmark is a rare case of obvious Authority -> Progress.

 

[CppMaster]

Imho ru

Not a big fan of Tradition America. You are much more likely to be buying tiles with wide play while Tradition capitals mostly expand naturally. The bit of extra hammers early on does not justify tradition for wonder spamming in my opinion. Those hammers are better spent on Settlers.

Unique Wonder is great for tourism.

 

[crdvis16]

Not a big fan of Tradition America. You are much more likely to be buying tiles with wide play while Tradition capitals mostly expand naturally. The bit of extra hammers early on does not justify tradition for wonder spamming in my opinion. Those hammers are better spent on Settlers.

Good points- I could see speeding the settler spam early being really helpful to get prime locations asap and get secondary cities up to speed faster.

I do think using the UA for early wonders has more potential, though. Some of those early wonders are really strong and can lead snowballing pretty easily.

But I'd concede that America isn't so purely tradition/tall as I claimed.

 

[crdvis16]

I dont know about Assyria but Progress Denmark is quite strong

I left Assyria out just because of their unique tie-in for great works of writing so I could see a Tradition start helping that aspect. I would personally play Assyria as authority though.

Denmark is weird to me because they very clearly want to war but only need to pillage in those wars. There isn't much in Authority that cares about pillaging, though, so I could see going progress and not worrying about killing units or taking cities as long as you can pillage like mad. The runestone UB is very wide friendly. They certainly have some bonuses that help warfare, though.

 

[chicorbeef]

I find that Tradition doesn't really need to grow its secondary cities large. They're better off focusing on Production/Gold. The only city you really want large is your capital.

 

[pineappledan]

Assyria - 70% authority, 30% tradition - early and fast GWs feed into the UA and UB, but the main focus is raw warmongering

Babylon - 70% progress, 30% tradition - the bonus to investment are simply better than increased GS rate. Maximizing gold generation and minimizing investment costs are the highest priority, more GPS is just gravy

Aztec - 60% authority, 40% tradition - Depending on your map, tradition can be very attractive for Aztecs. If you have a weak early civ that you can reliably pummel until golden ages fall out, then you can choose to focus on infrastructure and growth bonuses from tradition, rather than go full domination.

Rome - 50% progress, 50% authority - rome’s Bonuses on conquests and kills entirely depend on your ability to win wars. If you are confident in your ability to win wars without authority then progress is better, but if you can confidently pick progress you might be playing at too low a difficulty

Only pure civs I can think of:
Tradition: Korea and Arabia
Progress: Carthage and Iroquois
Authority: Mongolia, Denmark, Zulu, Huns

 

[crdvis16]

I find that Tradition doesn't really need to grow its secondary cities large. They're better off focusing on Production/Gold. The only city you really want large is your capital.

I'd agree with this. When I play tradition I tend to treat my secondary cities as their only purpose being to support the capital. They are there to offload production of units/caravans, provide defense, and secure a monopoly primarily. My capital should be producing the lion's share of yields and great people.

Assyria - 70% authority, 30% tradition - early and fast GWs feed into the UA and UB, but the main focus is raw warmongering

Agreed, the science from city capture is the thing to build around.

Babylon - 70% progress, 30% tradition - the bonus to investment are simply better than increased GS rate. Maximizing gold generation and minimizing investment costs are the highest priority, more GPS is just gravy

Agreed.

Aztec - 60% authority, 40% tradition - Depending on your map, tradition can be very attractive for Aztecs. If you have a weak early civ that you can reliably pummel until golden ages fall out, then you can choose to focus on infrastructure and growth bonuses from tradition, rather than go full domination.

I'd maybe lean them a bit more authority just because I think the yields on kill are their primary tool to build upon and that plays into authority more so.

Rome - 50% progress, 50% authority - rome’s Bonuses on conquests and kills entirely depend on your ability to win wars. If you are confident in your ability to win wars without authority then progress is better, but if you can confidently pick progress you might be playing at too low a difficulty

Agreed. I would hope authority is necessary to truly go on a conquering spree and agree that if it isn't necessary then the warfare is too easy.

Only pure civs I can think of:
Tradition: Korea and Arabia
Progress: Carthage and Iroquois
Authority: Mongolia, Denmark, Zulu, Huns

I think Denmark might be the only one I'd question as I can see the argument for progress.

 

[Minh Le]

I remember having a blast playing Authority Egypt and have most of ancien, classic wonders thanks to war chariot

 

[pineappledan]

I think Denmark might be the only one I'd question as I can see the argument for progress

there are no bonuses to pillaging, but authority is all bonuses to units. You get tribute with units, you get war weariness reduction for your units, you get science when your units kill, you get bonus CS for your units, you pay less unit maintenance.

Denmark’s UA and UB are also entirely devoted to bonuses from units, or actions your units can do. Denmark is obsessed with units, so authority compounds and fills in all the other ways that units can help your economy. Therefore, authority is the best pick, because it capitalized on what Denmark focuses on anyways:

Spoiler the secret to Denmark's power :

Units.

 

[crdvis16]

there are no bonuses to pillaging, but authority is all bonuses to units. You get tribute with units, you get war weariness reduction for your units, you get science when your units kill, you get bonus CS for your units, you pay less unit maintenance.

Denmark’s UA and UB are also entirely devoted to bonuses from units, or actions your units can do. Denmark is obsessed with units, so authority compounds and fills in all the other ways that units can help your economy. Therefore, authority is the best pick, because it capitalized on what Denmark focuses on anyways:

Spoiler the secret to Denmark's power :

Units.

I'd personally play them authority 100% of the time so I'd only be arguing on behalf of others on the merits of progress for them. I could see someone playing Denmark where they constantly raid their neighbors for pillaging using highly mobile units but don't go out of their way to capture cities or kill units, and in that case progress is probably better to play off of the runestone's culture/production. In that scenario you aren't really using the "gold from damage" promotion from their units if you're sort of avoiding directly fighting other units, though. But yeah, the last game I played as Denmark I went full-on warmonger and just dealt with having to repair all the pillaged tiles once I took a city.

One thing I don't remember from my game is if runestone procs that occur in puppets are subject to puppet yield reductions. If you get the full culture proc even in puppets then that's an even stronger case for authority over progress. If the runestone procs are reduced in puppets then it doesn't necessarily mean progress is better but it does mean you'd probably want to annex more often if possible.

 

[chicorbeef]

One thing I don't remember from my game is if runestone procs that occur in puppets are subject to puppet yield reductions. If you get the full culture proc even in puppets then that's an even stronger case for authority over progress. If the runestone procs are reduced in puppets then it doesn't necessarily mean progress is better but it does mean you'd probably want to annex more often if possible.

They are not affected by the puppet yield reduction. As a rule, instant yields aren't affected by % modifiers, the only exception I know is Tourism.

 

[CrazyG]

Arabia is pretty much 100% tradition. All other civs have flexibility. Progress or Authority Korea is a thing actually. H'wacha are no joke. Authority Carthage is pretty great.
Tradition Zulu is a thing (all those tributes go to your capital). Most warmongers can go progress.

I think Denmark can do literally anything because Runestones are that strong.