Opinions on Ancient Era Policy Choices

[chicorbeef]

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.

I honestly can't see a real situation where I'd want to go Tradition Zulu or Denmark. Progress maybe, but going Tradition just seems like handicapping yourself in those cases.

 

[CrazyG]

I honestly can't see a real situation where I'd want to go Tradition Zulu or Denmark. Progress maybe, but going Tradition just seems like handicapping yourself in those cases.

Zulu if you aren't able to fight that much. I've done this and its strong. In terms of authority warmongers, I find Zulu is actually pretty lacking against guys like Sweden.

I can't see a real situation where I would play Denmark and feel compelled to make good policy choices.

 

[Galbias]

China I see as much more of a Tradition Civ than Progress. You get the bonuses for settling cities, sure, but you get the same bonuses from each Great Work and Tradition is going to be able to put out a lot more of those with the GP bonuses and extra cultural Specialist slots than Progress is going to settle cities.

 

[TwoPodRay]

China I see as much more of a Tradition Civ than Progress. You get the bonuses for settling cities, sure, but you get the same bonuses from each Great Work and Tradition is going to be able to put out a lot more of those with the GP bonuses and extra cultural Specialist slots than Progress is going to settle cities.

China gets to a point (rather quickly) where you can have perpetual WLTKD in most cities. If you are running out of them, you can either faith buy a Writer since you went progress, or conquer a city. They don’t need more growth (as Tradition would offer), but the yields on growth from Progress really synergize. With more growth in Tradition you could argue that you could work more specialists, but since Non-capital Progress cities are typically stronger than non-capital Tradition cities, the higher growth in those progress cities means they’ll quickly grow to a size where they can challenge your capital for yields.

EDIT: I said all of that to say that whether your metric for gaining WLTKDs from the UA is settling cities or creating Great Works, it won’t matter by mid-late Medieval, since you can start to have perpetual WLTKDs no matter what previous policies were. I would argue that those Progress cities would then be stronger than the Tradition cities by that point and only get mo’ betta from there.

 

[Minh Le]

China gets to a point (rather quickly) where you can have perpetual WLTKD in most cities. If you are running out of them, you can either faith buy a Writer since you went progress, or conquer a city. They don’t need more growth (as Tradition would offer), but the yields on growth from Progress really synergize. With more growth in Tradition you could argue that you could work more specialists, but since Non-capital Progress cities are typically stronger than non-capital Tradition cities, the higher growth in those progress cities means they’ll quickly grow to a size where they can challenge your capital for yields.

EDIT: I said all of that to say that whether your metric for gaining WLTKDs from the UA is settling cities or creating Great Works, it won’t matter by mid-late Medieval, since you can start to have perpetual WLTKDs no matter what previous policies were. I would argue that those Progress cities would then be stronger than the Tradition cities by that point and only get mo’ betta from there.

You must try OCC tradition China, its fun like hell

 

[black213]

How does Tradition Iroquois sound? I imagine the Longhouses would cover the issue of getting secondary cities up and running early, provided that there is enough vegetation around.

 

[CrazyG]

How does Tradition Iroquois sound? I imagine the Longhouses would cover the issue of getting secondary cities up and running early, provided that there is enough vegetation around.

I would default to progress as Iroqious. Fast city connections and powerful extra production both stack well with progress.

Tradition is reasonable though.

 

[CppMaster]

Why would you play Iroquois Tradition instead of Progress? Even Authority makes more sense.

 

[black213]

Why would you play Iroquois Tradition instead of Progress? Even Authority makes more sense.

Why not experiment? Tradition's weakness is production in secondary cities.

 

[crdvis16]

Why not experiment? Tradition's weakness is production in secondary cities.

I think the disconnect here is that some players tend to seek balance in how they play (try to make up for weaknesses in civs or play styles) while others seek to capitalize on synergies.

So the balance approach would say "Iroquois can go tradition because their production will help cover tradition's weakness" while the synergy approach would say "go progress and capitalize on those free city connections". I've noticed this in other threads about what strategies people go for. I was surprised at one point that owlbebach recommended authority for Austria because Austria has a really weak early game and authority helps her survive. That's the "balance" approach IMO, and as a player that always tries the "synergy" approach I would never consider doing anything other than tradition as Austria.

I don't mean to say that I think one style is better than the other, either- I think they both have strengths/weaknesses.

A "balance" player might miss out on creating dominant synergies if they don't try going "all-in" every now and then but their approach is probably more practical and probably results in more often winning or at least making it to the late game still having a chance to win.

A "synergy" player probably runs the risk of over-commiting to synergy such that they start getting diminishing returns and they run the risk of totally flaming out in their games if they don't address weaknesses or play around them. I've noticed this as a weakness in my own games. I had an India game where I went all-in on passive religious pressure synergy and it just didn't work out. Coincidentally I'm playing as Austria/tradition now and just had to retire because I got DoW'd by 3 neighbors and the game became a lost cause, so I can very much see Owlbebach's point in that case about authority being better (or at the very least, safer). Having said that, I've already started a new Austria game and I'm going tradition again because I just want to see how high I can get my GP %modifier...

 

[pineappledan]

I think the most obvious problem with tradition Iroquois is that the policy tree doesn't cover for any of Iroquois' weaknesses, but you are FORGOING obvious synergies in Progress.

Iroquois is going to be played fairly wide, as long as you can manage to get enough forest. Your Longhouse is an early, cheap building with easy culture, solid food and production bonuses.

Tradition can be made to work for wide play because it offers 2 things that wide could really want: Good, early science and culture on early buildings

Iroquois get +1 and +1 from forest/jungle tiles, and their herbalist has +1. The additional +2 to monuments can help you early, and the +1 on councils and herbalists certainly isn't bad, Iroquois already have slightly more culture generation than other civs at that point, and they are making fast, early city connections with no gold upkeep. The +2 on buildings from tradition isn't as good, and likely isn't as fast to get up on each city as the +3 on city connections, and Progress' scaler gives even more than Tradition anyways, thanks to its opener and scaler.

What might convince someone to try wide Tradition is the bonus to % growth, but Iroquois is ambivalent on that. They get more / from forest/jungle/plantation than other civs so, while they aren't growing at a fantastic pace, they are doing just fine for growth.

The main deficiency that Iroquois has is Science, the thing that Progress is best at. Progress covers for Iroquois' biggest weakness, while also synergizing with their biggest strengths (fast, cheap, early city connections and high production)

 

[tu_79]

I think the disconnect here is that some players tend to seek balance in how they play (try to make up for weaknesses in civs or play styles) while others seek to capitalize on synergies.

Good insight, actually!

 

[CrazyG]

Why not experiment? Tradition's weakness is production in secondary cities.

Experimenting is a fine idea.

I have experimented. If there is enough forest or jungle for free city connections, you should really be looking at progress. Tradition Iroquois is okay, but its not great compared to other tradition civs. It will probably lead to a strong game if you have a ton of forest/jungle, but in that situation progress will often have been better. Tradition is about your capital, not your secondary cities. The longhouse doesn't do very much for your capital. In general, making decisions for secondary cities as tradition is a bad move.

 

[CppMaster]

A "balance" player might miss out on creating dominant synergies if they don't try going "all-in" every now and then but their approach is probably more practical and probably results in more often winning or at least making it to the late game still having a chance to win.

Do you really think that Tradition Iroquois would win more often than Progress Iroquois?

 

[crdvis16]

Do you really think that Tradition Iroquois would win more often than Progress Iroquois?

I'm 100% the "synergy" type, to a fault oftentimes. I would never consider playing Iroquois as tradition and would always go progress because that leans into their play style and synergy the most. I really doubt tradition Iroquois would win more than progress so they might not be the best example of when a "balance" and "synergy" player have equal arguments. But I've never actually played tradition Iroquois so it's all just theoretical to me.

Before playing some recent games as Austria I would have said the same thing: "no way you can win more as authority Austria... she has nothing that plays into warfare! She's clearly a tradition civ!". After playing those games and seeing how weak she is in the early game I'm starting to think that the "balance" argument of going authority has some real merits and I could totally see authority being the more consistent option to survive into the late game when her bonuses can take effect. Having said all that, I will never play authority Austria- "synergy" or bust, results be damned.

 

[CppMaster]

Authority Austria makes much more sense.

 

[black213]

I gave Trad Iroquois a bash on Emperor difficulty - it was quite an enjoyable game. Probably not optimal, no, but it was fun regardless. Stonehenge (pick Renewal) -> Artemis -> Longhouses -> Hanging Gardens. Founded religion, Council of Elders and Cooperation. After that got my Mohawks + Catapults up and puppeted both of my neighbours. CoE and Cooperation with high food were probably the reasons why this game felt like such a breeze!

 

[CppMaster]

I guess you could do the same with any other Civ (maybe except Venice)

 

[black213]

I guess you could do the same with any other Civ (maybe except Venice)

Yes, just like I was alluding!

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I'm 100% the "synergy" type, to a fault oftentimes. I would never consider playing Iroquois as tradition and would always go progress because that leans into their play style and synergy the most. I really doubt tradition Iroquois would win more than progress so they might not be the best example of when a "balance" and "synergy" player have equal arguments. But I've never actually played tradition Iroquois so it's all just theoretical to me.

Before playing some recent games as Austria I would have said the same thing: "no way you can win more as authority Austria... she has nothing that plays into warfare! She's clearly a tradition civ!". After playing those games and seeing how weak she is in the early game I'm starting to think that the "balance" argument of going authority has some real merits and I could totally see authority being the more consistent option to survive into the late game when her bonuses can take effect. Having said all that, I will never play authority Austria- "synergy" or bust, results be damned.

Austria actually has a ton of synergy with Authority, but a part of it is RNG dependent. The +GP% from marriage is not as meaningful as if you took Tradition, but quests are easier to do (more cities = easier to do "produce most yield/convert most people" quests) and you have more gold to get the marriages faster. You can use the better rewards to suit your army, like more gold for a resource = easier to get another unit bought, etc. I remember one game all the early met CS's hated Hiawatha. One said "conquer creek, the very name disgusts me!", another CS declared that "that city near Onondaga could be yours if you want some level ups", and two others told me to "take Lake Something, we all hate Hiawatha and will train your army if you screw him over even harder". After I did it with Statecraft's +50% rewards, my army was really experienced. Both Authority and Tradition benefit the same from the bonus delegate, so only the +GP% is really not used to it's fullest. In fact, Authority might be benefitting more from the delegate as a warmongerer is typically hated by others, with them voting against him, while Tradition doesn't have such a problem.

Another benefit/synergy is removing potential quest-finishing candidates. If you're Tradition, you won't reach that barbie camp as easily as if you had a huge empire and you had a city nearby as well as troops to spare while also having less competition. Since you killed/crippled Casimir, he cannot build that wonder Lhasa wants and since you have a city somewhere around there, you can construct that useless road they will give you 400 Production for whenever you want. If someone took over a CS, it'll be easier to liberate it if you have a huge, highly leveled army to do as you please with as well as more land to launch the attack from.
The only flaw is Authority wants to tribute, and if you do it you might miss out on a quest so I don't think tributing is ever truly worth it unless another CS asks for it.

4UC is very good for Authority Austria as well, the UB comes very late but it is a warmongering powerhouse with tons of Culture, Production and unit production. Landwehr synergises with Imperialism + Autocracy very much.