Progress and early settling

[Drakle]

I think the Early settling game, with the -1 population is now a major nerf to Progress, leaving it struggling in the early game vs the other two branches. It can scale up well, but a early game disadvantage can really stack up. I've played games with all three early game trees and Progress seems the slowest to get rolling, and the easiest to derail with aggressive neighbours.

Tradition gets a opening 2 population to the capital, along with some extra food and growth. This makes pumping out early settlers not particularly damaging. Authority gets a free settler and makes it much easier to take enemy cities or muscle them out of a area. But Progress gets no bonus to settlers, beside a single extra movement point. This runs counter to the aims of the tree which is supposed to be about a wider empire then Tradition, with more of a core empire than Authority. It's food bonus is late in the tree, often behind only Equality in terms of pick order. And three food isn't that much.

So I propose attaching to Organisation, a food refund after creating a settler class unit. Not a full refund, but a good chunk of how much it cost to gain that lost level. Not a world shaking bonus, but a boost that can allow a faster settling of settlers, without crippling the capital.

 

[Milae]

Yea I agree with this and Progress is probably the weakest policy right now though still usable situationally. Your idea of a change could work tbh, I always thought that the 25% bonus to civilian unit production from Organisation should extend to settlers as well and maybe even to diplomats/archaeologists.
Also just a little tip but I usually go for the food and science from connections policy before the culture from buildings as well as long as I am able to make the connections.

 

[Stalker0]

So the trick with progress is...your capital should not be making all of your settlers, and you should have the infrastructure in place to support those satellite cities before you expand anyway.

For example, I always try to align an ITR with a new city whenever possible. Giving it a food ITR is a HUGE boost to early growth. Further, I prebuild roads on progress to get the cities linked quicker (aka once I choose a city site, my workers start building a road to that site before the settler is finished).

So when I lay down a progress city, its already got a city connection (with that +3 science from the policy). Its got +3 food from the policy + my food ITR....so it rockets up to pop 4 in no time. So then I'm generating 2 settlers, one in the capital, one in my satellite. And the food ITR helps that settler build quicker as well.

So yes progress takes a little longer to get like your 3rd city....but with good planning you will catch up quickly in your 4th, 5th, 6th cities....and your satellites develop far faster than Authority and Tradition does.

I completely disagree that Progress is the weakest of the three...but you do have to play it differently than the other two for best results.

It's food bonus is late in the tree, often behind only Equality in terms of pick order. And three food isn't that much.

I used to think this way as well until CrazyG opened my eyes. Honestly the best way to play Progress most of the time (there are exceptions but not often), is to get the free worker policy and then go for the +3 food and +3 science.

+3 food is actually very strong early game, and the +3 science is a massive boost if your doing the roadwork like I mentioned before. It will jump start your cities faster than going the left side of the tree. When I first heard about the "right policy first strategy" I didn't think it would work either....but experience has changed my opinion.​

 

[Drakle]

I've tried right-hand side first, in essential the optimum condition for doing so, as Carthage who gets gold on settle and instant city connections. Going that way first has it own downsides, as the cities are weaker production-wise, and it takes even longer than normal to complete the tree with weaker culture. If the 2 gold per city bonus was swapped for the 2 production, right side being the settler rush side could work but as it stands, you are advocating for pumping out settlers with 0 extra policy production. Meanwhile, Authority gets 1 for just starting the tree, and an extra 1 for every policy after, as well as instant production, boosts for cultural expansion. While Tradition gets production with Justice, as well as an Engineer slot which is more production than any normal unimproved tile. Along with the prior mentioned extra population and food.

And I have been using secondary cities to produce settlers. Which means they are also population weakened, and behind on building basic buildings, while is sort of Progress whole game. Authority is honestly better at getting secondary cities to pump out settlers, since it has a bunch of extra production, and gets routine boosts to production as borders expand, with the first one on settlement quickly securing a monument or shrine. It's fairly trivial to time producing settlers to cultural expansion, and that only requires a monument and population, which is easier with good second ring tiles at the ready.

Waiting to get Trade, and producing a trade unit is a long time to wait to get the settling ball rolling, meaning it is very easy to get boxed in, and run out of spots. Particularly when the AI loves to forward settle.

A small food refund is really not that much to add to progress, particularly when compared to the bonuses the other trees get to settlement rushes, even though that isn't their niche. And the AI often seems to struggle with progress, while Authority and Tradition civs are quickly online.

 

[InkAxis]

As I see it, progress is definitely one of the stronger trees. Authority if anything is the weakest. Any time that you choose authority you could have chosen progress and done only a little worse, and probably even better late game. Authority has a bunch of randomness too, like relying on barbarians, city states, etc. I don't think that progress needs a boost, but I'm interested what other people have to say.

 

[tothePAIN]

For deity, progress feels the weakest. Very weak early start. Authority is hit or miss but can really snowball. Progress has trouble getting settlers out the door now because of the -1 population loss that is mentioned above. This hurts on deity, where there is a fast expand from the AI.

 

[DaniSciB]

Progress is objectively weaker than Authority and Tradition in Early Game. And this is so, in exchange for being stronger than their counterparts in Late Game and even Mid Game which is where Progress begins to bloom.

Generally you don't want to destroy your Capital by spamming settlers into it. You want your satellite cities to create settlers as well.

Getting 80 hammers instantly (Worker) + 2 GPT per city is a much bigger bonus at that point in the game than getting +2 Production on all cities.

This is especially true when you get the policy that gives you +3 Food on all cities. This, in case you need production, you can simply put a citizen to work a mine or luxury focused on Production, giving you an extra of at least +2 Production (It can be more), all this because you have a policy that gives you Food, then you can focus on production if you want. So, this policy can outperform the other if you manage it well.

The other benefit is to get +3 Science in the capital and +3 for each city connected to your capital. For Progress, Science = Culture . This is better than the policy that give you culture for builds at this point of the game.

Trade units are a boost. They are not a requirement to start your expansion. You want to expand as soon as possible as much as possible. While you focus on building the infrastructure necessary to get your bonuses, increase production and keep faith and culture rolling.

 

[tothePAIN]

Progress is stronger in the late game... but the game is very often about snowballing. Progress needs to bloom in the mid game to catch up. Or to bloom faster in the early game.

For Progress, Science = Culture only as long as Progress is depending on the mechanism by which science turns into culture, but that mechanism will only fuel the first few policies and falls off, as a one-off source of culture. Currently, if the right side of progress is the correct way to go, Progress has access to only one cultural mechanic until its 5th policy. Authority can gain culture via barb camps, killing units, killing cities, or tributing city states, by the 3rd policy. Tradition gains a cultural boost to the capital based on population and access to an early artist slot. If going right side on progress is the right pick (and I think it is, currently), than its necessary to go monument first, meaning a progress civ has trouble getting a religion. Expansion has to be slow and deliberate in order to reach the 5th policy in a timely manner, which is fine if the AI allows it but... the AI usually has something to say about that.

Right now, if I play Progress, I'm dependent on the AI not to take advantage of my weakness. Settling cities is challenging and slowed down by the -1 population requirement. Progress doesn't have access to any culture mechanic, besides the techs = culture mechanic, until its 5th policy, if one goes right side first into left side.

A few patches ago, rationalism was buffed so that it's late game power boost was more notable, so that it was preeminent in science relative to imperialism. Now, on the current patches, a civilization that goes rationalism is going to be strongest in science unless stopped or the other civilizations compensate. These days, I can probably settle more cities with tradition than progress, because of the difficulties settling cities with the 4 population requirement and -1 population per settler. The +2 population boost from tradition means that I can settle 3 cities immediately after the tradition opener, and usually a quick 4th. Progress is still doable, but it can be just as map and AI dependent as Authority. Progress need space and the AI to not attack. Progress doesn't bring enough in the mid - late game to justify the early game weaknesses right now. It doesn't need a major boost, but a minor one to either speed up its early game or a late game boost.

Maybe a +25% boost to production of settlers somewhere? On Organization? That would make it more of a decision which side of the tree to go. Otherwise, the progress late game power spike could use a hand. Maybe +15% on Expertise?

 

[Stalker0]

Progress doesn't bring enough in the mid - late game to justify the early game weaknesses right now.

I play a lot of progress on Emperor and Immortal difficulties, and I'm just not seeing the problems you all are noting. Yes progress have different weaknesses than tradition, but I don't think its weaker overall. Yes Tradition can start expanding faster, but Progress catches up. Progress also has the best satellite cities, they grow faster, produce quicker, and actually generate gold and science for my empire all while they are doing it. Progress also has less happiness problems than Tradition. Sure Tradition's capital is going to happy as can be, but so is everyone's capital. Progress satellites generate more direct yields to combat happiness, plus there happiness policy which helps satellites, compared to Tradition which only helps the capital. So my progress cities tend to grow more before I have to think about happiness....which is a big deal when you are doing power expansion builds.

 

[Drakle]

I haven't mentioned it here but Progress is weak in terms of founding a religion, which the slow settlement is a major aspect. And Faith is supposed to be the wide Empires game, with Fealty rewarding wide empires and there being no number of city penalty, unlike nearly all other empire wide resource pools.

Tradition
Three Faith in the capital as the second or third social policy (mostly the second, unless my capital is really production starved or I need to rush engineers).
A number of strong, tradition orientated beliefs, or earlier access to conditions such as specialist slots or population targets
Faith early wonders that other policy trees likely won't be grabbing
Can still settle out strong with bonus population and food, securing outer cities. Won't be great cities but having them out early means they have time to get going.

Progress
Zero policy faith
If you go right hand side first, zero bonus production to rush build shrines or pantheon enhanced early buildings. Only bonus to getting things online is 2 gold per turn, to gold invest.
Slower to get settling then both other trees, so you can't rely on a strategy of lots of cities producing a bit of faith
Science so you could hit some techs a bit earlier.
Worker, so you can improve resources a bit earlier,

Authority
No policy faith
Strong production. Easy to pump out cities (including a free one), and they will be online much faster and so able to quickly secure shrines or pantheon enhanced buildings. Intial border expansion can rush a shrine ahead, or a monument allowing for further cultural expansions.
If you've been proactive fighting barbarians, some okay gold from clearing camps. Bullying city states for gold can also be useful for rushing stuff.
Tribute sucks right now, but fighting barbarians can secure early alliances with city states, including faith ones.
Puppets suck at faith and courthouses are too late to matter for religious game so conquest doesn't help religious game, aside from removing or damaging potential founders.
Decent science from settling and then fighting.
GOD OF WAR

 

[Stalker0]

I haven't mentioned it here but Progress is weak in terms of founding a religion,

Progress isn't "weak" in terms of faith, it just doesn't have a special advantage like Tradition does. I found all the time with Progress, again, you just have to commit to it in a different way than Tradition and accept that certain pantheons are Tradition only.

 

[Drakle]

Progress isn't "weak" in terms of faith, it just doesn't have a special advantage like Tradition does. I found all the time with Progress, again, you just have to commit to it in a different way than Tradition and accept that certain pantheons are Tradition only.

The weakest of all three early policy trees. I listed the pros and cons, which you haven't disputed. Authority is the comparison as the other wide policy tree. Tradition is mainly only mentioned, to point out how even the tall tree can go wider than the wide tree early.

Authority, even without God of war can fulfil most pantheon beliefs better than Progress, with better production and getting cities out faster. Progress wouldn't be so weak without its early settling issues.

 

[Stalker0]

The weakest of all three early policy trees. I listed the pros and cons, which you haven't disputed.

I disputed it with the experiences I mentioned. I play lots of progress games, and I can found religions on Emperor and Immortal. I agree that the faith generation is weaker than tradition...but weaker doesn't mean weak....it simply means this is a strength of Tradition.

 

[tothePAIN]

I play a lot of progress on Emperor and Immortal difficulties, and I'm just not seeing the problems you all are noting. Yes progress have different weaknesses than tradition, but I don't think its weaker overall. Yes Tradition can start expanding faster, but Progress catches up. Progress also has the best satellite cities, they grow faster, produce quicker, and actually generate gold and science for my empire all while they are doing it. Progress also has less happiness problems than Tradition. Sure Tradition's capital is going to happy as can be, but so is everyone's capital. Progress satellites generate more direct yields to combat happiness, plus there happiness policy which helps satellites, compared to Tradition which only helps the capital. So my progress cities tend to grow more before I have to think about happiness....which is a big deal when you are doing power expansion builds.

What are the best perks of progress in the mid-late game? They get greater happiness, but it takes quite a while. Someone did the math in a thread I read once, its several hundred population. Progress cities get +2 hammers, +10% to buildings, +3 food, +3 science, and +2 gold, relative to tradition.

Tradition cities gets 20% increased growth%, +6 culture, +2 science, and +1 hammer per city and faster border growth, assuming that they have councils, herbalists, monuments, gardens, and baths. But they also get enough early game power to get a few wonders and likely a religion.

The +10% building bonus starts to come into play in the mid game but its not feeling like enough. But then, I may need to go play some games on different difficulties because playing on deity is warping my sense of strategies for the game.

 

[Stalker0]

What are the best perks of progress in the mid-late game?

They get gold every time a citizen is a born, and 65 x era culture every time a tech is researched. Further, they have the ability to purchase great writers in the late game, that is a HUGE increase in late game culture.

Ultimately the problem with a straight tradition vs progress analysis is that progress tends to be more subtle than tradition. You look at bonus x vs y...but that's not really how it works.

1) Progress cities grow faster early in the game until the tradition growth bonus really gets going. This means they have more tiles. They also have more workers....meaning those tiles are better.

2) They have more production AND gold....and for a good portion of the game gold = production, just at a weaker value. So their infrastructure is built quicker.

3) They tech faster, giving them access to era bonuses and new infrastructure quicker.


And not to shortchange Tradition, there are subtleties there as well. The impact of an early world wonder and a great person can have powerful yet subtle influences on how your civ grows into the late game. Or the faster border growth, how often does it save me gold?

So all of that is to say that its hard to do a direct bonus to bonus analysis. My experience is that Tradition starts stronger but tends to pewter out towards the mid/late game, where progress is more of a train getting up to speed. I have found good success with both styles to the point where its more what style I want to play as opposed to "how difficult do I want the game to be". That's about as good a balance as can be reasonably expected.

 

[2506]

My experience is that Tradition starts stronger but tends to pewter out towards the mid/late game, where progress is more of a train getting up to speed. I have found good success with both styles to the point where its more what style I want to play as opposed to "how difficult do I want the game to be". That's about as good a balance as can be reasonably expected.

This is how my games go, more or less, and at the same levels. I never stopped to break it down because the conventional approach of Tradition fitting some civs (Arabia, etc) and Progress others (Carthage, etc) keeps working for me about equally... meaning I don't do any worse as a rule with one approach than the other. I actually tend to win more playing Progress, but that's more a matter of my strengths and weakneses as a player.

 

[tothePAIN]

They get gold every time a citizen is a born, and 65 x era culture every time a tech is researched. Further, they have the ability to purchase great writers in the late game, that is a HUGE increase in late game culture.

Ultimately the problem with a straight tradition vs progress analysis is that progress tends to be more subtle than tradition. You look at bonus x vs y...but that's not really how it works.

1) Progress cities grow faster early in the game until the tradition growth bonus really gets going. This means they have more tiles. They also have more workers....meaning those tiles are better.

2) They have more production AND gold....and for a good portion of the game gold = production, just at a weaker value. So their infrastructure is built quicker.

3) They tech faster, giving them access to era bonuses and new infrastructure quicker.


And not to shortchange Tradition, there are subtleties there as well. The impact of an early world wonder and a great person can have powerful yet subtle influences on how your civ grows into the late game. Or the faster border growth, how often does it save me gold?

So all of that is to say that its hard to do a direct bonus to bonus analysis. My experience is that Tradition starts stronger but tends to pewter out towards the mid/late game, where progress is more of a train getting up to speed. I have found good success with both styles to the point where its more what style I want to play as opposed to "how difficult do I want the game to be". That's about as good a balance as can be reasonably expected.

Sure, it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of every single difference between Progress and Tradition. I didn't list out the great people that the capital gets or the techs = culture mechanic for progress, or the population in capital mechanic = science for progress. There are subtle differences. I've enjoyed both play styles, at different times.

On this patch at least, and more recently, with the AI playing better, Progress's early game has felt weaker than normal. One issue with the Progress / Tradition balance is that settlers now cost -1 population, which is a relatively recent change in the history of this mod (sometime last fall?). Progress's mid game with gold from birth of citizens and writers is strong. But its early game could use a small boost.

To be specific, I'd recommend adding a 25% production bonus to settlers with Organization.

There are many games where I'd like to go Progress but I can't do so because even if I can manage with the weaker early start, the weaker early start now includes not getting settlers out fast enough to claim land. If I don't claim that land, the AI will do so. Before the -1 population from settlers, I could potentially go on a settling spree to claim a bunch of land and play for the mid-late game Progress boost. Now though... not as much.

 

[2506]

There are many games where I'd like to go Progress but I can't do so because even if I can manage with the weaker early start, the weaker early start now includes not getting settlers out fast enough to claim land. If I don't claim that land, the AI will do so. Before the -1 population from settlers, I could potentially go on a settling spree to claim a bunch of land and play for the mid-late game Progress boost. Now though... not as much.

Is this because of the Deity bonuses for the AI? It's a tricky issue to resolve, since on the one hand the mod usually has been balanced from Deity down, but balancing it along the lines of something like your Organization proposal would then risk making Progress too strong at most other levels. My concern with making what a relatively minor tweak is that, historically in VP, Progress tends to outperform Tradition due to the game's emphasis on warring.

 

[Deljade]

There are many games where I'd like to go Progress but I can't do so because even if I can manage with the weaker early start, the weaker early start now includes not getting settlers out fast enough to claim land. If I don't claim that land, the AI will do so. Before the -1 population from settlers, I could potentially go on a settling spree to claim a bunch of land and play for the mid-late game Progress boost. Now though... not as much.

This is a very good point, though it does depend on the setup a bit. If available land gets grabbed fast, which most of the time it will be, progress has to play a wide conquest game in order to justify the bonuses it gets from the policies, wait... doesn't authority do wide conquest already? But better? And they also get a free settler, more production for settlers and bonuses for founding, so they will grab more land than progress early on.
In my view, authority should be a more volatile and burst and momentum based tree, which it does already just fine. Progress would love some early game consistency in founding cities in order to be the more stable wide choice. In that regard, a production bonus to settlers seem appropriate. Possibly too strong, hard to say. I feel the tree is okay at this point just a bit more start dependant than the others for the human player, the AI seems to be doing well with progress since it helps make up for it's inefficiencies, along with difficulty bonuses.

You can always turtle up and play for efficiency and a strong capital or conquer your neighbour and get a head start on founding cities but you will only sometimes be able to found the few extra decent cities early on that you need to reap the progress benefits starting mid game. At least with the current progress settling bonuses (+1 move)

Since it seems to matter, my experience is with huge maps and 6-7 difficulty

 

[Legen]

Progress was bound to be the most affected by the -1 pop change on settlers, as this tree is both the one that most needs to create settlers and the one that least supports settler production. Tradition plays Tall and has both a population boost on opener and early access to an engineer specialist. Authority has a free settler and is geared towards conquest, not to mention the extra production.

Progress also got the science from the opener slowed, as it doesn't proc from reaching a population number that the Capital already had beforehand. As such, creating settlers in the Capital delays how often you trigger the bonus science nowadays. Progress also lost the food on building completion from Expertise, meaning going heavy on the left side is less helpful for settling.

I often think Progress should be better at settling than the other two trees, to the point of thinking that it is the one that should have a non-conquest version of Imperium after the -1 pop settler change, with Authority getting something else (e.g. free military units, a free general). I don't know if this is the best way to handle it, but I think Progress should be more consistent at settling peacefully.