Progress on Immortal

[CrazyG]

Early Wonders are much tougher with Progress, same with military. I think the main reason is you have to spend more production on settlers, escorts, and even workers than tradition does, and your capital will very often sit at just 4 or 5 population for a longer time, so you have less resources total. By Classical Era you can try wonders in secondary cities though (something I almost never get to do with tradition) and even if you miss them its not a terrible loss.

I really don't think Progress should be the most peaceful tree, a big advantage of progress is your long term production potential. You take the longest to get on your feet, so avoiding early war is very important. But by Medieval you should be able to produce units very quickly. The ability to friend a bunch of CS and spam Chanceries is something I've overlooked before but Progress does really well.

 

[Txurce]

Last game, I was doing a little better, made what I thought was a good army and received a trade for declaring war to Aztecs... Maybe what a Progress player need for a starter army is a defensive one.

Early war always cripples you.

By Classical Era you can try wonders in secondary cities though (something I almost never get to do with tradition) and even if you miss them its not a terrible loss.

I really don't think Progress should be the most peaceful tree, a big advantage of progress is your long term production potential. You take the longest to get on your feet, so avoiding early war is very important. But by Medieval you should be able to produce units very quickly. The ability to friend a bunch of CS and spam Chanceries is something I've overlooked before but Progress does really well.

DoW'ing the Aztecs with horsemen wasn't a good idea, but live and learn. I think infidel88 means very early war -- I've been successfully expanding with Kris swordsmen for three games now. But what do you do if someone DoW's you while you're just pumping out settlers? I can handle pre-siege Assyria, France, pre-hoplite Greece (my usual suspects) who see a weakling and don't realize they're a little thin themseves. But if the Aztecs or Attila with his UU comes after you, all that can save you is tons of spearmen, and as infidel said, your game is probably screwed then, anyway.

@CrazyG: I've built Wonders in secondary cities my last 2 games, and the Chancery play gained me WC semi-control despite not going Statecraft.

 

[tu_79]

I'm starting to doubt the randomness of a random AI pick. For three games in a row I have started next to the Aztec. I can confirm that they attack sooner than later. Last one, I could repel the first attack, after some save-loads, and a very defensible terrain. But I end up with only three settled cities and very aggressive neighbors. Next time they show up I'll pick Authority directly.

 

[Txurce]

I'm starting to doubt the randomness of a random AI pick. For three games in a row I have started next to the Aztec. I can confirm that they attack sooner than later. Last one, I could repel the first attack, after some save-loads, and a very defensible terrain. But I end up with only three settled cities and very aggressive neighbors. Next time they show up I'll pick Authority directly.

They're my neighbors in my current game, but they hit Byzantium instead. I had reasonably high numbers (including a free scout) and I was a bit farther away.

 

[Txurce]

I just lost a fifth game in a row (CV) to the runaway on the other continent, but that's par for the course these days. What's interesting is that I tried Aesthetocs instead of Piety, and with no other playstyle changes, my happiness stayed betweem 30-55. inclusing the Industrial slump and war while in Freedom. (I meant to try Order, but the winner went with Freedom first.)

Does it seem right that choosing Aesthetics vs Statecraft or Piet should result in the bulk of a 60-80 point swing?

 

[Starrynite120]

I just lost a fifth game in a row (CV) to the runaway on the other continent, but that's par for the course these days. What's interesting is that I tried Aesthetocs instead of Piety, and with no other playstyle changes, my happiness stayed betweem 30-55. inclusing the Industrial slump and war while in Freedom. (I meant to try Order, but the winner went with Freedom first.)

Does it seem right that choosing Aesthetics vs Statecraft or Piet should result in the bulk of a 60-80 point swing?

I doubt that Aesthetics is the really different factor there. It definitely doesn't provide more happiness than Piety. All the middle trees are fairly equal in how much happines they provide

 

[Txurce]

I doubt that Aesthetics is the really different factor there. It definitely doesn't provide more happiness than Piety. All the middle trees are fairly equal in how much happines they provide

Aesthetics is the only change in this last game... but speaking overall, I forgot to discuss religion. To be more specific, wth a non-aggressive religion and no Piety, I was still at -30 or so. With an enhancer like Riual or Pacifism, it rose to around 0. Aesthetics knocked it another 40 or so. This isn't to say that every game isn't different. In this one, not as many civs were eliminated, so Indonesia had more trading partners.

What Aesthetics seemed to do is provide a better defense than Piety against unhappiness later in the game, when the cultural AI's begin to pull away. In the game I'm talking about, I was the last civ to fall culturally.

 

[Starrynite120]

Aesthetics is the only change in this last game... but speaking overall, I forgot to discuss religion. To be more specific, wth a non-aggressive religion and no Piety, I was still at -30 or so. With an enhancer like Riual or Pacifism, it rose to around 0. Aesthetics knocked it another 40 or so. This isn't to say that every game isn't different. In this one, not as many civs were eliminated, so Indonesia had more trading partners.

What Aesthetics seemed to do is provide a better defense than Piety against unhappiness later in the game, when the cultural AI's begin to pull away. In the game I'm talking about, I was the last civ to fall culturally.

If you're getting absurd amounts of unhappiness from ideological revolution, then yeah Aesthetics will fare better simply because it produces more culture and tourism. but aside from that, it doesn't get more happiness.

For what its worth, highest difficulty I've played is 6 and I've never been much below 20 happiness, and the times I have been that low was because of losing a war and my economy crashing. I've also never had such wide swings of happiness, so at least to me what you're talking about is very odd.

 

[CrazyG]

What Aesthetics seemed to do is provide a better defense than Piety against unhappiness later in the game, when the cultural AI's begin to pull away. In the game I'm talking about, I was the last civ to fall culturally.

I've never taken Aesthetics and fallen culturally, who managed to influence you?

Aesthetics is going to help with boredom (probably not relevant) and its going to provide +1 happiness from each guild, so 9 total. If your empire hits at least 10 cities, you get more happiness from temples or chanceries via piety or statecraft. These also come into play faster (musicians guilds so late). This is pretty obvious math, but the I think the thing worth taking away is you might need more cities. If this was also as Indoneisa, perhaps Gajah Mada just can't cut it. The new America UA seems really good for progress if you wan to to give him a try (the extra gold and production is amazing early on), and the Smithsonian gives a buff late game buff to culture and science, might be the little extra boost you need to survive the influence and get that spaceship up.

 

[Starrynite120]

I've never taken Aesthetics and fallen culturally, who managed to influence you?

Aesthetics is going to help with boredom (probably not relevant) and its going to provide +1 happiness from each guild, so 9 total. If your empire hits at least 10 cities, you get more happiness from temples or chanceries via piety or statecraft. These also come into play faster (musicians guilds so late). This is pretty obvious math, but the I think the thing worth taking away is you might need more cities. If this was also as Indoneisa, perhaps Gajah Mada just can't cut it. The new America UA seems really good for progress if you wan to to give him a try (the extra gold and production is amazing early on), and the Smithsonian gives a buff late game buff to culture and science, might be the little extra boost you need to survive the influence and get that spaceship up.

I'd second America. You have an amazing early game. I can consistently get stonehendge on turn 20. Idk if that works on immortal, but they're still overall a really well rounded civ, with some nice strong early game UA bonuses and a nice late game UB to push you to the victory (should also help against culture, gives museums and broadcast towers 5 science and 5 culture each).

 

[Txurce]

I've never taken Aesthetics and fallen culturally, who managed to influence you?

Aesthetics is going to help with boredom (probably not relevant) and its going to provide +1 happiness from each guild, so 9 total. If your empire hits at least 10 cities, you get more happiness from temples or chanceries via piety or statecraft. These also come into play faster (musicians guilds so late). This is pretty obvious math, but the I think the thing worth taking away is you might need more cities. If this was also as Indoneisa, perhaps Gajah Mada just can't cut it. The new America UA seems really good for progress if you wan to to give him a try (the extra gold and production is amazing early on), and the Smithsonian gives a buff late game buff to culture and science, might be the little extra boost you need to survive the influence and get that spaceship up.

The Inca.

The prior four games (without Aesthetics) it was Songhai and Aztecs twice.

I'm ready to switch off Indonesia, but really because I think I've got them down. To stay about even on this patch with an other-continent runaway on science and policies, have a serious army and top-half pop, seems pretty good to me.

I read your Washington post yesterday, and will be trying them next. I won with them on Emperor back when they received the GAP bonus. I'm really looking forward to the new, improved one.

 

[ElliotS]

I just lost a fifth game in a row (CV) to the runaway on the other continent, but that's par for the course these days. What's interesting is that I tried Aesthetocs instead of Piety, and with no other playstyle changes, my happiness stayed betweem 30-55. inclusing the Industrial slump and war while in Freedom. (I meant to try Order, but the winner went with Freedom first.)

Does it seem right that choosing Aesthetics vs Statecraft or Piet should result in the bulk of a 60-80 point swing?

Piety is the best tree for happiness past 9 cities, as it gives 1 per city and a ton of yields in all cities. The 15% gold really helps cut down on poverty, and it also gives a ton of other stuff. (including the sexy +3 to all yields per city finisher.)

I used to barely touch Piety, but I now know that it's freaky good regardless of your religious status.

In addition to Piety, I recommend Zealotry. You'll get tons of Faith and therefore save a TON of money and hammers getting free troops. Also I'm pretty sure you can get monopolies on strategic resources with less than the normal amount because of it.

This is a bit of intuition but I'm 99% sure that your problems all come down to production. Science means that you get techs faster, and especially later more techs means more unhappiness unless you can build all the buildings. Consider Diligence and Pagodas.

 

[Txurce]

I just salvaged a DV with Washington, while trying for a SV. The game was very interesting. I'll list the highlights:

• went with Commerce/Transcendence/Cathedrals/Inspiration/Pacifism.
• I picked the Aesthetics opener and Refinement. These two polices kept me in the 50+ range almost all game long.
• I had a big enough culture lead to then do all of Statecraft and build the Forbidden Palace.
• I took Industry because war was constant, and then Order. (Gee, guys, you were right that Order's great for science.)
• having control of the WC allowed me to pass Order as World Ideology, with the two leaders using Freedom.

The Communitas map had everyone close from the start, so there were no early runaways. I made a point of keeping the leaders in check, while only keeping cities I could defend. This left me with 13 at my peak... and it meant that Denmark, who wasn't one of the 4 leaders for half the game, wound up as a late runaway (over 2x the score of #2) simply by finishing off everyone someone else had weakened. This was very impressive, and taught me a lesson for the future.

The late game had Denmark in first, Egypt in second, and me third. They were much bigger, and even with 13 good-sized cities, all with research labs putting out over 2K beakers, I wasn't really gaining in techs. (Denmark would have won a CV, except for Egypt.) This is fair enough -- permanent expansion seems essential in Immortal -- but I wonder how feasible a Tradition SV is anymore at this level.

Two miscellaneous notes:

• Babylon had 4 cities -- 3 of which I'd just given back to him -- when he DoW'd Denmark. It was suicide, and something that should be addressed.
• When Denmark DoW'd me with a nuke strike that cost me a city, my happiness went down from 120 or so to -40. We had no deals. How does that happen?
• I barely won a DV, while losing a war to Denmark. Egypt proposed the UN, but Denmark cast all its votes against it, and warned me I was getting too close to victory. That was also chillingly good.

Now on to the new patch.

 

[CrazyG]

• Babylon had 4 cities -- 3 of which I'd just given back to him -- when he DoW'd Denmark. It was suicide, and something that should be addressed.
• When Denmark DoW'd me with a nuke strike that cost me a city, my happiness went down from 120 or so to -40. We had no deals. How does that happen?
• I barely won a DV, while losing a war to Denmark. Egypt proposed the UN, but Denmark cast all its votes against it, and warned me I was getting too close to victory. That was also chillingly good.

Now on to the new patch.

Was Denmark following your religion of Pacifism? That would explain the drop in happiness. I'm glad you finally pulled of the win

Right now science is really tough for tradition because the game just lasts so long, hopefully this patch puts culture wins more in line. I've noticed that very often civs support the UN when it seems really bad for them

 

[Txurce]

Was Denmark following your religion of Pacifism? That would explain the drop in happiness. I'm glad you finally pulled of the win

Right now science is really tough for tradition because the game just lasts so long, hopefully this patch puts culture wins more in line. I've noticed that very often civs support the UN when it seems really bad for them

Denmark was following my religion, and they second-hand conquered another civ that did. I don't know if that would cause such a big collapse, but it sure goes a long way toward explaining it. Side note: think maybe it's called Pacifism for a reason? If I take it, I better stay on good terms with those civs!

What do you think of the game now lasting as long as it does? I don't mind it in theory, but the slowdown around Industrial seems too abrupt. From an immersive pov, I can see the game slowing with each turn being fewer years, as long as it's consistent. From a balance pov, should a tall civ be realistically capable of winning a SV on higher levels?

 

[CrazyG]

Denmark was following my religion, and they second-hand conquered another civ that did. I don't know if that would cause such a big collapse, but it sure goes a long way toward explaining it. Side note: think maybe it's called Pacifism for a reason? If I take it, I better stay on good terms with those civs!

What do you think of the game now lasting as long as it does? I don't mind it in theory, but the slowdown around Industrial seems too abrupt. From an immersive pov, I can see the game slowing with each turn being fewer years, as long as it's consistent. From a balance pov, should a tall civ be realistically capable of winning a SV on higher levels?

I don't know for sure that tall can't win science, all I know is my old approach (which frankly was too effective) doesn't work. One thing that happened is permanent golden age became a lot harder, I used to be able to go from Grand Temple, to the golden age of Piety/Aesthetics, to Rationalism without gaps, finishing with an artist or 2 and now I can't, often I wouldn't even get length expanders. I think getting a couple themeing bonuses is also worth it, you need to make more long term decision. I also can't count on great people expending for as large of a % of culture as I used to, before the game ended before their costs got too high, now not so much. I've been burning scientists too early (it might cost me a game right now)

I think that in order to adjust, tradition wants more cities. I'm looking for probably 6 or 7, and I hope to get 2 or 3 of those via conquest. The changes are good, the industrial era used to be a blur, the problem for tradition is it gives other civs more time to steal my tech and war me. The late founded cities also have more time to catch mine. I'm planning on trying China next, I think the growth will work much better in a longer game.