Tall, Thick, Wide

[Enginseer]

It also contradicts itself. As what you call tall, I am supposed to "Grow as much as possible", yet I don't prefer fealty or rationalism. Your "thick" gameplan isn't coherent either (I have a low military priority yet I am supposed to conquer a holy city?).

Yeah, grow as much as possible. There's a threshold where cities won't grow as fast as anymore and that varies on the amount of technology you have access to. +5 Food isn't going to change it as much having quicker access to harbors(coastal love), grocers(aqueduct effect), windmills(minor food boost), agribusiness(major food boost), and hospitals(big food boost). Now +5 food may not make a difference when you need 200 food to grow a citizen, but to grow a citizen requiring 80 food is noticeable and is more common in wide civs than tall civs. Also yeah you should prefer Rationalism? I don't see a problem with this.

I should change that to Defense priority instead of a military priority. You don't often prioritize yourself when you're going thick since it's very easy to defend. Not to mention most Thick AIs passively conquer a holy city after being very close to one(they don't usually build up a large military with the intent to take a holy city, it just happens by nature). But then again humans aren't AIs, so I removed that priority yesterday already. Now it doesn't mean you neglect your army because you have a low defense priority, it just that it is much easier to defend, so you then focus more on buildings and units that empower your soldiers.

Let's be honest with each other. You wanted to use everything once, that is how the table is designed. Its not designed to make good choices, its designed so that each social policy and ideology is "preferred" one time. You wanted to use three different options for religion, for growth, for diplomacy, for military, etc. You didn't write this trying to make the best decisions, its very noticeable that it was written attempting to use a different piece of advice each time.

I wrote according to the AI patterns to which most newbies should try to replicate and improve upon that. Obviously, I realized the humans can't be the AI and shouldn't be at all. In Diplomacy, most wide civilizations will often refuse open borders (demanding a much better deal on their set of the bargain for them to trade it off), while tall civilizations will happily trade it off freely. It was written off multiple AI playtests which isn't perfect because I don't have a computer with an infinite processor, unfortunately.

 

[CrazyG]

Also yeah you should prefer Rationalism? I don't see a problem with this.

I wrote according to the AI patterns to which most newbies should try to replicate and improve upon that.

So is the AI pattern for "tall" industry or rationalism? I would be interested to see an analysis of AI decisions. However, if this is driven by some AI pattern, why did you just swap industry and rationalism? That swap doesn't like a pattern driven decision, it looks like you are trying to avoid disagreement. I'm also confused what you mean by AI pattern, because many of the now deleted rows included behaviors that I'm 99% sure the AI doesn't do (such as intentionally not found a religion with the intention of taking a holy city).

I think you are trying to support this thesis you have about empires becoming similar in the end game, which may have some validity for AI. However I have to 100% disagree. And I disagree because you so intensely because of this

No matter what playstyle you do

This is the problem. There is such a plurality of strategies in the game yet you keep trying to advocate this "thick" idea as inevitable. There could be an excellent strategy involving being thick, but its not the only strategy, its not necessary to win or a good idea every game. If you keep pushing this idea that the end game always has the same pattern in a thread intended for newbies, I have to state my disagreement as a fan of VP.

 

[Enginseer]

So is the AI pattern for "tall" industry or rationalism? I would be interested to see an analysis of AI decisions. However, if this is driven by some AI pattern, why did you just swap industry and rationalism? That swap doesn't like a pattern driven decision, it looks like you are trying to avoid disagreement. I'm also confused what you mean by AI pattern, because many of the now deleted rows included behaviors that I'm 99% sure the AI doesn't do (such as intentionally not found a religion with the intention of taking a holy city).

I think you are trying to support this thesis you have about empires becoming similar in the end game, which may have some validity for AI. However I have to 100% disagree. And I disagree because you so intensely because of this

I swapped Industry and Rationalism because I miswrote them. Rationalism is intended to be in Tall and Industry is the thick policy tree. It happens when you got butter fingers on mobile.

It's what usually happens,(and what usually happens is a pattern by definition). You can test it yourself. So I wanted to see how religious an AI can get when every AI has more than above average preference in religion. (I put in 6 for all those lower than 6). And soon it was a great rush for religion. Tall getting pantheons instantly fast with thick and wide falling behind. However, wide starts to suddenly take control since they naturally found new religion faster when they're prioritizing shrines more than monuments and barracks compared to tall empires and naturally their huge population from expanding gives them a stronger pressure and followers allowing them to quickly reform as close as classical era(which is delayed since everyone is pursuing religion and not science buildings).

This is the problem. There is such a plurality of strategies in the game yet you keep trying to advocate this "thick" idea as inevitable. There could be an excellent strategy involving being thick, but its not the only strategy, its not necessary to win or a good idea every game. If you keep pushing this idea that the end game always has the same pattern in a thread intended for newbies, I have to state my disagreement as a fan of VP.

Thick in the CTD era is inevitable (unless you want to lose on purpose) since we have to consider the victory types. Not to mention that wide continues to grow tall as there seems to be no land to expand onto(with few exceptions of a few one-tile city islands) while tall if they don't want to be irrelevant is going to have to do a little "civilizing".

Domination: (You are a warmonger and it's time for war!) which is kind of obvious what happens to stop a domination victory...
Science: (Your SS parts infuriate us! It's time for war!) which then slows down a science victory if they manage to take ur SS parts.
Cultural: (Your influence infuriates us! It's time for war!) which then slows down a cultural victory if they are successful in attacking your cultural centers(which then humans immediately start moving those great works to other cities).
Diplomatic: (Your coalition is a menace to this world's stability! It's time for war!) which then slows down your diplomatic victory as you begin to lose delegates from city-states either from war or diplomatically.
Time: (You are the top and we are not! It's time for war!) Whoever has the most score wins. Having a lot of cities tend to contribute to this.

 

[CrazyG]

Thick in the CTD era is inevitable (unless you want to lose on purpose) since we have to consider the victory types. Not to mention that wide continues to grow tall as there seems to be no land to expand onto(with few exceptions of a few one-tile city islands) while tall if they don't want to be irrelevant is going to have to do a little "civilizing".

What does CTD era mean?
Can you find human players who agree with this? Looking at basically all of the photojournals of the summer, I think there is only one that follows this pattern.

Wide does not grow tall. Wide cannot go tall, unless it razes its own cities or loses them in a war. Do you mean the population grows? Of course it grows. Population growing doesn't mean going tall anymore than building a library means you are going for a science victory.

Speaking from many tradition games played and won, I never had to use conquest to avoid becoming irrelevant. I have never felt any pressure to go wide late in the game(I do feel pressure to go wide early).

Domination: (You are a warmonger and it's time for war!) which is kind of obvious what happens to stop a domination victory...
Science: (Your SS parts infuriate us! It's time for war!) which then slows down a science victory if they manage to take ur SS parts.
Cultural: (Your influence infuriates us! It's time for war!) which then slows down a cultural victory if they are successful in attacking your cultural centers(which then humans immediately start moving those great works to other cities).
Diplomatic: (Your coalition is a menace to this world's stability! It's time for war!) which then slows down your diplomatic victory as you begin to lose delegates from city-states either from war or diplomatically.
Time: (You are the top and we are not! It's time for war!) Whoever has the most score wins. Having a lot of cities tend to contribute to this.

Yes, there is lots of war late game. That not "the great tall wide thickening", its just war.

Domination: are you saying I'm going tall after conquering the world? What?
Science: losing SS parts never happens, like once in every 10,000 games? I might defend myself, I might go a conquest spree if I'm Assyria, but a tall science powerhouse is just going to sit there and spam scientists.
Culture, that is just war. If I'm tall and I defend myself I'm not going wide or thick, I'm just repelling attackers. Sometimes I do some conquest, but that is usually to weaken whoever I attack, often the civ with the strongest culture. I don't make myself stronger, I just make him weaker. Those cities I annex or puppet actually hurt my tourism.
Diplomatic: you can get problems if people conquer your city states. That isn't unique to the late game though.
When was the last time a human talked about a game with a time victory? Does it even happen in AI only games?

 

[ElliotS]

Let's be honest with each other. You wanted to use everything once, that is how the table is designed. Its not designed to make good choices, its designed so that each social policy and ideology is "preferred" one time. You wanted to use three different options for religion, for growth, for diplomacy, for military, etc. You didn't write this trying to make the best decisions, its very noticeable that it was written attempting to use a different piece of advice each time.

This so much. This is bad advice for newbies because it's a bad theory.

You saw 3 starting trees, thought you had 3 main strategies because of that and tried to work backwards to make your theory work.

I know this idea is your baby, but I want to encourage you to abort it.

 

[tu_79]

Don't you realize that Enginseer is using the terms tall and wide in an unconventional way?

It would be better if @Enginseer explains it better what being tall and wide means for him. And preferably use another terminology.

 

[ElliotS]

Don't you realize that Enginseer is using the terms tall and wide in an unconventional way?

It would be better if @Enginseer explains it better what being tall and wide means for him. And preferably use another terminology.

You can't just claim that when you said "Dogs can fly" you were using the word 'dog' to describe 'bird'.

Tall and wide are clearly defined and commonly accepted terms. Especially for newbies some random "tall means X" is extremely damaging.

If he means something else he should change terminology, but that doesn't excuse using the wrong term until then.

 

[CrazyG]

Don't you realize that Enginseer is using the terms tall and wide in an unconventional way?

It would be better if @Enginseer explains it better what being tall and wide means for him. And preferably use another terminology.

His claim that "tradition has to do a little civilizing", "unless you want to lose on purpose" is wrong, has ample evidence to show its wrong, and will continue to be wrong regardless of what special meaning "tall" and "wide" receive.

There is some good strategy kicking around, its this insistence that its inevitable and must occur every game that is wrong. If you play India and get a religion with cooperation the first column is looking pretty good. But that isn't the only tradition strategy, its not even the only India strategy, and its not a great path for Arabia, Korea, or Austria, even if you choose those exact social policies. None of the other strategy guides on this forum claim to be the only way to win the game.

 

[Gazebo]

The terms ‘specialist, opportunist, expansionist’ might be better than tall, thick, wide. IMO.

G

 

[Stalker0]

His claim that "tradition has to do a little civilizing"

I do think this is true in certain cases. For example, I had a recent tradition game where I was in the middle of a continent surrounded by 3 civs (realized it too late after going down tradition). Ultimately I was slaughtered by a 3 pronged war. I simply did not have the army supply, production, and gold to survive against so many, and didn't have the natural terrain needed to hold off a 3 front war.

What I should have done in this situation was war early on one side, eliminate the threat (as well as promote up some of my troops), and then focus on only one side. So in that case, the right play was a civilizing mission.

But I think that proves CrazyG's original premise. There is no one strategy that fits all. Tradition can play peaceful or aggressive, and the answer as to when is very dependent on the situation.


So lately I've been shifting my thinking. Its not necessarily about what playstyle you want, but more about what each policy tree brings to the table. For example, Tradition is good if you need to religion rush. Its good if you have a lot of rivers in the area (for bath bonuses). Its actually ironically good if your capital area is not the best terrain, because you can essentially terraform the spot using GIs.

Authority is good if you get a lot of barbs swarming you early, even if you don't intend to go aggressive early war. You can also use it if you have an isolationist start with some CS but no civs. You can milk tributes from the CS and barbs for resources to help balance the tide.

Progress's worker speed boost is actually one of its greatest long term hallmarks. In situation where lots of terraforming is needed (such as a jungle start), it can be a big benefit. Also, if you don't need any key techs early, the ability to shift techs that you are close to completing and then getting them to get a big culture rush from Progress is great, whether you go Tall or Wide.

 

[ElliotS]

The terms ‘specialist, opportunist, expansionist’ might be better than tall, thick, wide. IMO.

G

What good would that do though? Would you say "I'm going to play a specialist game!" at the start? Wouldn't that just limit your potential strategies? I mean isn't everyone an opportunist if you're not role-playing.

 

[ashendashin]

What good would that do though? Would you say "I'm going to play a specialist game!" at the start? Wouldn't that just limit your potential strategies? I mean isn't everyone an opportunist if you're not role-playing.

The same applies to deciding on a tall or wide game. If you're focusing on a specialist play at any point, that doesn't mean you can't switch things up and apply what you've gained so far elsewhere, but you still spent time specializing instead of consistently playing for the occasional war or snowball of some sort, as an opportunist would. Maybe there's a better word than opportunist, but between specialists and expansionists, an opportunist is more likely to be able to deal with a larger variety of problems, as specialists have to focus their civ with tighter resources while expansionists are often dealing with consequences. I think the terms fit VP better as they imply fluid play instead of the strict "small or big".

 

[Gazebo]

What good would that do though? Would you say "I'm going to play a specialist game!" at the start? Wouldn't that just limit your potential strategies? I mean isn't everyone an opportunist if you're not role-playing.

I think it’s more of a starting ethos than a hard and fast rule. At least that’s how I was interpreting Enginseer’s post.

 

[CrazyG]

The terms ‘specialist, opportunist, expansionist’ might be better than tall, thick, wide. IMO.

For a while I had a theory that you win the game by focusing on specialists (usually tradition), infrastructure (usually progress), or your army (usually authority). This covers a lot of strategies, but it also misses a ton. For example, Portugal doesn't fall into any of those three.

I think if you change to column names to read "Growth India", "Progress Carthage", and "Heavy Warmonger Outline", this starts looking like a useful resource.

 

[Legen]

The whole point of the Tall vs Wide idea is how we are dealing with the increased costs to culture and science, plus tourism penalty, as we gain non-puppet cities. Tall is a playstyle (not strategy) that minimizes these penalties through minimal expansion, Wide is a playstyle that ignores them and expands without restraint. Remove the three drawbacks of expansion and the debate loses meaning.

Thick could make sense as a playstyle if human players had strategies about finding the optimal point regarding city yields vs penalties, but we don't actually try to do that. The percentage increase per city for isn't explicitely shown by the UI; if you don't happen to know, or can't remember, you won't be able to estimate how much a new city would have to produce to compensate for the penalties increase. At the moment, the closest I can think of a human thick strategy is when you're balancing these penalties with supply cap.

About specialists, infrastructure, armies and so on, I think these are mostly strategic specificities, not the central aspect of Tall vs Wide. We associate specialists with Tall because the only Tall Ancient Era tree happens to focus on them; if we had a fourth Ancient tree that focused on Tall warmongering (e.g. Capital gaining bonuses based on the number of owned puppets), even Imperialism and Autocracy could end being neutral policies in this debate. In fact, there was a time when playing Tall Domination Authority was relatively common due to puppeting being way better than annexing (I'm counting puppeting as Tall-oriented because it doesn't have the expansion penalties of founding or annexing a city).

 

[Bromar1]

Remove the three drawbacks of expansion and the debate loses meaning

Well said, the terms themselves only make sense in the context of these constraints.

Tall and wide have been around since vanilla, and have evolved in meaning over the years. Thick is relatively new term to refer to some of the more nuanced playstyles that VP can support

 

[ElliotS]

The percentage increase per city for isn't explicitely shown by the UI

Yes it is. There's an option that does just that.

Thick is relatively new term to refer to some of the more nuanced playstyles that VP can support

No it's not. Thick describes nothing adequately and I've seen it derail worthwhile conversations. (Not just when I just in and hate on the term either.)

Seriously: Describe thick. It's not a thing. (Or at least there's always a better term.)

 

[Bromar1]

Yes it is. There's an option that does just that.

No it's not. Thick describes nothing adequately and I've seen it derail worthwhile conversations. (Not just when I just in and hate on the term either.)

Seriously: Describe thick. It's not a thing. (Or at least there's always a better term.)

That's my point, thick is commonly thought of as having both tall and wide traits, but both of those terms are loaded with connotations already. That's why it's so confusing, everyone has a different interpretation

 

[Legen]

Yes it is. There's an option that does just that.

Where is this option? I can't remember seeing it, or is it from a mod?

 

[CrazyG]

Where is this option? I can't remember seeing it, or is it from a mod?

It appears if you mouse over the science icon or culture icon (or at least it used to). I think its 7% on standard. I don't knowing that number really helps me find the optimal number of cities though. There is just so much going on in a game that the math is too hard.