to everyone questioning trad/liberty mix

[Thorak]

cmon, how can you possibly conclude that? what settings make this so special? warlord difficulty doesnt really favor liberty, sure you have to generate more cash yourself, but favors pure tradition as CS allies are easier and expansion spots are easier to get, great plains is not very much different from pangaea, sure large map gives a bit of bonus science with more cities, but not enough that this would not be better than 4 cities, im not saying that i found the perfect combination, im saying that given the circumstances that you have lots of nice expansion spots, trad/liberty does better than trad alone.

There are several things which makes your settings favor liberty, happiness and good dirt being 2. Also don't you get policies/techs/pop quicker on warlord?

You need to play on at least prince to make the comparison reasonable (shoshone on lower difficulties also finds more ruins). Even prince is questionable as it's easier to go wide on lower difficulties because of better dirt.

 

[klaskeren]

cmon, how can you possibly conclude that?

How can I conclude that you'll have a good game on Warlord difficulty regardless of your policy selections?

Look, you can draw whatever conclusions you want to, for your game. I just don't feel like your example is capable of proving wrong "everyone questioning trad/liberty mix"

again, im not trying to prove anyone wrong, im trying to say that with the right conditions, trad/liberty is good.

 

[manu-fan]

again, im not trying to prove anyone wrong, im trying to say that with the right conditions, trad/liberty is good.

I don't think you understand. A game on Warlord difficulty doesn't prove anything to the strategists here, because they all play on Emperor, Immortal, or Deity.

So, if you want to say Trad/Lib is good at Warlord difficulty, I can't argue with that. But, as a blanket statement, it just doesn't hold up.

 

[Tabarnak]

Well we can at least conclude that on lower levels than prince, where policies are less costly, it's much preferable to get left side of Liberty before finishing Tradition. With happiness surplus from these levels, without the fear to be attacked from the AI early on, pangea type of maps(great plains...you can find all cs in less than 80 turns) and every traders available you have a solid recipe to reach awesome powers.

With all those mountains and rivers you're going to be spectacularly fast. Sometimes the map generator is very kind.

It's a particularity of Great Plains maps. All maps have mountains to the left(best spot), plains in the middle and forests to the right(hardest spot).

 

[sschmalz]

My suggestion, something I've not seen anyone do, is play the same game 3+ times. That has a chance of proving something to someone on social policies.

If you set up a game at any difficulty, any map, no other players, saved at turn 0, and played to let's say turn 150 (or however long it takes to close out a policy tree) and went full tradition THEN compare those results to the same game replayed with full liberty, THEN again with tradition/liberty combined...

Anyone does that and they'll have my attention.

 

[adwcta]

Still wouldn't be applicable for standard settings, unless its on standard settings.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Erneiz Hyde]

Difficulty: Warlord

ouch.

Weeell, I guess I'll just have to try it myself then. About time I try the mixed approach.

 

[Justice1337]

Well we can at least conclude that on lower levels than prince, where policies are less costly, it's much preferable to get left side of Liberty before finishing Tradition. With happiness surplus from these levels, without the fear to be attacked from the AI early on, pangea type of maps(great plains...you can find all cs in less than 80 turns) and every traders available you have a solid recipe to reach awesome powers.



It's a particularity of Great Plains maps. All maps have mountains to the left(best spot), plains in the middle and forests to the right(hardest spot).

I would still say that pure Liberty is favored under those settings, over either pure Trad or a Hybrid. Because essentially what the math advocates have proven is that, taking the assumption of unlimited expansion, expansion is better than no expansion. And unquestionably, Liberty surpasses Tradition in both short and long-term benefits given enough expansion.

Of course, no one is going to buy that if the Tradition fanboi'ism is so strong that people are convinced it's stronger than Rationalism/Commerce/Patronage. Maybe to them, taking the Trad closer at Turn 170 is "uber", and so it'd be between Full Liberty > Full Trad and Full Liberty > Rat, even if you did show Liberty was better than Trad given unlimited map constraints.

 

[Light Cleric]

Problem with the mixed approach is the huge difference in time it takes to get the Settler out as the 4th policy, and going straight to Collective Rule makes it take way longer to get to the Tradition opener(and therefore your borders to get those early tiles) and then Legalism. At that point I'd probably grab Monarchy, maybe Landed Elite and then call it a day and go Rationalism. You can have your Aqueducts hard built by that point.

It's actually fun to do with Monty because he can solve that problem pretty effectively with enough bloodshed.

 

[tommynt]

tommy said that lib/trad mix is best so u might stop discussing

well u need a culture ruin ... or tecs or shoshone or some other good start civ

 

[Memoryjar]

And you finish Tradition before Renaissance or do you finish tradition even you reach Renaissance and after Open rationalism ?

Klaskeren : Yup, Astronomy, my bad.

 

[klaskeren]

And you finish Tradition before Renaissance or do you finish tradition even you reach Renaissance and after Open rationalism ?

Klaskeren : Yup, Astronomy, my bad.

i finish tradition first, even if i can take rato 10-15 turns earlier, the trad finisher is really good

 

[Tabarnak]

I would still say that pure Liberty is favored under those settings, over either pure Trad or a Hybrid. Because essentially what the math advocates have proven is that, taking the assumption of unlimited expansion, expansion is better than no expansion.

It's not really about what the trees can bring you, but more what your environment has to offer.

 

[tommynt]

every1 talking about full liberty might start reading what boni the social policies in the trees actually give you.

 

[Gustavus Rex]

tommy said that lib/trad mix is best so u might stop discussing

well u need a culture ruin ... or tecs or shoshone or some other good start civ

I'd love to read a guide from you with examples for civs other then Poland. Or is policy-order the same? Situational?

I tried but never felt I got the right flow of things with mix compared to fill trees.








Skickas från min iPhone via Tapatalk

 

[Justice1337]

every1 talking about full liberty might start reading what boni the social policies in the trees actually give you.

I was about to say the same thing, just the other way around. No one reads what Representation actually does. Hybrid guides even strongly recommend building Oracle. Why I would ever want to spam policies, then stop 2 short of getting Representation really boggles my mind. Representation is the best Ancient Era policy for getting more policies. The unbiased eye that sees the Renaissance/Medieval policies as better (read: anyone actually still evaluating the strength of their game past Turn 150), that's the ideal Ancient Era policy.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

I don't feel that the difficulty level the OP plays at kills his point enitrely, but the map shows that the advantage gained, great research in this case, is attributed incorrectly to social policy choices when it should be attributed to the map itself.

The point made, "great research results from Trad/Liberty mix," cannot be concluded from the evidence provided. All that can be concluded is that, "having your first six cities ALL be mountainside results in more research." 50% more to be more specific.

Regarding the original post, I'm on your side. I enjoy utilizing the trad/liberty mix, especially with Poland but with others as well. I think it's an EFFECTIVE strategy in just about every conceivable case. EFFECTIVE, yes, but OPTIMAL is more questionable. The main point made to counter this strategy is the significant delay if opening rationalism, which is hard to ignore, and the compounding delays of all subsequent policies in that tree, which then further compounds in delays or simply doing without ideological tenets.

 

[klaskeren]

The point made, "great research results from Trad/Liberty mix," cannot be concluded from the evidence provided. All that can be concluded is that, "having your first six cities ALL be mountainside results in more research." 50% more to be more specific.

im sorry, but this is completely wrong, neither of the 2 things can be concluded, and its not +50%, you have to take into account universities and NC

 

[hai 1]

The misinformation... it burns my eyes

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

im sorry, but this is completely wrong, neither of the 2 things can be concluded, and its not +50%, you have to take into account universities and NC

I'm sorry, but it's not "completely wrong." "Completely wrong" would mean that having an additional +50% research modifier in every city doesn't help research. The total output may be less than 50% higher than it would be otherwise, but it's still a very significant contribution to the end result which you've inappropriately attributed so social policy choice.

Besides, it's not like I'm cooking up a map with a worldbuilder, playing a game on Warlord difficulty, and then presenting the game as empirical evidence... that would be completely wrong.