1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Top civs for progress?

Discussion in 'Strategy Section' started by besset, Dec 27, 2017.

  1. besset

    besset Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    132
    Hello!

    I just played The Maya as progress on emperor and it went superb, such a beastly civ. But what makes a civ good for progress really? I mean rome for example has a 20% production boost for buildings that are already in the capital, and it has a nice synergy for the policy in progress wich gives 20% production for all buildings. So going wide is probably the best option. What are some other civs? What about any religious civs?
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
  2. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,263
    Location:
    Venice, California
    You're almost better off ruling out the civs that do better with Tradition. But if you're looking for a strong Progress civ that also gets a religion just about every time in human hand, try Carthage.
     
  3. Galbias

    Galbias Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2016
    Messages:
    488
    Progress is a very general tree that has a lot of bonuses that are going to be applicable in essentially any situation. I tend to think of Progress as the sort of default tree and Tradition and Authority as the more specialized ones. ie if you don't have a civ that specifically wants Tradition (growth, extra specialists/GP rate in capital) or Authority (early warmongering), Progress is a fairly safe bet.

    One thing it does have is a fair number of bonuses that apply to each city, so it works well for wide empires, but that doesn't mean that it isn't good if your empire is smaller.
     
    Gokudo01 and IcyAngel like this.
  4. Noob Fanboy

    Noob Fanboy Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    234
    It seems like Carthage is the perfect civilization for Progress. I think Rome, Babylon and Celts are good for progress too. But they can do a lot better going with Authority.

    Huns can go for Authority -> Progress, for a early game invasion followed by a strong infraestructure.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2017
    CrazyG and Moochamoola like this.
  5. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,869
    Location:
    Beijing
    Carthage, Songhai and Iroquios all do progress really well. Instant city connections and unique buildings that provide production have direct synergy. They all also have an early UU to help with early wars, which can be an issue for progress
     
    IcyAngel likes this.
  6. Magean

    Magean Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    I'm a mere Emperor player so what I can say is only worth that much. From my experience, you shouldn't go Progress if you want a religion. Unless you're a very specific civ with very specific bonuses (e.g. Carthage), or you've an exceptional start for your pantheon.

    This is because Progress doesn't have much to help founding a religion. Its only indirect bonus is faster tile improvement, which translates into having your faith-generating improvements up earlier in case your pantheon gives some.

    By contrast, Authority has two main advantages:
    1) It allows faster land-grabbing by making barbs more manageable and providing a free settler
    2) Its :c5production: bonuses come faster that Progress', although they tamper down on the long run, while those from Progress (building speed) stay very relevant. In the early game however, Authority provides 1 :c5production: per policy while Progress provides only 2 :c5production: for a policy which is usually taken third.

    So, with Authority, you can found more cities in the crucial early game, and each of these can have its shrine as well as a possible other faith-generating building (such as a market for the Springtime pantheon) up earlier.

    As for Tradition, it has a faith-building of its own. A large capital can also help leveraging your pantheon by working tiles.

    And I forgot something: since Progress tends to lack culture early on, I typically build a monument before a shrine in my capital. This is another crucial delay in the religious race.

    Therefore, I wouldn't take Progress when playing a civ that really wants to found a religion. Progress is better tailored for when I don't plan to divest much resources in faith stuff. Moreover, I think it has a slowest very early game than the two other trees, all the while scaling much better later on.

    All in all the ideal situation for Progress is the following, in my book:
    1) A long-term plan to go wide. Otherwise, Tradition is better.
    2) Not too much military pressure from neighbors (as in, not starting next to Attila or Shaka). Better to be a Tradition turtle or an Authority pit-bull when having terrible neighbors.
    3) Not too much settling pressure from neighbors (hello Pocatello) although it's usually less of a problem than the above point. Expansionist but weak neighbors can be dealt with more easily than militarist ones.
    4) An external source of culture (from luxuries for example); this is clearly not mandatory but it helps alleviating Progress's low early culture.
    5) No plan to go religious, baring some specific cases as mentioned earlier.

    Based on this, good civs for Progress are non-tall and non-religious civs, as those tend to be better off with other trees... and that's about it. Progress can fit any other civ well, really. An early UU definitely helps alleviating Progress' squishiness, but late-blossoming civs such as France can benefit a lot from Progress' boons once they start expanding, as long as they didn't stay too small before.

    As for the "top civs" for Progress, they've all been mentioned in the posts above I guess.

    EDIT: also, one reason why Authority allows faster land-claiming than Progress is that the opportunity cost of halting growth in your capital by chain-producing settlers is lower. Indeed, to fully benefit from Progress' opener you want to grow your capital in the early game. Later on these yields don't matter. This is another reason why Authority is better for the religious race.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
    Moochamoola likes this.
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,965
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    How about Polynesia? Moais give culture and they can expand fairly easy in Ancient.
     
    IcyAngel likes this.
  8. infidel88

    infidel88 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Yuggoth
    From my experience, progress is best choice for most civs, especially in the long run. And more cities => more land => more resources => more supply cap => bigger army. Zulu? Sure, you get better infrastructure for your conquests. Indonesia? So many cities with 2 unique plantations. Russia? Many cities with border growth. Iroq or Carthage? Instant city connections - that's just too easy. China, where you can quickly jump to classical and then overexpand with all those bonuses? Poland, which allows you to quickly finish tree and get easy monies.

    It's easier to mark civs, which are bad with progress and they are mostly capital-centric: Dutch, Arabia, Morocco, Assyria, Korea, Austria.
     
    IcyAngel likes this.
  9. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warmonger

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,714
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    I feel like progress has become a very good choice for every early warmonger since tribute was directly and indirectly nerfed into the ground.

    The fact is that even if you go mining -> broze working and produce 4-5 spearmen as authority, on Diety you likely won't get a single bully. Even as Zulu.

    This means that a lot of authority's early game power is gone, and progress's staying power is worth more.

    You can use your early game UU and stuff to overcome progress's weakness, rather than capitalizing on it with authority.

    I think when Authority could build spearmen and bully cities states for a while until civs started making too many horsemen/swordsmen the choice was much harder.
     
    LukaSlovenia29 likes this.
  10. Workerspam

    Workerspam Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2016
    Messages:
    324
    Emperor player as well; I haven't found religion to be an issue with Progress outside of starts that cause Progress issues overall (i.e. no culture and poor workable tiles). Just build Shrine/Monument and expand fast. Only time I run into issues is when I get lulled into picking a better long term pantheon at the expense of short term faith.

    I find Progress works well with every civ. Some have great synergy with the other trees and Progress is simply an option. Some civs I can't envision going with anything but Progress. Foremost among those are Carthage, Shoshone, and Iroquois.
     
  11. Magean

    Magean Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    Well you can do that with Progress but Authority does it better. It has more early culture (unless you start in a very populated region with few barbs), thus delaying the monument for after the shrine is not a problem; and it supports faster expansion. So if you really want to commit to getting a religion and minimize the risk to fail (considering that above King the religious race can be decided in a matter of a couple turns), Authority is preferable. Then of course, I may not be playing the religious race properly.
     
  12. MorphBer

    MorphBer Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2017
    Messages:
    180
    Since others wrote that progress waknesses are mainly culture and religion, you could try to find a civ that compensates that: Ethopia will give you a nice shot at a religion for example, but that is only one example.

    To what you said about rome and the synergy with their UA, I think that might be a false conclusion I have read several times on this forum:
    So Rome's UA basicially gives you 15% on buildings in your non-capital cities and Progress policy gives you another 20%, but the don't stack right? So you get 135% on buildings. The way I see it, is that your base for the UA is now 120% and you get another 15%, but that's now only 12,5% of your new base, so it is actually anti-synergystic in a way. I hope it came across whar I mean. Authoriaty on the contrast gives a flat hammer bonus, ith the 15% will apply to, so thats what would be synergistic to me, cause it stacks.
     
  13. Magean

    Magean Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    You're maybe using a bit of a narrow definition of synergy. What most people have in mind is that you get better at doing what you already did well. Rome is good at developing infrastructure, Progress makes it even better at that. It doesn't matter that bonuses don't perfectly add up, as long you're increasing your comparative advantage.
     
  14. CrabHelmet

    CrabHelmet King

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    641
    Spain. Spain with Progress is :love:.
     
    IcyAngel likes this.
  15. Paramecium

    Paramecium Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Messages:
    330
    What are you meaning? That all those civs are Tradition ones? Dutch is doing quite well with progress imo, just for an example. And Assyria is a warmonger, which can be played with Authority.

    As an general rule of thumb, civs with an UI and good UB which favor wideplay progress is a good choice. And with UA besides GP generation, straight culture victory and (pure) warmongering.
     
  16. infidel88

    infidel88 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Yuggoth
    Dutch gets most benefits from small empire. This way you get the most out of culture received via UA. Sure, you can go wide, but then 3:c5culture: gained with UA is worth way less for 9 cities than 4 cities.
    Assyria needs :greatwork: in capital to fully use their UA/UB. In general it is advised to play tall as Assyria until you can pop lvl4 units and then just go on conquer spree. I disagree with that, as I believe Progress is better for conquer than Authority and (especially) tradition, but that's just an opinion. Most people agree there are better choices for Assyria than Progress.
     
  17. CrabHelmet

    CrabHelmet King

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    641
    I don't feel like there are many Civs which are 'obviously' Progress, as a rule of thumb. Whether I go Progress or Authority is more context-sensitive than it is Civ-dependent. It's not like Tradition, where there are clear 'Tradition Civs'.
     
  18. Favorius

    Favorius I am not a Chief!

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    273
    Location:
    Constantinople
    I had my easiest emperor win with a progress Denmark. I just mixed progress with authority going 2 trees at once. Pillaging gave production and culture; bonus production gave more buildings which gave more culture and growth etc. Very strong snowballing. I was 12 policies and tech ahead of 2nd best when I won.
     
  19. besset

    besset Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    132
    What map was it? And in what order did you go with social policies? Which one did you open first, and did you get a religion? Also I assume you conquered a lot?
     
  20. Favorius

    Favorius I am not a Chief!

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    273
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Communitas large map.

    I started with authority, tribute, imperium. Then picked progress, liberty, equality, fraternity, organization and expertize. Then finished rest of authority. I picked god of war for pantheon and did lots of fighting so I get a religion. I conquered my northern neighbour Ethiopia at early classical era and western neighbour Portugal at early medieval era. After having 3 civilization worth of space, game actually won itself.
     

Share This Page