Top civs for progress?

[Matutin]

Just one question: How can you do a qualified decision which policy tree you want to follow that early? For progress you need lots of available space, but you can't have scouted that Already that early, don't you?

 

[Favorius]

Just one question: How can you do a qualified decision which policy tree you want to follow that early? For progress you need lots of available space, but you can't have scouted that Already that early, don't you?

Space is rarely a problem, I build cities as close as possible and do not care for overlapping. Past experiences of progress qualify the decision.

 

[Matutin]

Because Wide Cities don't get much pop anyway, but? Or how do you justify that?

 

[Magean]

Because Wide Cities don't get much pop anyway, but? Or how do you justify that?

Remember that Progress isn't necessarily about settling all over the place, it's about leveraging a wide empire all over the game. You can conquer it, too.

Authority is the tree you want if you're going to try and settle a lot of available space before your neighbors. In my previous posts in this topic, I detailed while Authority is so much better than Progress for that.

 

[Stalker0]

Space is rarely a problem, I build cities as close as possible and do not care for overlapping. Past experiences of progress qualify the decision.

this is one thing I'm accepting more and more in my game play. Between the long amount of time it takes to grow a city big enough to use the tiles around it, and the advantages of using specialists late game....you really don't need a lot of tiles for a city to work.

Heavy overlapping doesn't hinder things nearly as much as it might appear at first glance.

 

[Magean]

this is one thing I'm accepting more and more in my game play. Between the long amount of time it takes to grow a city big enough to use the tiles around it, and the advantages of using specialists late game....you really don't need a lot of tiles for a city to work.

Heavy overlapping doesn't hinder things nearly as much as it might appear at first glance.

It depends on map type though, on Communitas resources are typically abundant so it's easier to have close-by cities. On other map types you may not have enough good tiles.

 

[Workerspam]

It depends on map type though, on Communitas resources are typically abundant so it's easier to have close-by cities. On other map types you may not have enough good tiles.

I play on Planet Simulator maps and I've been on a maddening run of semi-desert starts, the types where you end up with a ton of unproductive tiles but there's not quite enough desert resources/oasis to make spirit of the desert worthwhile. I've still found Progress to be potent, even with multiple cities with only 5-6 workable tiles. Those cities simply start working specialists earlier than usual.

I used to be very meticulous with my city placement, really aiming for 4 tiles of separation for all cities. I've since come to realize that city distance is not as important as simply having enough workable tiles per city; for Progress that can be as low as 5 tiles. If the land is rich in good tiles I have no problem throwing multiple cities in the minimum 3 tile distance if that makes optimum use of the space. Tile poor lands can go 6-7 tiles between if necessary. I'd rather have longer roads than worse cities.

 

[tu_79]

I play on Planet Simulator maps and I've been on a maddening run of semi-desert starts, the types where you end up with a ton of unproductive tiles but there's not quite enough desert resources/oasis to make spirit of the desert worthwhile. I've still found Progress to be potent, even with multiple cities with only 5-6 workable tiles. Those cities simply start working specialists earlier than usual.

I used to be very meticulous with my city placement, really aiming for 4 tiles of separation for all cities. I've since come to realize that city distance is not as important as simply having enough workable tiles per city; for Progress that can be as low as 5 tiles. If the land is rich in good tiles I have no problem throwing multiple cities in the minimum 3 tile distance if that makes optimum use of the space. Tile poor lands can go 6-7 tiles between if necessary. I'd rather have longer roads than worse cities.

I feel the same. Sometimes I place next cities at 3 tiles west and east, but none at north or south, so effective area for each city is larger than a 2 tiles circle. But in the end, it comes at how many workable tiles are in city range.