Tradition Deviations

[Kim Dong Un]

I've read many others stating that 4-6 cities seems to be the sweet spot when it comes to the number of cities you want to preferably have when going tradition (as you're usually planning for a cultural victory, and more cities means more tourism penalty). Now sure, many things can happen over the course of a game, but how often do you deviate? Do you usually find it successful?

My current situation as Brazil (6 cities, tradition/artistry/industry) had me intrigued, as I had an opportunity to strike and take a city from my only bordering neighbor (Gandhi) to the south. I'd already forward settled him in order to grab one of his monopoly resources, and to control the choke point between two city states (both my allies). Gandhi's bordering city also has a second different luxury that I would obtain if conquered. To Gandhi's west is Assyria, who had been distractedly warmongering him and left me ample opportunity to break through.

Now I know what should've happened, and what 95% of players would do (Gandhi also posed the only threatening opposing religion), but I decided to try and play a peaceful game without any wars. It was successful, and the game finished with me steamrolling to a CV, as I was basically unassailable as long as I kept control of the CS in proximity. Now on Prince/King difficulty this is fine, but I'm curious to hear any input on this for future games on harder difficulties, where the AI will have many units and be more inclined to come knocking on my door...

Simply put, I had two choices. Have a manageable, yet naturally guarded situation with Gandhi that hopefully never boils over (he still finished 2nd)? Or take advantage early and capture the city (or multiple) and have Gandhi hate me and try to fight back more forcefully the rest of the game? Would that one city (a luxury and some yields) be worth it to push past certain traditional boundaries when I'll probably be (and was) top dog anyways? Will the tourism hit be tangible going from 6 to potentially 7/8/9 cities, making a CV harder in the long run? Are there any games where you start tradition yet eventually end up with imperialism and general expansion? I'm curious for other opinions, as I've been trying tradition more frequently after the new changes.

 

[Legen]

First, you can puppet the city to avoid the increased costs and tourism penalty.

Second, some civ's considerations about your situation:

1. Were there forest/jungle tiles eligible for brazilwood camps in that city? A camp or two can offset the culture cost and the tourism penalty, especially during a Carnival there.
2. That city was also worth an extra 14 per turn due to Artistry's scaler + University buff. With Brazil, that means , especially if you manage to stockpile it with great artists.
   
3. The luxury's extra happiness (especially with Industry's finisher) is already some on its own for Brazil. If you were already trading without hassle, you could just focus on something else. If not, it helps offsetting the tourism penalty from annexing.

Brazil itself doesn't struggle with tourism if it goes wide, assuming you have Artistry. Especially if you get other wide-related sources of GAP, like Freedom's Creative Expression, Stupas and Cristo Redentor. Or Neuschwanstein. The question is if you don't want to puppet instead of annexing; the former doesn't increase costs and penalties, while the latter gives you more supply and control. I usually prefer the former, especially in cities without tiles eligible for brazilwood camp, to maximize policy acquisition. However, once I have my influence secured, I tend to start annexing conquests for the supply. Either way, one successful conquest would actually ease your CV in the long run, not make it harder.

You could also get a positive relationship with Assyria from the war. If that is desirable for you, I'd say to go for it anyways. Assyria may even be too much of a distraction for Ghandi to actually focus you.

I don't think you should refrain from conquests as Tradition, the matter is if you can muster an army to conquer something with the limited supply you're given. Especially with a civ lacking military bonuses.

 

[Owlbebach]

On higher difficulties problem with Tradition is that you can't keep up with AI in terms of infrastructure development and that leads to you being more and more behind. Usually you can't fight not because you don't want extra land but because you are desperately trying to build something in your cities. Remember that every time you build a unit - you do not build a building.

 

[tu_79]

I can't help but attacking Gandhi. I'd try to puppet/vassal as much as I can. Tourism penalty might be harsh, but I've lost more games from poorly defended empires, so now I always want an army with which I can retaliate, and that means taking some foreign cities.

 

[Stalker0]

On higher difficulties problem with Tradition is that you can't keep up with AI in terms of infrastructure development and that leads to you being more and more behind.

Part of the counter to that is making the most optimal use of your great improvements. Its true that the progress player will be making public schools before a Tradition One, but the tradition player should have several more academies to make up the difference.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

First, you can puppet the city to avoid the increased costs and tourism penalty.

Second, some civ's considerations about your situation:

1. Were there forest/jungle tiles eligible for brazilwood camps in that city? A camp or two can offset the culture cost and the tourism penalty, especially during a Carnival there.
2. That city was also worth an extra 14 per turn due to Artistry's scaler + University buff. With Brazil, that means , especially if you manage to stockpile it with great artists.
   
3. The luxury's extra happiness (especially with Industry's finisher) is already some on its own for Brazil. If you were already trading without hassle, you could just focus on something else. If not, it helps offsetting the tourism penalty from annexing.

Brazil itself doesn't struggle with tourism if it goes wide, assuming you have Artistry. Especially if you get other wide-related sources of GAP, like Freedom's Creative Expression, Stupas and Cristo Redentor. Or Neuschwanstein. The question is if you don't want to puppet instead of annexing; the former doesn't increase costs and penalties, while the latter gives you more supply and control. I usually prefer the former, especially in cities without tiles eligible for brazilwood camp, to maximize policy acquisition. However, once I have my influence secured, I tend to start annexing conquests for the supply. Either way, one successful conquest would actually ease your CV in the long run, not make it harder.

You could also get a positive relationship with Assyria from the war. If that is desirable for you, I'd say to go for it anyways. Assyria may even be too much of a distraction for Ghandi to actually focus you.

I don't think you should refrain from conquests as Tradition, the matter is if you can muster an army to conquer something with the limited supply you're given. Especially with a civ lacking military bonuses.

Yea everything you said resonates. Again, I knew what should happen, but didn't pull the trigger. I only had a brain fart when not remembering that a puppet city doesn't increase tourism/policy costs. Yes I also had a DoF with Assyria, as well as Creative Expression, Stupas, Neusch, and Cristo lol. Basically your last point about not refraining from conquests is what I really needed to read. Thank you for the tips.