Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 689
Yeah, I’ve had a lot of difficulty lately with Tradition as well. It just requires too many factors to come together, whereas you can do well with Progress or Authority on almost any start.
Tradition guide from beginner to intermediate
- Thread starter Gokudo01
- Start date
Paramecium
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 346
What I have seen recently is that the AI picks tradition, but is expanding hugely, founding more than 8 cities, which is crippling for it in the long run...
Bascule2000
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2017
- Messages
- 154
This is strategy. Choosing tradition is bad strategy.
Generally yes. Test game last night saw tradition Poland eat his continent and win science on T370.
What's your opinion on that? Why many players think that Tradition is underpowered?
Do you agree with Bascule2000 with that AI just make less mistakes when playing Tradition than Progress and that's why the difference in performance is not as noticeable as in players hand?
Where does that late game happiness come from? Just curious.
But yeah I agree about the science - it's a subtle problem that has taken me a while to notice. I had been learning from experience that Wisdom was working out really well as a pantheon (without the intention to found), as well as All Creation of course. It finally dawned on me yesterday while playing my Portugal tradition start, that the early science and gold from the UA was really getting the wheels rolling.
So, add this point to strategy advice for tradition: your early science is weak so you must compensate somehow, ideally through your pantheon if not through your civ's uniques.
If it takes tradition at all - the AI takes progress a lot. In my current Portugal game I have progress Arabia and progress Korea (!), no AI (out of 7) has picked tradition.
You're right. Perhaps a new thread there is in order.
I think the discussion drifts easily towards balance talk because there's the important strategic choice of whether to pick tradition at all, instead of the other two trees. That decision needs to be based on some understanding of why tradition is worth picking and under what circumstances. I'm currently grappling with this question and trying to explore outside the box (e.g. should I warmonger? Is the conventional wisdom on which civs should play tradition perhaps wrong?).
Currently I think part of the weakness (if there is weakness) lies in peaceful play being weak. Actually I'm not sure there is any peaceful play on immortal/deity because the AI is so damn aggressive that you always end up at war sooner or later. I prefer having the war on my own terms, aggressively going for horses very early and just aiming to rush my neighbours no matter what civ or policy tree I'm starting with. At least if the map allows it. I'm finding that if I play tradition peacefully and defensively ("tall turtle") I can easily fall behind and essentially have very little control over how the game develops. So in my current tradition game I just decided to play as you'd expect an authority start to go, rushing horsemen for early war, and it's working very well.
As it is, the reasons I see for picking tradition are:
1. Good synergy with both statecraft and artistry. Can be a good long-term choice to support a CS-focused diplomatic victory or a cultural victory.
2. Makes good use of limited space. Your capital just wants a few good food tiles. The other cities want good production early and can happily overlap with the capital.
I disagree with all the defensive turtling mentality that's been argued for in this thread. I think you have to be assertive and create a "safe space" for your core empire by military means. Get some puppets and a vassal or two. I've had enough of "peaceful" tradition games where I'm constantly under siege by my nasty aggressive neighbours. I want to kick their teeth in before they even get the chance to invade my territory. I'll make up for the early warfare later through the long-term value of my GP factory.
I'm also coming around to the conclusion that I just want 4 cities, i.e. build 3 settlers early. I can't afford to support more than 3 "babies" and my capital needs to start growing and building stuff (like horsemen).
Bascule2000
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2017
- Messages
- 154
I'll elaborate on that. I think the area where a human player can often outplay the AI in the early game is expansion. We're better at deciding when to rush out settlers, and better at deciding where to settle. We're better at taking a long view, e.g. considering where we will be able to expand to later, and deciding which civs we want to forward settle and which are best left alone. Progress allows lots of early cities, which plays to a human's strengths relative to the AI.
I had a game recently where Ethiopia was to my east, with the Huns further east. Ethiopia agressively settled close to Attila's Court, leaving me loads of room and the opportunity to choke him off with an aggressive settle of my own (seas, mountains and war with me prevented Ethiopia from settling again). An experienced human player playing Ethiopia wouldn't have made that mistake, and an AI playing my position probably wouldn't exploit the error.
Last edited:
I agree but to elaborate a little further, I think tradition is actually equally good at early expansion thanks to the capital's bonuses (particularly Justice if you take that early). However progress is much better at deriving immediate value from the early expansion, through Fraternity in particular but also all the other policies, while the tradition player is left trying to convince himself "one day these new cities will make my empire stronger".
I don’t think there’s a link between good at tradition and bad at progress.
So players think that Tradition is worse than Progress or Authority, just because they play worse with it?
I guess? I don’t see any AI evidence that any branch is stronger than another, within era comparisons.
G
I think that's a significant part of it actually. Which is why I'm not quite willing to say anything more than that tradition feels weaker, not that it is objectively weaker (I trust G's judgement on that).
Compared to tradition, progress is dead simple. It just wants you to play classic Civ: settle new cities, improve the land, build stuff, get more tech. There's a minor non-obvious gimmick with waiting to complete techs if you're about to get the next policy, but that's about it. How to play tradition well is a lot less obvious, witnessed by frequent discussions about it on this forum. I'm still trying to figure it out myself.
Biggest mistake I see with tradition around here: people still assume it is the ‘safest’ branch, as it was in vanilla. It’s not. It’s actually the riskiest early branch, and it’s not a good idea to take it and turtle up (unless you are Korea). You need to cripple a neighbor or two somehow to make it work. It pays off big time in the mid-game, but only if you’re not the low man in your neighborhood.
G
G
I agree that Tradition's power is much more subtle than Progress.
1) Tradition generates a lot more tourism (through early great works) than progress. So you are more likely to get extra science and growth through trade routes early in the game.
2) Tradition is more likely to get Golden Ages earlier and longer...so those bonuses have to be factored in.
3) You will get Great Engineers, Writers, and Artists MUCH earlier than a Progress player.
4) Your culture speed is faster for the early part of the game.
5) It is much easier to get the religion you want, and found with pantheons you could not under Progress.
6) You will just have more Great People period. That means you are getting extra bonuses from Great Improvements that a Progress player would not. Just a quick example, late game if you have just 2 academies more than a Progress player, that means every new GS you make gives a 20% stronger bulb (and you will keep making more of them period).
7) Your capital produces 10% more yields to everything. That is a decent amount of extra culture and science even in the later game.
8) Your borders spread much more quickly. You will need to buy borders less, and you are more likely to spread into key territory faster than your opponent.
Progress's effects are blunt and direct, Tradition works through 3rd party notes (makes Great People -> Great Improvements -> More permanent yields kind of thing).
But if tradition truly weaker than Progress at small civ management? I haven't really felt it myself.
Fewer cities = less unhappiness
You should have 0 unhappiness in your capital other than crime (maybe one poverty)
The national wonders happiness source is very strong until late in the game. Empires need to be really large to earn more from progress's per 15 citizens. Authority's happiness source is strong but requires a larger investment across several cities.
Tradition kills the most boredom because it direclty boosts culture (progress only gives bonus yields which don't fight unhappiness).
I agree the problem on Deity (and its only an issue on exactly Deity, I can win on immortal as peaceful tradition, no problemo) is just science. Pantheons, Civ bonuses, lucky CS quests, even building councils earlier all seem like good options to me. Another thing to do is delay settlers longer than you normally do. I've seen it said that Stonehenge is bad because you can build a settler instead, then a shrine for about the same faith. The issue is that settler produces negative culture and science for a long time, especially if you shrine first. Stonehenge produces culture and science (free council) and pairs really well with Goddess of Beauty, which is a great pantheon for tradition. If I make it to Renaissance, I pretty much always win barring enemy military civs (in particular Zulu)
Deadstarre
Expert
I don't play tradition, but I have to be honest that doesnt sound like appealing design to me. on turn 25 I dont need to be taking risks with my ancient era policy selection that will either lose my game in the near future or win my game in the long haul. I want something stable and something obviously helpful (not helpful in subtle ways) that feels good to play, which is why i pick progress or authority. to be fair though i dont play cramped maps.
Riskiest != impossibly risky. Being the riskiest of the three does not make it excessively so, as it's a relative term.
G
This depends on what wonders you get though. If you miss stuff like the University of Sankore (which is far more relevant on Deity than other difficulties, and far more relevant when evaluating a single player experience than AI vs AI testing) your late game is much harder. I tend to take risks early on to build those wonders, but you don't have to.