Tradition vs. Progress

[zeofig]

I think tradition has some effective lategame bonuses, but they are more synergy-based. The additional writer/artist/musician and GP rate are still effective, but their long-term impact is increased if you have great work bonuses or other GP-related bonuses. There's also the 15% yields in the capital, which synergises with great works and anything else that gives huge yields in the capital e.g. Arabia's UA, syncretism, god-king. And there's the growth bonus, which is also dependent on having the right amount of cities and happiness to be impactful lategame. In contrast, Progress's scaling bonuses (10% building production, happiness, great writers) are good in most circumstances, although the happiness bonus is only relevant if you have enough cities that you experience considerable unhappiness. The worker speed bonuses are also nice if you're conquering, building war roads, repairing pillages etc. This is one of the ways I conceptualise the difference between the two trees (and many things in VP) - I usually only go tradition if I can leverage some synergies with its bonuses.

 

[KaoticKanine]

Yeah, I always thought Progress was the "snowball" policy tree: starts off simply okay but picks up in power as the game goes on. Which is kind of to be expected since "Progress" would imply the civ to be progressive and thus adapts to the future better, whereas Tradition (as zeofig points out) requires some synergy to stay relevant in the late-game.

Though, looking at it that way, kind of weird that Progress is an Ancient policy tree instead of Renaissance or so lol

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Like Zeofig said, Progress should be about a big empire (more military cap, more resources, more citizens,...) that builds boatloads of buildings (helped by 10% to buildings, lots of buildings = lots of culture), is helped with happiness by its policies, gets loads of culture from discovering techs and from being able to time generating/faith buying great writers for maximum culture bombs, and is due to its size and happiness bonuses able to better wage (offensive) wars than Tradition, so it's an alternative to Authority for people that want to or think they might be at some point forced to go to a real war.

 

[maxf]

I think we need to make an experiment: play the same game twice, once with Tradition, another with Progress. And see on what move the branch will be completed, what the indicators will be by that time. Ideally, play both games till Industrial or Modern Era.

 

[Stalker0]

I think we need to make an experiment: play the same game twice, once with Tradition, another with Progress. And see on what move the branch will be completed, what the indicators will be by that time. Ideally, play both games till Industrial or Modern Era.

Not exactly what you are looking for, but close:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...a-side-by-side-actual-game-comparison.659905/

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/tradition-vs-progress-2-a-side-by-side-comparison.662524/

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/tradition-vs-progress-3-a-side-by-side-comparison.662580/

 

[Zuizgond]

What bothers me the most is how AI handle progress. It doesn't seem to build a lot of cities.

 

[tothePAIN]

A reminder to anyone before suggesting drastic changes to policy trees. The effectiveness of the policy tree depends a fair amount on the speed of AI development and bonuses. On the current patch and more recent patches, Progress has been very strong because its easier to settle a large number of cities, because the AI isn't getting bonuses on the first city and expands more slowly. This hasn't always been the case and could change.

I'll also note that Progress has been criticized for being too weak - it now looks like its in a good place.

 

[Nightmare Dusk]

A reminder to anyone before suggesting drastic changes to policy trees. The effectiveness of the policy tree depends a fair amount on the speed of AI development and bonuses. On the current patch and more recent patches, Progress has been very strong because its easier to settle a large number of cities, because the AI isn't getting bonuses on the first city and expands more slowly. This hasn't always been the case and could change.

I'll also note that Progress has been criticized for being too weak - it now looks like its in a good place.

I agree with you, i wasn't recommending a change to the trees at all. Most people on the forums just seem to believe tradition is stronger then progress early game, and for my roommate and i it's been the opposite. So i assumed I'm either playing tradition wrong, or something with how we're playing is skewing it towards progress (bot difficulty, Map choice, etc.), so wanted some input on what's up. I'm also will probably be making a thread about the leaders eventually. part of the problem i believe is the mass majority of the leaders want to go tradition or authority, and going progress with them is considered weaker, causing the branch to look weaker, when it's not, and the civs we like to play do like progress

 

[HixBozo]

It's surprising to me to hear that Tradition is worse than Progress. In my opinion, the Tradition is too overpowered. It gives a faster start, more culture, science, and everything else at the expense of specialists and great people. My friend, who always preferred to take Tradition, went far ahead by Medieval if I took Progress. So in my own modmod, I was forced to nerf Tradition and reinforce Progress and Authority.

I wouldn't say that anyone of them is better over the other. Is geographic dependent. Maybe even not, you can win either one of them. The choice is only early game, you will have more choices to make further into the game; choices that can turn the scales. It is a long game with many choices

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Have removed the off topic discussion.

 

[stii]

I agree with you, i wasn't recommending a change to the trees at all. Most people on the forums just seem to believe tradition is stronger then progress early game, and for my roommate and i it's been the opposite. So i assumed I'm either playing tradition wrong, or something with how we're playing is skewing it towards progress (bot difficulty, Map choice, etc.), so wanted some input on what's up. I'm also will probably be making a thread about the leaders eventually. part of the problem i believe is the mass majority of the leaders want to go tradition or authority, and going progress with them is considered weaker, causing the branch to look weaker, when it's not, and the civs we like to play do like progress

Map does make a pretty huge difference small has a lot less space for cities than huge, even after you divide by players.

My main issue with progress is that it is better when the map is already easier. If you have loads of room maybe progress is better but those games are already a lot easier than the games where you are squeezed for space between multiple AI players.

 

[black213]

I feel like the Progress opener's science per capital pop is a bit counterintuitive in design since you'll have to produce at least a few settlers in your capital until you have (grown to min 4 pop) secondary cities for settler production, as well as that Tradition should be the tree incentivizing growth. I'd like to see the science come from another source.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I kind of like the Progress opener as it is. Progress is kinda of a middle ground between Tradition and Authority so I like that there are some growth and capital-related benefits.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

I too like Progress as it is, including the opener. The benefit of Progress is that you needn't build all your settlers in your capital, which mean you can let it grow sooner.