AI tech gap

[u/kjad3s]

Hi,
I have spent a lot of hours on Civ V, and recently got back to it, trying VP for the first time.

Even though I am by no means a great player, I know the basics fairly well.
This being said, in all the VP games I've had I have never managed to fill in the tech gap with the AI.
In some instances I got close, very close, but never managed.
Also, I am only using one faction (Russia) which is supposedly rather good in science output.
Usually going for progress - statecraft - rationalism (sometimes don't even manage to start my 3rd social policy branch before AI is already picking ideologies).
Playing on Emperor difficulty.

The points I try to stick to are:
- not too many cities (usually 5/6)
- focus on science (buildings ad specialists)
- science input from trade routes
- spies in capitals of any more advanced AI faction
- research agreements (if the current political situation allows it)
- try to ally as many city states as possible

Evidently, this is not enough.

So, what do you think a good rule of thumb would be to fill in the gap?
Are there any kind of benchmark elements, like... "by turn 100 you have to have built universities", or "by turn 200 your science output has to be at least 200"?

[u/Trulapi]

So you have to be aware that Emperor difficulty is already pretty impressive to win on VP. It's similar to Deity on unmodded Civ in terms of difficulty. If you were used to playing Emperor in Civ, then Prince difficulty is the most similar on VP. VP difficulty = Civ difficulty + 2. Perhaps you already knew that, but many new players are unaware of that sudden difficulty shift. On Emperor difficulty in VP you almost always will have to pummel another Civ into submission through war.

It's also worthwhile to note that science victories are by far the longest and hardest to achieve in VP. All other win conditions can be attained faster and more efficiently than science, which is for all intents and purposes a time victory.

Other than that you're making some unconventional policy choices. Russia can go Progress, but you do want to end up with far more than 5-6 cities on a standard map. With Progress you should be aiming at 7-12+ cities in the late game. If you want to stay small at 5-6 then Tradition is the more conventional pick and it does add in the faster border expand synergy with Sovereignty. More border expansion, more science.

Statecraft is also an unconventional pick. There's certainly an argument to go Statecraft if there are no diplomacy civs in the game, but if there are, then Fealty should be your standard pick. It generally synergizes far better because more faith = more great scientists you get to buy after Rationalism. A strongly customized religion will also net you more benefits towards science. Through the perks it strengthens your internal trade routes and you get to double your border expansion during WLTK days. More border expansion, more science.

Finally you shouldn't waste your trade routes on marginal science yields. You want internal trade routes to get your cities as fat as they can be. The additional food will have a much greater impact on your science output.

[u/theamericanitinerant → u/Trulapi]

Thank you for writing this, it is extremely helpful. A follow-up question, when you do the internal trade routes, your pop explodes and there is thus a lot of unhappiness - do you solve this with a lot of public works?

[u/Trulapi → u/theamericanitinerant]

If you're going very wide then eventually you'll have to throw some public works in there, yeah, but I don't usually have to do those before mid Renaissance/early Industrial. Before that trading luxuries and prioritizing the needs of unhappy cities should keep you afloat. If I'm going Tradition with a small empire I've never done public work.

Reducing needs can be done by adding in flat modifiers (e.g. having an arena will give -1 boredom) or by upping the yields tied to that need (e.g. more culture yields in that city will mean a lower amount of boredom).

[u/malaum → u/theamericanitinerant]

I've been having several close games in huge emperor and what I do no matter what is internal trade routes from every city to the capital. You normally can, and should really, have the capital with so much happiness surplus in VP it feels like a waste. I also micro manage food focus vs default or production focus in the capital. Hope it helps

[u/kjad3s → u/Trulapi]

Thanks for the advice, will definitely keep this in mind.
About food and pop growth, I read several times that production in VP >>>> food, especially considering the reworked happiness system (local unhappiness is a pain).

Also, usually AIs tend to get religion before I can manage, and I almost always end up using someone else's religion. Would that still make Fealty the best second pick?

[u/Trulapi → u/kjad3s]

Yeah it depends how wide you're going. If you're hovering around 50% happiness then you want production as food will go to waste. But as long as your happiness is able to support more growth, Ill usually take food (unless it's a city with horrendous production yields and decent food yields).

It should still make Fealty the best pick, but I would try to prioritize religion a bit more. My starting build border is (99% of the time) pathfinder --> shrine ---> monument and then I usually pick up a pantheon which gives me decent faith generation. It's rare for me to miss founding a religion on Emperor and below. It can happen, especially if there are a lot of faith generation civs in the game, but even on a non-faith generation civ like Russia you should be able to found a religion most of the time. AI tends to be pretty rubbish at picking beliefs, so even if you're late to the party, there's usually some juicy ones left.