Hi. This is mainly a question about is the slider lossy or a direct percentage.

My thesis is this. In an optimum game there are exactly two positions to use for science: 100% and 0%.

The idea is this: if your finishing a learn science period with 0 coin then the best way to handle that is to bank your entire empires cost for the time it will take to train it at 100%. You still finish the research in the exact same time however you pay your empires bills from your savings instead of your future money. That way if there is a war or an emergency you have between 0 and what ever the savings was giving you flexibility to buy things and upgrade units.


Real numbers. Lets say you can have your science at 80% and break even while researching something that cost 4000 science in 10 turns. That means you actually have 80 science units worth of bills every turn. So the idea is for one turn you do 0% and you bank 480 beakers worth of coin. Then you go 100% and loose 80 beakers worth of coin every turn. You can do that for 6 turns. Then you go back to 100%

Why? Its an easy form of micro management that doesnt slow you down at all that creates coin to do stuff with if it comes up. Consider your savings to be 0 coin while your maintaining a 80% research rate at break even. If you do it as 100% and 0% then while your still learning just as fast and still technically flat broke you actually manage to have some slush fund in the bank for the occasion where you decide that an emergency upgrade to a unit or something is in order.


The actual use of buildings doesnt matter because it works out. HOWEVER the caveat might be that if you have a building coming midresearch period that either ups your beakers or coin then you would want to weight your bill paying or researching accordingly.

For example if 3 turns from now 2 cities will finish universities then at that time you would want to put research at 0. Get some coin while the opportunity cost isnt as high and then after the universities pop switch to 100% research. The reason is the opportunity cost of every coin generated is higher after the universities pop while their value remains the same.

Like wise if you had banks coming and the slush fund to deal with it. You would want to 100% your research and go broke and pay yourself back after the banks pop.

Does this sort of stuff matter? Typically not. Something to think about though.



Then instead of just being at break even

Someone made a post about "binary science" a couple weeks ago, and made two of the points you made.

Additionally, I recall that the cost of techs drop as more civs discover them, therefore by limiting your research to quick bursts you maximize the chance that you will benefit from other civs aquiring it while you bank.

Also, it reduces the chance of losing coins or beakers to rounding issues.

Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=159109) is the more thorough version, as well as several other good tips.

Unfortunately I think you're right. I want to make an SG with a restriction that the tax 'slider' can't be adjusted more than once every __ turns (probably 10) and that it cannot be adjusted more than __ % at a time (probably 20%).

Personally I still prefer doing things that 'feel' like I'm the leader of a civilization instead of things that are perfect game ideal, but I think you're absolutely correct that 0% / 100% is the way to go to maximize (short of actually calculating the optimum value each turn that gets you the best rounding).

Mahatmajon:

I do not believe such a change will reflect reality.

Do you feel that such a change would significantly effect current gameplay play strategies?

Without trying to pull historical data I don't think a democracy has ever tripled its tax rate overnight and I doubt it has happened often in any government. That's the type of reality I was indicating.

No, I don't think that restricting large movements of the tax slider would affect gameplay much (especially at lower levels), but it could get quite interesting in some situations and at higher levels. If preparing for a war for example and making +1gpt at 80% sci you might have to turn science down before you attack if capturing a few cities will lower your gpt at 80% to -15+

Actually, once America decided to start "fighting" the Cold War, our tax rate more than tripled.

But its never gone down since :(

I do agree with what you're saying, in that I wouldn't see it as realistic, but just pointing out that it has happened :P

..sorry, I'm a history major :P

I do this on occasion, however, you know that the beakers are not wasted, they go to the next research project. I like to maximize my beakers to the highest level financially possible, unless i go to war. then, when im at war i might go down to 0-30 percent and raise lots of cash for the war effort. I try not to do it for too long, but i just want to make sure that i never run out of cash during possible riots and war weariness in war time.

An alternative way is to sell low techs to inferior Civs... I find it very effective in games where they are many Civs. Some will fall behind and become your money source. :) It seems to me that all AIs get 10 (or multiples of it) free gold per turn in Emperor - Deity.

If they are pleased with you things are even easier - they will give you all their cash for free - except Mansa Musa. What a #$@%#

I was trying to check these numbers and found that it may be even better than you suggest.

I set the slider to 0% and watched my science progress. My project increased by 1 beaker each turn even though no gold is being spent on science. This free science may be a built in pity point by the designers or due to the reduced cost due to other nations research.

Now when I set science to 100% my financial adviser shows that 12 gold go to research, but when I watch the progress it increases by 15 each turn!

So this binary 0/100% research maximizes this free research.

Now when I set science to 100% my financial adviser shows that 12 gold go to research, but when I watch the progress it increases by 15 each turn!


Let me guess. You built a library.

The library bonus also exists if you maintain 80% all the way, though.

Good guess, but no. I'm only a few turns into the game. I have no buildings and my worker just got started so I don't even have any trade routes yet.

I wouldn't say stupid, but it's certainly suboptimal : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=159109

I've been using binary science ever since Civ 1.

1889, what happened is that you're getting a bonus either from having prerequisites for the tech, for other civs knowing it, or most likely both these factors combined.

See the "Research explained" article.

The free research you get is always 1 no matter what your research rate is.

This isn't optimal if you have more research-enhancing buildings than gold-enhancing buildings, which is often the case, in which case it's actually very bad for your overall research.

It's optimal even if all you have is research buildings. I'd like it if you could explain why you think that's not the case so that i could explain where you're going wrong.

It's optimal even if all you have is research buildings. I'd like it if you could explain why you think that's not the case so that i could explain where you're going wrong.

You're right, after doing the math myself I see I made a bad assumption.


Let's say you are making 100 raw commerce per turn. Let's say you have 100% extra research and 50% extra gold from buildings.

100% research: 200 beakers / turn, 0 gold per turn


50% research: 100 beakers / turn, 75 gold / turn


0% research: 0 beakers / turn, 150 gold per turn

Let's say we need 3,000 beakers and are losing 75 gold per turn at 100% research.

If we were to use 50% research, it would take exactly 30 turns.

If we were to use binary research, we'd need 15 turns of 100% research, and to make up the 15*75 gold lost, we'd first need to have 15 turns of +75 gold at 0% research, for a total of 30 turns.


So yep, you guys are right, my bad.

Someone made a post about "binary science" a couple weeks ago, and made two of the points you made.

Additionally, I recall that the cost of techs drop as more civs discover them, therefore by limiting your research to quick bursts you maximize the chance that you will benefit from other civs aquiring it while you bank.

Also, it reduces the chance of losing coins or beakers to rounding issues.

Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=159109) is the more thorough version, as well as several other good tips.

You dont lose anything to rounding issues, typically you only gain. I think there is a minimum number of gold you can produce, say 1, even if 90% science would dictate you should be receiving none. So in fact i believe its possible to actually gain commerce but taking advantage of this.

Also the original posters idea fails to mention the opportunity cost of producing banks and markets and then barely ever using them. Versus having at least 10% in gold and utilizing the bonus from these buildings more and taking advantage of favorable rounding situations related to them. I dont believe 100% science is optimal because the bonus from anything that gives +% to gold then then drops to ZERO yet the efficiency of your libraries and universities stays constant. That is a big loss.

I'm finding myself massively unimpressed by this strategy.

Even if you're just bopping around the Science slider, trying to take advantage of the the round-down nature of the system, the biggest bonus you can ever realize is 1 extra beaker per turn.

When at 0% science, you get this free beaker.

When at any other science setting, you have the sum of all the science produced by all your cities (fractions count here!) and have that total rounded down. So, if with this enormous amount of micromanagement, you can recover that singular lost beaker.

By the end of the game you might have accumulated enough extra beakers to research Meditation. Go you. This could concievably put you a single turn ahead in the tech race at the veeeeery end of the game, assuming it gets that far. Pardon my failure to applaud.

This is before even factoring in the effects of Inflation on those piles of gold you presumably have laying about. This might effectively wipe out any gain, depending on how high you run it up before allowing 100% science to whittle it down.

Otherwise, you are just pushing the same beakers and gold around -- you don't gain anything by running 70% vs 100% vs 80% vs 40%, if you are running a deficit you have to make up later. I mean, DementedAvenger hits on it above: researching that tech takes 30 turns at %50, and 30 turns at a %0 - %100 hybrid -- the exact same time.

Beyond that, it works for all combinations. Using his setup:

90% research: 180 Beakers/turn: 16.66 turns-to-tech, 999.6 gold debt
999.6 debt: +75 Gold/Turn: 13.32 turns-to-repay
16.66 turns + 13.32 turns = ~30 turns

80% research: 160 Beakers/turn: 18.75 turns-to-tech, 843.75 gold debt
843.75 debt: +75 Gold/Turn: 11.25 turns-to-repay
18.75 turns + 11.25 turns = 30 turns

70% research: 140 Beakers/turn: 21.43 turns-to-tech, 642.9 gold debt
642.9 debt: +75 Gold/Turn: 8.57 turns-to-repay
21.43 turns + 8.57 turns = ~30 turns

60% research: 120 Beakers/turn: 25 turns-to-tech, 375 gold debt
375 debt: +75 Gold/Turn: 5 turns-to-repay
25 turns + 5 turns = 30 turns

If you want, I can get really fancy and show you the effects of switching around the science slider in the middle of the routine from a non-binary %X0 - %0 situation, but just take my word on it -- the numbers work out exactly the same.

Beyond that singular beaker you might save by calculating the factions for every city you own, there is no point to dancing around the Science slider. You neither create nor destroy anything. You're just pushing one singular commodity around.

- Bill

Without trying to pull historical data I don't think a democracy has ever tripled its tax rate overnight and I doubt it has happened often in any government. That's the type of reality I was indicating.

Actually, it seems that the "tax rate" is set for you in that the amount of commerce you pull in is the economic resource that the government has to work with at base. You then decide how much of those economic resources go to science, liquid assets, and culture. Of course, there are plenty of game mechanics that otherwise make no sense (how doed Universal Sufferage allow cash buying for example?), but that's the way I view the slider anyhow.

Another possible problem with this strategy, and I admit it is sort of a stretch, but I find I have it on higher levels, is that the more gold you have, the more another civ can ask for. I like to keep my balance low and slightly increasing, when it is mid game, high difficulty (when not using Suffrage). If I "bank" 600 gold for a rainy day (under this method), then after I ratchet up research and run deficit (to catch up), Huayna will pop in and demand 490 gold from me. Whereas if I ran lean and mean the whole time, he asks for less. I usually run research at whatever the highest level is where I am in the green (mid-game), if 70% has me -15gpt, and 60% has me +50 gpt, then it's 60%. If I am in "upgrade units" mode, and upgrading a frigate to destroyer is 250 gold, and I don't feel a threat is imminent, I wait 5 turns, upgrade one, start over, never having more than the 250 gold.

anyway, just thought I would throw that out there as I have found there is sometimes a good reason to keep my treasury low, all things being equal.

Beyond that singular beaker you might save by calculating the factions for every city you own, there is no point to dancing around the Science slider. You neither create nor destroy anything. You're just pushing one singular commodity around.

- Bill

You're probably losing in the long run since by having your slider at 100% research, you miss all the percentage bonuses for Marketplace, Banks etc. I discovered that after 80% there was no real value in having those in a city, it was just wasted production.

Seems to me this strategy is much more valuable early in the game but late in the game it's a losing proposition. Early on, you don't have any commerce (gold) or culture-enhancing effects, from buildings, wonders, civics, etc. Also, I suspect that the loss due to rounding is more pronounced when the number being multipled is smaller (e.g., a city that produces 200 beakers vs a city producing only 7 beakers.) But I'm not sure of the latter.

Wodan

the numbers work out exactly the same.


This is exactly why this strategy is so useful. If you run 80% science the whole time and hover at 0-10 gold, you get the tech in the same amount of turns as if you shoot up to 200 gold first, and run 100% science, losing some of that 200 gold every turn.

Wouldn't you rather have 200 gold than 0 gold on any given turn? It's a safety net for unit upgrades or rush-buying. This strategy isn't about exploting rounding errors, it's about having a higher bankroll (on average) with no loss in tech research time.


And to those who say it loses effectivenes in the later game, it seems to me that it is most powerful then - instead of shooting up to 200 gold, you'll shoot up to 2000 gold, and will be able to massively upgrade/rushbuy should an emergency occur.

You dont lose anything to rounding issues, typically you only gain.

Actually, you can only lose from rounding, never win. This is because in civ, everything is rounded down, never up. For example, a city with 7 base science and a library will produce 7 * (1 + 0.25) = 8.75, rounded down to 8 beakers.

I think there is a minimum number of gold you can produce, say 1, even if 90% science would dictate you should be receiving none. So in fact i believe its possible to actually gain commerce but taking advantage of this.

Wrong again. There is no gold minimum, but there is a minimum of 1 beaker added to research. However, it has no bearing on the calculation since it's always there no matter what science rate you use.

Also the original posters idea fails to mention the opportunity cost of producing banks and markets and then barely ever using them. Versus having at least 10% in gold and utilizing the bonus from these buildings more and taking advantage of favorable rounding situations related to them. I dont believe 100% science is optimal because the bonus from anything that gives +% to gold then then drops to ZERO yet the efficiency of your libraries and universities stays constant. That is a big loss.

Wrong again. You'll use the market a lot more if you use them at 100% gold once every 10 turns than if you use them at 10% gold every turn, because you'll be losing less gold to rounding.

And to those who say it loses effectivenes in the later game, it seems to me that it is most powerful then - instead of shooting up to 200 gold, you'll shoot up to 2000 gold, and will be able to massively upgrade/rushbuy should an emergency occur.

But you can't use it for unit upgrades since you need to spend that surplus on the 100% research cycle. If you use it for anything else, you'll be losing out on the tech you're after at the time. It seems to me just alot of micromanagement for no real benefit.

Wouldn't you rather have 200 gold than 0 gold on any given turn? It's a safety net for unit upgrades or rush-buying. This strategy isn't about exploting rounding errors, it's about having a higher bankroll (on average) with no loss in tech research time.


Actually, if you plan to run it like this, this strategy is a clear loser.

You have to pay Inflation on all that gold you keep in your treasury, which reduces the efficiency of the entire system.

This isn't to say its a bad idea -- flexibility vs efficiency is a valid argument. However, you will be teching at a slightly slower pace than a person who keeps 0 gold in their treasury.

- Bill

I'm finding myself massively unimpressed by this strategy.

Even if you're just bopping around the Science slider, trying to take advantage of the the round-down nature of the system, the biggest bonus you can ever realize is 1 extra beaker per turn.

No, the maximum is 1 beaker per turn per city. With many cities, this really adds up.

When at 0% science, you get this free beaker.

When at any other science setting, you have the sum of all the science produced by all your cities (fractions count here!) and have that total rounded down. So, if with this enormous amount of micromanagement, you can recover that singular lost beaker.

It doesn't work like this. First of all, the rounding down occurs for each individual city before multiplying them each by their respective bonuses, and only after all this adding them up together.

Also, the one free beaker you get is added after all this is done, and is added no matter what your science rate is, so it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in the calculation and can be totally ignored from the equation!

Otherwise, you are just pushing the same beakers and gold around -- you don't gain anything by running 70% vs 100% vs 80% vs 40%, if you are running a deficit you have to make up later. I mean, DementedAvenger hits on it above: researching that tech takes 30 turns at %50, and 30 turns at a %0 - %100 hybrid -- the exact same time.

Very wrong. I don't think you unerstand the concept here, and the math behind it. On a tech that takes 30 turns to achieve, using a binary science rate could effectively shave off 1 or 2 turns, sometimes even more.

But you can't use it for unit upgrades since you need to spend that surplus on the 100% research cycle. If you use it for anything else, you'll be losing out on the tech you're after at the time. It seems to me just alot of micromanagement for no real benefit.

In most cases, you won't be using it. The point is that you have the OPTION to use it. I'd rather lose a turn on a tech and keep a city then not have the option at all. The strength of this is FLEXIBILITY.

Flexibility is huge. If you keep enough money on hand to upgrade 2 archers to longbows, this saves you from having to build 2 longbows per every border city - you can just keep the archers there and upgrade when needed.

That's a good point about inflation, though (if inflation really is tied to treasury). Do you have any sort of idea as to how much inflation rises based on treasury amount?

But you can't use it for unit upgrades since you need to spend that surplus on the 100% research cycle. If you use it for anything else, you'll be losing out on the tech you're after at the time. It seems to me just alot of micromanagement for no real benefit.

I disagree, it's a very real benefit.

Let's say that you don't believe in this system and always run the highest science rate possible while always keeping your treasury as close to zero as you can. Let's say that you get attacked and would like to be able to upgrade some units but have no money to do so. Further, let's assume there was a game mechanic through which you could borrow the money for a few turns. Would you use it? I'm sure that in some cases, you would. Upgrading a certain unit might very well save one of your cities, which is well worth the little bit of science lost. However, you can't do it, because there is no such borrowing system in place.

You see, a binary science rate gives you that luxury! Of course, most often you won't use it, but there will be time when you will, and at those times it will be very much worth the loss in science, otherwise you wouldn't have used it now would you?

Actually, if you plan to run it like this, this strategy is a clear loser.

You have to pay Inflation on all that gold you keep in your treasury, which reduces the efficiency of the entire system.

This isn't to say its a bad idea -- flexibility vs efficiency is a valid argument. However, you will be teching at a slightly slower pace than a person who keeps 0 gold in their treasury.

- Bill

As far as i know, inflation has nothing to do with how much gold you have in your treasury, and depends only on how much gold you're making. Over the course of 10 turns (or however many turns it techs to research a tech), you have the same expenses, and therefore the same revenue used to cover those expenses, no matter what your science rate is, especially if after those 10 turns your treasury is back down to 0 either way (thus you had the same total revenue).

No, the maximum is 1 beaker per turn per city. With many cities, this really adds up.

Nope, nope. Given that I tested this before I posted, and just now to make sure I'm not crazy, makes me stick to my guns. I am afraid you are the one who is wrong, oh sophmoricly sexual zombie.

Here is the test.

Start up a new game on Noble. Settle your first city, crack open the world builder.

Give yourself a pile of gold, so you can run 100% science for a few turns.

Give yourself another city. Give both your cities five or six population points. Give both cities a Library and University and Globe Theater. Throw down a few farms, dot the landscape with a variety of evolved cottages. Quit out of the builder.

Arrange your citizens in your two cities such that they produe an even number of commerce. In my case, it was 24 (+50% = 36 beakers) and 10 (+50% = 15 beakers). This means that, according to that filthy lying Domestic Advisor, I should be producing 51 beakers per turn.

If only.

So, pick a tech you want to test on -- one that has zero beakers in it already. Hit 'next turn'. Mouse over the science bar at the top of the screen to find out how many beakers you actually produced -- in my case it was 61.

Right.

Now arrange your citizens in your two cities so that they make an ODD number of commerce, one greater than the turn before. In this case it was 25 (+50% = 37.5 beakers) and 11 (+50% = 16.5 beakers).

Again, that lying pigdog of a Domestic Advisor says I should be making 53 beakers per turn. I should have him shot.

Hit next turn. Pick a new tech or stay on the one you have. Either way, note you have made +1 beaker from the fractional addition from each city. I made 64, rather than 63.

In short -- that tiny fraction of a half or quarter-beaker is only rounded down AFTER all your tech from all your cities are summed. This means that all this dancing about with the science slider can only, at very best, net you a single beaker every turn.

Which elicits a huge yawn from me. Yeah, maybe it can make a difference after 300 turns or so... but then you're only talking about maybe 200 beakers, at a time when techs cost 8000 or more.

If you can devise a test to show that you are in fact correct, please elaborate. But until then, I stand by the above assertion.

- Bill

-- edit -- botched a few transcriptions. Corrected.

I think there's a communication error - I thought the strength of this strategy was flexibility, not saved beakers. Am I wrong?

I started it as flexibility [with a hint of changing opportunity cost dictating either a pure research or a pure coin advantage] however then someone on the second posted pointed out that a more sophisticated analysis concluded because of round off errors you are much better to do the 0/100.

So its evolved quite a bit.

My practical adaptation is to just 100% research until you go broke then 0% research for 1 turn rinse and repeat.

Im not the best player. My general philosophy though is not to be quite because "if you open your mouth you remove all doubt". But rather to speak cause nobody can ever show you your wrong if you never say what you think. So thats the spirit of my post.

In the end though we are up to two easy to spot advantages
1) avoid round off sapping your research
2) have a more flexible bank account

with 0 down sides.

So it sounds like something to do.

I disagree, it's a very real benefit.

Let's say that you don't believe in this system and always run the highest science rate possible while always keeping your treasury as close to zero as you can. Let's say that you get attacked and would like to be able to upgrade some units but have no money to do so. Further, let's assume there was a game mechanic through which you could borrow the money for a few turns. Would you use it? I'm sure that in some cases, you would. Upgrading a certain unit might very well save one of your cities, which is well worth the little bit of science lost. However, you can't do it, because there is no such borrowing system in place.

You see, a binary science rate gives you that luxury! Of course, most often you won't use it, but there will be time when you will, and at those times it will be very much worth the loss in science, otherwise you wouldn't have used it now would you?

But if you need to use that surplus during the 100% research phase, you only have the illusion of extra money. If I'm running at 80% research, which is what I aim for, I can still drop to 0% to upgrade my units if I choose. But since I'm accumulating up to 20% each turn towards my treasury, I don't usually need to.

Plus you still haven't addressed the loss of the commerce bonuses you get from Markets/Banks etc. If you're running at 100% research, you're getting nothing from those buildings so you're losing income each time you're in the research cycle. So over the long term you're going to be losing money.

Again, that lying pigdog of a Domestic Advisor says I should be making 53 beakers per turn. I should have him shot.

Hit next turn. Pick a new tech or stay on the one you have. Either way, note you have made +1 beaker from the fractional addition from each city. I made 64, rather than 63.

In short -- that tiny fraction of a half or quarter-beaker is only rounded down AFTER all your tech from all your cities are summed. This means that all this dancing about with the science slider can only, at very best, net you a single beaker every turn.

If what you say is correct, then that indeed changes everything. However, i think it's a lot more likely that that following happened.

In your first turn, your research before bonuses was 51. Added to that was a 20% bonus (or thereabout) for having prerequisites for the tech or from knowing civs that already have the tech. This bonus has already been documented to be invisible in the game and so it was "normal" for your advisor not to tell you about it.

Adding 2 more total science may have in fact added 2 more science, plus the invisible bonus from those 2. By that i mean that with 51 science, an approximately 20% bonus may have added 10 more. But from 53 science, the same bonus could have added 11 science, since it was applied to a broader base. This bonus is of course applied after all the cities with all their individual bonuses have been added up.

But if you need to use that surplus during the 100% research phase, you only have the illusion of extra money.

Not the illusion, the option.

If I'm running at 80% research, which is what I aim for, I can still drop to 0% to upgrade my units if I choose.

True, you could do that. But what if you can't afford to wait one turn before upgrading and need to do it NOW because you're under attack. Having the option to do it now rather than one turn from now may well save your day.

But since I'm accumulating up to 20% each turn towards my treasury, I don't usually need to.

If you're accumulating gold just in case, then you're truly wasting science, while we're not, and you'll get your tech after us. Why? Because on the turn we get our tech, we're (ideally) down to zero treasury. Only on the other turns do we have any money in the treasury.

Plus you still haven't addressed the loss of the commerce bonuses you get from Markets/Banks etc. If you're running at 100% research, you're getting nothing from those buildings so you're losing income each time you're in the research cycle. So over the long term you're going to be losing money.

No, YOU are losing the commerce bonus! Because the bonus is greater if applied to 100% once every 5 turns than if applied to 20% every turn, for one simple reason : fractions being rounded down.

Well, cost of tech is not = amount of beakers you spend.

Yes, it is cheaper to research tech fi more AI allredy know it.
From othe rpoint of view, if you first to know it you can get unique benefits, like know-connect-use-sell resources, get special benefits like free GP or Tech, trade tech a few times getting mach more out of beakers you spend.
So, there are a lots of reason to get research done ASAP.

So, if Tech take 6 turns on 50% - there are no reason to change.

However, there are times when I did what you suggested.

Example: I had a supper sci capital (all cottages and biggest town) and lots of smaller towns. Capital has Academy, all sci building and in future Cambridge.

I want to go to war. I switch to nationalist and draft my towns, not touching capitals. Research set to 0, as in nationalism money produced by all towns equal.

Switch back to burocracy. Research switch to 100%, as my capital getting 50% bonus which converted my collected money to beakers more efficiently.

You can't trade all techs all the time. There is a set limit in the game on how many techs you can trade total before the AIs flat out refuse to trade with you anymore. This has already been discussed in another forum. Therefore, it's best to be last to techs that don't give any advantage to those who get them first, and first to those that do give advantages. The binary science rate is perfect for that.

But even disregarding the above, a simple version of the binary science rate, where you always time it so that you reach zero treasury on the very turn when you discover a tech, for every tech in the game, will never get you any tech later than you would otherwise, and will sometimes get you those techs sooner, if that's all that you're aiming for.

The system allows you to target the techs that you want to reach asap. If you define that as all the techs in the game, it allows you to do that too. Adap to your own needs.

If applied properly, there is no downside whatsoever to using it, but a whole lot of upsides (not losing fractions, getting more bonuses on research, giving less bonuses on science to opponents, having money in the bank for emergencies, and probably more that i'm forgetting at the moment). The only downside is that with a lot of money in your treasury, opponents can ask for more. But if you're like me and like AIs declaring war on you, because it gives you free XP and a city or two, then that's not even a downside either!

But if you need to use that surplus during the 100% research phase, you only have the illusion of extra money. If I'm running at 80% research, which is what I aim for, I can still drop to 0% to upgrade my units if I choose. But since I'm accumulating up to 20% each turn towards my treasury, I don't usually need to.

Plus you still haven't addressed the loss of the commerce bonuses you get from Markets/Banks etc. If you're running at 100% research, you're getting nothing from those buildings so you're losing income each time you're in the research cycle. So over the long term you're going to be losing money.

On the first point, the illusion of more money in this case is also the reality of more more flexibility.

On the second point, that just seems wrong to me. The reason is the bonus is percentage based and not additive.

So lets play with fake empires to make sure we have the correct picture.

Our empire makes 100 a turn prebonus. It has a building that gives 50% bonuses to tax and a 25% bonus to research. We have bills of 15 coin a turn. We have a ten turn horizon. For our purposes fraction amounts will be accumulated [since were just analyzing whether this bank effect works as i describe and what the illusion of more money is worth]

One approach is to put the slider at 90% for 10 turns. In this case you make 15 coin a turn. If your starting savings was 0 your average saving for 10 turns will be 0. Your net research will be 1125 over 10 turns.

The other approach is to put the slider at 0% for one turn. Your average savings then will be (135 + 120 + 105 + ... + 0) / 10 something like having an average coin of 65 a turn onhand. Your net research will be 1125 over 10 turns.

As you can see there was no "not using banks" penalty. [because with a percentage it doesnt matter in what turn you do the gain]. And your average savings was much higher.

Whats average savings worth? Its worth the ability to change plans with more agility.

No, YOU are losing the commerce bonus! Because the bonus is greater if applied to 100% once every 5 turns than if applied to 20% every turn, for one simple reason : fractions being rounded down.

I just did the math and you're wrong. With a single city producing 100 commerce with Market, Bank, and Grocer, 1 turn out of 6, which you are suggesting, will give you 200 gold. However at 80% research rate, or 20 commerce per turn + bonuses, over 6 turns will give you 240 gold. So you're losing alot of money with your system.

Of course, since you did it 1 every 6 turns! That's not 20%! 20% is 1 every 5 turns. Do that with 100 and you'll get the same amount. Do that with a less perfect number (anything that's not a multiple of 20), and you'll get more gold from the binary science rate.

On the second point, that just seems wrong to me. The reason is the bonus is percentage based and not additive.


Your operating under a mistaken assumption then, the bonuses stack with each building you add. So if you have a city producing 10 commerce, having a Market, Bank and Grocer will combine to give you a 100% increase over your base amount, or 20 gold total. I've checked this in world builder, that's how it works.

the easiest way to decide this is to take a middle age game and actually do it for 5 turns or something--carefully adding up the totals then reloading. It might reveal some hidden factors.

Of course, since you did it 1 every 6 turns! That's not 20%! 20% is 1 every 5 turns. Do that with 100 and you'll get the same amount. Do that with a less perfect number (anything that's not a multiple of 20), and you'll get more gold from the binary science rate.

But that's what you're suggesting, run 0% research for 1 turn and 100% research for 5. That gives you the 200 gold figure, whereas going with 80% research for those same 6 turns will earn you 240 gold. Do the math, if I can figure it out, surely you can. Your system is a losing proposition, and a lot of trouble to implement to boot.

the easiest way to decide this is to take a middle age game and actually do it for 5 turns or something--carefully adding up the totals then reloading. It might reveal some hidden factors.

I don't need to try it, the numbers I get from the calculator speak for themselves. I'll try to spell it out for you:

Your system with base city commerce of 100:

Turn 1 - 100 commerce + 100% building bonus = 200 gold
Turn 2 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 3 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 4 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 5 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 6 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Total = 200 gold

My system, 80% research:

Turn 1 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 2 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 3 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 4 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 5 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 6 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Total = 240 gold

NO! I'M FRICKEN SUGGESTING DOING 0% FOR 1 TURN AND 100% FOR 4 TURNS! WHAT'S SO FRICKEN HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

I'm sorry but stating simple math and still having people not getting it after 4 times explaining it can really get on people's nerves.

I mean, how can someone not understand the concept that 20% is the same as 1 in 5, not 1 in 6, and still think they're good enough in math to argue about it?

haha extend your example for 10 turns and 100 turns. And get back to me where your "advantage" comes from...

if you go 10 turns you get 400 gold compared to 200 gold omg 80% is the pwn!

In your example your comparing a 100% to a 120% in total. And if you did it for 10 turns you could succeed in comparing a 100% to 200% in total.

NO! I'M FRICKEN SUGGESTING DOING 0% FOR 1 TURN AND 100% FOR 4 TURNS! WHAT'S SO FRICKEN HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

I'm sorry but stating simple math and still having people not getting it after 4 times explaining it can really get on people's nerves.

Right I misunderstood your 1 in 5 part. But still that works out to be exactly the same for alot more work. It hardly seems worth the extra micromanagement. Not to mention that you need to time your changes exactly or you fall behind. Forget once or twice, and you lose in the long run.

haha extend your example for 10 turns and 100 turns. And get back to me where your "advantage" comes from...

if you go 10 turns you get 400 gold compared to 200 gold omg 80% is the pwn!

I give up, you're hopeless. Someone else please take over and explain to this guy elementary school mathematics, and what 20% means. I'm done trying to teach a fish how to fly.

Right I misunderstood your 1 in 5 part. But still that works out to be exactly the same for alot more work. It hardly seems worth the extra micromanagement. Not to mention that you need to time your changes exactly or you fall behind. Forget once or twice, and you lose in the long run.

I ALREADY SAID IT WOULD GIVE THE EXACT SAME RESULT! NOW DO WHAT I SAID AND RUN THE NUMBERS WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN 100 BASE SCIENCE. TRY ANYTHING BESIDES A MULTIPLE OF 20 (OR A MULTIPLE OF 10 IF YOU HAVE 50% BONUS RATHER THAN 25%). AND SEE FOR YOURSELF THAT THE BINARY SCIENCE RATE SAVES FRACTIONS. HOW MANY FRICKEN TIMES DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU? ARE YOU EVEN READING MY FRICKEN POSTS? IS YOUR PROBLEM READING COMPREHENSION? DO YOU KNOW WHAT ROUNDING DOWN MEANS?

Yes, i'm at the point where i need to shout now. Stupid morons. I can't take this anymore.

well, You can win a little bit by manipulating a slider allmost eveyr turn, but it is to mach micromanagment for my taste. And as minimum you probably win 1 beaker turn.

Youy civ will produce 1 beaker/turn even if slider set on 0.
As I sad, I do it when it is warranted, when benefits are mach higher, when I need money.

Example, I can by inprovementsand do not have banks/unies in town yet.

Set research to 0 and buy banks, then buy unies and set research back to sustainable.

I just got infrastructure more efficient way, as I build banks, Markets and Groseries and use them 100% some time befor I = my towns with Unies.

Actially Banks+Mrkets +grosiers are more efficient then Lible + Unies. Observatories come later.

you quoted the wrong guy zombie. Im the one arguing for 0% and 100%. I was pointing out where his math went wrong. He did this

turn 1: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 2: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 3: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 4: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 5: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 6: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
---
== 240 commerce

Which is just as arbitrary as doing this:
turn 1: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 2: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 3: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 4: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 5: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 6: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 7: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 8: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 9: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
turn 10: 20 commerce + 100% bonus
----
== 400 commerce!

He didnt think through accuractely why he stopped at turn 6. And if he had then he would have seen that he was comparing 100% to 120% in total. Just like in the 10 turn example im comparing 100% to 200% in total.

So anyway you called the wrong guy "fool"

Hey Willem.


Your system with base city commerce of 100:

Turn 1 - 100 commerce + 100% building bonus = 200 gold
Turn 2 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 3 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 4 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 5 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Turn 6 - 100 research and 0 commerce = 0 gold
Total = 200 gold

My system, 80% research:

Turn 1 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 2 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 3 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 4 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 5 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Turn 6 - 20 commerce + 100% building bonus = 40 gold
Total = 240 gold

Hate to say it without ranting and exclaimation points, but the above is slightly misleading.

Under the first system, you make 200 gold and 500 beakers over six turns.

Under the other system, you make 240 gold and 480 beakers over six turns.

Given that you have a +100% multiplier on the gold, the beakers+gold totals come out dead even in both categories.

Nothing is being gained or saved here. This is part of the original point I was making -- the slider just pushes commerce around. It doesn't generate it.

- Bill

you quoted the wrong guy zombie. Im the one arguing for 0% and 100%. I was pointing out where his math went wrong.

He didnt think through accuractely why he stopped at turn 6. And if he had then he would have seen that he was comparing 100% to 120% in total. Just like in the 10 turn example im comparing 100% to 200% in total.

So anyway you called the wrong guy "fool"

Thanks for partially renewing my faith in humanity! :)

This is part of the original point I was making -- the slider just pushes commerce around. It doesn't generate it.

It saves fractions. Your example didn't disprove this yet. Try an example where you get no hidden bonus (i.e. your science output is the same as what your advisor says). If you can show me that fractions are added in that case, i'll believe you.

He didnt think through accuractely why he stopped at turn 6. And if he had then he would have seen that he was comparing 100% to 120% in total.


That's true but even still, I still don't see the advantage here. You claim flexibility, but what if someone attacks you during the last turn of your research cycle? You're still not going to have any funds for upgrades, and there's no diplomatic option to ask the civ to wait one more turn when you'll have some cash available. And if you ever forget to switch to your commerce cycle for a turn, you're not going to have any surplus to fall back on.

At least with a steady research rate, you have the ability of stashing some gold away for emergencies. One mistake doing it your way and that's all blown. It's alot of work for the marginal benefit of a few gold saved due to the rounding down, if there even is any.

It saves fractions.

Big deal. Once every 5 turns you might save a gold or two. It's hardly worth the trouble you need to go through in order to get it.

It saves fractions. Your example didn't disprove this yet. Try an example where you get no hidden bonus (i.e. your science output is the same as what your advisor says). If you can show me that fractions are added in that case, i'll believe you.


Uhhh.

You do realize you're asking me to research a tech without actually having a city, right?

- Bil

At least with a steady research rate, you have the ability of stashing some gold away for emergencies.

You can also do that, even better actually, with the binary science rate. If you like to have, say 100 in treasury, then instead you could have a minimum of 100 in treasury, but on most turns a lot more than that, by simply doing the binary science rate and bringing your science down to 0% when reaching 100 gold rather than when reaching zero. Why don't we do that? Because it's suboptimal and will get you all your techs later than you would otherwise!

You really seem to have a problem with adding up and percentages. It would really do you good to stop arguing mindlessly and start listening to people who can actually do elementary school math. This may seem rude but i think it's a lot more rude to waste people's time like you're doing.

Uhhh.

You do realize you're asking me to research a tech without actually having a city, right?

- Bil

No, i'm asking you to research a tech you have no prerequisite for (one of the basic techs) while having made no contact with any other civ (because, for example, you're alone on an island).

By bonus, i'm not talking about the 1 free science everybody gets. This beaker, like i've already said, is irrelevant to all calculations. No, i'm talking about bonuses to research for having prerequisites and for knowing other civs who already have the tech.

All this appears to be too much micromanagement with little/no gain. Maybe you can set up a little experiment, Zombie69, have one test game and one control game, both using the same startup file. In the test game, you can use the binary science method, and in the control game, you can just have the science always set at maximum rate. Then afterward, you can give us the comparisons for those two games.

This may seem rude but i think it's a lot more rude to waste people's time like you're doing.

Yes I'm wasting time, but not in the way that you suggest. It's the concept itself that I find a waste of time, if you really insist on being rude about it.

im sorry for asking, this may be a stupid question but are you guys doing the math without bonuses from buildings? I was just thinking, and im sure everyone already thought about this but, if you use the science slider in a typical mid game and find that you're getting more gold then you are science then wouldn't it be best to research maybe one turn of 100% science and 3 turns of 0% science to maximize how much gold your civ is generating.

Well, it doesn't need a high degree in maths to understand at a glance that in ANY round-down arithmetic it is better not to ever have the possibility of rounding-down, as it will always be against your interests. Still, this is a known issue for ages - so no big news.

In another post I said I prefer slow speeds because I think fast speeds are for "micromanagement maniacs", and one of the bigger things I had in mind was especially this "binary science". I tried once to do it in Marathon speed and I almost died out of boredom: that wasn't a game any longer, it was a continuous calculus class.

I agree that it's not for everyone, and that you have to like micromanaging. What i hate is when, as easy to understand as we know it is atreas, some people don't understand that this method does save beakers and gold coins.

Of course, if doing so bores you, that's a good reason not to do it. However, not doing it because you don't think it works is not a good reason. And coming to forums and arguing that it doesn't work when in fact the only thing that doesn't work is your understanding of basic math is even worse!

This topic has gotten too big, too quickly.

Wouldn't you rather have 200 gold than 0 gold on any given turn?

Depends, actually. Early game, I'll be keeping my treasury as near to zero as possible.

Mid game I'll keep my treasury close to zero as long as I don't feel threatened. If I feel I need a surplus in case emergency strikes, then I will simply lower my science rate by 10%. In 20 or so turns I will have that safety net I need.

However, at no point in time will I ever run 100% unless I fee I need a tech desperately. If I have built myself a surplus, then likely it is there for military security. What is the point of building a surplus for security, and then wiping it out for several turns of 100% science. I bet I would feel great if Monty chose to declare war on me on that last turn of the 100% science cycle.

If you want flexibility and security, then either drop your science to 100% for a few turns or drop your science by 10% for several turns. Then hold on to that cash for as long as you think it is needed. The 100% science - 0% science cycle makes absolutely no sense as a security/flexibility option.

This topic has gotten too big, too quickly.



Depends, actually. Early game, I'll be keeping my treasury as near to zero as possible.


You get the tech at exactly the same time either way.

Why wouldn't you rather have 200 gold?

And coming to forums and arguing that it doesn't work when in fact the only thing that doesn't work is your understanding of basic math is even worse!

Coming to forums and insulting people that don't agree with your theories is worse still. I don't argue that this system does work, but it seems to me that the gains are so miniscule that they aren't worth the trouble you go through to get them.

I don't want the 200 gold early game because I do not need it. Besides, the only way to get the tech at the same time using the binary science method is to use up that 200 gold. Sure, that would give me the option of upgrading for a few turns until my 100% science decimates my savings, but:

1) My archers, axemen, swordsmen, and catapults cannot upgrade
2) That gold would increase my inflation rate (I have yet to hear someone convincingly debunk that)

The situation changes mid-game, once I can upgrade those units. However, at that point, I will want that 200 gold at all times, not just at the peak of the cycle. Having my gold run from zero to 200 in cycles is too unreliable for a real safety net. At this point, I will accept the hit to my inflation and keep the 200 gold around permanently.

I am not a fan of micromanagement. And I will not practice it unless there is something substantial to gain from it.

Zombie is preaching the gains made from no rounding loss. I do not believe that to be significant enough to justify the effort (I will test tonight).

You are preaching the flexibility, and yet have not acknowledged that gaining and losing gold during the cycle severely compromises your position.

Here's a save.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads11/Binary_Science1.Civ4SavedGame


Try hitting enter 10 times at 80% research, not changing the tech path I've set. Don't change religions. See how much gold you have left at 3600 BC (10 turns), and how many beakers have been applied to agriculture.


Now reload the save and try running it at 0% for one turn, then 100% until you reach 0 gold, then 0% for one turn, then 100% until you reach 0 gold. See how much gold you have left at 3600 BC (10 turns), and how many beakers have been applied to agriculture.

When I did it, there was 7 beakers difference. If you think this is insignificant, consider that this was for just 10 turns which just one city. The rounding errors are compounded the more cities you have and the more turns for which you use this system. It's probably a little more than half a gold per turn per city on average. That's worth more than half of a shrine.

Zombie is preaching the gains made from no rounding loss. I do not believe that to be significant enough to justify the effort (I will test tonight).

You are preaching the flexibility, and yet have not acknowledged that gaining and losing gold during the cycle severely compromises your position.

It should work out to about 0.5 commerce / turn / city. That's extremely significant.

It compromises nothing! OK, maybe you'll only have enough to upgrade 50% of the time, but how this can be seen as worse than 0% of the time I fail to realize.

Early game there is definitely an advantage by avoiding rounding due to the small numbers invloved.

Further into the game, yes an advantage still exists, but not great enough for me to worry about implementing the wonders of "binary science slip sliding".

And lets play nice ppls we are all allowed our opinions no matter how inane

Further into the game, yes an advantage still exists, but not great enough for me to worry about implementing the wonders of "binary science slip sliding".


The advantage decreases even further as you get into longer game speeds. On Marathon with tech rates 300% higher than Normal, .7 beakers/city/turn is not going to make that much difference.

The advantage decreases even further as you get into longer game speeds. On Marathon with tech rates 300% higher than Normal, .7 beakers/city/turn is not going to make that much difference.


I would think the advantage would decrease with shorter gamespeeds, as there are less turns to do it in.

Just a question, if someone would capture one of your cities, he'll get gold. If you've got more gold because of this method, wouldn't you lose gold?

Just a question, if someone would capture one of your cities, he'll get gold. If you've got more gold because of this method, wouldn't you lose gold?
I don't think so. The gold you get is from the destruction of the city's buildings, not from the enemy's coffers.

As for the topic at hand... I'm of the opinion that green is a prettier color than red. :p

Seriously, though, I've found it best not to have too much gold in your coffers unless you're planning on spending it. Keeping science at a rate that allows you to run barely in the green allows you to keep that small buffer of gold you may need for emergencies, or tech deals, without the famine/feast scenario that 100%/0% generates. Would you rather have 500 gold, or 1500 gold, when your aggressive neighbor demands tribute?

If my income falls into the negative, it's probably time to build another market in one of my commerce cities. I'll need it sooner or later anyways. ;)

I would think the advantage would decrease with shorter gamespeeds, as there are less turns to do it in.

Like I said, the tech costs are 3x higher than Normal, yet the savings from the rounding down remain the same. So there's far less advantage even with the extra turns. If you have a tech that costs 6000 or more beakers, which anything beyond Printing Press will cost on Marathon, an extra .7 beakers/city/turn isn't going to help all that much. Especially considering the effort it takes to get it. Going simply with the savings gained with 10 cities, it would take 875.14 turns to get that one 6000 beaker tech alone. In addition to the other beakers I would make in that time, I doubt that I would even save a single turn on a tech of that cost range.

So that doesn't strike me as being of any real advantage to the beakers I would normally get with far less hassle. And the benefits decrease even further after that compared to the tech costs. And in case someone wants to question my math it's

.7 beakers x 10 cities = 7 beakers/turn
6000 beakers (tech cost) divided by 7 = 875.14 and on turns.

So over the space of 1200 turns on Marathon, you might get one tech after going through all the hassle of fiddling with your slider through out the game. Not worth it.

Aren't tech costs scaled up by the increase in the number of turns? So if Machinery takes 3x more beakers to research, you have 3x more turns in which to generate beakers?

If just one free tech isn't important, why the rush for liberalism?

If 0.7 beakers / turn / city isn't important, why build shrines?

Demented Avernger.

I took your game and tested the cycle out.

Test 1: 10 turns (to 3600 BC) with 50% Science = 90 gc, 280 researched beakers.

Test 2: 5 turns at 0% Science, 5 turns at 100% Science (again, making sure I was at 3600 BC) = 90gc, 277 researched beakers.

Somehow, the binary science method is producing less than the standard non-manipulated method. Perhaps there are dynamics at work that we are not taking into account.

I welcome you to perform your own tests, since one can hardly form strong conclusions based on one trial. However, it seems to me that the pro-binary rhetoric is exaggerated, if not outright wrong.

OK, I approached it from a different angle. The most expensive tech, Future Tech, is 42000 beakers in Marathon and the cheapest is 168, a toss up between Hunting and Fishing. Averaged out that leaves a basic average tech cost of 21084 beakers. Based on an empire size of 10 cities, at a savings of 7 beakers per turn over 1200 turns, that comes out to 8400 beakers saved during a course of a game. However it will take at least 400 turns to get up to 10 cities, so in the long run you don't even save enough to get a single average tech after going through all that trouble. Just not worth the hassle.

[QUOTE=DarkFyre99]
Seriously, though, I've found it best not to have too much gold in your coffers unless you're planning on spending it. Keeping science at a rate that allows you to run barely in the green allows you to keep that small buffer of gold you may need for emergencies, or tech deals, without the famine/feast scenario that 100%/0% generates. Would you rather have 500 gold, or 1500 gold, when your aggressive neighbor demands tribute?
QUOTE]
The point is not the reserves here. You could have as much "safety" gold as you want even with 100%/0%, you just go to 0% science when you have 1500 gold instead of 0. It's needs not be famine/feast, you could make it "feast/more feast". The point is that running anything but 100 or 0% science loses some commerce each turn, so if you got the patience to MM you should. If you don't WANT the extra gold then just ignore the gold sitting in treasury, it's just down payment on future research and not to be spent.
(Sorry, just noticed Zombie making this point. But I'll let it stand since someone else brought it up)

The downpoints to this strategy seems to be:
AI's are more likely to demand tribute when you have $$, leading to loss of gold or diplomatic relations.
Having gold in treasury leads to inflation. (If this is true, of course. Should be easily testable)
You mess up method by spending more gold ("since it's there anyway").
You spend more time each turn.

Basic message should be that 0% and 100% are the best settings.
So if faced with the choice of 90% for two turns, or 100% and then 80%, well then you come out better with the 100/80 setting. Because 100% is always the better setting.

(Deleted, double post)

Desiring another test, I went back to my game in the modern era and tested the following:

8 turns at 50% science, 0% culture:
+22536 beaker
+8089 gold

4 turns at 100% science, 4 turns at 0% Science/Culture:
+22549 beakers
+8029 gold

The binary method got me an extra 13 beakers at the expense of 60 gold.

That affirms it for me. The binary method is good on paper, but garbage in practice (much like communism and democracy, but lets not get into that ;) ).

I just did the math and you're wrong. With a single city producing 100 commerce with Market, Bank, and Grocer, 1 turn out of 6, which you are suggesting, will give you 200 gold. However at 80% research rate, or 20 commerce per turn + bonuses, over 6 turns will give you 240 gold. So you're losing alot of money with your system.

Which in turn loses YOU beakers.

Let us assume that very same city has a Library, University, and Observatory.
That equals out to 100*1.75 = 175 beakers per turn
Over the course of five turns that is 175*5 = 875 beakers

Using your method of 80% science we have the following:
80*1.75 = 140 beakers per turn
Over the course of six turns : 140*6 = 840 beakers

Also, that is not counting any specialists that may be producing science at 0% science rate.

Demented Avernger.

I took your game and tested the cycle out.

Test 1: 10 turns (to 3600 BC) with 50% Science = 90 gc, 280 researched beakers.

Test 2: 5 turns at 0% Science, 5 turns at 100% Science (again, making sure I was at 3600 BC) = 90gc, 277 researched beakers.

Somehow, the binary science method is producing less than the standard non-manipulated method. Perhaps there are dynamics at work that we are not taking into account.

I welcome you to perform your own tests, since one can hardly form strong conclusions based on one trial. However, it seems to me that the pro-binary rhetoric is exaggerated, if not outright wrong.


Hmm, I tested this on some other games and got similar results. I set all cities to build culture, halted their growth, and put all workers and units to sleep. The binary research yielded about 10 less beakers per turn than a constant 60 or 70% rate.

Not really sure why this is, as the principles behind the idea are sound. Maybe it has to do with shrine income or specialists.

Which in turn loses YOU beakers.

Let us assume that very same city has a Library, University, and Observatory.
That equals out to 100*1.75 = 175 beakers per turn
Over the course of five turns that is 175*5 = 875 beakers

Using your method of 80% science we have the following:
80*1.75 = 140 beakers per turn
Over the course of six turns : 140*6 = 840 beakers

Also, that is not counting any specialists that may be producing science at 0% science rate.

That example is worthless, I made a mistake in the number of turns involved.

Beakers generated after bonuses from libraries etc. get 'hidden' bonuses - extra 1 plus %age from having tech prereqs and knowing other civs with tech. You can see the effect of these by comparing your financial advisers science value with that added to your tech when you hit next turn - call this bonus beakers (BB). A research overflow bug/exploit (overflow given old tech's hidden bonuses not new tech's) skews results complicating practical analysis.

Simple example - At turn 1 emperor (not organized) paying 2 gold maintenance researching 1 prereq tech (eg. Bronze Working) who no-one else in contact knows then:
1) 9 commerce - flat 80% gives 81 BB in 9 turns, binary gives 86 BB in 9 turns (1-0 binary)
2) 10 commerce - flat 80% gives 100 BB in 10 turns, binary gives 106 BB in 10 turns (2-0 binary)
3) 11 commerce - flat 90% gives 132 BB in 11 turns, binary gives 128 BB in 11 turns (2-1 binary)
Note these numbers apply to any difficulty level - emperor was used to ensure you had maintenance on turn 1 preventing you running constant 100%.
Note also that sometimes flat nor binary are best - with 10 commerce here, a combination of 40% & 90% gives 108 BB in 10 turns!

Complex example - 6 cities with 22,18,14,9,6,4 commerce, largest 3 with libraries, largest 1 with market also, 39 maintenance per turn, researching 1 prereq unknown tech:
flat 50% gives (with 39g per turn) 100 BB in 2 turns, binary gives 104 BB in 2 turns (binary wins)
I tried changing tech prereqs, knowing civs, maintenance cost, commerce in 6 cities and binary always won with the numbers I tried.

The moral
Binary rate is not always optimum particularly in simple (early-game) situations but will nearly always win.
Binary will have higher treasury - better for emergencies, worse for tribute demands (unless you want war)
Binary maximises hidden bonus from meeting civs with tech you are researching (better if crowded, better if often behind in tech)
Is it for everyone? - Certainly not, the benefits are measurable but not huge and it takes some effort like most micromanagement.

If the success or failure of your civ is dependent on rounding going in your favor, you're doing a lot more wrong than all the slider sliding in the world can correct. I can't believe there is a five-page thread on this.

Are rounded-down fractions even discarded, or do they accumulate? If they accumulate then even the extremely minor rounding advantage that this "strategy" seeks to take advantage of is merely a mirage.

If you need quick cash set your slider to 0% until you have enough. Otherwise run the max science rate you can. The ideal rate for the best translation of commerce to gold and beakers will be dependent on the number of markets/libraries and successor buildings you have, and in which cities you have them, and how much you really need one or the other at the time.

Are rounded-down fractions even discarded, or do they accumulate? If they accumulate then even the extremely minor rounding advantage that this "strategy" seeks to take advantage of is merely a mirage.

Rounded down fractions are always discarded for each of your cities.

If you need quick cash set your slider to 0% until you have enough. Otherwise run the max science rate you can.

Doesn't work, because spending a few turns at 0% is not "quick" when you need the money NOW.

The ideal rate for the best translation of commerce to gold and beakers will be dependent on the number of markets/libraries and successor buildings you have, and in which cities you have them, and how much you really need one or the other at the time.

The ideal rate is always 0% or 100%, and will remain this way as long as rounding is done the way it is, and there is no penalty for quickly changing your science rate.