Best Civ for Science Victory

[Geek113377]

wouldn't india be the best civ for a science victory, what with their "Population Growth - Unhappiness from number of cities doubled, Unhappiness from number of Citizens halved." since science now comes from having citizens, India's special ability makes it possible for them to have more population (albeit in fewer cities), giving them more science. Will Gandhi become the new Mansa Musa tech racer?

[MrWashington]

I agree with you. When the manual said that science comes from population, I realized that India could have the advantage, especially in the early game when happiness is harder to come by.

[cheesemijit]

Double Cities would also double population, i don't see how more population in less cities means more population overall.

eg. 3 cities 10pop each = 30pop but 6 cities 5pop each also = 30pop

[Babri]

Originally Posted by cheesemijit

Double Cities would also double population, i don't see how more population in less cities means more population overall.

eg. 3 cities 10pop each = 30pop but 6 cities 5pop each also = 30pop

True. The real advantage of Indian UA is you need to worry less about land grab & your cities production would be much higher instead of having more no. of smaller cities. Also you'll be able to fill up happiness bucket faster.

What about Persia ? Do golden ages effect research like in cIV ?

[12agnar0k]

India would have an advantage in science yes.

[playshogi]

Originally Posted by cheesemijit

Double Cities would also double population, i don't see how more population in less cities means more population overall.

eg. 3 cities 10pop each = 30pop but 6 cities 5pop each also = 30pop

You can only build the National College once, for a 50% boost to your science in that (very large) city. Also less maintenace cost for the other buildings, like universities that need to built fewer times for the same effect.

[bhavv]

Originally Posted by cheesemijit

Double Cities would also double population, i don't see how more population in less cities means more population overall.

Normally it wouldnt, but because India also get a happiness boost in their fewer cities, they should be capable of supporting much larger populations than is possible across many more smaller cities with other civs.

[Krikkitone]

Originally Posted by cheesemijit

Double Cities would also double population, i don't see how more population in less cities means more population overall.

eg. 3 cities 10pop each = 30pop but 6 cities 5pop each also = 30pop

Normal unhappiness:
36 for first scenario, 42 for second

Indian unhappiness
27 for first scenario, 39 for second

India can maintain more people and still be happy.

(Also more pop in fewer cities means you need fewer buildings..less maintenance gold and construction hammers needed, and you get cheaper social policies)


In Civ V, the ONLY reasons to found a new city are
1. get access to a resource/special terrain near that city
2. get access to a strategic control point (city as canal or fort)
3. you have the technology and gold to build the happiness buildings in the city so that it will 'pay for' itself.

[Insanity_X]

The Indian Civ seems like it'll be interesting to play, with its emphasis on a small number of very large cities. I don't know whether it'll be best for a science victory, because having more cities means that you can build more of the parts at once but it's certainly a contender.

[cembandit]

Also, less cities with higher pop means less scientific infrastructure needed (libs, etc) than a more cities with lower pop. Also a greater boost from wonders, great people improvements...

[Lancor]

Don't forget Rome!

Creating all these science buildings faster, if you emphasize your capital to it.

[Kaxeon]

Originally Posted by Krikkitone

In Civ V, the ONLY reasons to found a new city are
1. get access to a resource/special terrain near that city
2. get access to a strategic control point (city as canal or fort)
3. you have the technology and gold to build the happiness buildings in the city so that it will 'pay for' itself.

I am not sure I agree with this. Founding more cities will speed up population growth. By the time a single city reaches a population of 10, two will be able to reach a combined pop of 20 (at least 18 or 19 if you count in the pop spent on a settler).

[Zhahz]

Originally Posted by Kaxeon

I am not sure I agree with this. Founding more cities will speed up population growth. By the time a single city reaches a population of 10, two will be able to reach a combined pop of 20 (at least 18 or 19 if you count in the pop spent on a settler).

Growth is more limited by happiness than city sprawl, IMO. The only way those two cities grow so much is if they have food and happy and the happy isn't a given.

Small empires have some advantages, but they also have disadvantages.

- You'll likely control fewer resources and strategic resources, which will mean trade, city states, and maintaining relations will be more critical to keeping diversity of happiness providing resources and you could be drastically limited for strategic resources. A lot of that can be fickle if a large aggressor starts pushing around your friends. Larger empires are more like to control happy resources of their own, have larger quantities of strategic resources, and have a higher probability of later strategic resources appearing in their lands.

- If you're attacked, you're at greater risk of being annhilated or crippled - less to defend is often a good thing but if a stronger enemy comes for you and takes or cripples (via pillaging) even one city you could be in a world of hurt.

- Less opportunity to specialize or create military powerhouse cities even for defense. Getting all the +xp and military production buildings is a hefty investment. A sprawling empire could have several of these along with econ specialist cities, cultural cities, sci cities, etc. With a small empire pushing for a goal like science or culture you will most likely need to push for the goal with every city, and need to generalize each city, and maybe have one of the 3 able to crank out quality units. A large empire requires a lot more infrastructure but has the potential to have a lot more of everything and a bigger economy.

In Civ IV there was no real reason to keep your empire small. Even if you went for cultural you could sprawl and just focus on your 3 key cities. Mostly you were just looking to expand as much as possible in every game.

In Civ 5, the decision on what size empire to shoot for is strategic with consequences and something you might think about a lot before you even start. There could be good reasons to keep to a small empire, to sprawl, or to even go with just one city - beyond just doing it for variant purposes.

[Kaxeon]

Originally Posted by Zhahz

In Civ 5, the decision on what size empire to shoot for is strategic with consequences and something you might think about a lot before you even start. There could be good reasons to keep to a small empire, to sprawl, or to even go with just one city - beyond just doing it for variant purposes.

I wasn't saying that more cities is always better. I was simply disagreeing with his statement, that there are no other reasons to found more cities than those he listed.

Or in other words: Another very good reason to "sprawl" is rapid population growth, which leads to faster research and better production.

[Lancor]

When you found the cities is surely another point.

One who founds very much cities early in the game, will be crippled by unhappiness but may be booming later.

In addition to Rome, aren't the economic Civs like Arabia or Russia good for for science, too? They don't need to build that much economic things, and can focus more on science, if you want.

[ilikepies]

Fewer cities means less maintenance, meaning a better economy. More population means more science, and presumably the happiness bonus is bigger than the happiness penalty, meaning India will still be the leader in total population. Fewer cities also means more time to build those cities up and make wonders though, which means more great people and specialists, so better science.