Info on Next Patch

I emphatically agree. Taking a diplo hit just because you don't want to be ganked is pretty lame.

Research overflow not applying MUST make it into the next patch. The devs have no excuses unless they really don't even play their own game.

Graphs should have never been cut, but I can live without them.

"MUST" make into the next patch? Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps this was intentional? Maybe it wasn't, but even *if* it is a bug (which is debateable), I think most people would agree there are far more important areas to improve.
 
Look at the leader XML files. Some are supposed to have preferences for certain types of things. For instance, Elizabeth builds more ships, Ghengis builds more cavalry (I assume, haven't looked at the numbers there).

Actually, pretty much everything has flavors. Buildings are all rated as "cultural" or "growth" or "military" and so on, and you can give a certain number to the flavor too, so the AI will know what's more important for its own flavor of game, if confronted with a choice.

I think the system has broken points that is provoking weird AI choices and behavior, hence the fix.

I am really disappointed to see people advocating beaker waste. The series made a small but important leap forward when it implemented beaker overflow (and hammer overflow is similarly important). In my view, advocating beaker waste is worse than advocating the re introduction of whack-a-mole pollution and other tedious and unfun game mechanics. One of the goals in the design of a game like civ may be to "not necessarily get rid of micromanagement entirely, but at least reduce its effectiveness in comparison to the types of management you want the player to be doing (e.g. building libraries and universities or increasing population)".

I think the problem is more complex than that. You see, there's a point in saying that research speed is already overpowered and beak overflow will make the problem worse, and it has nothing to do with advocate beaker waste. From my point of view, we have a balance problem here, and to make a patch that would reintroduce the beaker overflow without balancing the whole research first would be like cutting more flesh to close a wound.

So to say that "for now the lack of beak overflow is no big deal" it's not to advocate beaker waste. It's just saying that there are other things to that a patch will just "fix" and not "fix but break".

I think a heavier balance patch will come in the future, but the balance of the game is the one thing we should be patient about, for balance needs more testing than just bug fixing.

Besides, I fail to see the micro in research. The whole thing became dependent of a long term commitment in growing population, which takes time and no matter what's your style of play, it must be done or you will fall behind fast. Where's the micro in research? What should I change every single turn so I can gain a significant prize for having the trouble of doing so? I can't think of anything.
 
Ok, here's an evil idea, perhaps for a MOD.

When you get beaker overflow from a research, this means the scientists are working just a little too hard. Depending n the amount of overflow, this could give a percentage chance of an "accident" - for instance, a lab blows up, destroying a research building or a scientist or two is killed, and so on.

Now, THERE'S a way of slowing research down. :D
 
Besides, I fail to see the micro in research. The whole thing became dependent of a long term commitment in growing population, which takes time and no matter what's your style of play, it must be done or you will fall behind fast. Where's the micro in research? What should I change every single turn so I can gain a significant prize for having the trouble of doing so? I can't think of anything.

It's called the scientist specialist. When you have several libraries (and any other scientist granting building) already, and especially when playing quickspeed, it is extremely common to have the opportunity to save a turn off of the next research by re arranging scientists, or similarly, to save some wasted beakers by removing some scientists (as they won't get you the research any faster). I'm ignoring the growth of great scientists but taking that into consideration doesn't make much difference.

EDIT
I'll do a quick example..


Suppose your empire is generating 499:c5science: per turn and you have some unused scientist slots. Suppose you've just begun research on a tech that costs 2000:c5science:. It's easy to work out this tech will take 5 turns to complete (assuming the science rate stays constant) and that the number of :c5science: wasted is (5*499 - 2000) = 495.

Now suppose you instead went into just one city and changed a citizen from a trading post to a scientist. You'll be generating 2 or so less :c5gold: and perhaps a small amount less :c5food: for a few turns, but you will instead waste (4*501-2000) = 4 :c5science: over those turns. (In fact you could employ the scientist for only 2 of the 4 turns and get exactly 0 waste)

This means the second strategy netted you approx 491 more :c5science:, just from switching a single scientist, and that can now be spent on the next tech on the fifth turn. That is in effect nearly 120:c5science: per turn over those 5 turns for running a single scientist. That could very well be a greater effect than putting the next science improvement in a massive capital city, or putting libraries in tens of moderate sized cities.


EDIT2
Now before someone counters this with "yes but that's an extreme case". That may be true. This is a fairly extreme case and it would be fairer to take the average case, so perhaps instead of earning an extra 120:c5science: per turn over 5 turns it might be more typically around 60:c5science: per turn. It's still a lot.
 
That's too much micomanagement for me. Just have overflow to go into next research, even allow to research more than one thing per turn if that's possible. Then increase research costs to take into account the extra research points you will have on average. Much fairer.

Or you could have a percentage of overflow that goes into research, say 50%, and the rest is lost.
 
The need for tech overflow is because it makes optimizing your teching manageable (it's doable now, but certainly not easy). Optimizing teching is necessary because it's a significant part of the gradual improvement of player skill that supplies a major reason to replay the game (and on this board, I'd wager its the primary reason). When replaying any game, you can do it just to experience the same game again, experience something you missed before, or to improve on something to achieve a better result.

Multiplayer FPSs and strategy games rely heavily on the last one, and thus so does CiV. Certainly there are folks who replay CiV just to see something a bit different each time, but the ones who put in dozens of games are playing to find ways to play better and surpass greater challenges. When the game restricts your efforts to improve your playstyle, in this case by making it a PITA to improve your research optimization, it kills replay value.

Hmm, you know what would be really handy is a screen that shows you the city name, the city's output, and the Citizen Allocation radio buttons with one set at the top for global application. You could quickly set every city to science/gold/food/whatever without having to jump into each individual city as well as tweak the focus for individual cities. Might serve to replace the sliders the old timers miss.
 
I don't know, but I'm not really playing competitively to submit my replays and scores to like gaming sites or something, and I seem to get by pretty fine without micromanaging beakers to squeak out a little bit of extra gold.

Maybe if I played competitively, either for score contests or multiplayer, I'd feel differently. If you're playing by yourself, can you really not accept that this 'waste' is really, truly, negligible?

I mean, I'd think that if you are serious enough to care about beaker micromanagement, it would HAVE to be because you're playing close games of high competitiveness. And if so, I'd think you would WANT to leave beaker management in, because it gives you a leg up compared to less diligent players who might waste all those beakers.

I dunno, in most cases, I see people who micromanage that sort of thing upset when a game makes it easy or automatic, because they feel that the company has dumbed down something, and removed one way in which their skill/attention to detail made them better than someone else.
 
Can I get those same canned responses to use on the AIs?

Seriously, I can trade, declare war or form a pact of secrecy or cooperation. Oh wait and a 'don't settle by us'.

Where's my button to tell Caesar I see his bleeping troops massing my border and it's going to be a knock down. Honestly, any canned response from the AI should be a communication option for the Human to select and convey the same message to the AI as the AI is trying to display to us.

Oh, and one more thing. Please, oh please, let me violate a border or kill a unit without declaring war and give me the diplo response to say 'opsie' and let the AI decide if it wants to claim a day of infamy and start a war over it. oh and maybe add the diplo actions to the rest of world to claim that it's really our space and we were dealing with a rogue invading unit that we killed.

Agree..
Theres NOTHING to say to the AI, because we cant, its like the human player is a mute observer rather than a diplomatic participator.
We cant threaten the ai, we cant ask the ai, we cant anything. Just trade gold or +5 happiness (all the luxuries are the same, its just +5 happiness, dull stats, no real trade)

Great diplomacy changes in this patch though, just not enough.
 
I don't know, but I'm not really playing competitively to submit my replays and scores to like gaming sites or something, and I seem to get by pretty fine without micromanaging beakers to squeak out a little bit of extra gold.

Maybe if I played competitively, either for score contests or multiplayer, I'd feel differently. If you're playing by yourself, can you really not accept that this 'waste' is really, truly, negligible?

I mean, I'd think that if you are serious enough to care about beaker micromanagement, it would HAVE to be because you're playing close games of high competitiveness. And if so, I'd think you would WANT to leave beaker management in, because it gives you a leg up compared to less diligent players who might waste all those beakers.

I dunno, in most cases, I see people who micromanage that sort of thing upset when a game makes it easy or automatic, because they feel that the company has dumbed down something, and removed one way in which their skill/attention to detail made them better than someone else.

Here's the thing though. Tech overflow might not matter much to someone who plays the game only casually and doesn't try to optimise anything, but in that case it doesn't matter whether overflow is in or not for you. For the players who do try to optimise this, it's incredibly tedious for these reasons:
1) You have to open the city screen to set or unset a specialist.
2) Inside the city screen the number of turns to the next tech is not visible - only the overall rate. This means that if you do try to micromanage you either have to have a calculator handy to work out what the optimal rate is, or you have to keep entering a city screen and exiting again.
3) If you need to set several specialists you have to go into several separate cities.

IF we must have beaker wastage remain in the game, the very least we could ask for is to see the turns to next tech up in the UI bar at the top of the screen (turns out this is in a mod), including while in the city screen, so we don't have to constantly jump in and out of cities while we micromanage. It's worth noting that once you're in the city screen, you can of course scroll through them with the arrow keys. This addition would be a compromise, but in the end the easiest thing to do is just work out how to put overflow back in.

ppl talking about tech overflow, when the main issue is diplomacy and ai?
Sigh..

Research overflow you might not consider as important, and maybe it isn't, but it's almost trivial to fix it, which is why it's pretty reasonable to insist on it. The silly thing is it's the complete opposite of streamlining. Civ5 is meant to be more streamlined, but this feature as it is now is just tedious.

What about an automatic research optimization button? You can switch it on permanently. Then city mayors reshuffle accordingly. If on a turn, they don't need the specialist buildings, they don't use them.

As I said before, we don't need fancy solutions. Doing what you suggest just adds another layer of automation or AI that wouldn't be necessary if beaker overflow was in in the first place. It would also take quite a bit of coding and introduce more opportunities for bugs.

The Rusty Gamer said:
That's too much micomanagement for me. Just have overflow to go into next research, even allow to research more than one thing per turn if that's possible. Then increase research costs to take into account the extra research points you will have on average. Much fairer.

Or you could have a percentage of overflow that goes into research, say 50%, and the rest is lost.
Again with the suggestion of a fancy (if I may call it that :p) solution. If you carry over only half the overflow beakers then people will still try to minimise the overflow to minimise wastage and basically end up in exactly the same routine they are in now. Let beakers carry over one for one and there is no longer any problem, except possibly some rebalancing of tech costs.




*************

How about I put out a challenge to those who think research overflow is a non issue. Show me a gamesave from a game with quick speed, when you have at least 10 cities and have reached the Industrial era (though an earlier era may also suffice - the main requirement is that you have some techs that you can research in around 4 turn). Preferably you should have libraries in many of your cities. Show me a gamesave from when you have just researched a tech and are about to start on a new one. Anyone want to? If so, I will show the difference between building a few more libraries (or universities etc), and tweaking a few specialists.
 
I can testify that the lack of beaker overflow definitely sucks. Particularly so if you've done some significant sling-shotting and are now backfilling techs.
 
I don't see how that is a problem. You *should* want to have more time to build more armies/fight more battles before your units become obsolete. If you find that tedious, then you are basically finding the game itself tedious (especially since Civ V is so geared towards warfare).

There's no problem in fighting small battles, or in building the units. But when I see a battle like this:

Spoiler :

I just feel like... ugh... it's going to take forever to kill all those units. Fighting everything one at a time, and I know the AI can replace them almost as fast as I can kill them. Of course some of the problem is the massive bonuses the AI gets on higher levels, but I can replace my own units easily, too, if they're lost (and I usually have extra units stuck in back that can't do anything). Beaker overflow would help a little bit in reducing armies to a more manageable size.
 
Ok I found a savegame from a quick speed game that I did a few weeks ago, so I can show you guys what the situation is.

Spoiler :

^^^ Here is my Babylonian Empire at year 1986 AD. I have only 8 cities. I'm about to start teching electronics and at my current tech rate it will take 3 turns. As you can see, the empire is earning 758:c5science: per turn currently, and the cost of the tech is 1742:c5science:. Assuming my tech rate stays constant (which is close enough) for 3 turns, that means I waste 3*758-1742=532:c5science: over the course of 3 turns. So effectively I would make use of only 77% of the beakers that I actually generate from my cities.

It looks like we might be able to manage to get the tech in 2 turns if we put some scientists to work. It's easy to work out that to get the tech in 2 turns one would need 871:c5science: per turn. Can we get that extra 113:c5science: necessary? Yes we can - it takes 13 scientists employed across 3 cities, as pictured in the next 3 screenshots.

(not really necessary to look at but included in case you're curious)
Spoiler :
Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :


Here is the final beaker rate: 871:c5science: per turn and Electronics now takes 2 turns.


Spoiler :



So what have we achieved? Let's work it out. If we run those 13 scientists for 3 turns, we will get the tech in two turns and then put 871:c5science: towards the next tech. Effectively we earn 871*3=2613:c5science: over 3 turns. If we had not employed the scientists, we'd have gotten 1742:c5science: over 3 turns (and gotten the tech one turn slower as well, which may or may not be important).

The difference between those two amounts is 871:c5science:. So effectively, employing 13 scientists earnt us that many beakers over 3 turns, or 871/3 = 290 :c5science: per turn. (Note there is an opportunity cost because those 13 citizens could have been doing something else, but we will see that this is more than worth the cost)

Compare this with the raw extra beakers that those 13 scientists contributed, which was 113:c5science:.

How much did we increase our overall beaker production by employing these 13 scientists?

In raw figures, as you saw, we went from 758 to 871:c5science: which is a 15% increase. This is the amount you should expect your tech rate to improve by.

However taking into account the saved beakers, we went from 1742 to 2613 :c5science: which is a 50% increase in beaker production. That is just enormous. To be clear, the effect of doing careful micro was the 35%, while the raw effect of the extra scientists was only 15%. You can see that the potential gain from such micro can be massive compared to the ordinary gameplay mechanisms for increasing your science rate (hiring more scientists).

This example is fairly typical in a quick speed game and when you have a decent tech rate. The silly thing is that the higher the tech rate the more this can be abused, because the larger the effect is of shaving a turn off the time to the next tech.
 
Well, the list does have a "multiple tweaks and bug fixes" item.

@2KGreg: is there a possibility for a us to know what kind of stuff is included in this vague item?

I admire your optimistic faith but if the list contains no words about naval units and air ones you can bet the algorithm that inputs the AI management of them , well, it won't change at all.

Someone mentioned that he saw the AI bombing him with stealth bombers. It may happens, yes, even if it really rarely. Anyway this small aspect does not cover the total lack of AI management of them. In the details, the first patch slightly increased the AI usage ov naval units for example but if the AI keep on moving them randomly even when at war, well , this must be fixed and it will be not.

That's the DNA issue. The devs DNA is not assembled in a proper way therefore they can't recognize that naval and air units need to be moved following speficic criterias or a bunch of tailored scripts, they do not have simply and randomly roam around the map even and above all when at war !

It is like AI naval units had the " auto explore " option enabled when at war......... comic and pathetic indeed

-
 
Research overflow is a generally good idea (on top of convenience for players, it is much more AI-friendly), but it's hardly the top priority right now. If you don't like microing your science like that... don't. You'll stop getting a small but significant advantage over the computer just for being a human and you'll stop irritating yourself. I agree it should be fixed, it's just not that important.
 
The thing about research overflow is that it's very easy to fix. It won't detract from those time consuming AI fixes. And it needs to be fixed, no question.

It's 2 lines of code, max. Should have been done already.
 
Research overflow is a generally good idea (on top of convenience for players, it is much more AI-friendly), but it's hardly the top priority right now. If you don't like microing your science like that... don't. You'll stop getting a small but significant advantage over the computer just for being a human and you'll stop irritating yourself. I agree it should be fixed, it's just not that important.

The whole point of playing a game like civ5 for a challenge is to gain an advantage over the AI 'just for being a human'. Telling people to stop the micro and stop irritating themselves... you may as well tell people to play settler. We'll have people mirroring each others' games in the S&T forum, and those wondering how some of the guys finish the game so quickly will be told "sorry, but basically you need to learn to micro the scientists".

There's also multiplayer to consider as well, which I suspect would be typically played at quick speed. Assuming we get pitboss or pbem mode eventually, micro'ing scientists is going to be pretty much essential to stay competitive.

I understand there are a heap of people who don't play this game for a real challenge and approach it as more of a sandbox (like simcity or a simulation in general). But to ignore all the players who do it for a challenge is a big mistake. Those who play the sandbox game aren't really impacted one way or the other by presence or absence beaker overflow, so I can understand your not wanting to prioritise it as an issue that needs to be addressed. But for the challenge players, this sort of micro is so effective that asking them to ignore it would be like asking them to not use ranged units because that too is a pretty big advantage over the AI. It might be difficult to remove the human's ranged unit advantage because doing so requires either removing ranged units altogther (obviously infeasible - too drastic) or significantly improving the combat AI. Science micro on the other hand, to remove the human advantage requires only some code that carries beakers to the next tech. Pretty much the most trivial of changes (in terms of effort) that can make it into a patch, though as has been said numerous times some adjustment may need to be made to tech costs.
 
If you want to play by 'the same rules' as the AI, you may as well throw your injured units at the enemy and move just about every one of your units in some random direction every turn.

Let's not confuse AI stupidity with the rules of the game. If the rules say there is no way to manually eliminate breaker waste then you can't put it in the same category as AI stupidity.
 
Let's not confuse AI stupidity with the rules of the game. If the rules say there is no way to manually eliminate breaker waste then you can't put it in the same category as AI stupidity.

It's perfectly possible to program the AI to minimise beaker waste. I'm willing to bet the current AI doesn't do that though. So it is in the same category. ;)
 
Top Bottom