Do you ever not take rationalism?

IronfighterXXX said:

You really believe AI knows better what to choose then the average player ?

Click to expand...

It's a great flaw in the logic, but here's a better one.

If gold is king, why do puppeted cities suck?

Take your time, let it sink in.

Because only Venice can rush buy in puppets.

The only time I skip Rationalism is if I'm on some challenge not to take it. I've said before, the issue isn't Rationalism itself but the science-driven nature of the game making Science the linchpin of EVERY victory type.

I will take Aesthetics when going for a Culture Victory over Rationalism.. usually theres enough time to snag a couple of the better rationalism SPs before a ideology anyways since you're pumping out culture anyways, the higher SPs in the tree aren't as helpful since you're focusing GPP on getting great works and research agreements aren't as beneficial when you don't have a bunch of academies. The science of course helps in later cultural game tourism with Hotels, Eiffel Tower, Internet.. However effective use of spies can help you keep up if the AI is that far ahead in science, although I rarely make it that far in games even on the top two difficulties without catching up.. again it comes down to good spying and trade route +beakers.

I don't really like Diplo Victories personally, but once in a while I go that way, I'll take Patronage/Commerce for obvious reasons. I agree the Patronage science bonus isn't nearly as good as rationalism, but if you get it early and keep good relations with multiple CS with high population it can push you ahead in science quite nicely before you get to Renaissance.

Domination I think Honor/Commerce best suits that playstyle, Landsknects are far from useless as someone mentioned as they double your gold from city captures and pillage for free, combine that with the honor finisher and your war machine pumps out so much gold you'll be laughing.

Don't get me wrong, I find myself taking rationalism in about half of my games, since Science Victories are, in my mind, the kind of 'fall back' victory if conditions aren't right to go for the others. Its a very powerful tree but there are arguments that can be made against it for any other victory type than science.

Light Cleric said:

The only time I skip Rationalism is if I'm on some challenge not to take it. I've said before, the issue isn't Rationalism itself but the science-driven nature of the game making Science the linchpin of EVERY victory type.

Click to expand...

I disagree with "every". A diplo victory is not very science dependent. You don't need wonders except forbidden palace. You don't need globalization either, the number of CSes are usually sufficient. Besides, going patronage scholasticism could easily net you 30 to 40 percent science bonus if you can control almost every city state on the map.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

You don't HAVE to be #1 in science, but you better be close. Most of the quotes I read with those who do not take rationalism say that ignore it despite the fact that it is more powerful. In other words, not balanced (like tradition). Balanced policy trees would be the most important improvement to the game - each tree should be equally powerful, depending on how you want to develop your civ.

Bulldog Bats said:

You don't HAVE to be #1 in science, but you better be close. Most of the quotes I read with those who do not take rationalism say that ignore it despite the fact that it is more powerful. In other words, not balanced (like tradition). Balanced policy trees would be the most important improvement to the game - each tree should be equally powerful, depending on how you want to develop your civ.

Click to expand...

The interesting thing about the game now is that trees can be more powerful than others in certain situations, or the other way around. They don't have to be equally powerful in every situation.

In the end, I think this is more of a discussion of how people play the Mediaeval Era. Some people are convinced that Rationalism is so powerful that you have to rush through the Mediaeval Era to Acoustics. And in some cases, say if you're Babylon, which doesn't get a UU/UB/UI in the Middle Ages, that might be the best thing to do. But in other situations (and keep in mind that Acoustics costs a relatively large number of beakers at the time and doesn't provide much in actual benefits itself, except maybe the Sistine Chapel), there is good stuff to be had in the Middle Ages on the tech path that is not going to Acoustics. Say with Arabia you can get your Camel Archers earlier and not have to pay another 50% Faith to buy them because of the Renaissance penalty.

Rationalism is more powerful in general than the earlier trees (as it should be, because it comes later), but whether it is worth it getting it as soon as possible depends on the situation. And even then, other trees can be more powerful in certain situations. Shaka is not really going to care about a measly 10% extra science when he can grab a capital or two with an Impi rush.

I think the policies should allow that each policy is equally powerful, depending on the type of game you want to play:

EARLY GAME
Tradition - tall
Liberty - wide
Honor - domination
Tradition dwarfs the others - I try liberty when I go wide, but most people, especially higher level, say tradition is far better even for that (I play G&K alot, which is part of it)

MID GAME
Piety - culture
Rationalism - Science
Commerce and Patronage
Again - 95% of what I read says rationalism dwarfs the others, which I agree. You can take others, but rationalism makes life easier no matter what.

END GAME
Freedom - tall
Order - wide
Autocracy - all out warfare
I think this is the closest.

Bulldog: not a bad way to look at things. But, this glosses over the fact that you can usually get 2 trees in each of the periods you have defined.

e.g., In EARLY GAME:
Tradition THEN Honor
Tradition THEN Piety
Liberty THEN Patronage

MID GAME
Patronage THEN Rationalism
etc.

(Though, I admit, unless I'm focusing on culture, I can't get 4 whole trees before Idealogies come in. But, three is not unreasonable for a typical game.)

Usually 2 full trees (3 if going tall), and parts of others. I usually fill out liberty (or tradition), and then the best patronage policies til I qualify for rationalism - fill that out, and then pick the best late choice.

But the fact is that they are not equal in value, which is wrong. If they are equal, why do so many wide players still prefer tradition? If they are equal, why do 95% of the people pick rationalism (or ignore it to make the game harder)?

Again, but the game should not favor one sort of play over another - tall over wide, and peaceful over conquest, which it obviously does.

Chum said:

It's a great flaw in the logic, but here's a better one.

If gold is king, why do puppeted cities suck?

Take your time, let it sink in.

Click to expand...

They don't, obviously, or I and many others would not win games with puppet empires, nor would such a strategy be one of the standard, top strategies in the game.

Yes, let it sink it, please. Take your time to do so.

@IronfighterXXX:
The AI going for Banking is definitely better (in many cases, perhaps most) than a player choosing to go for Acoustics or other relatively worthless techs at that point in the game. "Worthless" due to the needs at that point: again, you cannot build buildings and infrastructure (units, roads) unless you can support them with gold. Gold comes first. That is why gold buildings don't have a maintenance cost. Go ahead and build your buildings and other infrastructure without gold. The game will delete as needed until you have a small enough infrastructure that your economy can support. So yes, the AI knows that Banking is the most important tech by default, at least for that point and most instances (i.e., default).

@Bulldog Bats:
The problem with Rationalism is that it requires specific play styles PLUS very specific timing. In many cases, it is not the best choice due to various factors beyond player control, at least if the player wishes to actually plan strategy and avoid timing issues, as well as address factors such as city-state specifics, terrain specifics, AI civ specifics, gaining culture via ruin pops and city-states (which messes up SP timing), etc. I win games by allying all city-states and crushing the AI, and it is far easier to do this by focusing on gold first, science second, again for many situations (although not all, and I adjust if needed). Even with Patronage and Commerce, I may also take the opener and maybe one or two other SPs in Rationalism, but only once I am in control and I have to choose an SP due to culture accumulation (you have to pick something, after all). When you win before Ideologies even come into play, there's no point in even worrying about them as part of your strategy, or any latter-game techs, as neither is needed. It's a lot more enjoyable to prevent the AI from harassing you pointlessly as far as I am concerned. "Crushing the AI" may be domination (fastest) or Diplo or Culture. There are various posts explaining that some Domination is typical for the latter two VCs, and certainly usually faster. You said that you usually start Patronage until Rationalism opens. Well, go ahead and finish Patronage and, on standard settings and allying city-states, you have already won in most instances, so taking Rationalism (after finishing Patronage) can be done but is seldom important for victory. You CAN switch, but you most definitely do not need to do so, and victory can usually achieved faster by finishing Patronage than switching to Rationalism. In my games, the SP for science in Patronage almost always gives much more science at that point than any of the Rationalism SPs. It depends on how you play, and the point was that no, Rationalism is definitely not necessary, or even desired in many cases.

@Wodan:
I never said "rush buying instead" which is what everyone seems to assume when anyone states that "gold is critical over everything else." Gold IS most important because everything relies on it and the game will even delete stuff if you cannot support said stuff. I don't rush buy that often, and usually only when I am already in full control and/or simply want to speed up the obvious ending. Of course, I am spending gold to maintain my large infrastructure and ally city-states, so that's a reason why I don't rush buy as much as someone who prefers Rationalism. Also, the analogy I offered between America's crumbling infrastructure and the game's mechanics was actually quite good because the game does not allow gold to be directly applied to research unlike real life. However, the game does allow (even requires) gold to support all levels of tech application, and that was my reply to the OP question. OP question/title of thread: "Do you ever not take Rationalism?" and then a post that claims that there is no reason to not take it. I replied (several times now) that, to the contrary, there are many instances where it is much better to ignore Rationalism and that the fact is that anything you might do with Rationalism (as well as tech from other sources such as Patronage) requires gold.

I explained all this in prior posts with a fair level of detail, so no point to do so again. I only wanted to address some of the posts made afterwards.

early conquest, why would you need rationalism

Maybe it's different on level 5 or 6 (which I play), but I want to stay ahead of AIs - eithers so I get artillery and bombers first, or to keep science up for science or other late victory. Nothing else seems to give as much of any boost, at least until the late policies.

Bulldog Bats said:

But the fact is that they are not equal in value, which is wrong. If they are equal, why do so many wide players still prefer tradition? If they are equal, why do 95% of the people pick rationalism (or ignore it to make the game harder)?

Click to expand...

I think that's overly simplistic. What's "equal" mean? Equal at the start of the game? Personally, it doesn't bother me that, for example, I almost never want to pick Piety as a game opener. What would bother me is if I never want to use Piety in any games, but that's not true.

So, if we say "they are not equal in value" with the unspoken context of "at game start," then I think we're not looking at it the right way.

Just me!

AiTenshi1 said:

@Wodan:
I never said "rush buying instead" which is what everyone seems to assume when anyone states that "gold is critical over everything else." Gold IS most important because everything relies on it and the game will even delete stuff if you cannot support said stuff. I don't rush buy that often, and usually only when I am already in full control and/or simply want to speed up the obvious ending. Of course, I am spending gold to maintain my large infrastructure and ally city-states, so that's a reason why I don't rush buy as much as someone who prefers Rationalism. Also, the analogy I offered between America's crumbling infrastructure and the game's mechanics was actually quite good because the game does not allow gold to be directly applied to research unlike real life. However, the game does allow (even requires) gold to support all levels of tech application, and that was my reply to the OP question.

Click to expand...

I believe you did say you could use gold to buy science buildings. Perhaps I or others keyed too much on that small portion of what you said. But that aside, it sounds like you're just talking about paying maintenance. Obviously if you are so cash strapped that you are disbanding stuff that's bad. But I don't see how is getting you science (other than a CS ally) otherwise.

OP question/title of thread: "Do you ever not take Rationalism?" and then a post that claims that there is no reason to not take it. I replied (several times now) that, to the contrary, there are many instances where it is much better to ignore Rationalism and that the fact is that anything you might do with Rationalism (as well as tech from other sources such as Patronage) requires gold.

Click to expand...

I agree that Rationalism is not a no-brainer / every game choice.

The assertion that using Rationalism requires gold is overstating things quite a bit. There's a huge difference between paying some minor maintenance and other costs and having the ability to convert excess into .

nemesis464 said:

I've been thinking, and while there is leeway between tradition/liberty starts, and patronage/commerce/etc... , I'm struggling to see why anyone wouldn't take rationalism?

Click to expand...

Arcaian said:

science is just way too important. Dunno how to change it.

Click to expand...

Game is not balanced for playing in vacuum, many things don't make sense if you don't have a neighboor who'll capitalize on your mistake / greedy play.

Wodan said:

AiTenshi1 said:

@Wodan:
I never said "rush buying instead" which is what everyone seems to assume when anyone states that "gold is critical over everything else." Gold IS most important because everything relies on it and the game will even delete stuff if you cannot support said stuff. I don't rush buy that often, and usually only when I am already in full control and/or simply want to speed up the obvious ending. Of course, I am spending gold to maintain my large infrastructure and ally city-states, so that's a reason why I don't rush buy as much as someone who prefers Rationalism. Also, the analogy I offered between America's crumbling infrastructure and the game's mechanics was actually quite good because the game does not allow gold to be directly applied to research unlike real life. However, the game does allow (even requires) gold to support all levels of tech application, and that was my reply to the OP question.

Click to expand...

I believe you did say you could use gold to buy science buildings. Perhaps I or others keyed too much on that small portion of what you said. But that aside, it sounds like you're just talking about paying maintenance. Obviously if you are so cash strapped that you are disbanding stuff that's bad. But I don't see how is getting you science (other than a CS ally) otherwise.

Click to expand...

Well, of course gold can be used for anything and everything (except buying wonders). That's what I posted originally and why I stated that gold is the most fundamental element of the game. That includes buying buildings such as science buildings, if desired.

However, "rush buying" tends to be viewed as a constant purchase strategy rather than occasionally purchasing a building or unit, at least as far as how I have seen the concept used in posts here over the years. I view it as analogous to a "hard build" strategy where units and buildings are more often purchased rather than produced, gold versus hammers , so to speak.

My point was that you have to have gold for everything, including science usage, or you cannot do anything even if you have a tech lead. Therefore, it is far more important to have a strong economy before researching techs that unlock building certain units or buildings, especially since you have to choose something to build every turn. There are many instances where I have to choose to build a wonder simply because I cannot afford to build a unit or building (and have already built the zero cost maintenance options). This usually happens once or twice in most games during the ancient and classical eras, and even sometimes in the medieval era. However, see the following point as well as my prior posts about city-state allies (i.e, if gold is being spent to ally city-states, it's pretty obvious that there isn't much left to spend on rush buying units and/or buildings).

Gold becomes science via buildings that produce science, population that is produced and/or supported by buildings, and city-states, as well as (possibly) trades for gold and/or luxuries that also support such elements that are required for science. Basically, science comes from population, buildings, and city-state allies (with appropriate SP), as well as certain other things in the mid to late game such as trading posts and jungles (the latter with universities but still needing population to actually work those tiles).

Reversing the flow of requirements shows that support for any generation of science requires gold (i.e., buildings to produce science and support population require gold maintenance, buildings to support happiness that supports population require gold maintenance except for Circuses, trades to other civs [for luxuries that give happiness that supports population] require gold in many instances, allying city-states requires gold , fulfilling city-state quests to gain/maintain alliances requires gold in many cases either directly or indirectly).

The whole process can be looked at more easily by considering what happens at the beginning of the game. You start with a few gold extra, maybe +5 gold or less. Once you build a few units and/or buildings, you cannot build any more until you get more gold flowing into your economy. It doesn't matter how fast you go through the tech tree because you cannot support anything you might build, anyway, even if you have unlocked the technology to do so. You can have +1,000 science per turn but you won't be able to build anything without the gold to support it no matter how you get the science . Gold is simply one way to get science , but it's also necessary and used for everything else, so it's key to almost any strategy, at least until you don't have to worry about it in the late game. So, gold gets science by the following activities (stuff like jungles plus universities is included in buildings and population support):

1. Buying and/or supporting buildings that generate science
2. Buying and/or supporting buildings that generate population growth
3. Buying and/or supporting buildings that generate happiness that are required to support population, including specialists
4. Buying and/or maintaining city-state alliances, including those that generate science directly as well as those that may generate science indirectly (e.g., maritime that supports population growth, culture that supports acquiring social policies, faith that supports acquiring faith-purchased buildings and units)
5. Completing city-state quests in order to gain/maintain CS alliances (e.g., roads to capital, gaining specific luxuries via trade or acquisition of territory, establishing trade routes, etc.).

None of this means that other approaches are not possible. It only means that this is the most direct, most efficient, at least for many contexts, and that Rationalism is far from necessary or even the best choice in many cases. It also means that science relies on gold like everything else in the game (again, except wonders, specifically world wonders).

Wodan said:

AiTenshi1 said:

OP question/title of thread: "Do you ever not take Rationalism?" and then a post that claims that there is no reason to not take it. I replied (several times now) that, to the contrary, there are many instances where it is much better to ignore Rationalism and that the fact is that anything you might do with Rationalism (as well as tech from other sources such as Patronage) requires gold.

Click to expand...

I agree that Rationalism is not a no-brainer / every game choice.

The assertion that using Rationalism requires gold is overstating things quite a bit. There's a huge difference between paying some minor maintenance and other costs and having the ability to convert excess into .

Click to expand...

Well, as I explained in detail above, the only way to generate science is via gold support in one way or another. Also, maintenance costs are certainly not minor for many things, including the mid to upper level science buildings and the specialists to work them.

In my games, there is no difference between gaining a strong economy and having a strong science base (i.e., strong economy results in strong science). However, the converse is not true (i.e., a focus on a strong science base does not result in a strong economy and results in problems). If I try to focus on science, I always run into a brick wall of low economy until I refocus on economy. The game is designed that way, at least for many contexts. There are some exceptions such as Archipelago map focusing on Frigates to dominate by mid game, but those are exceptions, after all.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the huge difference you see? I play Russia which is a very good, well-rounded civ, and I did mention that my posts/replies rejected the idea of choosing specific civs to cater to specific needs (e.g., choosing a science-focused civ and using it to suggest that Rationalism is always best).

On the other hand, we may be getting too far away from the original topic/post. Not sure, but it all does seem relevant, anyway.

You don't pick piety because you are not emphasizing religion. What I mean is that for a wide player, tradition should be as stong for him as tradition is for someone going tall, and as honor is for someone going early war. Many wide players still pick tradition - that means the two are imbalanced.

As I said, the three late game policies are pretty good, because you pick each one depending on your end-game, and from what I have seen, they are pretty equal to help their game styles -

Freedom - tall
Order - wide
Autocracy - all out warfare

nemesis464 said:

I've been thinking, and while there is leeway between tradition/liberty starts, and patronage/commerce/etc... , I'm struggling to see why anyone wouldn't take rationalism?

Seems like exploration and aesthetics hardly ever get taken

Click to expand...

I took it once...

AiTenshi1 said:

My point was that you have to have gold for everything, including science usage, or you cannot do anything even if you have a tech lead. Therefore, it is far more important to have a strong economy before researching techs that unlock building certain units or buildings, especially since you have to choose something to build every turn.

Click to expand...

I guess you don't run deficit economies?

That said, I take your point, but again feel you're overstating things. See below please.

There are many instances where I have to choose to build a wonder simply because I cannot afford to build a unit or building (and have already built the zero cost maintenance options).

Click to expand...

Sounds like you're not taking your own advice, ensuring you have a "strong economy." No caravans? No Tithe? No Markets? No selling of resources? Any of those should be sufficient to cover maintenance.

So, gold gets science by the following activities (stuff like jungles plus universities is included in buildings and population support):

Click to expand...

Right... this list seems to boil down to maintenance or rush buying items.

Well, as I explained in detail above, the only way to generate science is via gold support in one way or another. Also, maintenance costs are certainly not minor for many things, including the mid to upper level science buildings and the specialists to work them.

Click to expand...

Contrary to your experiences, I usually find maintenance costs minor. Given a modicrum of attention, it's not an issue for the whole game and I can focus upon overall game strategy without much thought for .

I suppose the reason I have difficulty with your explanations is that you make it sound like you should ignore everything except . When in my experience it's simply necessary to produce enough gold to cover maintenance. After that, you can focus on gold if you wish to buy CSs OR you can ignore gold and focus on for units/conquest or or whatever your strategy is.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the huge difference you see?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's necessary to ensure you can pay maintenance costs. That can be done in many ways, from religion to selling resources. Once done, however, and almost always fairly easily done, the overall strategy for the game is free to focus upon any given path to victory.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing. Perhaps it's just a matter of emphasis. But to me is hardly ever an issue. Sell those extra horses if you aren't planning to make Horsemen (or don't have the tech yet). Build a caravan or two early. Don't ignore Currency/Markets. Once done, focus on in your tech paths, or focus on whatever your strategy is.

Wodan said:

Perhaps we're saying the same thing. Perhaps it's just a matter of emphasis. But to me is hardly ever an issue. Sell those extra horses if you aren't planning to make Horsemen (or don't have the tech yet). Build a caravan or two early. Don't ignore Currency/Markets. Once done, focus on in your tech paths, or focus on whatever your strategy is.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we are saying the same thing as him, the problem is that he for some reason is overstating the fact that a building costs low single digit gold for maintenance, and a single trade route can cover nearly all the expenses of an entire city. He sees this as a massive cost that must be dealt with, we see it as the price of doing business and not a big deal.

Too be fair, I usually run a heavy gold surplus as well. But it's not intentional, it's because gold quite literally isn't that important and comes as a consequence of everything else. You're not going to have cash laying around to rush buy 4 research labs. If you do, I dare say you're playing inefficiently sitting on that much cash for so long. It's not like you get interest on your stockpile, so gold isn't useful at all unless you're spending it.

I have won many domination games running a GPT deficit, and guess what? I do just fine off the spoils of war. I have however never won a game with a science deficit, as it turns out. And like I said, puppeted cities do absolutely nothing but focus on gold, and they suck at it. They're complete wastes of cities that do basically nothing for you and sometimes cost more than they earn. If gold were really the most important thing in the game, people would be playing with vast puppet empires, ringed by trading posts, but that's not the case because they're terrible cities and it's a terrible strategy.

It's really ridiculous to say that you can't do anything without gold, even if you have a tech lead, when the costs of anything you'd be doing can be covered by an 8gpt lux sale. One extra lux sold away pays for almost 3 research labs. And you expect me to take your position seriously that gold is some precious commodity that must be maximized at all times? I'd love to see what your cities look like.