Typically people dont tend to gang up on the player higher in gpt because it is less noticeable then someone an era ahead of everyone else. Usually when I play my score is near the bottom, yeti usually end up winning. Thats because the points system in this game doesnt mean much, despite the fact that I get +80 faith per turn and 50+ gold per turn in the medeival era. The points system doesnt calculate high faith and gpt into score well. Online their is typically a civ with a higher score than the others, so everyone wanrs to team up on that one. When the war is over and that player is down, my army will be so massive by that point that no one can beat mw, even if they have a modest tech lead. You saud that science is king because you can build wonders eariler. Yes that is true, but when all your production is going to wonders, and I am next to you purchasing one unit with faith and another with gold every couple turns on top of producing 1 every 3 turns in 3 of my cities, those wonders then beckme mine. And also, the NQ group alleviates all of the online problems you mentioned
Do you ever not take rationalism?
- Thread starter nemesis464
- Start date
You can rush buy science buildings, you can pay for research agreements, you can ally city states if you have Patronage (which will give you both science and great people), you can rush buy or upgrade an army when you get your UU and conquer that juicy capital next door. You can even buy a fully equipped city state if you're Austria. All ways how you can convert gold into science. We're not talking about ignoring science altogether, we're talking what's the most efficient way to build a strong empire and win the game. And unless you're Babylon or Korea, being single-mindedly focused on science bonuses is not always the most efficient way.
Wodan
Deity
If you're making buildings to provide more
, then you're missing the point.That'd be fine, if city states produced any meaningful science of their own. 25% of their science output is pretty bad unless you're far enough along in the game to mass many, many CS allies, in which case you probably are spending far more resources on doing so than you would be just teching science. Rush buying science buildings? Are you guys for real? You usually don't have the $$ laying around to rush buy more than 1 or 2, and I'm assuming you're not playing OCC here. If you do have that much gold laying around it's wasted potential, because you're not using it efficiently. The same with units, how much gold do you need to drop on units in order to take down a capital? Have you guys even thought about this argument at all? What you're suggesting as a "balance" for gold vs science requires SO much gold that it's completely unrealistic. That's why science wins the argument, because your side of the argument requires literally thousands upon thousands of gold for it to be the case in the vast majority of games. Possible? Sure, if you're rocking multiple 9 iron locations and a lot of rich neighbors. Then maybe you can turn that gold surplus into something decent in the medieval era. But otherwise? Come on. The math just doesn't work for that.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Rush buying new science buildings in top X science citiess on turn building tech is gained? Yep, sure we do.
Of course, you need to have wonders, policies and ideologies that woukd make this optimal. You know, commerce, big ben, order...
Of course, you need to have wonders, policies and ideologies that woukd make this optimal. You know, commerce, big ben, order...
You mean the math doesn't work for you. I have no problem running a surplus of more than 100 gold per turn in the medieval era. Which means that with Mercantilism, I can buy a University every 5 turns. There's more to this game than playing Babylon on Pangea, try it out one day.
Teproc
King
Haven't read the thread, but the only games where I don't go Rationalism are Domination games where I go Liberty into full Commerce (because Protectionism is insane for warmongers).
I really don't even think your argument that gold is better than science is worthy of a response. If I were you, I would ease my tone on some of this stuff you're saying. There are some very, very good players in here who will think you are making a fool of yourself by arguing this so forcefully, namely because you are dead wrong, but also because you are being a jerk about it.
Moderator Action: This post is inappropriate because it focuses on another member instead of focusing on the arguments being made. This is flaming and is not allowed by our rules.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Well, it's good that you don't think it's not worthy of a response because that is not the argument I am making, and that's not even what this thread is about. It's right there in the title.
No, it is the argument you are making. Your last several posts here have been about how you place gold above science...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you get away with "not the argument I INTENDED on making." If you would like to change your answer to that then please do. Maybe then you would start to make sense.
Talcove
Slayer of Spies
Yes.
If I win before the Renaissance.
If I win before the Renaissance.
Ok, explain to me how "We're not talking about ignoring science altogether, we're talking what's the most efficient way to build a strong empire and win the game. And unless you're Babylon or Korea, being single-mindedly focused on science bonuses is not always the most efficient way. ", places gold above science. Specially as compared to the thread title "Do you ever not take rationalism" arguing the reverse.
It almost sounds like it's blasphemy on these forums to suggest that there are different ways to play this game depending on the actual situation in the game you are playing.
Similar threads
