To the tech rate comments, pretty confident tall is already in a great place for science. Maybe there are some example games to look at but it works all the way up to deity. The problem people seem to run into is those giant empires in the late game and there are some good arguments for mechanics that keep them in check. Do we really want to achieve that with this science modifier though? It strongly affects the early game too, where the problem doesn't even exist, along with a lot of other "collateral damage" to gameplay so-to-speak.
The "cities tech cost" and it's implications
- Thread starter anandus
- Start date
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
You don't need to expand massivly to beat the AI or to keep up with the AI you actualy need the national college on emperor or above
ggmoyang
King
4 cities tradition approach works well on deity. You can check the strategy forum.
Im a 3-4 city tradition player, always have been ( even when it sucked to do so ) But nowadays 3-4 city Tradition/Rationalism equals a tech Victory on immortal between 200-250 turns, every single game for me. ( standard map, standard settings, Pangaea )
AI have no shot at keeping up currently...
Wide on the other hand is also good, but i can't stand having more than a few cities, so i tend to not go down that path, but the games i had it was still a strong choice.
With the 5% penalty, seems a no brainer for me to continue playing the way i like to play
AI have no shot at keeping up currently...
Wide on the other hand is also good, but i can't stand having more than a few cities, so i tend to not go down that path, but the games i had it was still a strong choice.
With the 5% penalty, seems a no brainer for me to continue playing the way i like to play
Scott Jegg
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 267
I used to find the AI out-teching me to be a major headache on cultural victories at immortal level, but improvements in my play mean that it's never usually an issue now.
Following a similar strategy on science victories leave the AI in my wake every time.
Tradition for the capital bonuses. Get your capital as big as possible. Use maritime city states for food bonus. Patronage + the first policy on the right from that tree + pledge to protect = free friendship with city states.
NC in capital asap. I usually settle a second city and just buy a library rather than sticking with one city till NC is built.
After that you can't really go wrong as long as you steal tech effectively and make good use of research agreements.
For science victory, 6-8 academies in the capital should work nicely. Work all GS slots. Make sure to focus on getting all GS producing wonders. There isn't that many.
I don't really know if the AI needs this science penalty. I think it's only a struggle for the human player if growth in all cities is an issue.
Following a similar strategy on science victories leave the AI in my wake every time.
Tradition for the capital bonuses. Get your capital as big as possible. Use maritime city states for food bonus. Patronage + the first policy on the right from that tree + pledge to protect = free friendship with city states.
NC in capital asap. I usually settle a second city and just buy a library rather than sticking with one city till NC is built.
After that you can't really go wrong as long as you steal tech effectively and make good use of research agreements.
For science victory, 6-8 academies in the capital should work nicely. Work all GS slots. Make sure to focus on getting all GS producing wonders. There isn't that many.
I don't really know if the AI needs this science penalty. I think it's only a struggle for the human player if growth in all cities is an issue.
If there were not good reasons enough to go tradition....
Excellent mentality (sarcasm) :
- 'Hey Bob, we made the ICS AIs too strong on the science department.
- 'Yeah, lets place them a city penalty, thats going to fix it.
- 'Best idea eva!1!1!
@Scott Jegg.
Your post is the general guideline on how to out-tech the AI in larger difficulties.
Its a shame really, instead of nailing the coffin in liberty they should have found a way to make said tree more reliable and alluring. Instead tradition seems more the way to go.
Excellent mentality (sarcasm) :
- 'Hey Bob, we made the ICS AIs too strong on the science department.
- 'Yeah, lets place them a city penalty, thats going to fix it.
- 'Best idea eva!1!1!
@Scott Jegg.
Your post is the general guideline on how to out-tech the AI in larger difficulties.
Its a shame really, instead of nailing the coffin in liberty they should have found a way to make said tree more reliable and alluring. Instead tradition seems more the way to go.
ggmoyang
King
At least early gold is harder to come, so Liberty's free settler and production bonus on settler would be better bonus than GnK.
Yes but it the age old riddle still: Long term gains (tradition) or short term ones (liberty)?
And right now we have a clear winner. OFC that may change but I really dont have that high hopes.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,577
I'm pretty intrigued by this change. Overall I reckon it will be a good change. I do understand those who are afraid that it will make puppeting even more of a default when going warfare, and I do hope they've taken steps to prevent that. Perhaps Puppets will get a harder science penalty (wouldn't be a bad choice anyway). Perhaps capturing a city will kill less people and science buildings will have a higher chance to be left intact. Even if none of this has been done, I'll at least be interested in seeing how it plays out. As it is now, AI civs that manage to go very wide always seem to runaway from other AI's, sometimes even from me as human player, so there does seem to be a need for some tweaking there.
I don't see it as a way of punishing super wide empires but more of keeping a competitive game regardless the number of cities. That isn't to say that more cities won't offer more bonuses--higher gold income to start, along with map control, higher military cap, etc. But as we all know, science is the over-riding mechanic which trumps everything. If this change keeps the science levels a bit more equal between small vs. large, then I am all for the change.
Scott Jegg
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 267
Yup, fairly standard strategy. Just a heads up for those saying the AI is impossible to beat at higher levels, which ain't true.
I'm looking forward to the new changes. With the new rules on lux trading, it's not going to be possible to buy your way into a strong start so easilty, so I can see things being slowed down a bit and maybe a bit more tactical. With the end game changes on top of that, I can see plenty of scope for more thought into winning stratregies.
I'm wondering if this was precisely the point of the change (or at least one of the intended effects) - an attempt to extend the length of the game, particularly the time spent in the later eras. There were certainly fears earlier on that the late game went by so quickly on standard speed (if you were winning) that you would not have a chance to play with the new mechanics. By increasing the cost of tech based on expansion it will almost certainly guarantee a longer time available in which to explore the new late-game mechanics before victory.
Scott Jegg
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 267
That's a good point. I rarely ever get the chance to use late game units. Upgrading to mech infantry is usually a token gesture. I don't think I've built a single tank in the whole time I've played civ v.
Slowing it down would be nice but with such a penalty as-is you'd basically never want to annex. If it applied to puppets you'd also be looking at razing cities in the modern era
You kind of run out of options on how to run your empire in that aspect. That leads to a bit less diversity and, IMO, that is a very high cost to justify.At the very least, additional cities shouldn't make your tech rate worse than before. Damping their extra science (harshly) to 0 would already equalize the tech rate, nevermind making it negative.
seasnake
Conquistador
The only person who's played with the new effect is MadDjinn, he says it's not really noticeable, and he's pretty blunt about stuff that he likes/doesn't work for him. I'd say we're okay.
Yeah unless you are going for record finishes, I doubt it is anything to worry about. When I play super-wide domination games, taking new cities is never for the science even though I end up with way more science than if I play smaller.
It has always been that way, you always get more raw science from larger empires. Veneke brings up a good point, as there is a certain stage of the game where you can be pulling in 2500 beakers per turn and you just blaze through the later eras.
It has always been that way, you always get more raw science from larger empires. Veneke brings up a good point, as there is a certain stage of the game where you can be pulling in 2500 beakers per turn and you just blaze through the later eras.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I suspect it'll only be noticeable in runaway civs. Even then, the fact that you have so many cities will likely offset any weakness. There might be a sweet spot where more isn't better, but that would depend on so many variables as to not matter. This strikes me as a slight tweaking rather than a game altering change.
The more I think about it the more I dislike this change.
You have to work hard for a flourishing wide empire. Make lots of critical decisions compared to clicking next turn in a tall game.
Now I'm getting punished by a new mechanic that has no logical basis whatsoever.
Especially in the early game, wide empires have a very hard time keeping up with tall tactics. When this modifier reaches its peak at modern eras, it would be ok but in early game, a full 5% penalty just gives me a headache. Why even bother expanding?
But again, MadDjinn said it isn't that noticable. And we can only see this one line of code. I still have hope although it's definately the easy way out.
You have to work hard for a flourishing wide empire. Make lots of critical decisions compared to clicking next turn in a tall game.
Now I'm getting punished by a new mechanic that has no logical basis whatsoever.
Especially in the early game, wide empires have a very hard time keeping up with tall tactics. When this modifier reaches its peak at modern eras, it would be ok but in early game, a full 5% penalty just gives me a headache. Why even bother expanding?
But again, MadDjinn said it isn't that noticable. And we can only see this one line of code. I still have hope although it's definately the easy way out.
Similar threads
