Science probably shouldn't be based on pop.

[jjkrause84]

I've thought this for a long time but after my first emperor game (got smoked and left in the dust) I'm sure that havign science based on population was a horrible choice. What it does is give the most science to the person who builds the most military units and conquers the most enemy cities. Not only are they already militarily powerful but their science goes through the roof giving them the most advanced units and they become EVEN MORE powerful.

What a strange idea.....that the most advanced Civ can get there without building libraries or Unis....

[Then again, I should probably go back to King]

[Clement]

you make a good point about the lack of libraries, i had'nt really thought of that, on the other hand it does seem that in real life a lot of the most successful nations tend to be the larger ones i guess.

[enfo]

The fact that scientific advancement is dependent on raw population numbers is actually one of the core ideas from classical demographer Malthus. So it's not too far fetched =P

[Becephalus]

One way to fix this would be to make the tech costs a lot higher (they need to be somewhat higher anyway), and then make the buildings stronger. Particularly universities and schools.

[dexters]

I don't see a problem here.

[Archwizard]

I don't know, I had an emperor game where Bismark was considerably larger than me but I reached future era quite a bit before him. I do agree tech costs are badly balanced vis-a-vis unit and buildings costs.

[Alyosha]

I know it's stupid, isn't it? Historically, the nations that contributed the most to scientific advancement were not among the most populous in the world.

[Sonereal]

More people means more competition which means a more powerful drive to innovate and invent. The only real problem I see is that tech costs are probably too low and buildings don't give a big enough bonus to make too much of a difference.

[sgrig]

I agree this is nonsense. In the real world consider the scientific achievements of say, Switzerland (pop 7.7m) and Indonesia (pop 238m). Sure, in most cases countries with larger populations have more resources, but really scientific output requires some kind of infrastructure to support it. Especially in the modern age. In ancient times, I agree that the Civ5 model probably makes more sense.

[MrBanana]

Conquering people means more unhappiness which is supposed to limit your growth. Whether it works is a different story.

[Sonereal]

Originally Posted by sgrig

I agree this is nonsense. In the real world consider the scientific achievements of say, Switzerland (pop 7.7m) and Indonesia (pop 238m). Sure, in most cases countries with larger populations have more resources, but really scientific output requires some kind of infrastructure to support it. Especially in the modern age. In ancient times, I agree that the Civ5 model probably makes more sense.

Civ5's method stops making sense around late-Renaissance/Industrial. China fell behind despite having a large population because it was too focused on agriculture and no infrastructure to support innovation existed compared to the nations of the West with smaller populations.

[Celevin]

Actually, conquering doesn't lead to more science all the time...

Your max population is based on happiness, and science is based on your population. So the only way conquering leads to more science is if you get luxury resources out of it.

I find the best way to get more science from military is to conquer enemy cities, sell them off to the highest bidder, then use that extra money to buy happiness buildings, thus increasing my maximum science.

[drachasor]

Originally Posted by Sonereal

Civ5's method stops making sense around late-Renaissance/Industrial. China fell behind despite having a large population because it was too focused on agriculture and no infrastructure to support innovation existed compared to the nations of the West with smaller populations.

I don't know about that. A library and university mean you are doing as much science as a city of size 2.25 times larger and that's without science specialists. Of course, in Civ that means a city of size 10 can outperform one of size 20, and the "population" difference between those two is more than a factor of 10, I believe.

That's not even counting things like Rationalism (or jungles), which can dramatically increase the science output of a city.

Seems to make sense to me.

[Sonereal]

Originally Posted by drachasor

I don't know about that. A library and university mean you are doing as much science as a city of size 2.25 times larger and that's without science specialists. Of course, in Civ that means a city of size 10 can outperform one of size 20, and the "population" difference between those two is more than a factor of 10, I believe.

That's not even counting things like Rationalism (or jungles), which can dramatically increase the science output of a city.

Seems to make sense to me.

The thing about it is that the build times for most buildings make them not worth building in every city like that.

[keshik22]

Actually this is one part of Civ 5 which I like and which makes sense. Early on, big countries have the most research, which is historically correct, but later on to stay competitive in science you can't rely just on raw populaton any more, you need libraries and universities and maybe scientist specialists.

[vendur]

Actually war tends to massively increase technology.

[skallben]

Originally Posted by vendur

Actually war tends to massively increase technology.

In ancient times it was the "technology" of tactics. Today it's the architecture of equipment.
How many were involved in the Manhattan project?
Does the success not rather have to do with the massive amount of resources allocated to the project than the war itself?
Would these scientists not probably produce meaningful science in peacetime, allthough less spectacular than earthshattering bombs?

Probably nothing ever has made governments so spending-happy about science-funding as modern warfare.
In CiV, we should have the choice to take that same route, but not without infrastructure that supports it.
In CiV, we should have the choice to take an alternative route when we push every resource into peaceful progress.
Population as base for science is partly undermining this. Policies and buildings can compensate but it seems warmongering is at least just as good.

[vendur]

Originally Posted by skallben

In ancient times it was the "technology" of tactics. Today it's the architecture of equipment.
How many were involved in the Manhattan project?.

Are you being sarcastic, cause i can't believe you actually think this? It's already assumed that the civs have sceintists and the like, even if they don't go around in lab coats. The real qestion: why were they working on the manhattan project?

[drachasor]

Originally Posted by Sonereal

The thing about it is that the build times for most buildings make them not worth building in every city like that.

While there are many buildings that aren't worth the time spent, libraries and universities are not among them.

[polypheus]

Population size and scientific development is very loosely related historically. Many of the largest nations before and now were not scientific powerhouses while relatively small nations are.

Most of science came about not through state directed research like we have in tech tree style. It was more of "great scientist" style that came about because these people were born or grew up and lived in environments that allowed them to flourish in economies that had a lot of excess wealth to support such endeavors and weren't too closed minded and under rigid dogmatic thinking.

Until recent times, most people were not well educated and lived a subsistence lifestyle. A nation that was small but relatively well-off, free, and more "liberal" minded, and had much contact and trade with others was much more going to advance scientifically then some big backwards nations full of ignorant peasants.

In this sense, Civ4's model of scientific development was a LOT more sensible than Civ5's bigger nation means more research model. In Civ4, if you over-expanded before building up enough commerce and infrastructure, your big ancient empire would be on the verge of bankruptcy and would rapidly fall in science to smaller more perfectionist rivals. In Civ5 this can't quite happen since science is directly tied to population levels.