Is Gandhi the best pick for science?

[JimBobV]

So ever since the amount of science needed to research new techs was bumped by 5% per city, its been discouraging to build a wide empire, and instead build a tall one. Since Gandhi's UA is designed for a tall empire, wouldn't gandhi be the obvious choice for a science victory? It would let you concentrate on more science oriented techs rather then waste your time on happiness techs. Plus, when civs are city spamming, you'll shoot ahead of them when their science takes a dump. So is it really worth picking any other civ?

Also, I play without any expansion packs but the free ones, so if there are better choices for science please tell me.

 

[Aenthin]

Well Ghandi does allow you to get happiness techs much later, but he doesn't really have any ability to promote growth and science. He's not a bad choice, but there are better ones out there, For instance, Montezuma and Pacahuti both have improvements that promote growth while Korea and Babylon have abilities that improve science.

Edit: Since you don't have expansions/DLCs, Montezuma.

 

[Quineloe]

Actually, it's discouraged to build a super wide empire of 20+ undeveloped cities.

Gandhi's UA isn't even that good, because unless you play just with Delhi, you won't really notice a big happiness advantage because double unhappiness from number of cities still stings. And you NEED to have multiple cities, because one city only cannot send food trade routes around to boost your growth.
If you can keep up with the happiness, having 6 to 8 large cities from food caravans will result in much faster tech than only two large cities.

There are much stronger civs for teching, the Maya for example get +2 science on shrines, Babylon gets a free great scientist very, very early in the game for the +8 science improvement

oh I just noticed you play vanilla civ5... yeah, in that case India is probably ahead of others.

 

[NoOneImportant]

I thought there was no per city science penalty in vanilla. Was it introduced by the patch?

 

[Navelgazer]

I'd posit that between the Wat (with the associated Legalism trick) and the ability to use City-States more like straight-up puppets for your empire, Siam is the better vanilla choice than Gandhi, for science anyway.

 

[Arcaian]

Actually, it's discouraged to build a super wide empire of 20+ undeveloped cities.

Gandhi's UA isn't even that good, because unless you play just with Delhi, you won't really notice a big happiness advantage because double unhappiness from number of cities still stings. And you NEED to have multiple cities, because one city only cannot send food trade routes around to boost your growth.
If you can keep up with the happiness, having 6 to 8 large cities from food caravans will result in much faster tech than only two large cities.

There are much stronger civs for teching, the Maya for example get +2 science on shrines, Babylon gets a free great scientist very, very early in the game for the +8 science improvement

oh I just noticed you play vanilla civ5... yeah, in that case India is probably ahead of others.

Even without vanilla; what you are saying is wrong. If you have a city over the size of 7, Gandhi gains unhappiness. He gains 8 instead of 4 for the original, but then half for every one after that. At size 7, he has gained 7/2 = 3 (rounded down) unhappiness. 8+3 = 11. A normal civ gains 4, + 7 = 11. So equal. Every person after that is a gain for Ghandi; if he can just afford to settle the 3 cities you need before mid game to be competitive in BNW, he's set for the rest of the game. He actually must prioritise the happiness techs early on, but then can grow his cities to double the size, past size 7. If you're in a spot where you can get several cities to 30+ size, you can do so incredibly easily as India. Late game, you can actually afford to have MORE cities. In mid-game you'll have a massive happiness level from the tiny amounts of citizen unhappiness, you can 'invest' it in 8-unhappiness new cities. If you lay about 8 down, by late game you'll be ahead in happiness.

It's a weird effect, not sure if it's intended.

 

[bbbt]

Not really, because it's not that hard to keep a tall empire happy, and Ghandi's happiness bonus doesn't do anything to improve the growth rate (now, if the happier a civ is the more it grows, then ghandi would be more useful).

For Vanilla, I second the choice of Montezuma and the Aztecs because the floating gardens are nice boost to population. Or maybe Alexander with that social policy for getting science from CS allies.

 

[joshua43214]

Gandhi is better played slightly wide once you get some extra happiness. iirc, 1/3 of the surplus local happiness of a city is converted to global happiness (might just be the local happiness from the cap, I forget).

All in all, Gandhi kinda sucks, he looks great on paper, but does not do so well in practice. Russia and Siam here my favorite civs in vanilla

 

[sendos]

I thought there was no per city science penalty in vanilla. Was it introduced by the patch?

There is no science penalty before BNW. I know this because I recently played MP G&K about a week ago. I put the cursor over the beakers and it mentioned no science penalty. Hence that's why liberty was such an epic SP tree.

India, in general, is a rather ordinary civ but the UA is most noticable when you capture cities. The happiness penalty much smaller than other civs. If you intend to go as India, getting tradition and the wonders ToA and HG in your capitol would help a lot. Getting your own religion would also help and then you let your UA handle the growth.

Speaking of the traditional approach, does Indian UA and monarchy stack? -75% unhappiness in capitol?

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

There is no science penalty before BNW. I know this because I recently played MP G&K about a week ago. I put the cursor over the beakers and it mentioned no science penalty. Hence that's why liberty was such an epic SP tree.

India, in general, is a rather ordinary civ but the UA is most noticable when you capture cities. The happiness penalty much smaller than other civs. If you intend to go as India, getting tradition and the wonders ToA and HG in your capitol would help a lot. Getting your own religion would also help and then you let your UA handle the growth.

Speaking of the traditional approach, does Indian UA and monarchy stack? -75% unhappiness in capitol?

Yeah but it's weird how it works out. Another civ's capital with monarchy can grow to 12pop producing 9 unhappiness, India's capital can grow to 12 pop producing 9 unhappiness (standard map size). Anything lower than that and India's capital produces more unhappiness than another civ's who took monarchy. It doesn't give the early game boost to India that it does another civ. It's still pretty nice to be able to get 4 pop for 1 unhappiness point. Really good when you're hovering around 0 global happiness since your pop can continue to grow without putting you in the negative. Lets you get the most out of HG, maritime CSs and landed elite.

India just has a really weird UA. The per city unhappiness causes people to think they're supposed to be a small/tall civ but if you stay tall you will maybe only get an extra golden age or two. Pretty underwhelming.

India is better wide with tall cities. Once they pass 6pop they produce less unhappiness per city than other civs meaning local happiness buildings and policies go a lot further for population growth (coincidence that that's also the name of the UA?)

They just have to wait a little later to expand than other civs and I think that turns people off but really India is borderline broken OP in the right hands with the right resources. More so since BNW added the internal trade routes and per city research penalty. How often do you have a city that stays under 6pop any more?

 

[neoaspilet11]

well i always include gandhi, bismark, shaka, washington, cathy.. in my games. it seems gandhi is always pathetic in science. bismark is really tough to beat. even if he dont have a great lib at ancient era, he seems to sky rocket in science in renaissance era particularly if he has a large land area.

Gandhi is always friendly and I can sign RA from him.

 

[zukenft]

India is more suited for larger maps though, there is less unhappiness from city number, and more luxuries/CS to ally.

 

[Astennu]

India would have to have the most boring and non-immersive UA of any Civ.

I've never played a game with them and doubt I ever will unless the UA is overhauled. Maybe they should add a % growth bonus under certain conditions?

 

[Kintara]

India is better wide with tall cities. Once they pass 6pop they produce less unhappiness per city than other civs meaning local happiness buildings and policies go a lot further for population growth (coincidence that that's also the name of the UA?)

But bear in mind that India has a special local happiness cap. It's specifically been lowered to 2/3 of their population instead of the standard 1:1. So they produce less unhappiness, but they also produce somewhat less local happiness. Arguably, this technically pushes their break even point back to population 18; in practice, however, that's a lot of local happiness for a normal civ to achieve early on. By the time ideological local happiness kicks in (assuming you need it), you should be big enough. Still, it's a complication.

Also, I haven't tested this in Vanilla, so I have no idea if this applies to that environment too.