[Vote] (9-019) Policy Tweaks V: Rationalism Rework
- Thread starter hokath
- Start date
GeneralAmadeus
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2019
- Messages
- 106
I also agree that this feels like it does not fit the limited scope we were given for this congress. This is for all intents and purposes a complete rework of the rationalism branch. I do agree that the Industrial era branches could use a overhaul but I strongly urge you to postpone this to the next congress.
Observatories are such an iconic building, I don't want them to go!
The change is to reduce the number of slots to 1 and remove it from public school, so for a rationalism civ a total of 2 slots are lost. This should go some way toward addressing Great Scientist spam.
The change is to reduce the number of slots to 1 and remove it from public school, so for a rationalism civ a total of 2 slots are lost. This should go some way toward addressing Great Scientist spam.
Yes it is a rework. However, people have been playing it and submitting feedback for over a year. If this were off the cuff, I would agree with you -- although perhaps its still debatable. But because of the longstanding modmod, I believe it does fit in the scope.
if your going that route, drop both slots from the observatory and leave public school alone (as right now its a sore thumb in your proposal....you sneak in that change that is completely outside of rationalism itself).
This looks so out of place and is just a weaker version of the current Industry finisher. If this passes and Industry doesn't, we'll have both trees having the same bonus.
I don't like the proposed Rationalism having the same "benefit more from golden ages" theme as Artistry.
I would vote Yea if this was only "remove specialist slots from Observatory" and "change +1 food per population to -1 food cost per specialist".
Alright I'm finally going to dig in on this. Is it a nerf, a buff? Time to try and suss it out. I am using a T234 game I ran recently as a comparison point to see how some of these things shake out.
Alright so first I've laid out the new and old side by side. The layout is that as you go down a column its left to right, top to bottom in the actual tree structure. This gives us a solid comparison to start with. I am using the old names to make it easier to compare.
The Opener
Looking at my current game I've got 15 strategic deposits my 11 city civ is using. I am working 12 scientists right now (max I could work is 33). So even looking at max scientists I would say the new version is missing out on raw science, especially when the 5% science is also dropped from the opener. I am also missing about 30 hammers, and gaining 12-33 culture in the exchange.
The big question is the GS Rate. We are getting that significantly earlier in the tree. How much does that benefit us? Lets call it 2 full GS. It is earlier and more powerful, but also the more GS you get, the steeper that curve climbs. I think 2 GS might actually be an overestimate, but lets try it out.
My civ has 1100 SPT right now, so 5% of that = 55 SPT. 5% is not applied to every bit of science but we will overestimate for ease. Than throw in the 45 science from strategics. So ~100 SPT.
Lets say 2 GS earlier in the game is ~5500 each, or 11000. GS has high variability but I think that's reasonable for all of my games. We assume the 12 science from scientists. So the 100 SPT - 11 = 89 SPT to "catchup" to my two GS.
So 11000 / 89 = 123 turns. Putting me in the 350ish mark to catch up. So that's not insane, it is later in the game but we still have game to play at that point, and it really comes down to how good those GS I get are.
Verdict: Comparable. I think we are in the same general territory here roughly.
Scaler: New is definately a nerf here. Based on my ~1100 science output I am losing out on 22 SPT.
Scientific Revolution (THE BIGGEST CHANGE) The biggest change BY FAR is that observatories are now just straightup an option at astronomy. So everyone will have a 4 science building at that point in the game. We also lose out on the new Scientist slots. That right there is basically a ~50% nerf to GS rate in the late game as well as ~12-14 ish SPT per city in scentitist science. This is not a small nerf, this is a MASSIVE CHANGE.
So basically we will get a better GS rate in the opener, by the second policy our GS rate will drop significantly in comparison. BUT of course we now get a +25% GPP boost with golden ages.
So where does it shake out? Overall I still say its a nerf even if you get permanent Golden Ages, and especially if you don't. But how much, phew its hard to say.
Looking to the rest of the policy. I am currently working 54 specalists in my game. That's 108 gold and 54 hammers. That more than makes up for the opener loss in hammers and is honestly a pretty sizable amount of gold, that is nothing to sneeze out.
The snow science was never a big thing to me. The jungle science will definately hurt certain map placements but in some games it was completely irrelevant.
Verdict: Overall the nerf to GS rate will be a big impact to the tree's science going forward. But I do think the tree is more rounded by the large gold and hammer influx. So less science more hammers.
Enlightenment: Still the most dippable policy in the game, can come in from any tree and grab a tech towards the late game. Its still one of rationalism signature boosts.
The +100% production to public schools might have SOME benefit, but its still too late in the tree (those things really need to be openers to have weight). But the public school bonu sis basically a +3 food, +2 culture bump per city overall. So a nice little buff.
Verdict: Straight buff on this one, not a crazy one though.
Free Thought : First time our old and new tree have a different policy in the slot.
The big +10% science during GA is the same. Is -1 needs to all better than -5 religious distress? Not sure, in generally I would say its a bit weaker, -5 religious I found notable in a lot of games but it does depend.
Now the acamemy versus the village. Villages are much more common tahn academies BUT sometimes I'm no longer working villages in favor of better tiles. So while acaademies are less prevalent I am likely working every one of them. I think on the whole its mostly a wash, but it does concentrate more production power into the capital.
Verdict: Roughly equal
Rights of Man
Here we get a boost time big boost in yields. In my game about ~3200 culture and ~3200 GAP. So like 1/5 of a GW and a G Artist as a ballpark....or 2/5 of a GP. The happiness is an interesting question here because the Hotel and Museum are not gimme buildings, and may be skipped in some plays. So you do have to put in some effort for the happiness. Compared to the old side getting -1 all needs, happiness is probably a bit better in the old tree.
We are also losing out on the GS bulb +25% for a short time. That's probbably worth about .25 or .5 a GS, enough to compensate for the boost above, so somewhat of a wash.
Verdict: Roughly equal
Empiricism: The food reductor on speclaist is a bit weaker than the old +1 food per citizen, especially with the old +25% growth But that hammer boost is VERY significant, that is actually a pretty sizable boost in hamemrs, about 80 in my current game, more likely 100 once I actually got this tech.
When we are getting something like ~50-75ish CPT for happiness. But we are losing out on like 20% science in the capital and like 9-12% in some of the big secondary cities. That's a lot of lost science, easily 40-50 SPT.
Verdict: Stronger in the new version overall, but definately a loss of Science.
Finisher: About the same, noting really to note here.
Overall: So where do I come down to? Nerf or a Buff?
When it comes to Science, definitely a nerf. Like actually a LOT of science has been removed from this tree. You are not going to racing ahead in science with this version of rationalism.
On the flip side, notable boosts to culture, gold, and especially hammers. The old rationalsim you would often race ahead but then struggle to keep up in infrastructure. This version of the tree will be more balanced, slower tech but faster infrustructure and more pop get fueling yields.
Is it "better"? This will definately be a more generalist tree, and its an interesting question if this encroches on industry, not because they are doing the exact same thing but because the yield balance is more similar between the two. I don't know if that's good, but its definately dfferent.
So how am I voting? Phew, I'm still not sure. I think it is probably a step forward, it is likely a more balanced tree...so I think I'm going to vote yes. I think there were better ways to go about this, simplier cleaner versions....but this tree I believe is an overall improvement.
Alright so first I've laid out the new and old side by side. The layout is that as you go down a column its left to right, top to bottom in the actual tree structure. This gives us a solid comparison to start with. I am using the old names to make it easier to compare.
The Opener
Looking at my current game I've got 15 strategic deposits my 11 city civ is using. I am working 12 scientists right now (max I could work is 33). So even looking at max scientists I would say the new version is missing out on raw science, especially when the 5% science is also dropped from the opener. I am also missing about 30 hammers, and gaining 12-33 culture in the exchange.
The big question is the GS Rate. We are getting that significantly earlier in the tree. How much does that benefit us? Lets call it 2 full GS. It is earlier and more powerful, but also the more GS you get, the steeper that curve climbs. I think 2 GS might actually be an overestimate, but lets try it out.
My civ has 1100 SPT right now, so 5% of that = 55 SPT. 5% is not applied to every bit of science but we will overestimate for ease. Than throw in the 45 science from strategics. So ~100 SPT.
Lets say 2 GS earlier in the game is ~5500 each, or 11000. GS has high variability but I think that's reasonable for all of my games. We assume the 12 science from scientists. So the 100 SPT - 11 = 89 SPT to "catchup" to my two GS.
So 11000 / 89 = 123 turns. Putting me in the 350ish mark to catch up. So that's not insane, it is later in the game but we still have game to play at that point, and it really comes down to how good those GS I get are.
Verdict: Comparable. I think we are in the same general territory here roughly.
Scaler: New is definately a nerf here. Based on my ~1100 science output I am losing out on 22 SPT.
Scientific Revolution (THE BIGGEST CHANGE) The biggest change BY FAR is that observatories are now just straightup an option at astronomy. So everyone will have a 4 science building at that point in the game. We also lose out on the new Scientist slots. That right there is basically a ~50% nerf to GS rate in the late game as well as ~12-14 ish SPT per city in scentitist science. This is not a small nerf, this is a MASSIVE CHANGE.
So basically we will get a better GS rate in the opener, by the second policy our GS rate will drop significantly in comparison. BUT of course we now get a +25% GPP boost with golden ages.
So where does it shake out? Overall I still say its a nerf even if you get permanent Golden Ages, and especially if you don't. But how much, phew its hard to say.
Looking to the rest of the policy. I am currently working 54 specalists in my game. That's 108 gold and 54 hammers. That more than makes up for the opener loss in hammers and is honestly a pretty sizable amount of gold, that is nothing to sneeze out.
The snow science was never a big thing to me. The jungle science will definately hurt certain map placements but in some games it was completely irrelevant.
Verdict: Overall the nerf to GS rate will be a big impact to the tree's science going forward. But I do think the tree is more rounded by the large gold and hammer influx. So less science more hammers.
Enlightenment: Still the most dippable policy in the game, can come in from any tree and grab a tech towards the late game. Its still one of rationalism signature boosts.
The +100% production to public schools might have SOME benefit, but its still too late in the tree (those things really need to be openers to have weight). But the public school bonu sis basically a +3 food, +2 culture bump per city overall. So a nice little buff.
Verdict: Straight buff on this one, not a crazy one though.
Free Thought : First time our old and new tree have a different policy in the slot.
The big +10% science during GA is the same. Is -1 needs to all better than -5 religious distress? Not sure, in generally I would say its a bit weaker, -5 religious I found notable in a lot of games but it does depend.
Now the acamemy versus the village. Villages are much more common tahn academies BUT sometimes I'm no longer working villages in favor of better tiles. So while acaademies are less prevalent I am likely working every one of them. I think on the whole its mostly a wash, but it does concentrate more production power into the capital.
Verdict: Roughly equal
Rights of Man
Here we get a boost time big boost in yields. In my game about ~3200 culture and ~3200 GAP. So like 1/5 of a GW and a G Artist as a ballpark....or 2/5 of a GP. The happiness is an interesting question here because the Hotel and Museum are not gimme buildings, and may be skipped in some plays. So you do have to put in some effort for the happiness. Compared to the old side getting -1 all needs, happiness is probably a bit better in the old tree.
We are also losing out on the GS bulb +25% for a short time. That's probbably worth about .25 or .5 a GS, enough to compensate for the boost above, so somewhat of a wash.
Verdict: Roughly equal
Empiricism: The food reductor on speclaist is a bit weaker than the old +1 food per citizen, especially with the old +25% growth But that hammer boost is VERY significant, that is actually a pretty sizable boost in hamemrs, about 80 in my current game, more likely 100 once I actually got this tech.
When we are getting something like ~50-75ish CPT for happiness. But we are losing out on like 20% science in the capital and like 9-12% in some of the big secondary cities. That's a lot of lost science, easily 40-50 SPT.
Verdict: Stronger in the new version overall, but definately a loss of Science.
Finisher: About the same, noting really to note here.
Overall: So where do I come down to? Nerf or a Buff?
When it comes to Science, definitely a nerf. Like actually a LOT of science has been removed from this tree. You are not going to racing ahead in science with this version of rationalism.
On the flip side, notable boosts to culture, gold, and especially hammers. The old rationalsim you would often race ahead but then struggle to keep up in infrastructure. This version of the tree will be more balanced, slower tech but faster infrustructure and more pop get fueling yields.
Is it "better"? This will definately be a more generalist tree, and its an interesting question if this encroches on industry, not because they are doing the exact same thing but because the yield balance is more similar between the two. I don't know if that's good, but its definately dfferent.
So how am I voting? Phew, I'm still not sure. I think it is probably a step forward, it is likely a more balanced tree...so I think I'm going to vote yes. I think there were better ways to go about this, simplier cleaner versions....but this tree I believe is an overall improvement.
redrum68
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 549
Not necessarily. If you beeline bottom tree and go wide, you often delay public schools quite a while. My current game I have the 2nd industrial tree policy and haven't even researched public schools yet. Universities though are probably in every city so you instant get the happiness vs it may take some time to build public schools everywhere even with +100%.
paul_soryu
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2024
- Messages
- 429
I don't like how there was no alternative proposal trying to fix the current trees instead of redesigning them completely. I am afraid that if these new Industrial trees will pass we'll be trying to introduce smaller changes to them, instead of doing the same to current trees, and no one will think anymore about how current trees could have been made better.
redrum68
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 549
This one is definitely a big nerf IMO. Villages are much more common and spammable than academies. You can often be working a few villages per city while realistically you have maybe what 5 academies on average?
I don't like how the focuses are on food/population, golden ages, and specialists. Tradition and Artistry already did all that.
You ALWAYS want to work villages on roads with this buff.
Last edited:
paul_soryu
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2024
- Messages
- 429
The bonuses to Jungles and Villages go way back to Brave New World, there you had +1 Science on Trading Posts (Villages in VP), which were spammable on Jungles, and together with University's +2 Science on Jungles you had a strategy of exploting Jungles for high Gold and Science output. I consider this to be a long standing tradition.
Removing +2 Science on Jungles and Snow bonus leaves University's +1 Science on Jungle on Snow lonely and pointless, why is it considered out of place and random on Rationalism, but not on University?
Removing Observatories, and bonuses on Strategics, Jungles, Snow and Villages, makes it less land dependent (and much less desirable for wide), and ultimately more universally good (in terms of land) and boring, in my opinion. Removing land dependency from all 3 trees just makes them boring and removes a chance for making a meaningful choice. I always spend the most amount of time choosing between T3 Policy Trees because there's so many fun things to consider for what would be the best for my current game. It adds uniqueness to each game.
With so many bonuses to Golden Ages, Specialists and Happiness this is now not a Rationalism, this is Artistry II (with Artistry I also giving +5 Science per city, now they totally complement each other). The best course of action for tall would be to always go Tradition -> Artistry -> Rationalism (-> Freedom), there is no choice to be made now, I really don't understand how these new trees achieve a meaningful choice. For wide you always go Progress -> Fealty -> Industry (-> Order). This is so much more boring. If you felt like +45% Science modifier was leaving the player with no meaningful choice to be made, you should have just decreased it.
"-1 Unhappiness from all Needs in all Cities" is super good for wide, +2 Happiness benefits tall Artistry
"50% of Happiness converted to Culture" feels so out of place
If there was something like "+1 Food for every Citizen and +25% Growth in all Cities" in the opener then the late-game transition to full tall would be less jarring, but now there's no +1 Food for every Citizen at all, which was really cool and a big growth spike.
If you dip in just for the opener and Liberalism, you get
+33%/58% Great Scientist Rate
+15% Growth in all Cities
+1 Science and Culture from Scientists
+2 Gold and +1 Production from Specialists (only +1 prod less than current Industry Finisher)
Removing +2 Science on Jungles and Snow bonus leaves University's +1 Science on Jungle on Snow lonely and pointless, why is it considered out of place and random on Rationalism, but not on University?
Removing Observatories, and bonuses on Strategics, Jungles, Snow and Villages, makes it less land dependent (and much less desirable for wide), and ultimately more universally good (in terms of land) and boring, in my opinion. Removing land dependency from all 3 trees just makes them boring and removes a chance for making a meaningful choice. I always spend the most amount of time choosing between T3 Policy Trees because there's so many fun things to consider for what would be the best for my current game. It adds uniqueness to each game.
With so many bonuses to Golden Ages, Specialists and Happiness this is now not a Rationalism, this is Artistry II (with Artistry I also giving +5 Science per city, now they totally complement each other). The best course of action for tall would be to always go Tradition -> Artistry -> Rationalism (-> Freedom), there is no choice to be made now, I really don't understand how these new trees achieve a meaningful choice. For wide you always go Progress -> Fealty -> Industry (-> Order). This is so much more boring. If you felt like +45% Science modifier was leaving the player with no meaningful choice to be made, you should have just decreased it.
"-1 Unhappiness from all Needs in all Cities" is super good for wide, +2 Happiness benefits tall Artistry
"50% of Happiness converted to Culture" feels so out of place
If there was something like "+1 Food for every Citizen and +25% Growth in all Cities" in the opener then the late-game transition to full tall would be less jarring, but now there's no +1 Food for every Citizen at all, which was really cool and a big growth spike.
If you dip in just for the opener and Liberalism, you get
+33%/58% Great Scientist Rate
+15% Growth in all Cities
+1 Science and Culture from Scientists
+2 Gold and +1 Production from Specialists (only +1 prod less than current Industry Finisher)
Last edited:
Thibix Magnus
Warlord
- Joined
- May 19, 2019
- Messages
- 221
a tought that comes now too late is that the whole imbalance issue between industrial trees appeared a while ago when the science cost of modern techs was substantially increased. This made rationalism appealing for any victory condition, while years ago maybe it was more balanced around the fact that you may lack the infrastructure to keep up with your science, lacked the gold to upgrade your army, etc. Back then, I've seen tall CV games lost on picking rationalism instead of industry.
Removing the "science" specificity of rationalism (against the stated intent) also reinforces the VP trend of homogenizing play past renaissance era, at least in higher difficulties. Have maybe a marginal victory focus but be strong in every aspect. When was the last time anyone built their spaceship right before their capital was conquered by the hegemon?
Like others, I wish there was a "small change" option to vote on instead of these reworks. Not the OP's fault, it would have been the responsibility of others to add the alternatives I guess. And I also understand the appeal of big shake-ups to keep things fresh, but 4UC was just introduced. I feel like the congress system is not adapted for such big changes that could have used more discussion before voting - like the discussion we see now, without the option to counterpropose anymore based on it.
Removing the "science" specificity of rationalism (against the stated intent) also reinforces the VP trend of homogenizing play past renaissance era, at least in higher difficulties. Have maybe a marginal victory focus but be strong in every aspect. When was the last time anyone built their spaceship right before their capital was conquered by the hegemon?
Like others, I wish there was a "small change" option to vote on instead of these reworks. Not the OP's fault, it would have been the responsibility of others to add the alternatives I guess. And I also understand the appeal of big shake-ups to keep things fresh, but 4UC was just introduced. I feel like the congress system is not adapted for such big changes that could have used more discussion before voting - like the discussion we see now, without the option to counterpropose anymore based on it.
Similar threads
- Locked
