1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Best Civ for Science Victory

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Geek113377, Sep 19, 2010.

  1. Geek113377

    Geek113377 Human (Usually)

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Cyberspace
    wouldn't india be the best civ for a science victory, what with their "Population Growth - Unhappiness from number of cities doubled, Unhappiness from number of Citizens halved." since science now comes from having citizens, India's special ability makes it possible for them to have more population (albeit in fewer cities), giving them more science. Will Gandhi become the new Mansa Musa tech racer?
     
  2. MrWashington

    MrWashington Court Jester

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Florida
    I agree with you. When the manual said that science comes from population, I realized that India could have the advantage, especially in the early game when happiness is harder to come by.
     
  3. cheesemijit

    cheesemijit Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Eastleigh, Hampshire, England
    Double Cities would also double population, i don't see how more population in less cities means more population overall.

    eg. 3 cities 10pop each = 30pop but 6 cities 5pop each also = 30pop
     
  4. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,441
    Location:
    Pakistan
    True. The real advantage of Indian UA is you need to worry less about land grab & your cities production would be much higher instead of having more no. of smaller cities. Also you'll be able to fill up happiness bucket faster.

    What about Persia ? Do golden ages effect research like in cIV ?
     
  5. 12agnar0k

    12agnar0k Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,556
    India would have an advantage in science yes.
     
  6. playshogi

    playshogi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,260
    You can only build the National College once, for a 50% boost to your science in that (very large) city. Also less maintenace cost for the other buildings, like universities that need to built fewer times for the same effect.
     
  7. bhavv

    bhavv Glorious World Dictator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,258
    Normally it wouldnt, but because India also get a happiness boost in their fewer cities, they should be capable of supporting much larger populations than is possible across many more smaller cities with other civs.
     
  8. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,295
    Normal unhappiness:
    36 for first scenario, 42 for second

    Indian unhappiness
    27 for first scenario, 39 for second

    India can maintain more people and still be happy.

    (Also more pop in fewer cities means you need fewer buildings..less maintenance gold and construction hammers needed, and you get cheaper social policies)


    In Civ V, the ONLY reasons to found a new city are
    1. get access to a resource/special terrain near that city
    2. get access to a strategic control point (city as canal or fort)
    3. you have the technology and gold to build the happiness buildings in the city so that it will 'pay for' itself.
     
  9. Insanity_X

    Insanity_X Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    230
    The Indian Civ seems like it'll be interesting to play, with its emphasis on a small number of very large cities. I don't know whether it'll be best for a science victory, because having more cities means that you can build more of the parts at once but it's certainly a contender.
     
  10. cembandit

    cembandit Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    144
    Also, less cities with higher pop means less scientific infrastructure needed (libs, etc) than a more cities with lower pop. Also a greater boost from wonders, great people improvements...
     
  11. Lancor

    Lancor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Cologne, Germany
    Don't forget Rome!

    Creating all these science buildings faster, if you emphasize your capital to it.
     
  12. Kaxeon

    Kaxeon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    55
    I am not sure I agree with this. Founding more cities will speed up population growth. By the time a single city reaches a population of 10, two will be able to reach a combined pop of 20 (at least 18 or 19 if you count in the pop spent on a settler).
     
  13. Zhahz

    Zhahz PC Gamer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Growth is more limited by happiness than city sprawl, IMO. The only way those two cities grow so much is if they have food and happy and the happy isn't a given.

    Small empires have some advantages, but they also have disadvantages.

    - You'll likely control fewer resources and strategic resources, which will mean trade, city states, and maintaining relations will be more critical to keeping diversity of happiness providing resources and you could be drastically limited for strategic resources. A lot of that can be fickle if a large aggressor starts pushing around your friends. Larger empires are more like to control happy resources of their own, have larger quantities of strategic resources, and have a higher probability of later strategic resources appearing in their lands.

    - If you're attacked, you're at greater risk of being annhilated or crippled - less to defend is often a good thing but if a stronger enemy comes for you and takes or cripples (via pillaging) even one city you could be in a world of hurt.

    - Less opportunity to specialize or create military powerhouse cities even for defense. Getting all the +xp and military production buildings is a hefty investment. A sprawling empire could have several of these along with econ specialist cities, cultural cities, sci cities, etc. With a small empire pushing for a goal like science or culture you will most likely need to push for the goal with every city, and need to generalize each city, and maybe have one of the 3 able to crank out quality units. A large empire requires a lot more infrastructure but has the potential to have a lot more of everything and a bigger economy.

    In Civ IV there was no real reason to keep your empire small. Even if you went for cultural you could sprawl and just focus on your 3 key cities. Mostly you were just looking to expand as much as possible in every game.

    In Civ 5, the decision on what size empire to shoot for is strategic with consequences and something you might think about a lot before you even start. There could be good reasons to keep to a small empire, to sprawl, or to even go with just one city - beyond just doing it for variant purposes.
     
  14. Kaxeon

    Kaxeon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    55
    I wasn't saying that more cities is always better. I was simply disagreeing with his statement, that there are no other reasons to found more cities than those he listed.

    Or in other words: Another very good reason to "sprawl" is rapid population growth, which leads to faster research and better production.
     
  15. Lancor

    Lancor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Cologne, Germany
    When you found the cities is surely another point.

    One who founds very much cities early in the game, will be crippled by unhappiness but may be booming later.

    In addition to Rome, aren't the economic Civs like Arabia or Russia good for for science, too? They don't need to build that much economic things, and can focus more on science, if you want.
     
  16. ilikepies

    ilikepies Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    247
    Fewer cities means less maintenance, meaning a better economy. More population means more science, and presumably the happiness bonus is bigger than the happiness penalty, meaning India will still be the leader in total population. Fewer cities also means more time to build those cities up and make wonders though, which means more great people and specialists, so better science.
     
  17. gunho730

    gunho730 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    I'd say for people who like to build wonders, Korea would be nice. But India is also good.
     
  18. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,580
    Location:
    Missouri
    Which ever civ the human is playing in a single player game. ;)

    More seriously prior to BNW, among those with all DLC, Korea & Babylon were running neck and neck (when controlled by the human). I found Babylon slightly faster among the two in G&K.
    This is because science is Academies based (+ running all science specialists) : Babylon gets an ultra early Great Scientist + faster GS production rate. Korea instead gets a science boost to all specalists + a "science boost" (same beakers research agreement) every time a science building (or wonder) is built in the capital.
    If you don't have any DLC, then again it normally went to Siam for Wat abuse + the extra food.

    In hands of the AI, that's Korea by far; the AI's flavor settings fully use their UA in contrast to the Babylon flavor settings which neglect their UA. Persian AI is second best and has to do with expansion. There are several AIs that expand more, but they don't build enough science buildings.

    India: Perhaps things changed in BNW, but in G&K; late game happiness wasn't an issue for any civ playing 4 cities. There were some games that I didn't even need to build Theaters.
     
  19. MerchantCo

    MerchantCo Merchant

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Messages:
    394
    Location:
    Venice
    What some people don't realize is that India's penalty for founding more cities is not that much. Don't let their UA stop you from expanding properly.
     
  20. dopingman

    dopingman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    202
    It is a damn lot in the early game where expansion matters. It makes most early game strategies non-viable, because unhappines is growing to fast. E.g. 4 cities traditional opener is impossible to pull off, even if you aquire 3 to 4 unique luxes in the early game. A human can play them efficiently, sure, but others civs provide better bonuses. That's why India is considered a "weak" civ.
     

Share This Page