Building/Cost Ratios And Some Commentary

[Bandobras Took]

The recent patch changed many things. Of course, in another two months, more things might change. I think I'll just wait until they decide what they want costs to be before updating this thing again.

Google Doc Here

The recent patch changed so much that the original commentary doesn't mean much any more. I've put it in spoiler takes for those interested in historical preservation. Civ 5 is moving towards a much better game for building.

Spoiler :

The first thing to notice is perhaps the most glaring design mistake in Civ 5: they said that they wanted fewer, more developed cities, but then they made the basic buildings without exception the most hammer-efficient, maintenance-efficient buildings in the game. High-end buildings are always the least efficient, which means that given the opportunity, it is always more efficient to settle a new city and build a basic building than it is to build an upgraded building.

If you want to stop ICS, you make the basic buildings the most inefficient and slap a minimum population requirement on the other buildings, which will offer a better bang for the buck and help mitigate the generally inefficient lower tier buildings.

The most egregious offender here is the library. Its maintenance per specialist slot is ridiculous, and an extra beaker per population is (roughly) a 50% science increase. (Happily, this was patched to something more reasonable.)

The next thing to notice is that the buildings with special terrain requirements are usually worse than the generic buildings. This makes proper city placement even less important than lackluster terrain already makes it. The Monastery is one of the few buildings that gets this right, providing significant culture for settling a city in just the right spot. If you want city placement to matter, make buildings with placement requirements more of a sweet deal (largest culprit: watermill -- late-game culprit: solar power plant vs. nuclear, not that either is a very good deal). (Happily, this was also patched -- Watermills now provide bonus production, Circus now makes sense to build, etc.)

If the specialist slot numbers are accurate, you're more likely to have scientists, simply because the library's the cheapest building for specialists, comes the earliest, and grants two slots (something only matched by a Temple). (Patched -- no more specialist slots for Libraries, and Research Lab now has two). Never mind that scientists seem to have the most available slots (also patched to something more reasonable -- the slots are later). I'm sure I've read that the numbers of specialists enabled are not accurately reported in all instances.

The ICSers are right: there is simply no more efficient way to get happiness from buildings than to slap down a new Colosseum (patched for greater parity).

As mentioned above, the simple way to fix all this is to switch the ratios: keep the library's hammer cost, but give it the hammer/research ratio of the public school, and then get a better ratio with each improvement to the last. Then make the more efficient advanced buildings have some sort of minimum population requirement -- or have them more effective with larger populations.

Also, make sure that "X Nearby" required buildings are the most efficient for what they do, so that city placement matters.

But that's a job for the modders. Until then, spam your cities away.

 

[MkLh]

I've attached it several different formats.
Google Doc Here

The first thing to notice is perhaps the most glaring design mistake in Civ 5: they said that they wanted fewer, more developed cities, but then they made the basic buildings without exception the most hammer-efficient, maintenance-efficient buildings in the game. High-end buildings are always the least efficient, which means that given the opportunity, it is always more efficient to settle a new city and build a basic building than it is to build an upgraded building.

I think it was the same in Civ4 - a library was more cost efficient than any of the later science buildings, so was market compared to later gold buildings etc. This is not the issue that makes ICS so much more tempting in Civ5 than it was in Civ4.

 

[Bandobras Took]

There are two portions of cost efficiency for buildings in Civ 5, though -- shields and maintenance.

In Civ 4, there is only the shield cost. Maintenance is directly attached to founding a new city itself.

This is the key difference. In Civ 5, founding a city always provides you with more gold to work with, and putting basic buildings in is always more efficient than putting advanced buildings in your existing cities. But there is no race to make the city profitable -- it's already doing that by existing. Instead, you're looking for the most maintenance-efficient and shield-efficient way to provide boosts to the city, because each building built is a penalty for a benefit (with the exception of the gold-generating buildings, and even then, you still encourage people to found another city and build another market rather than blow the time on a stock exchange).

In Civ 4, except in special circumstances, founding a city always provides you with less gold to work with, and the question becomes how soon you can make the city profitable. All you're doing in Civ 4 is deciding between bonuses -- buildings don't penalize you for building them (with the possible exception of unhealthiness buildings).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I've attached it several different formats.
Google Doc Here

The first thing to notice is perhaps the most glaring design mistake in Civ 5: they said that they wanted fewer, more developed cities, but then they made the basic buildings without exception the most hammer-efficient, maintenance-efficient buildings in the game. High-end buildings are always the least efficient, which means that given the opportunity, it is always more efficient to settle a new city and build a basic building than it is to build an upgraded building.

If you want to stop ICS, you make the basic buildings the most inefficient and slap a minimum population requirement on the other buildings, which will offer a better bang for the buck and help mitigate the generally inefficient lower tier buildings.

The most egregious offender here is the library. Its maintenance per specialist slot is ridiculous, and an extra beaker per population is (roughly) a 50% science increase.

The next thing to notice is that the buildings with special terrain requirements are usually worse than the generic buildings. This makes proper city placement even less important than lackluster terrain already makes it. The Monastery is one of the few buildings that gets this right, providing significant culture for settling a city in just the right spot. If you want city placement to matter, make buildings with placement requirements more of a sweet deal (largest culprit: watermill -- late-game culprit: solar power plant vs. nuclear, not that either is a very good deal).

If the specialist slot numbers are accurate, you're more likely to have scientists, simply because the library's the cheapest building for specialists, comes the earliest, and grants two slots (something only matched by a Temple). Never mind that scientists seem to have the most available slots. I'm sure I've read that the numbers of specialists enabled are not accurately reported in all instances.

The ICSers are right: there is simply no more efficient way to get happiness from buildings than to slap down a new Colosseum.

As mentioned above, the simple way to fix all this is to switch the ratios: keep the library's hammer cost, but give it the hammer/research ratio of the public school, and then get a better ratio with each improvement to the last. Then make the more efficient advanced buildings have some sort of minimum population requirement -- or have them more effective with larger populations.

Also, make sure that "X Nearby" required buildings are the most efficient for what they do, so that city placement matters.

But that's a job for the modders. Until then, spam your cities away.

Well regarding things like the Library (and other % bonuses.)

In those cases, the Effectiveness of the building depends on the Size of the city, so a University in a size 14 city (+10.5 Science) is much more effective than building New City + a Library and reaching pop 2..net +1 Science

However, For Culture and Happiness buildings you are right... since those are "Raw values"

For culture its not as much of a problem since building an additional City to get a Monument+Temple is Worse than building a Museum (most of the time)... if you want Social Policies.

So really the only problem is
1. the Happiness Buildings
and
2. "Location Specific" buildings. (although Nuclear isn't really 'generic', it consumes a resource)

If Happiness buildings are considered as comparing with a new city though....

City+Colluseum=+2 to +5 depending on Social Policies... assuming at least 1 of the policies
+3 for Colluseum for 3 maint.

Shifting the Colluseum to only +3 and making the Stadium +5 should solve the Happiness problem.

As for "Location Specific" I'd suggest

Circus: maint->1
Watermill: maint->1

Most of the rest seem OK... although they might use a General boost... (Nuclear, Solar Plant, Forge... Definitely Stables... say make it a 50% bonus... and 2x the hammer cost of mounted units)

Bcause most of them Need to be stacked rather than spread (+% bonuses, +XP, etc.)

 

[Bandobras Took]

Well regarding things like the Library (and other % bonuses.)

In those cases, the Effectiveness of the building depends on the Size of the city, so a University in a size 14 city (+10.5 Science) is much more effective than building New City + a Library and reaching pop 2..net +1 Science

True, but since new cities grow so darn quickly, you're still going to get an extremely good return on the investment. And at about the same time the new city's growth is peaking, you can turn to those specialist slots, which the Library gives at a better rate than any other building in the game. I mean, how much population will that new city get in the time it takes a size 14 city to reach size 16?

 

[Ahriman]

True, but since new cities grow so darn quickly

Change Maritime city states and this problem goes away.

Also, I think that there's a good argument for cutting the library down to a single scientist slot. That would make a pretty big difference.
Make specialists only really possible in well-developed cities with lots of infrastructure.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

True, but since new cities grow so darn quickly, you're still going to get an extremely good return on the investment. And at about the same time the new city's growth is peaking, you can turn to those specialist slots, which the Library gives at a better rate than any other building in the game. I mean, how much population will that new city get in the time it takes a size 14 city to reach size 16?

True, which is why the revising the population might be better.

Because if you had the Option to build a University first in a city, I think you should still Want to build a Library first in the city... because the University shouldn't be Worth it in a smaller city.

So what would be better to solve is the growth rate issue. (make the food box size: population relationship more linear, or make the Hospital benefit partially available earlier.)

 

[Bandobras Took]

Change Maritime city states and this problem goes away.

Also, I think that there's a good argument for cutting the library down to a single scientist slot. That would make a pretty big difference.
Make specialists only really possible in well-developed cities with lots of infrastructure.

I like that idea -- a lot.

True, which is why the revising the population might be better.

Because if you had the Option to build a University first in a city, I think you should still Want to build a Library first in the city... because the University shouldn't be Worth it in a smaller city.

Actually, if you simply switched the effects of the Library with the Public School (while keeping the same hammer/maintenance cost), the problem would solve itself -- you'd still be getting the rough 50% science bonus that the Library gives with +1/2 Pop, but you remove the specialist slots from the early game and put them in a place where you'll want a well-developed city to take advantage of them.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Change Maritime city states and this problem goes away.

Actually, with or without Maritime states, new cities grow more quickly than larger cities.

 

[Ahriman]

Actually, with or without Maritime states, new cities grow more quickly than larger cities.

Yes, but its still an issue of 8 turns (small city without MCS) vs 2 turns (small city with MCS).

Actually, if you simply switched the effects of the Library with the Public School (while keeping the same hammer/maintenance cost),

Not the unintended consequence of this. I am reasonably sure that the University gives a bonus on top of the library. So size 10 with library gives 15 science, university adds 7.5.

But if you made the library a +50% boost, then this would reduce the marginal effect of the university. Now, size 10 with library would go to 15, but university would only add another 5.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I like that idea -- a lot.



Actually, if you simply switched the effects of the Library with the Public School (while keeping the same hammer/maintenance cost), the problem would solve itself -- you'd still be getting the rough 50% science bonus that the Library gives with +1/2 Pop, but you remove the specialist slots from the early game and put them in a place where you'll want a well-developed city to take advantage of them.

Well I'd Just switch the Specialists, ie Library gives 1, have the University give 2,

Same with the Temple, have it give 1.. give 1 to Museum and 1 to Broadcast Tower

Make the Factory give 3 Engineers, and the Stock exchange+Bank each give 2 Merchants

That way each type has 5 possible Specialists, mostly available later.

 

[Paeanblack]

Not the unintended consequence of this. I am reasonably sure that the University gives a bonus on top of the library. So size 10 with library gives 15 science, university adds 7.5.

Everything I've seen has led me to believe the bonuses are additive, not multiplicative.

I'm pretty sure its: 10 + (10 * 50%) + (10 * 50%) = 20 , not 10 * (1 + 50%) * (1 + 50%) = 22.5

 

[Ahriman]

Everything I've seen has led me to believe the bonuses are additive, not multiplicative.

It depends. Bonuses of the same type (% yield modifiers) yes.

But libraries don't give a % yield modifier. A library does NOT give a +50% science modifier. It gives an extra 0.5 science from population for each population you have.

Your base science yield (before % modifiers) is that from population, tiles and specialists.

I am reasonably sure (but not absolutely certain) that library increases this base yield.

So, library + university is NOT the same as, say, market + bank+stock market. (Base * (1+0.25+0.25+0.33))
But it is like Mint + market. (Base+3)*(1+0.25)

 

[Roxlimn]

Bandobras Took:

Your assumption is that ICS strategy is a problem, and that this problem exists because of the way the buildings are designed. I don't agree that ICS is a problem, conceptually speaking. It seems to be extremely powerful based on how we play the game now, but that may not be true once we understand Civ V better.

Civ IV essentially made ICS not invalid, but contingent on several factors, which you must acquire. Is that how we want ICS in Civ V? Do we not want ICS at all?

 

[Ahriman]

I don't agree that ICS is a problem, conceptually speaking. It seems to be extremely powerful based on how we play the game now, but that may not be true once we understand Civ V better.

?Wha?
What "improved understanding" is going to make ICS weaker, or make it less difficult to get big cities (the opposite of ICS).

Nothing we "learn" is going to magically make a strat with fewer/larger cities more powerful relative to lots of spammed medium cities. Only balance changes will do that.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Note the unintended consequence of this. I am reasonably sure that the University gives a bonus on top of the library. So size 10 with library gives 15 science, university adds 7.5.

But if you made the library a +50% boost, then this would reduce the marginal effect of the university. Now, size 10 with library would go to 15, but university would only add another 5.

I'm assuming specialist slots are also switched. In other words, a Library doesn't give you any specialist slots, which is what Public Schools currently give you. Thus, the University becomes your first means of reliably generating Great Scientists, which is enough reason to build them, and Public Schools then supercharge Library and University bonuses by adding to the base beaker count as well as adding more scientist specialist slots.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Bandobras Took:

Your assumption is that ICS strategy is a problem, and that this problem exists because of the way the buildings are designed.

Not quite. I'm saying that the design of buildings is badly implemented based on the stated goals of the game designers. They said that they wanted to discourage city-spamming. Because building trees are front-loaded, city-spam is encouraged. You'll get more bang for your buck by buying/building basic buildings in new cities.

I'm not saying that ICS is good or bad, but rather that if they were seeking to discourage it, then the way the buildings are designed was by and large the wrong way to go about it.

 

[Roxlimn]

Bandobras Took:

In that case, I agree with Kirkkitone. A University in a large city is worth more than a library in a small one. It's the happiness buildings where the math breaks down because happiness buildings don't get better with more pop. They stay the same.

I'm not entirely certain how to balance the mechanic with the happiness thing. The shot through the Colosseum needle is already pretty thin. If you miss it, you're stagnating for a while. At the same time, getting the ball rolling once it's rolling is easier.

 

[Paeanblack]

I am reasonably sure (but not absolutely certain) that library increases this base yield.

I'll check to see if Libraries increase the science from specialists/tradeposts (I think they do...I think the Library is just a +50% like the Uni)

The "+1 science per 2 people" in the Library entry could just be an glib description that is close, but not quite right. There is definitely plenty of precedence for that in the manual.

 

[Ahriman]

In other words, a Library doesn't give you any specialist slots

I see no reason to have zero scientist slots on a library. I'd consider limiting to 1 though, and making university 2.

But the real problem is not the specialist slot numbers so much as the OP nature of the Great Scientist lightbulb (instant free tech). If you make the scientist have a fixed bulb yield (that increases by era) it would be much more balanced.

I'll check to see if Libraries increase the science from specialists/tradeposts (I think they do...I think the Library is just a +50% like the Uni)

I don't think so... I would be very surprised if they did that.
Otherwise, they'd just label it +50% science, like the university and the public school.
They deliberately described it differently, prescisely so that its effect *is* different, I think.