Concerns regarding the Eureka mechanism

[King Jason]

I don't know the civ5 tech times off the top of my head, but the games we've seen played are in quick speed and even with boosts writing was taking anywhere from as little as 4 to as much as 6 turns for some players.

I can't imagine Similarly placed techs in civ5 took much longer than that to research without the boost mechanic in the game. the Tech cost of writing, which is the next tech after pottery in both games, is 36 science on quick in civ5, and 50 science in quick on civ6. The starting yield for a capital city is 2.7 science in civ6 and 4 science in civ5. So tech costs seem higher and yields are lower in civ6. Also of note, science per pop seems to be at rate of about 6.5 (rounded to .7) in civ6 and it's a 1 to 1 ratio in civ5.

Again, I didn't play a lot of quickspeed games but from first glance it actually seems like it takes longer to research techs at comparative levels of development (early game) in civ6 than it did in civ5... Boosts seem to make the tech times at best only slightly quicker, at worst, on par with the pace players should be used to.

Edit: I took a moment to compare a civ5 and civ6 let's play

Civ5: Turn 6 writing takes 9 turns. (Cap is generating 5 science)
Civ6: Turn 7 writing BOOSTED takes 6 turns. (Cap is generating 3.4 science)

 

[Nixalo]

I think game speed and AI difficulty factor into how easy the Eureekas looked.

Look at Irrigation (farm a resource). What if you start with no resources that use a farm and get barbarian issues? Are you really going to stall Irrigation if you have a Plantation using resource?

 

[Amrunril]

I'm not particularly concerned about the ease of the Eureka conditions. I might be inclined to make them slightly more difficult, but not dramatically so. It's important for them to be achievable.

On the other hand, I have very mixed feelings about the fact that there seem to be multiple ways of earning Eureka bonuses without actually meeting the conditions (ruins, Great Scientists, spys). On the one hand it seems like a unified way of creating multiple way to advance scientifically, one more theoretical and one more practical. On the other, it seems like it could detract from Eurekas' identity as bonuses for building up and diversifying your civ and make them into more generic alternate costs (that are paid more often than the default costs).

Whether it ends up being positive or negative overall, however, it seems like it will make China's civ UA highly problematic. I originally thought that this UA would make China good at progressing through the tech and culture trees by building a big empire and doing lots of different things, but with all of these alternate Eureka mechanics, it seems like it will make China just generically good at advancing scientifically and culturally, an identity that is bland at best and has the clear potential to be incredibly overpowered. I'm undecided as to whether these alternate Eurekas are a good idea or not, but assuming they make it into the final game, their interactions with the Chinese UA definitely need to be reconsidered.

 

[Lucius_]

I don't know the civ5 tech times off the top of my head, but the games we've seen played are in quick speed and even with boosts writing was taking anywhere from as little as 4 to as much as 6 turns for some players.

I can't imagine Similarly placed techs in civ5 took much longer than that to research without the boost mechanic in the game. the Tech cost of writing, which is the next tech after pottery in both games, is 36 science on quick in civ5, and 50 science in quick on civ6. The starting yield for a capital city is 2.7 science in civ6 and 4 science in civ5. So tech costs seem higher and yields are lower in civ6. Also of note, science per pop seems to be at rate of about 6.5 (rounded to .7) in civ6 and it's a 1 to 1 ratio in civ5.

Again, I didn't play a lot of quickspeed games but from first glance it actually seems like it takes longer to research techs at comparative levels of development (early game) in civ6 than it did in civ5... Boosts seem to make the tech times at best only slightly quicker, at worst, on par with the pace players should be used to.

Edit: I took a moment to compare a civ5 and civ6 let's play

Civ5: Turn 6 writing takes 9 turns. (Cap is generating 5 science)
Civ6: Turn 7 writing BOOSTED takes 6 turns. (Cap is generating 3.4 science)

There are roughly, what, 33-50% less science techs in Civ VI compared to CiV? So if game pace is going to stay the same, comparative techs should take that much longer in VI, but if boosted, they are costing even less. If boosts are too easy to come by, if we are boosting 75% of the techs in the game, I could see the tech tree being zoomed through in a significantly faster rate compared to CiV. On average, techs should take longer than CiV. If most techs are quicker than CiV, because of eureka boosts, than we will be hitting future tech at a lot earlier turn than we were before.

 

[King Jason]

There are roughly, what, 33-50% less science techs in Civ VI compared to CiV?

There are 4 less techs than civ5 vanilla and 16% less than civ5 complete.

 

[AlexByrde]

There are 4 less techs than civ5 vanilla and 16% less than civ5 complete.

For clarity, does that number include both techs and civics, or is that just techs?

 

[stealth_nsk]

For clarity, does that number include both techs and civics, or is that just techs?

Just techs.

 

[King Jason]

For clarity, does that number include both techs and civics, or is that just techs?

Just Technology. (Wouldn't really make sense if I included Civics )

But for the sake of numbers, if civics and techs are added then Civ5 complete has 31% less "research nodes" (as the devs called them) than civ6 does currently. 81 (for civ5) to a whopping 118 for civ6. But that doesn't really come into play with the Eureka concern since we're only talking about the tech tree.

For reference, by my count there are 68 techs and 50 civics in civ6.

 

[ftl]

I think I remember from an earlier blog post or video that the 50% number for Eureka bonuses was decided on deliberately. It needed to be high enough that deliberately going for a bonus was worthwhile, but low enough that you could still get techs without it if you missed out on some.

So I wouldn't expect that particular number to change in late-development balance changes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Just Technology. (Wouldn't really make sense if I included Civics )

But for the sake of numbers, if civics and techs are added then Civ5 complete has 31% less "research nodes" (as the devs called them) than civ6 does currently. 81 (for civ5) to a whopping 118 for civ6. But that doesn't really come into play with the Eureka concern since we're only talking about the tech tree.

For reference, by my count there are 68 techs and 50 civics in civ6.

Yes, civics need to be compared with Civ5 social policies. In vanilla and G&K we had 60 social policies, in BNW we had 102. But there's a big difference as they weren't designed to allow players to open all of them (and with ideologies you were just unable to have all of them at once), so number of social policies unlocked in each game was usually less than number of civics in Civ6.

 

[spfun]

Techs are more interesting than civics. I don't count civics as techs even though they learned in similar fashion. Most just give 1-2 cards which won't get used much of the time.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Techs are more interesting than civics. I don't count civics as techs even though they learned in similar fashion. Most just give 1-2 cards which won't get used much of the time.

A lot of the stuff that civics give you aren't viewable from the tree in that build. Formal War and Corps and such.

 

[kaspergm]

I'm not particularly concerned about the ease of the Eureka conditions. I might be inclined to make them slightly more difficult, but not dramatically so. It's important for them to be achievable.

There's a fine line to walk here. They need to be achievable, but they should not all be achievable in the same game (and while I know that's not going to be the case, by all I mean the majority).

As I see it, game should offer a certain set of general strategies - let call them science focused, military focused, culture focused, religious focused and economic focused based loosely on the victory conditions. Depending on what focus you take, you should be able to earn Eurekas in your specific area. For instance, Military techs should have Eurekas that are likely to be earned by a military focused civ, but which should most strongly not be likely to be earned by a science or culture focused civ. Going by this approach, I think a civ should generally not be able to earn more than 20-25 % of the Eurekas in any given game, or roughly one per. tech column.

With this approach, the science focus is as always a sore thumb in the game. A crucial aspect of the Eureka conditions must be that the science focused civ should generally not be able to achieve them, because otherwise they'll fail at their point (which is helping the none-science focused civ to keep up in his area). This means that the time gap between a Eureka condition becomes possible and it has to be met has to be fairly narrow. If the condition to own, say, two crossbowmen, comes at the technology right after crossbowmen becomes available, then there's a good chance that a military focused civ will be able to obtain it, because this civ will have high priority for upgrading his archers and/or high incentive to build new crossbowmen. On the other hand, a science-focused civ will have little incentive to aim for it, and even if he does, there's a good chance he'll already have researched more than half of the technology by the time he fulfills it. As it is in the game, instead that Eureka ties to a tech three levels down the techtree, which means everybody will have plenty of time to fulfill it.

 

[qwerty25]

There's a fine line to walk here. They need to be achievable, but they should not all be achievable in the same game (and while I know that's not going to be the case, by all I mean the majority).

I wish they would change the eurekas from game to game. Instead of having them be the same every time.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wish they would change the eurekas from game to game. Instead of having them be the same every time.

All experiments with tech tree randomization in computer games were so far fail.

There are some eurekas which are quite random (like finding natural wonder), so they affect your strategy in random way. No need to add even more randomness on top of that.

EDIT: But of course there could be a mod for this. This change doesn't require any graphical or sound assets, so should be quite easy to have

 

[darko82]

You get many Eurekas just by playing. You will always get a few no matter what you do. No planning needed.

It's a good idea, but they should make them more meaningful or unique.

Maybe they should randomize the requirements to get them or something like that.

Also, the award could also be different each time we play - not always 50%.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

They are a catchup mechanic meant to keep anybody from getting to far ahead in tech/civics. If you remove them or change them to the worse the only thing that will matter is raw science/culture output which may make any catchup impossible.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You get many Eurekas just by playing. You will always get a few no matter what you do. No planning needed.

I'm not sure I can remember any guaranteed eurekas. Some are quite random (or, more specifically come from exploration), some require specific playstyle.

And one moment I believe not mentioned here. Most players of preview build tried to choose the most basic techs and/or techs which have boosts already. Most experienced players in real civilization games usually do beelining for particular techs. Based on what we saw so far, I assume you'll unlikely to fullfill eurekas if you beeline. That's quite great trade-off.

 

[Josephias]

I'm probably repeating some comments already posted, but I think it is worth to remark two points:

The opportunity cost of eurekas increases because of timing: it is not the same "build two spearmen" than "build two spearmen in the first 50 turns". First one is easily achievable, second one will probably make you change your build order, at the cost of not havin a builder to set up some improvements, or maybe missing your chance at an early wonder.

I think the opportunity cost should not be looked that much at eurekas, but at tech selection, such as "should I go for mathematics, that I already have the eureka for, or for sailing, that I'm afraid I won't get the eureka on time, but I need to set up that harbor I'm really waiting", or conversely "should I delay the stirring and knights until I get the eureka, or should I push them asap, even at more science cost, because a war is coming"

The eureka are easy because, it has been already said, they are a way to push the circumstances of your current game into the tech tree, providing you the "logical" tech path your civ will follow considering what it is doing. The real decisions of you, as a leader, are two

-push non-optimal behaviours for optimal research costs
-push non-optimal research paths because the reward is worth the extra cost

 

[darko82]

I'm not sure I can remember any guaranteed eurekas. Some are quite random (or, more specifically come from exploration), some require specific playstyle.

Guaranteed is that you get some random ones each time you play.