Declarations of Friendship

[Txurce]

I don't understand what you're saying here.
Why should SFWs get less out of Rationalism than Science-Focused Peaceniks?
I think it is reasonable that international cooperation gives a science bonus, but I don't see why Rationalism science bonuses should depend on international cooperation.

The Rationalism opener depends on international cooperation to ostensibly give an edge to tall, presumably peaceful civs.

First, I don't think warmongers have it particularly easy these days, and if they do it is probably because Honor ends up being very powerful, particularly the gold giveaways, which I think are much too high. You yourself have posted that you don't think conquest victories are particularly easy to achieve.
But second, even supposing that war was too powerful.... blocking them from benefiting from the Rationalism unlock seems like a bizarre way to nerf them.

I did post that conquest victories don't seem easier than others - but that's with the existing Rationalism bonuses. That's why I don't want warmongers nerfed further. Again, I agree that blocking warmongers from some of the potential Rationalism opener gains is not the ideal way to go about it.

I would say that the 5% system had huge balance problems, because I think that 80% science differentials are outside what I consider to be rough balance.

I can only base my opinion on the results of my own (many!) games. In those, the swing in turns is about 40 from fastest to slowest Science victories. That seems acceptable to me, although as I would prefer what Thal hopes to incorporate once he has access to the code.

 

[Ahriman]

The Rationalism opener depends on international cooperation to ostensibly give an edge to tall, presumably peaceful civs.

But why is that a good design?
And if you agree that it isn't a good design, why do you oppose changing the Rationalism opener to some other effect?

Again, I agree that blocking warmongers from some of the potential Rationalism opener gains is not the ideal way to go about it.

Why should warmongers be blocked from *any* of the gains from the rationalism opener?
If you want to weaken warmongers, then weaken the Honor tree - in particular, I would reduce the gold generated from killing units - I'd probably halve it. Professional army is an incredibly powerful policy.

That seems acceptable to me

<shrug>
This seems academic, since Thal has already reduced the bonus from 5% to 3%/1%. I'll have to test this before getting a feel for how balanced it is.

 

[Txurce]

But why is that a good design?
And if you agree that it isn't a good design, why do you oppose changing the Rationalism opener to some other effect?

I think warmongers not benefiting as much from international scientific cooperation as peaceful tall civs is good design. My main problem with the opener is not the restriction on warmongers, but the passive nature of the DoF system. But of course I'm open to a better idea.

Why should warmongers be blocked from *any* of the gains from the rationalism opener?
If you want to weaken warmongers, then weaken the Honor tree - in particular, I would reduce the gold generated from killing units - I'd probably halve it. Professional army is an incredibly powerful policy.

They're not blocked - they're limited. We've already been over why - you just don't agree with it, which I can understand. Reducing Honor bonus gold from kills is an alternative way to nerf warmongers, but not necessarily better. There's only so much that gold can buy you - which is why some players prefer a GS over a GM.

 

[Ahriman]

I think warmongers not benefiting as much from international scientific cooperation as peaceful tall civs is good design.

But we get that just from requiring good relations in order to get the bonuses, either from DoF or research agreement. That isn't in dispute. Warmongers provoke hostile reactions in other players, and hostile players won't form research agreements with you or DoFs with you.
What is in dispute is whether warmongers should not benefit as much from the Rationalism tree.

I'm proposing that we get rid of the modifier from the Rationalism tree, not that we get rid of any science bonus from international cooperation (which inherently favors peaceniks over warmongers).

We've already been over why

No we haven't. You haven't made an argument as for why the Rationalism tree is the right place for an anti-warmonger restriction.

There's only so much that gold can buy you

Gold can buy you almost anything.
It can get you buildings and units directly, it can get you food or science by working fewer gold tiles and more farm tiles or scientist specialists.

 

[Txurce]

I'm proposing that we get rid of the modifier from the Rationalism tree, not that we get rid of any science bonus from international cooperation (which inherently favors peaceniks over warmongers).

I know what you're proposing. The Rationalism opener favors peaceniks, just like DoF's do, and you want to change the former. I think the present approach makes just as much sense in both places, because I find warmongering neither OP nor UP.

No we haven't. You haven't made an argument as for why the Rationalism tree is the right place for an anti-warmonger restriction.

We have been over it - just not in the way you chose to frame it above. In reply to that, I think it's as good (or bad) a place as any. The restriction itself - warmongers don't get much love - makes sense to me wherever it may appear. The only question in my mind is whether the total restriction is too much. And I've already said I don't.

Gold can buy you almost anything. It can get you buildings and units directly, it can get you food or science by working fewer gold tiles and more farm tiles or scientist specialists.

By coincidence I just played a Science game where I only fought defensively and kept no cities, but wound up with over 40K in gold. Yes, that is my record haul. The point is that halfway through the game I had built public schools and had the pop to man every scientist slot in every city. Unfortunately, I had next to no DoF's throughout that game. And my resultant beaker rate gave me a mediocre finish time. So yeah, I would say that there's only so much gold can buy you.

 

[Thalassicus]

My concept with Rationalism and Commerce is to let us pursue whichever tree can best compliment our current game:

• Rationalism speeds up research, useful if we're running out of things to build.
• Commerce improves production, useful if our tech pace is surpassing building construction.

Neither tree is intended for only one playstyle. The commerce finisher's luxury bonus does favor expansionists, but it's only one part of the tree. Overall I find Commerce most useful for coastal empires of any playstyle.

 

[Txurce]

If the ideal for RA's is a watered-down version of vanilla, then wouldn't it make more sense to more-or-less flip the current benefits of OB's and DoF's?

The main argument for this is that OB's in VEM are about as in our control as RA's in vanilla... while DoF's are not.

 

[Ahriman]

I think the present approach makes just as much sense in both places, because I find warmongering neither OP nor UP.

It is not just whether warmongering is OP or UP that matters, it is what other things they are encouraged or deterred from taking. I see no reasonable gameplay or flavor reason to deter warmongers from rationalism.

In reply to that, I think it's as good (or bad) a place as any.

You don't think that a military tree is a better place to balance warmongering than a science tree?
Your perspective makes no sense to me.

By coincidence I just played a Science game where I only fought defensively and kept no cities, but wound up with over 40K in gold. Yes, that is my record haul. The point is that halfway through the game I had built public schools and had the pop to man every scientist slot in every city. Unfortunately, I had next to no DoF's throughout that game. And my resultant beaker rate gave me a mediocre finish time. So yeah, I would say that there's only so much gold can buy you.

We were talking about warmongers. It is very easy for a warmonger to increase their science income using gold; annex a puppet, build/buy courthouse, buy science-boosting buildings.

* * *

My concept with Rationalism and Commerce is to let us pursue whichever tree can best compliment our current game:
Rationalism speeds up research, useful if we're running out of things to build.
Commerce improves production, useful if our tech pace is surpassing building construction.

This is fine, but I see no reason for Rationalism to have an ability that is almost useless to a warmonger. I think rationalism shouldn't be designed to favor warmongers or peaceniks, it should be useful to either.
I don't really see Commerce as favoring warmongers relative to peaceful wide empire expansionists either. If anything, being a warmonger makes it tougher for you to trade for other peoples' excess luxuries.

 

[Thalassicus]

That's what I meant by "Neither tree is intended for only one playstyle," I agree with you.

I changed the Rationalism unlock yesterday.

 

[Ahriman]

That's what I meant by "Neither tree is intended for only one playstyle," I agree with you.

Right, but in the current design, Rationalism comes across as not intended for warmongers. Warmongers will have fewer universities and such, more happiness problems, and few (if any) research agreements or DoFs.

Hence the need to change the unlock effect.

 

[Atlas627]

I almost always play tall, peaceful empires. I always find that, by the time I unlock the tech for rationalism, I have 1 of several problems.

1.) If I get there late, I obviously don't have enough science for rationalism to boost me by much...
2.) If I get there early, I don't need the boost to tech. I'm already so far ahead I'm going to win anyway.
3.) If I get there early, I'm probably focusing on tech and so I don't have the culture to unlock the policies.
4.) If I get there late, the policy costs are probably high from me having to unlock other trees in the meantime!
5.) I cannot control Research Agreements in the same way I can control how many trading posts/universities I have. The only other policy IIRC that's usefullness is dependent on another player is the Patronage one that reduces other civ's influence.

As I was starting to say in the City Dev thread (where it doesn't belong, my bad), Research Agreements are a good way to promote peaceful strategies as a tall civ. I don't like them being on DoFs and I don't like them being automatic. It is possible for me to have no friends yet be peaceful, so why can't I get research agreements? The gold cost from vanilla is fine in my opinion, to prevent easy signing of agreements. Also, what if I am so far ahead that I don't want to give others research boosts? Don't sign DoFs?

EDIT: One could say that everything is dependent on the other players. How many trading posts I have is dependent on how much territory I can grab which is dependent on the map, my playstyle, and on the other players. The difference is I cant control DoFs or RAs nearly as much as I can control my economy.

 

[Txurce]

One could say that everything is dependent on the other players. How many trading posts I have is dependent on how much territory I can grab which is dependent on the map, my playstyle, and on the other players. The difference is I cant control DoFs or RAs nearly as much as I can control my economy.

This is why I proposed a few posts up that, as an interim step toward the ideal, OB's replace DoF's as the primary RA-style beaker vehicle. They are much more within your control than DoF's... but not completely, which is good.

 

[Atlas627]

This is why I proposed a few posts up that, as an interim step toward the ideal, OB's replace DoF's as the primary RA-style beaker vehicle. They are much more within your control than DoF's... but not completely, which is good.

What are OBs? I think having Research Agreements being a diplomatic thing (like in vanilla) was fine, I just think the policy in Rationalism (and the Porcelain Tower) should not give bonuses to that as you can't control their availability.

 

[Txurce]

What are OBs? I think having Research Agreements being a diplomatic thing (like in vanilla) was fine, I just think the policy in Rationalism (and the Porcelain Tower) should not give bonuses to that as you can't control their availability.

OB's are Open Borders. Their availability is within your control unless someone really hates you... in which case they shouldn't sign an RA with you.

 

[Atlas627]

OB's are Open Borders. Their availability is within your control unless someone really hates you... in which case they shouldn't sign an RA with you.

Ah that's much better in my opinion, but I still think the Porcelain Tower and Rationalism opener should not have anything to do with RAs.

 

[black213]

Both Germany and Soviet Russia during WWII were high in the level of science, even when they put a high emphasis on war. I don't see a reason why conquering nations would be behind in science, as they weren't in real life examples. If it's a way to balance things, then I can tell that warring isn't THAT rewarding in CiV (atleast from my experience).

 

[Txurce]

If the ideal for RA's is a watered-down version of vanilla, then wouldn't it make more sense to more-or-less flip the current benefits of OB's and DoF's?

The main argument for this is that OB's in VEM are about as in our control as RA's in vanilla... while DoF's are not.

Thal, what do you see as the downside to beta-testing this? From my perspective, it gives the human player more control - the main gripe with the traditional VEM DoF system.

 

[Thalassicus]

I haven't had time to beta test significantly new concepts; the past three weeks have been focused mainly on bugfixing. I don't really have an opinion how OB/RA settings are organized so long as the goals are met (which happens either way).