Do you ever not take rationalism?

[Tabarnak]

The only way to get rid of Rationalism without being hurt by the lack of science is to play a domination game that will be finished with artillery at worst. That's when Honor and Commerce shine a lot more too.

There is also the Sacred Sites CV approach.

Otherwise Rationalism will beat any tree for the pursuit of the fastest possible goal, path to victory.

 

[Asklepios]

I'd disagree that any resource is "everything" in this game, though there's strong cases to be made for food, gold and science being more important than hammers or culture, and those being more important than faith. Every resource has its role to play though, and every resource enables growth of the other resources. Food gives you population, giving you science and worked tiles to get more everything else. Gold and hammers get you stuff that makes everything else more efficient, and hammers is more efficient at doing this but gold is more versatile in what you can do with it. Culture gives you border expansion for more tiles, and policies to enhance just about anything. It all loops round on itself, which is how it should be.

Generally though, I have to say that science is king. You win games when you get the tech lead, you lose games when you don't. There's no victory condition that doesn't need high levels of science.

As to the OP question though, I don't always complete Rationalism, but I almost always take the Opener, barring those rare maps where I can get a domination win before Rationalism is available, or where when the Opener becomes available I have a higher other priority (like getting the Faith finisher in a timely fashion with very specific civs and strategies).
The most common reason I have for not finishing Rationalism is ideologies opening before I'm halfway down the tree, and needing the happiness from ideologies more than the science from Rationalism. Its all judgeable on a case by case basis.
If I've got a load of Kasbahs / Brazilwood camps but barely any trading posts, then there's not much to be gained by adding science to trading posts.

Science is king, but every other resource is at least a prince.

 

[GIO888]

Play as Elizabeth and see if you don't fill both Exploration AND Rationalism!

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The only way to get rid of Rationalism without being hurt by the lack of science is to play a domination game that will be finished with artillery at worst. That's when Honor and Commerce shine a lot more too.

There is also the Sacred Sites CV approach.

Otherwise Rationalism will beat any tree for the pursuit of the fastest possible goal, path to victory.

Why do you have to win fast?

 

[adwcta]

Why do you have to win fast?

This is a great question.

 

[Chum]

Why do you have to win fast?

If you play on Prince, you don't.

If you play on something higher (something significantly higher), you have win fast because the AI wins if you don't. Victory in this game is not necessarily predicated on someone else's defeat. It is possible for you to not be defeated and still lose.

Kinda funny how that works out.

 

[Chum]

Plastics doesn't even matter for many games because you'll win long before then (or the AI will).

Yeah, this is complete hogwash, and is enough to make me think you're trolling.

You have 4 victory conditions in this game - cultural, diplomatic, scientific, and domination. 3 of the 4 require you to be past plastics in order to achieve them. So if you're trying to make the claim that gold is more important than science in the Hunnic Horse Archer Pangaea domination game, then...uhh, duh? But any other claim you make is flat out false.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If you play on Prince, you don't.

If you play on something higher (something significantly higher), you have win fast because the AI wins if you don't. Victory in this game is not necessarily predicated on someone else's defeat. It is possible for you to not be defeated and still lose.

Kinda funny how that works out.

Wow, good thing I don't play on Prince then.

 

[adwcta]

Yeah, this is complete hogwash, and is enough to make me think you're trolling.

You have 4 victory conditions in this game - cultural, diplomatic, scientific, and domination. 3 of the 4 require you to be past plastics in order to achieve them. So if you're trying to make the claim that gold is more important than science in the Hunnic Horse Archer Pangaea domination game, then...uhh, duh? But any other claim you make is flat out false.

Eh, I play on deity and don't build labs half the time going for diplo/culture... and never for domination. It's overkill if you build your empire well.

On immortal, I never build labs except for SV.

For diplo and culture (and most SVs), labs is like the panic button (oh no, I can't reach Internet/Globalization before the spaceship/vote!), or if you're going for pointlessly faster turn times. You can easily look ahead 20 turns and see if you actually need it to win. They're more important if you don't finish rationalism I guess

Meh. I'd rather be building police stations or hotels/airports.

 

[Chum]

Eh, I play on deity and don't build labs half the time going for diplo/culture... and never for domination. It's overkill if you build your empire well.

On immortal, I never build labs except for SV.

For diplo and culture (and most SVs), labs is like the panic button (oh no, I can't reach Internet/Globalization before the spaceship/vote!), or if you're going for pointlessly faster turn times. You can easily look ahead 20 turns and see if you actually need it to win. They're more important if you don't finish rationalism I guess

Meh. I'd rather be building police stations or hotels/airports.

I'm not talking about Labs, I'm talking about the tech boost you get going from Plastics --> whatever with all your GS's. You do that faster with a science "focus" (not to be confused with "Science focus" for your cities' production) than you do with anything else. You need internet. You need globalization, you need basically the end of the tree for a science victory.

The comment that "the game is won before you get to plastics" is ridiculous and wrong, and that's what I'm saying.

 

[adwcta]

I'm not talking about Labs, I'm talking about the tech boost you get going from Plastics --> whatever with all your GS's. You do that faster with a science "focus" (not to be confused with "Science focus" for your cities' production) than you do with anything else. You need internet. You need globalization, you need basically the end of the tree for a science victory.

The comment that "the game is won before you get to plastics" is ridiculous and wrong, and that's what I'm saying.

Disagree with the first paragraph (done it multiple times on Immortal for CV and Deity for Conquest and Diplo; game over at airports/artillery/CS+two resolutions), but agree with the second in that sometimes its not over until you get to plastics, esp if you beeline for it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[AiTenshi1]

I'm not talking about Labs, I'm talking about the tech boost you get going from Plastics --> whatever with all your GS's. You do that faster with a science "focus" (not to be confused with "Science focus" for your cities' production) than you do with anything else. You need internet. You need globalization, you need basically the end of the tree for a science victory.

The comment that "the game is won before you get to plastics" is ridiculous and wrong, and that's what I'm saying.

No, it isn't, as my own and others experience prove. "All your GSes"... so, you are exploiting the game mechanics on high levels, that's basically what you are stating. I seldom get to Plastics before winning my games, therefore the tech is pointless since the game is already over. Even if I wanted to exploit the game mechanics, it wouldn't matter because the game is already over before I get to Plastics, at least in the majority of my games. Regardless, you can't have labs or almost anything else without gold to support them.

The problem with you is that you play a specific way that depends on taking Rationalism, but there are other, faster ways to win in many situations, and that is what the OP question was about (and what I and others answered).

You do not "need" Internet or Globalization when you finish the game before the Atomic Era or shortly thereafter. This is obvious, I think, so if anyone is posting false claims, it would be you, not me.

Yes, you need to complete almost the entire tech tree for a Science Victory, but that is NOT what the OP question was about nor was it what my posts detail. Why would anyone slog through techs to get to a SV when they can finish far faster with domination/culture/diplo (and with far less headache from the AIs cheats)? Only if you are stubbornly going for SV would you bother with this approach, but again that is not what the thread is about.

I'd suggest that you top posting rude posts, too, as though you're some absolute authority. I've seen you post similar rude comments on other threads claiming that your preferences are the only viewpoint. My posts answer the OP question by pointing out the fundamental element of the entire game: gold. Gold supports anything and everything in the game. Is Rationalism always needed? No, it is not, and it isn't even the best choice in many contexts. You have to play a specific way to plan to maximize what you can get from Rationalism. If you play a different way in many contexts, you can get far more from Patronage than Rationalism (and often finish the game far sooner).

Actually, the need for a strong economy for everything is very much a reflection of real life. Consider the crumbling infrastructure in America. We know how to build and maintain stuff, but there has to be money to do so, and there hasn't been sufficient funding for such work for years, thus the current situation.

 

[Calouste]

No, it isn't, as my own and others experience prove. "All your GSes"... so, you are exploiting the game mechanics on high levels, that's basically what you are stating. I seldom get to Plastics before winning my games, therefore the tech is pointless since the game is already over. Even if I wanted to exploit the game mechanics, it wouldn't matter because the game is already over before I get to Plastics, at least in the majority of my games. Regardless, you can't have labs or almost anything else without gold to support them.

The problem with you is that you play a specific way that depends on taking Rationalism, but there are other, faster ways to win in many situations, and that is what the OP question was about (and what I and others answered).

You do not "need" Internet or Globalization when you finish the game before the Atomic Era or shortly thereafter. This is obvious, I think, so if anyone is posting false claims, it would be you, not me.

Yes, you need to complete almost the entire tech tree for a Science Victory, but that is NOT what the OP question was about nor was it what my posts detail. Why would anyone slog through techs to get to a SV when they can finish far faster with domination/culture/diplo (and with far less headache from the AIs cheats)? Only if you are stubbornly going for SV would you bother with this approach, but again that is not what the thread is about.

I'd suggest that you top posting rude posts, too, as though you're some absolute authority. I've seen you post similar rude comments on other threads claiming that your preferences are the only viewpoint. My posts answer the OP question by pointing out the fundamental element of the entire game: gold. Gold supports anything and everything in the game. Is Rationalism always needed? No, it is not, and it isn't even the best choice in many contexts. You have to play a specific way to plan to maximize what you can get from Rationalism. If you play a different way in many contexts, you can get far more from Patronage than Rationalism (and often finish the game far sooner).

Actually, the need for a strong economy for everything is very much a reflection of real life. Consider the crumbling infrastructure in America. We know how to build and maintain stuff, but there has to be money to do so, and there hasn't been sufficient funding for such work for years, thus the current situation.

Science victory is pretty much what is left over if you can't win otherwise. And you don't just win by focusing on one of the three other options. If you are looking for a Culture Victory, you need the right Resolutions to speed up your progress, so you need Diplomacy. And the quickest way to finishing a Culture Victory is taking out the Culture leader, either yourself or by bribing their neighbors. Or the other way around, you can capture some neighboring capitals and then subdue the civ that's far away via culture instead of launching an invasion halfway around the world, specially if it's an low culture warrior like Mr. Bluetooth (which should count as a Domination Victory, but doesn't).

 

[Wodan]

I seldom get to Plastics before winning my games, therefore the tech is pointless since the game is already over [in my games].

The problem with you is that you play a specific way that depends on taking Rationalism, but there are other, faster ways to win in many situations, and that is what the OP question was about (and what I and others answered).

Actually, no, that's not what the OP was about. That's one aspect of it.

But I agree with the implication that there are many ways to play. I even would say that fastest is not always better. Offering personal experiences is great... it helps us all learn new and different ways to play, and encourages experimentation in play style. Going beyond that to say or imply that certain ways to play are always better or the only way to play is taking a pretty strong stance which is almost assuredly wrong.

My posts answer the OP question by pointing out the fundamental element of the entire game: gold. Gold supports anything and everything in the game.

I saw your posts and agree... on the face of it. But then we have to ask is rush buying the best way to get something? Often not... rush buying is a fallback option, but given specialized commodities it's usually a more cost effective decision to not rush buy.

I look at it like this: there's a commodity gold which can be used to solve many needs. There are also specific commodities (such as and ) which care used to solve specific needs. So which is better? To use the multipurpose one or the specific one? To answer that, we need to know both the exchange rate, the demand, and the supply for each.

If allowed low demand / high supply, and a low exchange rate for the multipurpose commodity gold, yes of course it's best to focus on that. But it's often not those things.

And, to be clear, exchange rate being defined as the cost for exchange if that's possible (such as converting to ) or the cost for producing one versus the other.

Actually, the need for a strong economy for everything is very much a reflection of real life. Consider the crumbling infrastructure in America. We know how to build and maintain stuff, but there has to be money to do so, and there hasn't been sufficient funding for such work for years, thus the current situation.

Poor analogy, because it could be said that we need to research better/cheaper ways of doing maintenance, or other statements that poke holes in it.

 

[MadHaxxor]

I usually don't take rationalism, it's not as good as everyone makes it seem. Science is not the only way to generate science. Ok well that sounds stupid, but what I am saying is gold allows you to purchase science buildings, or units that can conquer cities for science, or purchase growth buildings in new cities that will grow anbd contribute to science etc. Exploration seems to be more useful on an archipelago to aid your renaissance navy. It can give you the happiness you need as well, since rationalism gives no happiness exploration gives a lot on archipelagos. Patronage can generate more science then the rationalism opener. one of the bonuses is that you get 25% science of all your city state allies. Additionally, you get all the other patronage bonuses such as insane happiness levels and tons of easy cheap allies who gift great people. Yes, patronage is my favorite policy tree.

Edit: holy aitenshi, I pretty much was thinking every think you were. We should play together sometime, I hate all the people who think science = victory. I have played countless games where I had superior EVERYTHING except science and they decide to quit proclaiming themselves a victory

 

[MadHaxxor]

Finally, people here need to stop offering strategy based on Immortal or Deity exploits of the game mechanics (e.g., science overflow slingshot) or selecting specific civs to play. The game is balanced around Prince as standard settings and is meant to be playable regardless of which civ you prefer to play (i.e., do not select a civ to play based on desired VC but rather because you want to play that civ). The higher difficulty settings actually undermine any playing of the game for strategy aside from strategies against the game mechanics (as opposed to actual strategy of dealing with the specific environment, resources, and AIs you meet, which is what a "strategy game" is supposed to be about, not figuring out how to exploit game mechanics that only work at due to high level AI bonuses).

Holy this right here. You can only talk strategy if it is online, because then it is fair. I have been saying this forever, yet the "pros" still claim SCIENCE IS KING XDDDDDD. It's nice to finally see someone who agrees with me. Another problem is that nobody ever actually tries out strategies other than tradition - liberty. They say everything else is worse without ever even having used them. It really is a shame. Oh, and if you are playing online, as you should be, EVERYONE WILL TEAM UP AND KILL THE RUN AWAY TECH CIV. You can't just huddle down and spam science while laughing at the ai's inability to strategically place units or their ability to realize how victory works. This is why science is not King

 

[direblade99]

Do people insult the strategy of higher levels because they're not good enough to play on it?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with preferring prince, but when you insult the players who play on deity for not needing strategy (it clearly says as the description that only the best players in the world will beat this mode, so you're saying you're better than the people who play on a harder mode) you're just showing off your ignorance. Implying that most deity players abuse the science overflow bug? Ridiculous. It's only been known about for 2 months and as far as I know most deity players actively avoid it. Saying that the only way to beat deity is to use exploits? Rubbish.

Sure it's common to worker steal, but that's not necessary to beat deity, what is necessary is smart social policy choice, tech beelines and priorities (mostly science then food then production). Deity players play on deity because they're good and insulting them for being good and trying to offer advice based on their personal experience is ridiculous. Deity players take rationalism because it speeds up victory, and on a mode where the AI usually wins before turn 300, you sure as hell better speed up your victory as well.

The point about multiplayer ganging up on tech leaders is sound, but the problem with that is that as the tech leader they can enjoy better units and they're only going to be ganged up on if they have terrible diplo and are idiots who don't build units (which probably means they don't play deity much anyway). I've never heard anyone good on multiplayer deliberately slow down their victory so it doesn't look like they're winning, instead they just make minor sacrifices and produce enough units to be safe in their victory.

Saying that science isn't the only way to get science may be true, however what is also true is that science is the BEST way to get science, because it unlocks all your growth buildings in the first place, and the way to unlock science buildings is by teching to them.

In summary, don't insult the people who are always trying to improve and win the game faster at the highest difficulty, particularly if you can't play at that level, and actually read your oppositions arguments and counter points if ad nauseum coming up with the same one again

 

[MadHaxxor]

you sound like you are beiong sarcastic. Anyway what I'm saying is that truly good players play online, not against deity ai. deity ai does not know how to win, which is why you can get a science vic, it is easy for them to never declare war on you. and what you said about online players not ganging up on the strong player... lol no, they will gang up on the strong play even if he has been nice to everyone because only 1 person can win the game, and if you dont take out the guy who is ahead you have no chance. people here are claiming science is everything, what I am saying is that you cannot play like that against players with brains. You don't need to explain to me that rationalism will speed up a science victory obvioiusly I understand that, what I'm saying is that taking other policy tracks provide other important bonuses and will indirectly help science )or directly with patronage). But you know what, I don't even know why I'm typing. No one is going to listen to me, you're all just going to continue spouting out "science is king". oh, and just because the science player has infantry fighting great war infantry doesnt mean he will win just because he has more science. he will not win against 5 people. all those people will control the world congress as well.

Oh and your logic is funny "the game even SAYS only the best players in the world can beat this difficulty!!!!!!! Thats how you know that they are good!"

 

[GoStu]

you sound like you are beiong sarcastic. Anyway what I'm saying is that truly good players play online, not against deity ai. deity ai does not know how to win, which is why you can get a science vic, it is easy for them to never declare war on you. and what you said about online players not ganging up on the strong player... lol no, they will gang up on the strong play even if he has been nice to everyone because only 1 person can win the game, and if you dont take out the guy who is ahead you have no chance. people here are claiming science is everything, what I am saying is that you cannot play like that against players with brains. You don't need to explain to me that rationalism will speed up a science victory obvioiusly I understand that, what I'm saying is that taking other policy tracks provide other important bonuses and will indirectly help science )or directly with patronage). But you know what, I don't even know why I'm typing. No one is going to listen to me, you're all just going to continue spouting out "science is king". oh, and just because the science player has infantry fighting great war infantry doesnt mean he will win just because he has more science. he will not win against 5 people. all those people will control the world congress as well.

Oh and your logic is funny "the game even SAYS only the best players in the world can beat this difficulty!!!!!!! Thats how you know that they are good!"

I'm with you, buddy. Science is very important, and you need to stay current, but it's not as critical as everyone makes it seem. A player's modest tech lead might give them the ability to build Infantry while others are relying on the Great War variants, but it's still not going to save them when 2-3 intelligent people start picking them apart.

I can't point to a single place on the tech tree that says "There. Now I'm safe from everything that came before."

 

[IronfighterXXX]

I always take rationalism except early domination or culture victory (sacred cities). It allows me to win faster.
But..

Why do you have to win fast?

At some point where because of your skills already at the start game you know that you will win it is no longer fun. You need challenges.
Therefore, it is something like GOTM or HOF on this site.

There's a good reason why the AI civs almost always go for Banking, after all, rather than a different tech as their entry into Renaissance. If science was truly most important, then the AI would always go for Acoustics first.

You really believe AI knows better what to choose then the average player ?