explain a scientist farm

[creamcheese]

It depends on how you use the editor and what you change. What you suggest would be very easy to do with the editor, but shooting fish in a barrel is only fun for the simple minded. The changes I make are to make the game more historically accurate (the historical accuracy in all the Civ games is garbage), improve the strategy and improve the AI, or remove the items the AI isn't able to use (such as removing armies and working on getting the AI to use land artillery units).

The game was designed to be a strategy game, initially, not a console game. Things like science farms were not intended by the designers and are not in keeping with the spirit of the game, the way the game was designed to be played.

If you have some time, give the mod and creation forum a read. The people there are mostly modifying the game to make it better, more playable in the way it was originally designed to be. Not to make it more easy to win by exploits.

I'm not sure why science farms have anything to do with console games, but okay. I was merely pointing out the dichotomy between what you said (science farms=exploit) and what you did (changed the game so science farms weren't needed). Same solution (being able to use corrupt towns), but one is an 'exploit'. It doesn't matter if the game is harder or easier, or even what you did to it.

 

[scratchthepitch]

I'm not sure why science farms have anything to do with console games, but okay.

It's the play style of exploiting any game mechanic to win and get the highest score. Get to end faster this time than you did the last and keep playing the SAME game over and over till your eyes bug out of their sockets trying to beat that previous best score. Sort of the opposite of the way I prefer to play a game. I never found playing a console game to be as rewarding an experience as a good pc game. I found them repetitive and boring things. The sort of game play tricks like science farms I find make computer games less interesting because they make the play more like that of a console game where the play is dominated by knowing what ways you can exploit the game mechanics to your advantage as you race to the end to get your final score.

I was merely pointing out the dichotomy between what you said (science farms=exploit) and what you did (changed the game so science farms weren't needed). Same solution (being able to use corrupt towns), but one is an 'exploit'. It doesn't matter if the game is harder or easier, or even what you did to it.

Science farms never entered into the equation. I didn't change the game so science farms were not needed, I made corruption less crippling in towns of mid to large empires so that aspect of the game would be more playable. This is a far cry from using some exploit only the player can use, and the already lame AI cant. The AI benefits equally from the change of settings I made. Perhaps even more so, given their lack of initiative and ability to find creative ways around the corruption limitations. That's why I suggested a look over the mod and creation section of the forum. People there are modding the game not to make it easier for the player to squash the already pathetic AI, but to increase the richness of the game experience and part of that is increasing the AI's ability to play the game. To be more of a challenge of it's own, not less of a challenge by giving the player even more advantages.

Exploits do quite the opposite from game modding. They give the player further advantages the AI can not hope to use. They don't increase the richness of game play, exploits decrease the game play richness.

Anyway, these are just personal opinions, and I didn't want to jack the thread to this extent. Sorry about that. Originally just wanted to let the OP know there was an alternative to science farming.

 

[Spoonwood]

The game was designed to be a strategy game, initially, not a console game. Things like science farms were not intended by the designers and are not in keeping with the spirit of the game, the way the game was designed to be played.

This seems no more than sheer speculation. Do you have any basis for this?

It's the play style of exploiting any game mechanic to win and get the highest score. Get to end faster this time than you did the last and keep playing the SAME game over and over till your eyes bug out of their sockets trying to beat that previous best score. Sort of the opposite of the way I prefer to play a game. I never found playing a console game to be as rewarding an experience as a good pc game. I found them repetitive and boring things. The sort of game play tricks like science farms I find make computer games less interesting because they make the play more like that of a console game where the play is dominated by knowing what ways you can exploit the game mechanics to your advantage as you race to the end to get your final score.

This seems even stranger to me. Do you know how much of a role scientist specialist farms have played in the highest Firaxis scoring games for the HoF and the XOTM competitions? From what I've seen of them, not much at all. I have a 56,000+ game in the HoF, and I really only used scientist specialist farms to keep my citizens happier (a specialist counts as a content citizen), before I had Replaceable Parts. From what I've seen of other histographic games, scientist specialist farms do not play all that much of a role either.

In space games and some diplomatic games, scientist specialist farms often play a more significant role for the fastest finished games. However, these games are NOT played for the highest score.

 

[scratchthepitch]

This seems no more than sheer speculation. Do you have any basis for this?

The spirit of the game is play that mimics the history of the world. Even allowing for the designers historical biases and their ideas of what would improve game play, science farms in no way mimic anything like such a spirit. Simple ordinary logic should clue you into that. Apparently, neither were they something the designers intended for the game, since I remember reading somewhere here in the past that some of the changes made to the series in Civ4 were to make such city spam no longer appealing. Whether it was science farm like city spam they had in mind, or city spam in general, I don't remember.

This seems even stranger to me. Do you know how much of a role scientist specialist farms have played in the highest Firaxis scoring games for the HoF and the XOTM competitions? From what I've seen of them, not much at all. I have a 56,000+ game in the HoF, and I really only used scientist specialist farms to keep my citizens happier (a specialist counts as a content citizen), before I had Replaceable Parts. From what I've seen of other histographic games, scientist specialist farms do not play all that much of a role either.

In space games and some diplomatic games, scientist specialist farms often play a more significant role for the fastest finished games. However, these games are NOT played for the highest score.

Spoonwood, this forum is full of posts insisting that science farms are the only way to go, especially on higher levels of play. Whenever anybody asks how to better their play, the thread quickly fills up with people insisting that science farms are the only practicable way to go. Anyone who argues against them is almost always the lone wolf in the forest. I could care less what it says in the HOF forum or whether people going that route use them, or even if your representation here of their views is accurate, I never read that section and it's not something I care anything about. I also don't really care why you like them or use them.

 

[Spoonwood]

The spirit of the game is play that mimics the history of the world.

I really don't see how you get this. Even with random opponents, the tech pace of a game can vary widely depending especially on difficulty level (and map type and other factors). The tech level for the date isn't usually, or at least often enough isn't, even on continent maps, consistent with the history of the world (e. g. rail-building in 750 AD, which even with random opponents isn't hard to see happening in most Sid games... and that's perhaps far too late of a date for that level on average).

The game surely has historical elements and surely that comes as part of its initial appeal.... I don't disagree with that. But, if the spirit of the game comes as to mimic the history of the world, there's plenty way-off base, and I think it reasonable that the designers didn't have that in mind exactly. The game more seems like to consist of a bunch of "how would history have been if the world was this way, instead of that way?" scenarios.

That the city-spam issues/corruption issues which lead to the utility of scientist specialist farms, no longer became a problem in civ IV, seems more like an attempt by the designers to make a more appealing game for people. Plenty of players seem to have had a love/hate with tight city spacing in civ II and even civ III, and more of a hate-hate relationship with the corruption model in civ III especially. You can find comments which indicate this. Plenty of people like tight city spacing in their civ II and civ III games, because it works better, but they would rather build fewer cities and still play just as well.

Spoonwood, this forum is full of posts insisting that science farms are the only way to go, especially on higher levels of play. Whenever anybody asks how to better their play, the thread quickly fills up with people insisting that science farms are the only practicable way to go. Anyone who argues against them is almost always the lone wolf in the forest. I could care less what it says in the HOF forum or whether people going that route use them, or even if your representation here of their views is accurate, I never read that section and it's not something I care anything about. I also don't really care why you like them or use them.

The posts you refer to generally aren't intended for anyone playing for maximum Firaxis score, because not all that many play that way, or recommend others play that way. If you play for conquest/domination/spaceship/domination and even 20k, and you capture/plant cities well beyond your core, in extremely corrupt spots you have the viable options of

1. Putting in courthouses, police stations, aqueducts, and markets via cash-rushing, policeman, and civil engineers. You'd still want some good irrigation in such a case, so that you have civil engineer farms, more widely spaced than ICS, which can become more productive large cities once you have the improvements in.

2. Enduring a revolution to Communism.

3. Making cities into specialist farms with ICS spacing.

1. usually will take a while (unless you have a ton of cash on hand), and will slowly help your research and production, and it will barely do anything to decrease corruption in spots too far away. 2. squashes your production in Anarchy, which will usually slow you down in terms of research/warring, and Communism isn't generally a commerce-oriented government. 3. helps your research quicker usually, and will consistently help your research everywhere. So, 3. works better for 90%+ of the games that people play, given that they want to continue to do research.

If you don't need to research anymore basically (e. g. you have Military Tradition, Steam Power, and Replaceable Parts, and you can get to the AIs before they can reach or have Flight for a few turns or you can easily pillage their oil and they can't get to the modern age... and you feel comfortable with 3 calvary armies if you want to conquer on some land not on your homeland), and you want to win by conquest/domination and you're in the industrial age, scientist specialist farms are NOT a good idea. You still want to irrigate and ICS corrupt enough areas, but you want tax specialist farms instead, for more cash for buying units, including armies. I feel sure I'm not the lone wolf here also.

I brought up the HoF forum, and the XOTM forum, because you talked about score. The threads you see that talk about scientist specialist farms, don't concern playing for maximum Firaxis score, because not all that many people seek to do that... so people who write that advice usually don't assume their readers seek to play for maximum possible score. They also assume that players still want to do research for whatever reason, in which case scientist specialist farms make more sense.

Happy Holidays!

 

[scratchthepitch]

Spoonwood

You don't think the Civ series is based upon historical subjects and is intended to be an historically based game? Anyway, whether what ifs are involved or not, something like a continent full of science farms has no basis in history, anywhere, or at anytime. Using game exploits for a high score or an early finish, it's pretty much the same thing. I think everyone understood the point I was making there. Many I see here advocating things like science farms also brag they seldom win later than the middle or industrial ages (not all do this, so don't strawman this thing I wrote, too ).

The main point of what I was saying, which both you and creamcheese seemed to have missed or chosen to misunderstand, is that a person does not have to use these exploits. They can use the editor to make adjustments instead if something about the game annoys them. Changes that can still have the game playing like a strategy game based upon the historical past, which implementation shortcomings aside, the Civ series is really about and was always intended to be about. Or in a heavily modded game, one where history is not a factor, such changes can add to immersion in the game, whatever the subject is the game was modded to be about. Game exploits detract from that game immersion. The strength of the Civ series is that it is so flexible. People can make all kinds of games from it about all kinds of subjects, but all that creativity goes for naught when the game is played using exploits. What's the point of it if a few tricks will guarantee an easy win? The use of game mechanic exploits I think ruins the experience in such a way which I didn't mention before in that it turns the gaming experience into a feeling you are playing same game when playing any game. What the game is about becomes lost or irrelevant as you become more interested in what tricks you can use to win. The game then become more about the exploits and which to use, when and where to use them, than what the game is actually about. Where seeking out and implementing the exploits becomes the gaming experience.

Merry Christmas

 

[creamcheese]

The main point of what I was saying, which both you and creamcheese seemed to have missed or chosen to misunderstand, is that a person does not have to use these exploits.

Of course they don't, but not everyone likes playing a modded game either. The people who come and ask on this forum are generally asking for sound strategy advice for the basic game. Science farms will help almost any player up their game to the point where they can win on higher levels than they normally could. This is basically what people ask for, so we give it to them. Science farms don't necessarily result in the best score, but other specialists can, and science farm advice applies equally well to other specialist types. Most players seem to discount the specialist at first (I know I did), until they realize they are not corrupted. This is essentially the advice in this thread.

The game then become more about the exploits and which to use, when and where to use them, than what the game is actually about. Where seeking out and implementing the exploits becomes the gaming experience.

That is what a lot of strategy is dude. Exploiting the mistakes and oversights of your opponent to achieve victory, that is the experience. I want to outwit my opponent and use the game mechanics in unexpected and powerful ways. "Playing fair" is only useful against an opponent you know you can beat. Hence you see a lot of Sid level players doing variant type games and limiting themselves in what they do and don't use; they have already "beaten" the AI, or at least it is a known quantity. Thus they limit themselves to see if they can come up with new ways to win with one hand tied behind their back. A lot of great strategy is born when people find new ways to use game mechanics to their advantage.

I'm not sure what your conception of what the game is about are the same as mine.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Of course they don't, but not everyone likes playing a modded game either. The people who come and ask on this forum are generally asking for sound strategy advice for the basic game. Science farms will help almost any player up their game to the point where they can win on higher levels than they normally could. This is basically what people ask for, so we give it to them. Science farms don't necessarily result in the best score, but other specialists can, and science farm advice applies equally well to other specialist types. Most players seem to discount the specialist at first (I know I did), until they realize they are not corrupted. This is essentially the advice in this thread.

Science farms are a relatively new idea to the game. People played for years without them and seem to have done OK. In fact they did very well without this exploit. It's been so long since I played an unmodded game, I had forgotten my own play experiences. As I remember it, the corruption was a pain, but not insurmountable. Using cops and engineers, and rushing buildings when I could afford it (which I usually could by the time my empires were so large the corruption problem showed up), those corrupt cities were still usable. These was one situation I remember where these corrupt towns managed to flip a rival civ's town to my side. It was on a far off island where the AI and I began settling at the same time. I quickly moved in a few more settlers and filled in the territory before they managed to get a second town up. The island could hold maybe 5 cities comfortably. Unfortunately, the AI got the best spot, and an important resource (cant remember if it was strategic or lux). At the time, war with that civ was a bad idea, so no attacking and taking the town. What I did was rush culture to my towns on that island. The AI town's territory gradually diminished and eventually they flipped to my corrupt towns.

Corruption was one of the first things I changed in mods, because the way it was implemented in the epic game, large, historical empires were crippled in a way they were not historically. For example, you couldn't really have something like the 19th historical British empire and still have it nearly as productive as it historically was.

That is what a lot of strategy is dude. Exploiting the mistakes and oversights of your opponent to achieve victory, that is the experience. I want to outwit my opponent and use the game mechanics in unexpected and powerful ways. "Playing fair" is only useful against an opponent you know you can beat. Hence you see a lot of Sid level players doing variant type games and limiting themselves in what they do and don't use; they have already "beaten" the AI, or at least it is a known quantity. Thus they limit themselves to see if they can come up with new ways to win with one hand tied behind their back. A lot of great strategy is born when people find new ways to use game mechanics to their advantage.

Doode? Do I look like this guy?

Actually, I wish I did, since I look more like this guy:

It sounds like you are talking more about multi-player gaming there than a human against a rng (which is what the Civ AI is). I specifically keep my comments on single player play, because multi-player is very different and I have never played Civ multi-player. So I'm not sure what you say there applies to my comments. That said, I wouldn't want to play a game against another person if the strategy boiled down to what tricks or exploits you can use to manipulate the game program. That would take all the fun out it for me since the player with the largest bag of tricks had all the advantage, irregardless of the inherent strategy the game called for. It would be like 2 people playing poker with one knowing how to "count cards" and the other not knowing how. There is a reason casinos disallow such things...

I'm not sure what your conception of what the game is about are the same as mine.

I'm fairly sure it is not.

 

[Spoonwood]

It would be like 2 people playing poker with one knowing how to "count cards" and the other not knowing how. There is a reason casinos disallow such things...

There exist a lot of things I could say to you on several points, but I don't see how it would get us anywhere. That said, I simply don't believe casinos disallow "counting cards", because they consider it an exploit. I don't play gambling games, but no doubt it comes as better strategy to count cards, and you're actually just taking better advantage of your memory/a coding system if you do this. All that information comes about in the normal course of a card game, so it's there in the first place, and thus counting cards simply doesn't seem to qualify as an exploit of a gambling game. To make this more relevant to civ III, MapStat and Civ Assist II are NOT exploits... they just make it easier to manage the information available in better ways, as counting cards does.

It seems rather simple as to why casinos disallow counting cards. 1. They set the rules, so they can do whatever they like. 2. Casinos would make less money if they allowed counting of cards in the vast majority of cases. So, I don't see how that comes as anything more than a simple business decision... it's not an ethical one, just as the decision to use Mapstat or not isn't an ethical one.

 

[creamcheese]

Doode? Do I look like this guy?

Read my location and you'll probably understand why I use dude in casual conversation.

I look a bit more like "The Dude" LOL.

 

[Theov]

Is this conversation gonna be off topic any longer?

 

[scratchthepitch]

Spoonwood

The discussion is beginning to annoy others, I'm stopping.

creamcheese

Is this conversation gonna be off topic any longer?

Not from me, sorry about that, but it happens every time someone mentions an alternative to science farms on these forums now.

 

[Richie0]

If you have irrigation and extra food, you need to mine those squares. Production you can use for a library, university, etc. These will give you more benefit in your core than any specialist.

sometimes i will have a size 12 core city that has a library, and has everything mined, including grasslands, as well as mountains and hills, has forests planted, and will still have 25-26 food, for example

so that would be a scientist in a core city, if you see what i am saying

it's not something i normally encounter; most of my cities reach size 7-9 (rarely 10 or 11) then stop growing

another example of scientists in a core city would be if i have a city on the coast, with a harbour, and a bonus sea/ocean tile. that city is useless for units because it has no shields, but it does produce a lot of food, so i make a few citizens scientists

just a couple of examples of when i would have a scientist in a core city

 

[creamcheese]

sometimes i will have a size 12 core city that has a library, and has everything mined, including grasslands, as well as mountains and hills, has forests planted, and will still have 25-26 food, for example

so that would be a scientist in a core city, if you see what i am saying

it's not something i normally encounter; most of my cities reach size 7-9 (rarely 10 or 11) then stop growing

another example of scientists in a core city would be if i have a city on the coast, with a harbour, and a bonus sea/ocean tile. that city is useless for units because it has no shields, but it does produce a lot of food, so i make a few citizens scientists

just a couple of examples of when i would have a scientist in a core city

Yes, my comment was based on having irrigation in your fat cross. Of course there will be rare situations where you have too much food, then a specialist is your only option.

 

[Spoonwood]

sometimes i will have a size 12 core city that has a library, and has everything mined, including grasslands, as well as mountains and hills, has forests planted, and will still have 25-26 food, for example

so that would be a scientist in a core city, if you see what i am saying

In terms of how a scientist vs. a worked tile compares in terms of science output this depends on government type and the tile used. With no corruption in a Republic, a library and a worked (roaded) tile comes as better or equivlaent to a scientist in terms of science, though not in Monarchy. Of course, corruption ends up implying most cities would have more science with that one specialist in Republic for a while, but this of course ignores the potential shield gain which can get put towards a pre-build on a university, or units which can go out and conquer for more science output via specialists later.

 

[CommandoBob]

sometimes i will have a size 12 core city that has a library, and has everything mined, including grasslands, as well as mountains and hills, has forests planted, and will still have 25-26 food, for example

so that would be a scientist in a core city, if you see what i am saying

it's not something i normally encounter; most of my cities reach size 7-9 (rarely 10 or 11) then stop growing

another example of scientists in a core city would be if i have a city on the coast, with a harbour, and a bonus sea/ocean tile. that city is useless for units because it has no shields, but it does produce a lot of food, so i make a few citizens scientists

just a couple of examples of when i would have a scientist in a core city

Be careful. It is sometimes better to not hire the geek but just leave them in the field and have excess food. Just pay attention to the number of beakers produced when you hire the scientist. If it drops from 20 to 16 when you first hire him (as an entertainer) and then only goes up to 19 once you get him to geek, then send him back to whatever he was doing before. The science rate will affect the beaker production, too, so keep that in mind also.

For me, if I have excess food in core cities, and I can afford to hire a specialist without losing any production, these guys tend to be either cops or hard hats, depending on what the city is producing.