agreed, and this is why I mentionned my opinion (although late but the tech researched were also given out, thanks shyhue).I think Shyuhe and I just mentioned the statistics and didn't comment on them very much. So we were pretty neutral about them. Of course, we chose which statistics we mentioned, but we stopped noone to show other statistics.
The bpt wasn't for 100% research. It was the bpt at a break even point for gold. It perfectly shows your research speed at the moment of the game save.
no
I can't remember a game where I researched at break even point

Selling techs (at high levels, you get loads of money this way), huts, pillaging, capturing cities, extorting, missing wonders, trade missions, hiring merchants, building wealth, ... are all good ways to get money to fund "deficit" research.
I'm for all out research. Not at 100% mostly, but at a sustainable rate (= money in the bank covers the research for the current tech). After that you just sell the tech and start another. Selling an old tech is better of course.
yep, that's why I said that tech already researched are a better indicator.However, it doesn't show that you just took a citizen of the gold mine to grow the city one size larger or that you just switched some mined hills for scientists. So it is not perfect, it is a statistic.
It's not perfect either, because it overvalues tech trade and lightbulbing (= what you get now over what you can expect later).
For example, in my save I had used a GS to build an academy in the capital. This gave a lot of beakers while I was running specialist + those I expected from the Great Library. In fact I expected 10 beakers/turn very soon from this academy. More later when I cottage up the land. Those could not be visible from the bpt statistics because I had assigned workers to mine (=fired the scientists) and the GL wasn't yet done.
I could have lightbulbed or settled the scientist for something more visible but IMHO, in a space race, well placed academies are superior to low value lightbulbs (philo isn't low value !).
yep.It also doesn't show the potential increase in science production in the future. I think that the number of cities and cottages show how well your economy will develop in the near future. And maybe the number of workers if you haven't build enough tile improvements yet.
I'm one of those building too few workers. Always. But then again, the workers have also an upkeep cost

yep, you dealt with the upkeep with cottages on the jungle tiles, I dealt with it with alphabet and aiming at CoL.At the point of the save, I had 7 cities and thus a considerable upkeep cost of 40 limiting my science output. That's why I'm warning some of you that fast conquest expansion will need a good economy back at home. It's a known fact about civ4 so maybe I shouldn't mention it. However, without more cities, we won't keep up in the science race in the long run. We'll have to deal with the upkeep cost at some point and it's better to expand sooner rather than later (as long as you don't go bankrupt).
7 cities at this stage may seem a bit too many, but IMHO in a space race, you can't have too many cities. Who knows where the coal, the aluminium, the oil will show up?
I think we have a good challenge in this game, this should make it a fun game, don't you think?(referring to Pigswill)Thank you. Now I know your approach which can be useful. We all play a bit differently which is nice to see.![]()