[BTS] Great Library vs. alternatives in optimizing the science game

[Yin Cognito]

Ok, I know this has been asked before, and that the usual answer is "it depends", but still, for the specific setup / strategy below, which is the best option:
1. build the GL early enough to minimize its early obsoletion at SM (and divert the tech path to a relatively dead end at Music)
2. trade for the required techs when you get the chance, and build the GL for a small 300 years or so of benefits
3. don't bother building it, as it obsoletes early for the below setup / strategy and it requires altering the tech patch and choosing specific techs over others more important, in the specified setup

The particularities of the setup / strategy:
- marathon game on huge map and noble difficulty
- lots of forests
- quite a few plantations (Silk, Sugar, Bananas)
- no slavery used (caste system used instead)
- little to no specialists used, depending on the tech path chosen (aka use of scientist specialists only if necessary to avoid growth when chosing a poor happy cap tech path - e.g. delayed Calendar and/or Metal Casting)
- Pyramids and Great Wall built in the forest depleted science capitol (which means no chops available for the GL in the main science city)
- Oracle slingshot performed for CS, thus Rep+Bureaucracy+Caste+OR present

I have already made a couple of tests, and I get to Education sooner and in a better position (around 720 BC) if I choose to skip the GL requirements, than if doing the opposite, but I'd be interested in your opinions as well. The tech path I most favor (and that brings the most optimized results) for my setup is BW (for chops) -> Animal Husb. -> Writing -> Maths (greater chop results) -> Masonry (for mids and GW) -> Alphabet (trade techs) -> Code of Laws (possible due to the trade for Priesthood during the anarchy after switching to Rep) -> CS slingshot -> Monotheism (got Poly through trade earlier). At this moment I can "freely" chose / divert the tech path. The best option here is to continue with Calendar (for the science from plantations) -> Metal Casting (given by a mids powered GE) -> Paper (more science from map trade, aka foreign trade) -> Iron Working -> Education. If I go with Aesthetics -> Literature here, I considerably delay getting to Education. Yes, the GL powered Great Scientists help, but then, because of diverting to Aesthetics+Literature, I can hardly get Paper soon enough to bulb for Education (Philo comes instead) ... or I miss other key techs along the way (e.g. Metal Casting or Iron Working) which help with the production required to build Universities faster.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to eliminate the "it depends" answer, by describing the particularities of the setup / strategy. What I'd like to know is whether you guys have better alternatives than mine, that could get all of the benefits (GL's as well, if possible) with minimum "loss" (tech or production) otherwise. Or, if you, like me, think that GL path is too "costly" to choose, most of the times. Personaly, an option between 2 or 3 seems best, but then, you reap the benefits for a much shorter period of time (since I don't delay SM at all, looking to build all the science multiplier buildings as soon as I can).

 

[Major Tom]

It sounds that fastest possible Education is your goal. 1st to Liberalism is what you should aim for. Then Philo bulb is more lucrative than paper.

Also, since you run caste at all times, running a lot of scientists should let you bulb philo, paper and edu rather comfortable. Running Caste without doing that is pointless.

But back to your main question, The Great Library path. In your setting, as a peacemonger, it is rather good. Along that path, 1st to Music is strong as the free artist let you have an easy Golden age. Music also needed to take Military Trad from Lib. Then suggest switch to slavery, whip all you got for a solid army of curassiers and finish the game.

 

[Yin Cognito]

It sounds that fastest possible Education is your goal. 1st to Liberalism is what you should aim for. Then Philo bulb is more lucrative than paper. Also, since you run caste at all times, running a lot of scientists should let you bulb philo, paper and edu rather comfortable.

Yes, fastest Education is my goal in this case - actually, overall, it's having the science multiplier buildings the fastest possible, so it goes not only for Education (universities, Oxford), but for Writing (libraries), Astronomy (observatories) or Superconductors (laboratories) as well, and the tech path is built accordingly. However, I don't play slavery or Pacifism (so Philo doesn't bring me too many benefits, other than a new religion, which I already have with CoL and Monotheism) at all and I don't overuse specialists either (Caste System is for mid to later game actually, when choosing the "overflow" specialists past the workable tiles quota). For me, slavery or overusing the specialists is just abusing the flaws of the game, and it makes for way too unrealistic results. I prefer to play without slavery, pacifism or heavy use of specialists, as I prefer a higher degree of realism over strongly exploiting the mechanics of a Civ game.

Regarding Liberalism or Music (or other freebies), I can get there first anyway, so it's not an issue to speed it up over other stuff. I usually use Liberalism to get the overexpensive Superconductors tech around 740 AD, in order to build'em Laboratories.

But back to your main question, The Great Library path. In your setting, as a peacemonger, it is rather good. Along that path, 1st to Music is strong as the free artist let you have an easy Golden age. Music also needed to take Military Trad from Lib. Then suggest switch to slavery, whip all you got for a solid army of curassiers and finish the game.

You're correct, I'm a "builder" (aka a peacemonger) - I only have defensive wars, especially good for the GG and Heroic Epic in my military city. I can get to Music first anyway, and I generally research it just after Astronomy (which is only 3 or 4 techs away from Education in my usual tech path), for the Great Artist and for trade benefits (trading Music for Theology or other stuff I don't bother with early in the game). I use the Great Artist from Music to extend the Taj Mahal GA, so that's not an immediate concern.

That being said, except for the great scientists (whose advantage fades away with SM anyway), I'm not sure the GL path is optimal in my case. I found out that it's way too costly (hammer and tech wise), since with an early Calendar (as I have quite a few plantations) I can reach faster research rates than with diverting to Aesthetics+Literature early, plus waiting around 25 turns to build the GL - remember, I don't overuse specialists or slavery, that was a particularity of my setup/strategy in my initial post....

 

[Lexicus]

I used to always try for GL but usually building units and taking over AI cottages gives me more science than I can get by building wonders.

 

[Archon_Wing]

On Noble, I think the thing actually slows you down. With all the beakers invested into going literature, hammers on the Glib, and you're running caste anyways. Why not just use the hammers to grab more land and tech faster than what 2 scientists are going to give? The other thing is that if you've already built the mids; that means you've already behind in expansion.

The main reason to go down aesthetics is because the AI doesn't aim for it that much, therefore it makes good trade bait once you're done making the wonders. At Noble, the AI simply doesn't go fast enough to offer you anything you really need.

You're going to be better off heading for faster Civil Service, Currency, or Monarchy. Or even Theology which will rule peaceful games with the AP.

So a few extra notes.
-- Don't worry about Scientific Method obsoleting it. By the time you get there, you will have gotten much more important things than 2 scientists (Biology, Communism, Factories)
-- It's better when you land sucks, in particular commerce lacking but good production (or just trees)
-- Getting to music has value in denying the Sistine Chapel if you have culture AI in your game
-- Marble, obviously.

Conversely, if you have lots of good land high in commerce, and aggressive opponents that ignore culture, then you're better off just focusing on that.

 

[Lexicus]

-- Don't worry about Scientific Method obsoleting it. By the time you get there, you will have gotten much more important things than 2 scientists (Biology, Communism, Factories)

?? You need scientific method to get these things. Am I missing something?

 

[Archon_Wing]

I'm saying stuff like that is more important and so the loss of the GL shouldn't cause you to delay scientific method.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm saying stuff like that is more important and so the loss of the GL shouldn't cause you to delay scientific method.

Oh okay yeah that makes sense. I mean the 2 free scientists from GL aren't *that* amazing in the first place. Like I said in the post just above yours, the better option for me (Emperor player) is usually just taking over the AI's stuff by building units instead of wonders.

Every so often I will still get GL if I have enough production and, crucially, marble.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Oh okay yeah that makes sense. I mean the 2 free scientists from GL aren't *that* amazing in the first place. Like I said in the post just above yours, the better option for me (Emperor player) is usually just taking over the AI's stuff by building units instead of wonders.

Every so often I will still get GL if I have enough production and, crucially, marble.

Yea but the OP doesn't want to wage wars of conquest; that will skew it even further against the GL especially at lower difficulties.

 

[Lexicus]

Yea but the OP doesn't want to wage wars of conquest; that will skew it even further against the GL especially at lower difficulties.

I noticed that; if you're a peacemonger I'd say the Gl is definitely worth building. It can definitely help you get a leg up on the AIs in research if you're not going to just take their land.

 

[Yin Cognito]

I think a lot of the differences between your views on things and mine is that I don't use slavery and I don't overuse specialists (or pacifism either). That makes a lot of difference in the tech path you choose and the overall strategy, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that a lot of players (especially high level players) use these, so that explains it.

I used to always try for GL but usually building units and taking over AI cottages gives me more science than I can get by building wonders.

Yeah, for me it's the same, except that cottages+plantations do it. Sure the GL isn't exactly about direct science, but about the great persons I would miss by skipping the wonder. A few good bulbs or academies are hard to say no to... thus my dilemma

The other thing is that if you've already built the mids; that means you've already behind in expansion.

Does 9 cities (8 for national wonders requirements, e.g. Oxford, 1 to block the mongols from expanding where I want to expand) by 1350 BC counts as being behind in expansion? I build the mids using chops (I'm industrious on marathon) in 7 turns at a time when I already hit the size 7 (the happy cap) in my capitol, so aside from building just 1 settler in that time, I don't see how the mids prevented my expansion. One settler is not that much to reach that conclusion IMHO, considering that after the mids I REX-ed using settlers agrresively anyway....

As for the rest, I agree with you guys. What I'd like to see is, however, more opinions that can show that building the GL is more advantageous in teching faster - but those opinions have to assume my "pre-conditions": no slavery, no pacifism, no overuse of specialists (at least not enough overuse to cripple the growth of the cities, which is essential if one wants to take advantage of the plantations, beside the food or production). In other words, someone that can prove me (and the tests I made) wrong and make me choose the GL path. For example, what would be your tech path (involving the GL, Parthenon and such) which can "beat" the (already tested) advantage I get from skipping the GL tech path entirely? I don't know, maybe I'm not researching Aesthetics+Literature soon enough or something like that...

Maybe some saves would help? I could post one or two meaningful saves, but I "fear" that you would consider the game too easy - which it is, actually. For me, it's not about that, however. It's about optimizing the strategy in this specific case (considering the "pre-conditions" I talked about earlier)...

P.S. A little off topic, but I have to say this, as I have not seen this POV anywhere on CFC: I often have the feeling that no matter what choice you make in Civ 4 BTS, you are reaching almost the same results. For me, it almost seems the game was intentionally built this way, making the advantages and disadvantages of choosing one way or another cancel each other out and breaking more or less even. Of course, that assumes the same set of "pre-conditions" are used for the various choices one could make in the game (e.g. you won't compare a game in which you heavily used slavery with another one in which you didn't, and so on).

 

[Pangaea]

The main advantage I see in the Great Library isn't necessarily the science from the two free scientists, but how much easier it is to get a few Great Scientists. By building it and running two of your own, you effectively have almost 5 scientists (14 instead of 6 ). With just that one city, you can use the GS for Academy, bulbing Phil and/or Education. And food permitting, it's a fine location for the National Epic too. Even if intending to run just your own two scientists. I've done that before, also in cities with next to no food. Simply because I could chop out the GLib there.

Typically there is a big gap between getting Literature and GLib and SciMeth, so it's not a small window.

 

[Yin Cognito]

Exactly, Pangaea, the advantage is the great people, not the direct science - that's why I find it difficult to give up on snatching the GL too. Too bad I can't chop the GL anymore, in my capitol, as I've exhausted the forests - so I have to go the "regular" way when building it, which means around 25 turns (250 years on marathon).

The earliest I could build the GL in my tests (considering my tech path, which I can "tweak" only from around 1600 BC onwards) was in 1080 BC, and I typically get to SM around 250 AD, so yeah, it's not a small window. True, I was able to bulb around 5000 beakers for Education, which helped me discover it around 12 turns earlier than when skipping the GL tech path entirely (840 BC compared to 720 BC). Yes, I can get great people faster, but here's the catch: by diverting to Aesthetics+Literature and getting a GS instead of a GE, I missed Metal Casting and Iron Working (say, 20 to 25 turns) entirely. So, while I'm indeed 12 turns ahead of my "usual" tech path and I'll get great people faster, I missed the relatively expensive Metal Casting and the less expensive Iron Working (tech that help production), plus, by building Parthenon in a good production city I either delayed or skipped entirely the Colossus and the Great Lighthouse, which also boost the science. Therefore, on the short to medium term I am behind. I am not sure that the benefit of getting great people faster can make up for that in the long term, considering those wonders will "expire" shortly after the start of the AD era. I didn't have the patience to run the "tests" all the way into the AD era, I usually stopped right after discovering Education and compared the results.

 

[Fippy]

This makes very little sense, sorry..
considering specialists a game flaw (so not using them much), but building Pyras (so they get stronger lol).
Looking at Glib, but you dislike specialists..what?
Happily playing on Marathon, which is by most considered very unbalanced but other (in your opinion) game flaws bother you..?

I honestly think you are wasting the potential of a great game this way.
Playing on Noble it's no surprise that you think some mechanics are overpowered, give the AIs some bonuses and you might happily take "unrealistic great peoples results".

I was thinking about giving some feedback on your questions as well, but sorry it's not possible (at least not for me) cos your settings, questions and dislike of certain game mechanics cancel each other out so much that it's no surprise you are stuck in (ultimately pointless) thoughts and questions.
Not writing that to annoy you, but cos it sounds like you need a way out of that mess.

 

[Yin Cognito]

"Flaw" was a poor choice of words - I meant more like a "loophole" that can be abused of. I agree that it helps the human player even things out on higher difficulties, and in that context it is suited and useful, but unless you want to set some record, it's not required to overuse on "normal" difficulties. I used to play on Deity the previous CIVs, but wanted a "fair" game lately - therefore Noble.

That being said, I never said I dislike specialists or other game mechanics. I don't overuse them in the early game, that's a different thing (or you can call it a personal preference, if it looks better for you). And I certainly don't dislike if people use different strategies than mine (or think that they must be "in a mess"). I build the mids for the Rep and the happy cap increase - for me, I do very much use the specialists (thus CS), but only later in the game, when, for example, you can work 15 city tiles but you have 17 or 18 population (or when I need them to halt growth). Yes, I am aware I waste some potential of the game mechanics in the beginning, but then, I also play to enjoy myself, and that means bigger cities (so less specialist overuse), happier citizens (so less slavery), etc. Plus, I have a quite resourceful land in this game, and it would be a pitty not to use it, and from what I know, the overuse of both slavery and specialists kind of delay that, due to the small popluation of those cities...

All in all, I accept and appreciate your answer and observations, but I don't agree that one's questions are "pointless" just because he doesn't play the way others play. I would very much like to read your actual feedback though - like I said, I'd like to have different views than mine that can convince me to go GL path. As long as the one giving the feedback can accept different people play differently, I don't see a problem.

And yes, if I'd like to set some sort of "personal record" one day while playing deity, I would probably abuse specialists, slavery and philo leaders / pacifism as well - on that we agree. It's not the case this time though.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think a lot of the differences between your views on things and mine is that I don't use slavery and I don't overuse specialists (or pacifism either). That makes a lot of difference in the tech path you choose and the overall strategy, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that a lot of players (especially high level players) use these, so that explains it.



Yeah, for me it's the same, except that cottages+plantations do it. Sure the GL isn't exactly about direct science, but about the great persons I would miss by skipping the wonder. A few good bulbs or academies are hard to say no to... thus my dilemma



Does 9 cities (8 for national wonders requirements, e.g. Oxford, 1 to block the mongols from expanding where I want to expand) by 1350 BC counts as being behind in expansion? I build the mids using chops (I'm industrious on marathon) in 7 turns at a time when I already hit the size 7 (the happy cap) in my capitol, so aside from building just 1 settler in that time, I don't see how the mids prevented my expansion. One settler is not that much to reach that conclusion IMHO, considering that after the mids I REX-ed using settlers agrresively anyway....

The hammers for the pyramids are worth a bit more than 1 settler, even considering IND I would think. And 9 cities isn't bad, but we're taking into consideration what you're missing. Representation can be very powerful early on, but problem is you really have to take advantage of specialists. The happiness isn't really that important since monarchy would work just as well. Or even just grabbing more ;land with a happiness resource. .

And city count by itself isn't the entire story. There's also getting workers and working good tiles.

Also, I don't think you told us you were IND.

And yes, post a save, because otherwise it's really hard to tell anything.

 

[Fippy]

Well with mess i mean it's difficult to see what your goals are, so you played deity in previous Civs (very hard) and now use Noble.
Using some of the powerful mechanics like Oracle CS, and limiting yourself with others.
(Glib also belongs in the more powerful section).

Sounds like you are toying around with AIs, giving feedback for that will usually result in funny replies.
Noble is ofc still really easy, no matter what you do with so much Civ experience.
But you sound serious, i guess enjoy the self created comedy

 

[Yin Cognito]

Yes, you're right, Archon, I forgot to specify the Ind trait of my leader before - sorry about that. You made a good point with my gain from Pyramids, I have to largely agree with that, but Rep is gonna be my gov. civic for the rest of the game (I will use those specialists eventually, even if it's only for halting growth when close to the happy cap at the beginning), so sooner or later I have to switch. As for the benefits of switch early:
- unless one waits for Cristo Redentor or a Golden Age, a civics switch is going to cost turns of anarchy. If one switches to his "final" civics early, he loses just around 100 beakers from 2 turns of anarchy on marathon. If he choses to switch later on, he could lose several hundreds or even 1000 (depending on the moment of switching). IMHO, it makes sense to switch early and to switch just once ot twice during the game (unless Spiritual, of course).
- I have one very good reason for switching to Rep at that specific moment: I use the anarchy turns to eventually trade for Priesthood (as the discovery of Alphabet coincides with the completion of Pyramids in this strategy), so that I can research CoL after the anarchy is over, thus allowing me to perform the Oracle slingshot for the more expensive Civil Service. This gives me another 1000+ beaker benefit (at marathon) over performing the slingshot for less expensive techs like CoL or Metal Casting.

Plus, those 3 happiness bonus isn't negligible, if we talk about silk plantations tiles that can add to the food rich tiles. Overall, I have the feeling that those plantations (+ the happiness from Forges or resource trade) makes the Calendar first option be more productive (from a science POV) compared to the GL path.

Yes, fully agreed on the workers and good tiles statement. Almost all my worked tiles are improved, and by the 1350 BC I already built 15 workers, who keep most of those 9 cities having maximum returns in terms of tile yields. Workers are my first priority in the game, besides those settlers for the 1st REX early on. I can afford less military at the beginning, considering the map size is huge and I built the GW.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Oracle after Mids and GW seems kinda sketchy even on Noble. I've seen them get it pretty early although I guess that depends on who is in the game

It seems quite hard to get all those things by 1000 BC though; maybe there's something I'm missing. I tried a game or two, and often ended up with 6 cities by that time and the AIs already started to compete nearby if I were to build all those wonders. I think I would require stone + IND; granted I didn't have many forests; and a lot of jungle.

 

[Yin Cognito]

Sounds like you are toying around with AIs, giving feedback for that will usually result in funny replies. Noble is ofc still really easy, no matter what you do with so much Civ experience.

Well, I might give the Civ 4 deity mode a try, sometimes in the (maybe) near future Just not using it as my "regular" game difficulty anymore. If you played the CIVs as long as I did, it comes a time when you're tired of those "bonuses" the AI gets (not to mention that randomness which at time looks really ...erm ... strange, LOL). So in the end, you get past the initial euphoria of "I beat the AI in the BC era") and eventually want a more fair game. If I was you, I couldn't understand why you would play on Noble either, so I understand what you mean.

My goals in this specific situation are clear: see what tech path is the most efficient. Yes, considering those "pre-conditions" - sorry about that.
As for the GL, I'm not trying to limit myself with it. Maybe with the additional specialists (those who are not "free"), but not with the GL itself. I want to build it - I really do - and reap some benefits (coupled with Parthenon and such), but what can I do if my tests proved otherwise?

Yes, I know, if using specialists intensively, the situation changes and the GL path becomes the most efficient. But then, if choosing such a strategy, you'll get on top anyway, with or without the GL. As I said previously: maybe it's those plantation tiles that make the Calendar first path the most efficient, and not other alternatives. I was just looking for different views here, maybe other players knew something that I didn't, and there was a way to make the GL path the best one ... even with my self imposed limitations ...