Great Scientist Strategy Theory Help

[iamdanthemansta]

I'm looking for some people to help me do some preliminary tests on a new strategy I've been thinking about. I had been involved in the CE (Cottage Economy) vs. SE (Specialist Economy) debate for some time until one game I had been playing changed my mind. When I made a permanent alliance with a CPU player who was essentially running a CE while I was running a SE. I noticed that while my SSC (Super Science City) was hugely out producing my other cities weren’t even close to his other cities. Moreover I discovered that when switching from Caste System to Emancipation I lost very little science. How could that be I was loosing a significant number of scientist specialists? When running the numbers I determined that a huge percent of my science was coming from my SSC and more importantly from the GS (Great Scientists) settled in my SSC. So I started to think the GS were largely independent of the SE as a whole so couldn't I run a CE and just build the SSC with specialists. The more I thought about it the more it seemed that the question wasn't in fact Cottages vs. Specialists but focused Great Scientists vs. other GPP distributions. An economy witch ran a SSC with basically every available GP being a GS and all the GS being settled along with a cottage economy in every other city could produce a huge amount science and not be as reliant on the pyramids. On the other hand it has some problems, you don't get as focused a SFS (Super Financial City) as you do with a pure SE or as many hammers as you do with a pure CE. It also raises a bunch of questions, should you use any of the GS to found academies in other cities?

I don't have as much time as I did before and I'm not sure I can test out enough stuff on my own so I was looking for some people who would help with some saved games using this strategy and some qualitative results. If it seems to be working well I run some head to head tests and some quantitative analysis.

Some key ideas of the strategy I'm trying to get tested are:
1) Run everything possible to maximize GSP in one city. Have national epic and GSP producing wonders as well as all the SS (Scientists Specialists) possible.
2) Use a philosophical leader and pacifism and try to grab the Parthenon.

Well that's it, thanks a lot for any help of comments.

 

[shivute]

Adding great scientists to cities is a waste.
They are more useful for academies in high research cities or for popping techs.

The only great person I will attach is the great general - the other great people are just of too much use to waste attaching to a city.

 

[Wodan]

You're basically talking about a CE with a super-science GP farm.

Switching from Caste System to Emancipation was pretty even because with Oxford and Library, you get 5 scientists in your super-science city, and you were probably running 5-6 anyway. Caste System wasn't really doing anything for you other than allowing a scientist or two in other cities, and you were paying a happiness penalty, so probably had less workers in all those cities, so that broke even. Those scientists weren't getting Academy or Oxford bonuses, so it wasn't giving you a whole lot of science.

A super-gold city can still be run in your capitol, using cottages, Wall Street, etc. Generally I run a super-science city / GP farm in my best food city, and a cottage super-gold city in my capitol. This is regardless of whether the rest of my civ is running CE or SE.

Reading your notes, I'm not sure whether what you want tested. Running a super-science / GP farm in a CE or a SE?

In any event, doing philosophical / pacifism can give you a half-dozen early great scientists in a SE, but won't in a CE. So, if you really want to kick start your super-science city, you should run a SE. You can always do a SE-> CE switch later in the game.

Wodan

 

[shivute]

I thought he was talking about adding great scientists to his cities?

 

[patagonia]

I'm fairly sure the numbers regarding whether it's better to use a GS for an academy, to settle them directly, or to settle them in your Oxford (plus academy) super-science city have been thrashed about on here before.

I think if you're focusing on nothing but GS, the first is sometimes best used for an academy and sometimes best settled, with all others best settled in the super-science city until you have other cities producing large amounts of raw commerce in the late-industrial to modern era. Can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but it's something like 40 base commerce required in a city before an academy there beats a settled GS in your super science city in terms of net beakers gained. It's also worth noting that settled GS are tax-rate independent.

At the same time, you shouldn't overlook the times when it might be more advantageous to lightbulb a GS than settle him (grabbing Taoism, or a crucial tech the AI lacks for trading purposes etc).

 

[Wodan]

I thought he was talking about adding great scientists to his cities?

Yes, exactly. He also mentioned the goal being for every GP produced to be a GS.

Two ways I know of for every GP to be a GS. One is you run a SE and whip Libraries as soon as humanly possible, with 2 scientists in every city. You get a half dozen scientists by the time your GP farm is kicking in with National Epic. And, in your GP farm, you run 2 scientists (Library), switch to caste system and pacifism (at least until you get Oxford there, after which you can switch away from caste system if you want because Oxford allows 3 scientists).

Second way is to skip the scientists and simply go straight for the GP farm. The problem here is that you can't build a single wonder, not really. No stonehenge, nothing. If you do, then already you're going to pop out a great prophet or great engineer or something, probably a couple of them.

By spreading out your early GPP, you ensure that any city which does build a wonder has sufficient GPP in scientists to have at least, say, 90% chance of a great scientists. If you build that wonder in a production city, then the GPP produced by the wonder is small enough that your cities with 2 scientists are going to produce first... thus the wonder city has to get to 500+ GPP, something it won't do by the time your GP farm is kicking in.

Anyway, long story short, I think that it's hard for a CE to guarantee all it gets is GSs.

One alternative is for the CE to do an early hybrid SE, and then switch. By early I mean pick 5-6 cities with food to support 2 scientists, whip Libraries there. In all your other cities you go ahead with cottaging.

As each SE city produces its GS, you turn off the 2 scientists and begin working cottages and mines you've already built there. Kinda neat how it works, really.

Wodan

 

[iamdanthemansta]

In any event, doing philosophical / pacifism can give you a half-dozen early great scientists in a SE, but won't in a CE. So, if you really want to kick start your super-science city, you should run a SE. You can always do a SE-> CE switch later in the game.

Since you'll generate almost all of your GP from 1 city the status of the rest of the cities, ie CE vs. SE, is largely irrelivent.

Since a SGS produces 31.5 net beakers per turn in the SSC the base rate for another city would have to be above 63 [63 * .5 = 31.5] for it to be worth while to build another academy. Also this doesn't count less then optimal science %.

You're basically talking about a CE with a super-science GP farm

Yes, excpet that I would focus hugely on GPP with things like pacsifism and philisophical and I would settle all the scientists since 63 is a pretty high tipping point and even if you get the full 1500 beakers from bulbing a scientists you'll get the same amount of beakers in 50 turns.

 

[Wlauzon]

Adding great scientists to cities is a waste.
They are more useful for academies in high research cities or for popping techs.

Wrong.

I have had super science cities where adding a GS added more beakers than putting an academy in any other city. When Delhi is making 300 beakers, and the next best city is making 50, it is not worth building an academy unless you expect it to grow a lot more.

 

[Wlauzon]

Generally I run a super-science city / GP farm in my best food city, and a cottage super-gold city in my capitol. This is regardless of whether the rest of my civ is running CE or SE.

Wodan

The one problem I have seen with that is that if you try to make a food-only city your super science city, it does not have enough hammer to build the things like Oxford in a reasonable time.

So now I usually try to get one that is about 2/3-ish food and the rest hammer/gold producing.

A few games ago I had a city that was all food squares, and while it made tons of beakers (up to a point), it took forever to build things like universities. I finally ended up having to buy them with gold once I got the tech.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

Lately, after figuring a few very simple things I've been doing wrong out, I've come to the conclusion that Great Scientists are probably the best great person to get early on. Putting a Great Scientist into a town that produces a bang load of gold early on can give you so many more beakers than an academy or a free tech ever would. It might be better at the moment to use that free tech to get a lead on an opponent, but if you're pumping out great people like most of us popped pimples as a teenager, you'll probably be better off putting a few early Great Scientists into some towns to maximize the output.

I also feel the same about Culture. I recently won my first Cultural Victory and I did it by using the same method as above, except with Great Artists. I made my three culture towns into gold farms, put research at 60% and culture at 40% and let my artists pump out the culture. I think I ended up wining in the 1920's. Not bad considering I'd never gotten past 300 A.D. while going for a cultural victory.

 

[JLH Fans]

Adding great scientists to cities is a waste.
They are more useful for academies in high research cities or for popping techs.

The only great person I will attach is the great general - the other great people are just of too much use to waste attaching to a city.

Sorry for saying this but U could be a noob.

of course,the first GS could be used to research Philosophy (Pacifism)
U should build a few academy as well.
But the best idea if U ADD GS TO THE CAPITAL:
with represantion/library/observatory/university/academy/oxford univ. they generate nearly 30 breakers/added scientist.
I have 20 of them,and they genarate 585

 

[Wodan]

Since you'll generate almost all of your GP from 1 city the status of the rest of the cities, ie CE vs. SE, is largely irrelivent.

Not always. It takes time to get Literature, build NE, and then to accumulate enough GPP in the GP farm such that all other cities are rendered irrelevant.

If a player chooses to spam cities and whip Libraries as top priority, then run 2 scientists (or priests, or whatever) in a half dozen cities, then these cities will likely produce a GP before the GP farm gets going. Since you only get 15-25 GP in a game, that first half dozen is a significant percentage.

Since a SGS produces 31.5 net beakers per turn in the SSC the base rate for another city would have to be above 63 [63 * .5 = 31.5] for it to be worth while to build another academy. Also this doesn't count less then optimal science %.

There you're replying to Shivute, who said,

Adding great scientists to cities is a waste. They are more useful for academies in high research cities or for popping techs.

I'm convinced that merging them is always useful than Academies in multiple cities. Oxford is so good, I can't imagine why you wouldn't build it in your best science city.

I think lightbulbing vs merging depends on your game strategy most of the time. So I'd say that's about 50/50.

The one problem I have seen with that is that if you try to make a food-only city your super science city, it does not have enough hammer to build the things like Oxford in a reasonable time.

I didn't say "food only", I said "my best food city".

Regardless, it's pretty rare to not have a hill, horses, or something you can work temporarily. And, there's always whipping... we've already said it's high on food. (Also, if you have Pyramids, you can switch to Univ. Suffrage and simply pay cash for it.)

Wodan

 

[Bast]

Adding great scientists to cities is a waste.
They are more useful for academies in high research cities or for popping techs.

The only great person I will attach is the great general - the other great people are just of too much use to waste attaching to a city.

I agree except for Great Prophets.

 

[iamdanthemansta]

I've been wondering if with this strategy the pyramids are really nessicary. You can get repersentation pretty fast and the tech you use to get it are usefull anyways.

 

[Wodan]

I've been wondering if with this strategy the pyramids are really nessicary. You can get repersentation pretty fast and the tech you use to get it are usefull anyways.

If I'm doing SE I think it's well worth it to go for the Pyramids.

Even if I fail, I'm happy to have the money. It lets me run at deficit economy for a while. Early on in the game, even the bit of commerce proviided by rivers and coasts really has an impact. Since I'm SE, I'm purposely building my first few cities on all rivers in sight anyway. Later on, river commerce is a drop in the bucket. Early on, it's pretty huge. And, running at 100% instead of 80% makes a difference.

Regardless, I'm doing that test right now and have a couple of games under my belt where I purposely avoid the Pyramids. Even with slingshots, it's not all that easy to get all the way to Nationalism. Yes, Philosophly / Code of Laws / Civil Service / Nationalism are all right there tightly together, so you don't have to spread your efforts out too far. Still, it does take a while.

Wodan

 

[Wlauzon]

...And, there's always whipping... we've already said it's high on food. (Also, if you have Pyramids, you can switch to Univ. Suffrage and simply pay cash for it.)

Wodan

I think it is a toss up between great scientists and great engineers.

GE's are great for those low production cities that you need oxford and similar wonders in.

But there are never enough of them

 

[Xenocrates]

The one problem I have seen with that is that if you try to make a food-only city your super science city, it does not have enough hammer to build the things like Oxford in a reasonable time.

So now I usually try to get one that is about 2/3-ish food and the rest hammer/gold producing.

A few games ago I had a city that was all food squares, and while it made tons of beakers (up to a point), it took forever to build things like universities. I finally ended up having to buy them with gold once I got the tech.

Spot on. You're the

Hyper specialisation comes second to balance because all of those lovely beakers that specialisation can bring will come later. I made a huge error like this before with a city which had MAJOR gold potential (grasslands, rivers, gems and dye I think). By the time all the kit was built it was already game over. There's even a case for putting your IW (with engineer of course) in an average city just to get it up to speed.

It's not only the destination, it's how fast you get there and how much fun it is!

I can't help with the OP's question 'cause it's too damn difficult.