GS's Post Liberalism?

[Leventis]

I've been playing a game with Gandhi recently and have been swimming in Great Scientists since the start due to Caste System/Pacifism running most of the time. What I want to know is: what do you do with them all when you keep getting GSs throughout the game, particularly post Liberalism?

Until Liberalism I was lightbulbing like crazy and managed to get a huge tech lead (playing on Prince), but after that is it still worth lightbulbing expensive techs? I settled the rest of them in my Science Capital (had 7 GSs settled there by 1700AD), but I'm wondering if it's better to still lightbulb parts of techs during the late game. I saved a couple for Golden Ages if i needed them, and building academies outside the capital was pointless since it's carrying all the research. Hence, after liberalism in most of my games, but especially in this one, I am unsure what to do with so many Great Scientists after around 1000AD. What do I do with them all?

 

[Ecofarm]

Beakers given from a GP do not scale to empire size (despite 3*total_population). At some point 1000 or 1500 beakers are produced by your empire in very few turns. Then, settling or engineers. You should probably be working towns instead of running scientists this late in the game. One (probably of many) exception could be needing a key tech for a spacerace (but if 4 turns matter much...)

 

[Leventis]

Beakers given from a GP do not scale to empire size (despite 3*total_population). At some point 1000 or 1500 beakers are produced by your empire in very few turns. Then, settling or engineers. You should probably be working towns instead of running scientists this late in the game. One (probably of many) exception could be needing a key tech for a spacerace (but if 4 turns matter much...)

I take your point and ordinarily I wouldn't have so many great scientists but with Gandhi you are going to Great People regardless, especially when my capital is the main science city and has NE and GL. But yeah, settling seems the only reasonable option. If I had to catch up in tech then I could bulb for trades, but I've been miles ahead all game. I guess the GS's lose their value a bit under these circumstances.

 

[Hold The Onion]

settling them is a very good thing. not only do you get beakers, but you get a hammer each as well. settled 18 of em recently in a game as Peter which was my first effort at a true SE. When my ship launched in the mid 1800s my science city was doing 831.60 beakers per turn. I was amazed at my actual results. I had always been quite skeptical of the SE until that game.

 

[futurehermit]

Don't settle them.

Lightbulbing post-liberalism:

Printing press
Chemistry
Scientific Method
Physics
Biology

All good techs.

Astronomy can be lightbulbed as well, another good one.

1st GS should build academy in your main science city (wherever GL is)

2nd should lightbulb phil

3rd paper

4th (and sometimes 5th) education

5th liberalism (assuming you have traded/self-researched necessary prereqs and avoided machinery)

6th printing press

7th (and 8th if possible) chemistry or astronomy depending on your priorities

later ones: the techs i mentioned above

This is sufficient tech if you are going for a domination win. If you are going for space race then you should use later gp for golden ages and you should have mainly a CE going with one dedicated gpfarm.

 

[bardolph]

I've been playing a game with Gandhi recently and have been swimming in Great Scientists since the start due to Caste System/Pacifism running most of the time. What I want to know is: what do you do with them all when you keep getting GSs throughout the game, particularly post Liberalism?

You should continue lightbulbing until you start getting from Caste System, then it's time to transition out of the SE.

First, switch to Emancipation, spam cottages, and put your specialists to work in them. For the endgame, you will need 1 GP farm (or at most 2); the rest of your cities should be commerce/production centers. Emancipation should help you grow those cottages fairly quickly, and when you hit Biology you can tear down farms for more cottages.

Once your cottages mature, you can switch to Universal Suffrage and Free Speech for more . You will probably also want to switch from Mercantilism to either Free Market or State Property, depending on your empire size and trading partners, and from Pacifism to Free Religion (or Theocracy, if you plan on a Domination win). You will still have plenty of GPP from your one GP farm (and whichever wonders you have built), but your GP production will definitely slow down once you switch out of Representation, Mercantilism, and Pacifism.

So, what to use your GPs for? Comparing lightbulbs to settling is a fairly straightforward process: just compare the total yield of a lightbulb with the incremental yield of settling. Usually the lightbulb is better.

I would recommend saving your GPs for Golden Ages. With a philosophical leader, you can easily afford two (maybe even three) golden ages before the game ends. With a large empire, the yield of a golden age is immense, and can easily blow other options out of the water.

Of course, it's always possible to stick with the SE all the way to the bitter end. In this case, just keep pumping GSs and GMs, though I suspect that Great Merchants are worth more as you get further along, as the treasury gold will allow you to keep running a high science slider and leverage all of your building multipliers in your cities.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I settle GS up until about 100-200 turns before I foresee victory.

As the game presses on, you'll reach a point when it is impossible to generate the same number of over time via settling when compared to a lightbulb.

Even if you're running Representation and every +% building including a Laboratory, it will still take 67 turns to recoup just the base 1500 by settling.

However, if you're running the buildings I presume (Library, Academy, University, Oxford & Observatory) for +225% and are not under Representation, it will take 112 turns to generate the lightbulb's base value of 1500.

( 6 + 3 ) * 2.5 = 22.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 22.5 = 66.67 turns

6 * 2.25 = 13.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 13.5 = 111.11 turns​

As the numbers start getting within a few hundred of each other, lightulb 'em, imho.

 

[bardolph]

As the game presses on, you'll reach a point when it is impossible to generate the same number of over time via settling when compared to a lightbulb.

<snip> (see above for rest)

Good analysis. This makes it really clear that settling is a bad idea in the late game.

You also need to consider that getting the beakers up front is FAR more valuable than spreading them out over time, as the benefit of getting a technology NOW (or several turns sooner) allows you to leverage that technology to accelerate your growth, and will yield interest over time. Imagine the long-term effects of getting Biology or Democracy 5-10 turns earlier than you otherwise would have!

I generally only settle when there is NOTHING better to do with the Great Person. This generally means ALL of the following are true:

• The "special mission" is not available to me (GM with no allies, or GP with no holy cities).
• There is no lightbulb-able technology (or the lightbulb tech is useless to me).
• My empire is too small for a Golden Age to be worthwhile.

 

[futurehermit]

***Keep in mind that lightbulbing also gives you an additional tech which you can then trade around. You must include all the beakers acquired through trade as well!!!***

 

[Storminator]

But settling means the beakers are applied to the exact research you want, not the single tech available to lightbulbing.

If I'm not going to go for Astronomy for 5 more techs, why lightbulb half of it?

PS

 

[bardolph]

But settling means the beakers are applied to the exact research you want, not the single tech available to lightbulbing

A Golden Age lets you choose your research path as well.

 

[futurehermit]

But settling means the beakers are applied to the exact research you want, not the single tech available to lightbulbing.

If I'm not going to go for Astronomy for 5 more techs, why lightbulb half of it?

PS

Well, you should always target your lightbulbs to be techs you want. If a GS won't bulb something you want, grow a GM instead.

Alternatively, and this is what I usually do, you just lightbulb the best tech available, trade it for whatever is available, and then self-research what you want that is left-over. You're going to need everything at some point anyways and as long as you are teching along at a good clip, it's not too bad.

I look at it in terms of total beakers. I lightbulb a tech with a GS for X beakers. I trade that tech to 3 civs for Y + Z + A beakers. For a total of X + Y + Z + A beakers. How long will it take the settled GS to produce X + Y + Z + A beakers at 6 beakers/turn + modifiers? Imo quite a long time and in the short term you can leverage the X + Y + Z + A beakers (i.e., techs) to do other things...

 

[UncleJJ]

I settle GS up until about 100-200 turns before I foresee victory.

As the game presses on, you'll reach a point when it is impossible to generate the same number of over time via settling when compared to a lightbulb.

Even if you're running Representation and every +% building including a Laboratory, it will still take 67 turns to recoup just the base 1500 by settling.

However, if you're running the buildings I presume (Library, Academy, University, Oxford & Observatory) for +225% and are not under Representation, it will take 112 turns to generate the lightbulb's base value of 1500.

( 6 + 3 ) * 2.5 = 22.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 22.5 = 66.67 turns

6 * 2.25 = 13.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 13.5 = 111.11 turns​

As the numbers start getting within a few hundred of each other, lightulb 'em, imho.

Your numbers are too low. Oxford plus the other science multipliers add to the basic beakers a settled scientist gives, which you forgot to add . Here are the corrected numbers

( 6 + 3 ) * 3.5 = 31.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 31.5 = 47 turns

6 * 3.25 = 19.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 19.5 = 77 turns​

 

[UncleJJ]

Alternatively, and this is what I usually do, you just lightbulb the best tech available, trade it for whatever is available, and then self-research what you want that is left-over. You're going to need everything at some point anyways and as long as you are teching along at a good clip, it's not too bad.

I look at it in terms of total beakers. I lightbulb a tech with a GS for X beakers. I trade that tech to 3 civs for Y + Z + A beakers. For a total of X + Y + Z + A beakers. How long will it take the settled GS to produce X + Y + Z + A beakers at 6 beakers/turn + modifiers? Imo quite a long time and in the short term you can leverage the X + Y + Z + A beakers (i.e., techs) to do other things...

Trading is much more complicated than this. There are consequences for trading willy nilly with the various AI civs.
a) It affects diplomacy and can lead to very expensive wars if you trade with too many AIs. It is often better to pick one side and stick to trading with them rather than trade with everyone and pick up "worst enemy" modifiers.
b) It affects the value of research since if you and the AIs trade heavily the tech rate of the whole game is accelerated. That may or may not be what you want depending on the map and your strategy. What is important is the relative rate of research.
c) Trading is limited by WFYABTA as well as diplomatic attitude. Trading for early cheap techs can block the opportunity to trade for much more expensive later techs.
d) It might be better not to give certain techs to the AI.

When you look at the lightbulbing-and-trade strategy in these terms it is a lot less attractive. It is useful and should be used in the right circumstances but it is not the universal cure-all you seem to be saying it is.

 

[bardolph]

When you look at the lightbulbing-and-trade strategy in these terms it is a lot less attractive. It is useful and should be used in the right circumstances but it is not the universal cure-all you seem to be saying it is.

If trading techs isn't exactly a universal cure-all, it's pretty darn close. While it may be better to prioritize trading to certain civs before others, it is almost always better to trade than not to trade. The only exceptions I can think of are:

• The civ in question is one you plan to go to war with soon
• The civ in question is the top dog and threatening to win the game.
• You are already at or near your WFYABTA.

The problem with not trading is that someone else will trade in your place, and get the benefit that otherwise would be yours. "You traded with our worst enemy" might be annoying, but IMO it's worth it if it gives you a tech lead.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Your numbers are too low. Oxford plus the other science multipliers add to the basic beakers a settled scientist gives, which you forgot to add . Here are the corrected numbers

( 6 + 3 ) * 3.5 = 31.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 31.5 = 47 turns

6 * 3.25 = 19.5 beakers per turn

1500 / 19.5 = 77 turns​

Doh!

^^^ Prime example of why I should post less from work. ^^^

Thanx for pointing that out.

I still don't settle the last 100 turns or so, though.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Few points,
1. The light bulbing may not be a tech you want anytime soon (small incremental help on another tech may be more useful)

2. The Settled GS will also provide Hammers (which may be useful in getting stuff at the Science City)

Often I will Settle in the last 100 turns or so because
1. the tech provided is useless to my strategy
AND
2. I don't expect to get a GPerson for another GA

 

[futurehermit]

Trading is much more complicated than this. There are consequences for trading willy nilly with the various AI civs.
a) It affects diplomacy and can lead to very expensive wars if you trade with too many AIs. It is often better to pick one side and stick to trading with them rather than trade with everyone and pick up "worst enemy" modifiers.
b) It affects the value of research since if you and the AIs trade heavily the tech rate of the whole game is accelerated. That may or may not be what you want depending on the map and your strategy. What is important is the relative rate of research.
c) Trading is limited by WFYABTA as well as diplomatic attitude. Trading for early cheap techs can block the opportunity to trade for much more expensive later techs.
d) It might be better not to give certain techs to the AI.

When you look at the lightbulbing-and-trade strategy in these terms it is a lot less attractive. It is useful and should be used in the right circumstances but it is not the universal cure-all you seem to be saying it is.

Of course i understand these things, but generally after you lightbulb a tech, you will trade it to get "something for it" eventually, and whatever you get will also cost beakers, which you then have to add into the total beakers acquired from the GS. That's basically what I'm saying. How much you trade and when you trade is up to you, but one of the main advantages of lightbulbing is trading the tech around to get even more tech.

I used to be a committed settler of GSs until acidsatyr showed me the light

 

[UncleJJ]

Of course i understand these things,

I'm sure you do. But you don't give that impression when you gloss over the details which are often important. Trading with the AI has consequences beyond simply saving beakers.

but generally after you lightbulb a tech, you will trade it to get "something for it" eventually, and whatever you get will also cost beakers, which you then have to add into the total beakers acquired from the GS.

I seldom trade away a tech I have just lightbulbed as it is usually part of my race towards Liberalism and trading Paper, Education or Philosophy would not be smart until after Liberalism has been researched. After Liberalism I review the trading situation and decide how to proceed. The trades are part of a strategy that considers diplomatic + military + research.

That's basically what I'm saying. How much you trade and when you trade is up to you, but one of the main advantages of lightbulbing is trading the tech around to get even more tech.

I think the trading argument is irrelevant. There is nothing special about trading a tech that has been lightbulbed over a tech that has been obtained by any other means such as normal research, or from earlier trading or even from extortion. Any trade you can make with lightbulbing can usually be made by normal research a few turns later.

Lightbulbing just gives you a restricted number of techs a few turns earlier than by normal research. It is often the sacrifice of a better long term output in favour of a short term gain. Whether it is a worthwhile sacrifice or not depends on the situation. This is why I object to your simple advice to lightbulb rather than think about the situation.

I used to be a committed settler of GSs until acidsatyr showed me the light

Settling, academies and lightbulbing can all be useful. acidsatyr seems to think only lightbulbing is useful, so he and I disagree.

 

[futurehermit]

Well then you and I also agree. If I can immediately lightbulb a tech and then trade it around for extra beakers--not necessarily immediately--then this is in my mind more beneficial than settling a GS and waiting for the 9 beakers/turn + modifiers to add up. They do eventually add up, but imo this game is always about leveraging as much as possible as soon as possible. Of course I don't trade away liberalism techs immediately, but once I have education, I'll trade paper; once I have liberalism, I'll trade education + philosophy, etc.

Slow researching will provide perhaps as many beakers in the long run, but by that time, the lightbulber will have leveraged those beakers obtained in the short run to gain other things that the slow researcher will have not.

After playing many many a game with the SE economy now I am convinced that acidsatyr was right and that settling GSs is a waste.