How has the rationalism nerf affected the meta?

RoboEmperor

Warlord
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
108
My initial reaction was anger because science boom is the only thing I do in any civ game. But then I realized this gives tall playstyles an advantage they never had before. So then I didn't start to mind it much because I'm a tall player and I welcome any advantage tall players get in this game, but then I thought, maybe it actually doesn't make a difference at all when you min/max. But I am nowhere near good enough with the game to tell.

So to sate my curiosity I thought I'd ask. How has the rationalism nerf affected the meta? Is it inconsequential? Did it bridge the gap between tall and wide playstyles?
 

Haig

Deity
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
2,798
Location
Finland
A good question, hope somebody answers it! Its not easy to get pop 15 cities.
 

Thormodr

Servant of Civ
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
5,000
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Meh. It needed to be nerfed. Adapt and move on.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
605
Location
Dallas, TX
The Rationalism nerf certainly hasn't helped the game go from wide to tall in my eyes. It simply freed up a policy slot in science games. Japan, Korea, or any other civ that high rolls campus adjacency can still use it, but it's still wide campus spam. As long as I have 2 scientific CSs (hopefully 1 is Geneva) + Kilwa the science is fine. The 1 tech per turn bottleneck in peaceful science games is a much larger hindrance than the Rationalism nerf IMO. I don't miss it at all.
 

RoboEmperor

Warlord
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
108
Meh. It needed to be nerfed. Adapt and move on.

If you're not gonna bother to read the first post then why post at all?

The Rationalism nerf certainly hasn't helped the game go from wide to tall in my eyes. It simply freed up a policy slot in science games. Japan, Korea, or any other civ that high rolls campus adjacency can still use it, but it's still wide campus spam. As long as I have 2 scientific CSs (hopefully 1 is Geneva) + Kilwa the science is fine. The 1 tech per turn bottleneck in peaceful science games is a much larger hindrance than the Rationalism nerf IMO. I don't miss it at all.

Yeah it seems like the game is kilwa or go home regarding science.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
416
I was never much into rationalism anyway, and the nerf just freed up a policy slot either way for me.
I'm actually very happy about the current science game mechanics, as science is really only half the side of the coin.
Production becomes way more important towards the second half of the game (as well as GE points), and we now have +100% IZ adjacency as a red card to help with that, which is awesome.
Also the new GS/GE points cards are fantastic for more GPP, so I'm really liking those as well.
Nothing beats having 4+ cities with 100+ production each, all with their own spaceports for spamming lasers.
Slap a Mausoleum of Halicarnassos-boosted Sergei Korolev on top of it to insta-pop two space race projects and you'll blast ahead in the science race, Rationalism or not.
 

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
It was altered to 10 to get people to build higher pop cities. Upping it to 15 just means you only get +4 bonuses apart from a high pop city, ideally your capital where Pingala can live. 15 pop is not that hard.
A 15 pop capital with Pin with a +4 adjacency is still worth slotting the card for. Even +4 or 15 pop.
How has it changed the Meta? Not a lot if you asked me.
Tall vs wide? Well not enough to change peoples preferences. The meta is still to take practically every city on the map.
At the min/max level it’s just a few turns at most although the real change over the last year or so has been to downgrade the civic line and push science more. CV’s are mostly science/religion based and SV’s are now more viable as pure science and avoiding the ISS rush/dance.
As a CV fan I just feel let down a bit by the whole downgrading experience, a bit degrading in my eyes but that’s wider than a single commerce card.
 

Thormodr

Servant of Civ
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
5,000
Location
Vancouver, Canada
If you're not gonna bother to read the first post then why post at all?



Yeah it seems like the game is kilwa or go home regarding science.

The meta is a lot wider than you think. For 90%+ of players, it doesn't matter.

As to Kilwa or go home, that seems like an extremely narrow way to play.
 

greenOak

Warlord
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
189
The Rationalism nerf certainly hasn't helped the game go from wide to tall in my eyes. It simply freed up a policy slot in science games. Japan, Korea, or any other civ that high rolls campus adjacency can still use it, but it's still wide campus spam. As long as I have 2 scientific CSs (hopefully 1 is Geneva) + Kilwa the science is fine. The 1 tech per turn bottleneck in peaceful science games is a much larger hindrance than the Rationalism nerf IMO. I don't miss it at all.

If anything it pushed the meta toward many small cities (at least for science victories). Before the rationalism nerf you’d grow a bunch of cities to pop 10 for the bonus. Now it’s too difficult to grow all but two or three cities to pop 15 before the game ends so instead you have a ton of core cities around 4-8 pop. Basically enough pop for 2 or 3 districts and enough hammers to build a research lab in a reasonable time frame.
 

UWHabs

Deity
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
4,910
Location
Toronto
If anything it pushed the meta toward many small cities (at least for science victories). Before the rationalism nerf you’d grow a bunch of cities to pop 10 for the bonus. Now it’s too difficult to grow all but two or three cities to pop 15 before the game ends so instead you have a ton of core cities around 4-8 pop. Basically enough pop for 2 or 3 districts and enough hammers to build a research lab in a reasonable time frame.

It was nerfed enough that I find that I rarely if ever run it. You're better to build one extra campus with all the buildings and ignore Rationalism rather than really make an effort to really push for it. There's always some cases where it can make sense - for example, the Khmer are basically ideally suited for it, because they naturally will build large cities and also since they tend to put Holy Sites more on rivers, that means they're more easily able to always take the best mountain sites for Campuses. So in those games I might make an extra effort to run it. But in an average game, yeah, it's made it hard enough to not even be better for science than just running the double-adjacency card.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
605
Location
Dallas, TX
If anything it pushed the meta toward many small cities (at least for science victories). Before the rationalism nerf you’d grow a bunch of cities to pop 10 for the bonus. Now it’s too difficult to grow all but two or three cities to pop 15 before the game ends so instead you have a ton of core cities around 4-8 pop. Basically enough pop for 2 or 3 districts and enough hammers to build a research lab in a reasonable time frame.

I completely agree. If I build a Mausoleum city w/ Liang, that city can easily get to 15 w/ fisheries and the motivation to make it large. There's an occasional city with enough jungle and food chops to hit 15. So 2-3 like you said. Mass number of cities w/ powered research labs, Kilwa, and perhaps get lucky with Newton and/or Einstein. Amundsen-Scott and Estadio de Maracana can be options to push the science to the max. I would consider Estadio if the +2 pushes me to the ecstatic threshold but I suppose it's all about the timing between your tech and civic tree. If you're already 1 turning techs by the time the civics are reached, then the wonders are unnecessary.
 
Top Bottom