How the science mechanic needs to be rebalanced

Rebel Fighter

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
94
The science mechanic needs a major overhaul in CBE. It had several problems in Civ 5 that need to be avoided such as:

  • Having the capability to be hopelessly out teched. Generally, the civilized world has had the same general level of tech advancement throughout history. It was annoying in Civ 5 to see one civilization have Longswordsmen while the other had Gatling Guns. It just doesn't make any sense and it makes the game boring. I think that in CBE, even the lowest tech level needs to be able to pack some kind of punch. No tech level should be useless in comparison to another. Let there be room for advancement, but still give everyone a fighting chance.
  • Having science be the most important factor in the game. In Civ 5, 9 times out of 10 the civilization with better science would always win. This is bad game design. Science needs to be balanced with all factors so that every path a player takes is a viable one.
  • Offering the player insane boosts in science when following a very particular strategy. This is just exploitation. There shouldn't be any strategy that makes a player's science absurdly high over other players unless there are huge disadvantages.
  • Having an imbalanced tech tree. Science was the most important factor in Civ 5, and this messed up the tech tree as a result. I don't know of any good Civ 5 player that doesn't regularly beeline for universities when possible. I hope that CBE doesn't have this same problem with their tech web.

This is all I can think of right now, but I would appreciate any input on the matter.
 
I definitely agree,

With Civ..in general, the historical concept.. (higher tech wins) makes sense, but there were too many options to get a solid tech lead


What they can do with BE is
1. make it so that a Massive investment in a tech lead gives a small bonus... ie "Libraries"/"Universities" etc. only give a ~10% boost in science but a very expensive buildings (as opposed to cheap buildings that give ~50% bonus
2. Make the tech lead itself only give a small bonus.

I somewhat prefer #1 because it is better to have good bonuses with a tech lead because that makes the game more interesting... and it will make your chosen tech path more distinct (if there are only tiny bonuses in tech, then The 3 different affinities won't be to different from the basic units)

Basically
Techs should give a good bonus
Getting a tech lead should be VERY hard.
 
  • Generally, the civilized world has had the same general level of tech advancement throughout history.

No, it hasn't. As an example I wish to point out the Spanish conquistadores with their relatively new gunpowder technology (not much more then a century old IIRC) while the local Aztec were still wielding nicely decorated clubs and took to battle in feather -and skin suits.
 
I definitely agree,

With Civ..in general, the historical concept.. (higher tech wins) makes sense, but there were too many options to get a solid tech lead


What they can do with BE is
1. make it so that a Massive investment in a tech lead gives a small bonus... ie "Libraries"/"Universities" etc. only give a ~10% boost in science but a very expensive buildings (as opposed to cheap buildings that give ~50% bonus
2. Make the tech lead itself only give a small bonus.

I somewhat prefer #1 because it is better to have good bonuses with a tech lead because that makes the game more interesting... and it will make your chosen tech path more distinct (if there are only tiny bonuses in tech, then The 3 different affinities won't be to different from the basic units)

Basically
Techs should give a good bonus
Getting a tech lead should be VERY hard.

Yes I agree. I also think that better tech should be more of a matter of advanced strategy rather than simply more hitpoints. It's fine to have the earlier units be grunts that soak up damage, but later down the tech tree, the advantages should be different tactics, formations, and terrain bonuses that affect the course of the battle, not JUST hitpoints.

No, it hasn't. As an example I wish to point out the Spanish conquistadores with their relatively new gunpowder technology (not much more then a century old IIRC) while the local Aztec were still wielding nicely decorated clubs and took to battle in feather -and skin suits.

I said CIVILIZED world. Of course indigenous tribes are going to have worse tech. :p
 
That's battling with semantics. The Aztec had for all intends and purposes a civilization at the time of contact with the Spanish.

He could have modified it to connected civilized world, and it would have been correct.

The gap between the spanish and the aztecs was because they had not had contact before.... If the Spanish had merely traded with the Aztecs for 30-100 years before attacking.. They could have totally lost.

It is why Europe and China were never more than say 100 years apart in technology (although that was enough for China to get crushed in the 1800s, and for Europe to be seriously impressed in the 1500s)

Civ has modeled this a little bit with bonuses for researching techs known by civs you know... They could improve historical civ balance by massively beefing up those bonuses (instead of a max of 30%...closer to a max of 300%)
 
China and Japan and India all considered themselves quite civilized... but they still had medieval technology when Europe was entering the Industrial Age. Technological gaps were the norm in history, not the exception.

It appears that technology will be key in Beyond Earth, as Affinities appear to be driven by technology choices.
 
All of these problems are present in the Civ franchize since the beginning 23 years ago. I seriously doubt that things like "science is key to victory" will suddenly change.
 
1. make it so that a Massive investment in a tech lead gives a small bonus... ie "Libraries"/"Universities" etc. only give a ~10% boost in science but a very expensive buildings (as opposed to cheap buildings that give ~50% bonus
2. Make the tech lead itself only give a small bonus.

Errrmm ... massive effort gives a tiny return??? Doesn't sound like a game I want to play :)

Surely it's better if science investment gets you a strong and usable advantage but it becomes progressively harder to draw farther ahead. And/or the advantage doesn't last for long.

There must be loads of ways to set that up - e.g....
KrikkitTwo said:
bonuses for researching techs known by civs you know... massively beefing up those bonuses (instead of a max of 30%...closer to a max of 300%)
That sounds better - techs become cheaper the more they lag behind the cutting edge.

Also I know some people don't like tech trading but it can help with these problems in a single player situation because the AIs can be set up to trade more freely with older techs or people lower down the leader board. :hmm: Not sure if BE will be able to do that if different factions will be having different techs?
 
Getting rid of the tech slider is a major reason for this.

In older civs, there was a major tradeoff to maximizing your tech. You were directly sacrificing one aspect of your empire to boost science. In civ 5, with tech no longer having a slider, you only sacrifice the maintenance cost of the science building and the turns/gold it takes to build it.

Additionally, the catch up mechanisms in Civ 5 are much weaker than previous civs IMO.

  • No tech trading/brokerage.
  • Espionage is weak and has a huge ramp up cost in turns compared to older Civs
  • Only scientists grant techs (opposed to all GP in Civ4)
  • No techs from conquest (unless you're Assyria, of course)

Losing the ability to trade/broker techs and techs from conquest are the 2 biggest IMO. Tech trading/brokerage automatically solved for a runaway tech leader. The tech leader spends all his beakers researching every tech, while the other civs turn around and pool their resources to get 5-6 techs. There's simply no way that a tech leader can sit on a lead with tech trading unless he is out researching all the other nations combined, or at least all the nations that are on good terms with each other.

Losing the ability to capture tech from conquest means that you can't sacrifice science for a military based strategy. You have to focus on science AND military if you want to warmonger. Since the main cost of science in Civ 5 is gold per turn and hammers and the cost of military happens to be the exact same things, this is difficult to pull off. Civs that go all out for science at the expense of military are "ripe for the taking," but without the added reward of getting techs from conquest, the cost of war is extremely steep relative to the benefits. You may become slightly more powerful by taking another civ out, but in the meantime all the other peaceful civs got further ahead of you.
 
Getting rid of the tech slider is a major reason for this.

On the contrary, getting rid of the slider was because of tech importance in civ games. There wasn't much choice in the slider since science was king. For example the culture slider and espionage slider were for the large part marginalised. Most of the time you would only run the wealth slider at the minimum necessary - because the game made you. Why was rexing too hard bad? Because your science slider had to go from 80%-90% to 50% and you fell behind.

Yes, it's hard to compete with the value of science in a civ game, by its inherent design. It makes the issue pretty complicated.

Spoiler :

In older civs, there was a major tradeoff to maximizing your tech. You were directly sacrificing one aspect of your empire to boost science. In civ 5, with tech no longer having a slider, you only sacrifice the maintenance cost of the science building and the turns/gold it takes to build it.

Additionally, the catch up mechanisms in Civ 5 are much weaker than previous civs IMO.

  • No tech trading/brokerage.
  • Espionage is weak and has a huge ramp up cost in turns compared to older Civs
  • Only scientists grant techs (opposed to all GP in Civ4)
  • No techs from conquest (unless you're Assyria, of course)

Losing the ability to trade/broker techs and techs from conquest are the 2 biggest IMO. Tech trading/brokerage automatically solved for a runaway tech leader. The tech leader spends all his beakers researching every tech, while the other civs turn around and pool their resources to get 5-6 techs. There's simply no way that a tech leader can sit on a lead with tech trading unless he is out researching all the other nations combined, or at least all the nations that are on good terms with each other.

Losing the ability to capture tech from conquest means that you can't sacrifice science for a military based strategy. You have to focus on science AND military if you want to warmonger. Since the main cost of science in Civ 5 is gold per turn and hammers and the cost of military happens to be the exact same things, this is difficult to pull off. Civs that go all out for science at the expense of military are "ripe for the taking," but without the added reward of getting techs from conquest, the cost of war is extremely steep relative to the benefits. You may become slightly more powerful by taking another civ out, but in the meantime all the other peaceful civs got further ahead of you.

I'm not directly arguing against this, but consider:

- Without techs other civs don't know it's very hard to trade for techs.
- The tech leader usually has a great deal to gain through tech trading, since they can beeline, reliably research unknown techs, and backfill their tech tree through trade, netting a very high science per turn.

Yes, being part of the main "pack" of civs has a lot of tech trading available. Potentially even the most. There is significant unreliability though, and with giant swings of power you can see why they wanted to do something about it.

Also, war already has incredible payoff, nevermind the warmonger being allowed to totally neglect tech and still keep up-to-date. But did civ 5 go too far in the other direction? Being useless without tech? Maybe, but it could easily be down to AI resource bonuses. Particularly noticable at high difficulty levels, failing to catch up in tech usually leaves you in a really weak spot. It's not like trying to out-produce a deity AI is going to be very effective as your "advantage".
 
1UPT also factors in here. With the numbers game disallowed by default, you have to focus on stronger military units ... and that means more tech advanced.

Past Civs allowed for older military units to better compete if in significant numbers. This lead to interesting decisions about whether to invest in teching to new units, or instead invest in lots of older ones.

Civ V is much more about getting new units, because numbers are going to either be limited by the geography or in favor of the AI (assuming the player is playing up to a level that challenges them).
 
Science has always been king in Civ games. I'm not sure a game about progressing through history could be any other way, though. Likewise, a game about future scientific achievement also would have a heavy science component.

I will say that it might have been more noticeable in Civ5 because of the removal of tech trading. I tend to think this is a good thing. The tech merchant strategy of previous civs was always a bit disconcerting. I'm not sure the game should have a strategy where you don't produce any science whatsoever and then rely on simply buying a tech and selling it to others before the others can sell it. It also led to a too fast development of the tech tree and too much parity. In Civ5, science was a resource you tried to maximize, just like food and production, rather than something you gamed. To me, having a "no science" route is like having a "no food" route. No one thinks the game should find a strategy where you don't need food.
 
Science has always been king in Civ games. I'm not sure a game about progressing through history could be any other way, though. Likewise, a game about future scientific achievement also would have a heavy science component.

I will say that it might have been more noticeable in Civ5 because of the removal of tech trading. I tend to think this is a good thing. The tech merchant strategy of previous civs was always a bit disconcerting. I'm not sure the game should have a strategy where you don't produce any science whatsoever and then rely on simply buying a tech and selling it to others before the others can sell it. It also led to a too fast development of the tech tree and too much parity. In Civ5, science was a resource you tried to maximize, just like food and production, rather than something you gamed. To me, having a "no science" route is like having a "no food" route. No one thinks the game should find a strategy where you don't need food.

No, but things that boost food aren't better than the alternatives.

That is the problem.
Universities > Workshops
G.Scientists>G.Merchants
Rationalism>everything

Because science is so over powering, investing in boosts to it should be smaller.
Ie universities give only15%(25%) boost not 33%(50%)
Universities have only 1 scientist slot
Rationalism only gives +1 sci per specialist.
National College only gives +25%

Etc.

Essentially i should get Enough science without focusing on it... Strategies where i build banks before Universities and never take Rationalism should work.

Indeed with the tech web I should be able to never research a science boosting tech (ie Philosophy, Education, scientific Theory) and do just fine if I have some other boosts to combat, culture, production.
 
I agree the balance is a bit out of whack, but I disagree that your science should be sufficient while essentially ignoring it.

That being said, I think you're overstating things. Strategies where you never take Rationalism do work.
 
Also, war already has incredible payoff, nevermind the warmonger being allowed to totally neglect tech and still keep up-to-date. But did civ 5 go too far in the other direction? Being useless without tech?

Consider, in Civ5 with global happiness, gaining a military advantage only allows you a small amount of conquest. You can take maybe 4-5 cities before you fall into crippling unhappiness. You then have to spend an era recovering. Not to mention this compounds because short of extreme diplomatic manipulation, the warmonger penalty will cost you any luxuries you were trading for when they come up for renewal.

So let's look at the downsides of warmongering in civ 5:
-Each city you take increases tech costs by 5%
-Steep happiness price and unhappiness prevents growth which slows tech down long term
-Steep diplomacy price which prevents research agreements, removing a path to increasing tech output
-Steep culture price if you Annex which leads to less social policies costing you something. Often times that something is science or happiness.
-If you don't annex, puppets don't focus on science making them ultimately a drain on your research rate

Admittedly, many of those problems are improved upon with your Ideology, but those come so late in the game that their impact on the game is relatively small.
 
Science wasn't always king. Certainly there were stages in previous Civs where you could turn off the science and just go smash things for a while. You could run numbers against more advanced units and win. Sometimes, until there was nothing left to smash. Sometimes it was the best option. Other times, it was a short-sighted one.

Those sort of choices, and picking out what's situationally best, were what made Civ a great series.
 
I'm totally fine with outteching. In real history there often were hundreds or thousands of years in between discoveries for civzs. Asia had industrial standard waterworks about 400 years before Europe for example.
 
Moderator Action: As with other threads, please make sure your posts in the CivBE forum relate to CivBE. In this case, discuss how the science mechanic should be balanced in CivBE, not how you think it was or wasn't balanced in Civ5 (unless you're doing so in the process of making a point about how CivBE should be balanced).
 
Top Bottom