How the science mechanic needs to be rebalanced

[Lliraeden]

I'd really like to see a more "open" tech tree, where you can have different strategies without being channeled through a similar tech progression every game. And, without illogical prerequisites that exist only to force you through said progression.

It'd be nice to be able to have a biological-oriented civ, with genetics and DNA modding, etc, against an advanced physics civ.

The original SMAC captured much more of this, but I'd like to see it go even further. To compare, CiV was a regression with hardly any difference in civs and techs from game to game.

They've already stated that there won't be a tech tree, but more of a web that different factions pursue. Plus the different idealogies are not compatable, so what Purity will want, Harmony will spurn, such as terraforming vs. ecology for example.

That would be good. However, focusing on a tech lead should still be a possible strategy (just not the best one)

Agreed. I always bear in mind that focusing on science advancement usually has a high cost over other options. You have to build labs and universities etc in order to get more beakers, rather than building units to defend against opponents or other buildings to enhance your colony. It's all a trade-off and one I've been bitten by a lot! I can be the most advanced society, but if the other guy has X cities and Y armies to throw at me and I've mostly focused on tech aquisition, I won't have much to defend with unless I've been careful, which slows down tech advancement.

 

[boghog]

They've already stated that there won't be a tech tree, but more of a web that different factions pursue. Plus the different idealogies are not compatable, so what Purity will want, Harmony will spurn, such as terraforming vs. ecology for example.

True, but they can't make the affinities too one-dimensional. If each direction in the web only gives benefits in one area (say, purity for military, harmony for food, supremacy for production) it would be unfeasible to only go down one route. Every player would have to spiral around the center of the web to achieve a balanced development. But we know that that's not what the developers have in mind. Therefore each affinity will probably allow you to get boosts for all important areas of development - just in different ways: food booster for purity might be terraforming, for harmony it might be processing technologies for indigenous plant life, for supremacy it might be a hydroponic garden tile improvement.

 

[Bezurn]

I think there should be few, if any buildings that focus purely on science. Instead every buildings should each come with either a scientist specialist slot, give a flat amount of bonus science, or give a % based on population of the city.
So using examples from buildings in Civ 5
if you build a workshop you get +2 science in that city
If you build a granary you get +5% science from population
if you build a garden you get +1 scientist slot

There should be no science from population directly, it should require infrastructure for a community to produce knowledge that is useful.
All of these buildings keep their normal benefit, but just get the addition of a science boosting effect.

ect

That way no matter which buildings you are making you are unlocking new discoveries that you can then use to buy more techs that unlock other buildings and to produce more tech. In this fashion the tech game would not be more skewed to those who beeline for the tech buildings and technologies that unlock new tech buildings.

The only way you fall far behind is if you are building the wrong types of buildings for your empire's strategy, or if you are building too many units. They should also have some beaker boost whenever you capture a rival city so that those who are building more units for war will not fall too far behind.

 

[sherbz]

That's battling with semantics. The Aztec had for all intends and purposes a civilization at the time of contact with the Spanish.

I agree here. Its almost like some sort of latent racism in the previous post. Unless you have evolved exactly the same way as a western civilization then you are not a civilization. Its a bit like how everyone groups all American Indians together. Really, each tribe was unique and distinct and should be treated as their own civilization in their own right.

 

[Lyoncet]

True, but they can't make the affinities too one-dimensional. If each direction in the web only gives benefits in one area (say, purity for military, harmony for food, supremacy for production) it would be unfeasible to only go down one route.

It seems like the dev team anticipated and pre-empted that concern. In several of the PAX interviews and the release panel, they mentioned that each affinity would have benefits for all playstyles. For example, Purity has its floatstone battleships, Supremacy has its android armies and cybernetic augments, and Harmony harnesses alien wildlife and genetic enhancements. All three are intended to be viable warmongers. They've hinted but to my knowledge not explicitly stated that this holds true with all facets of the game, like teching and building. The intent is that any affinity can succeed with any play style, even if they approach them differently enough to feel distinct.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think there should be few, if any buildings that focus purely on science. Instead every buildings should each come with either a scientist specialist slot, give a flat amount of bonus science, or give a % based on population of the city.
So using examples from buildings in Civ 5
if you build a workshop you get +2 science in that city
If you build a granary you get +5% science from population
if you build a garden you get +1 scientist slot

There should be no science from population directly, it should require infrastructure for a community to produce knowledge that is useful.
All of these buildings keep their normal benefit, but just get the addition of a science boosting effect.

ect

That way no matter which buildings you are making you are unlocking new discoveries that you can then use to buy more techs that unlock other buildings and to produce more tech. In this fashion the tech game would not be more skewed to those who beeline for the tech buildings and technologies that unlock new tech buildings.

The only way you fall far behind is if you are building the wrong types of buildings for your empire's strategy, or if you are building too many units. They should also have some beaker boost whenever you capture a rival city so that those who are building more units for war will not fall too far behind.

I disagree... There should be a "tech heavy" strategy. However, it should not give you enough of a tech boost to be the best strategy.

Basing tech off population is fine, and doesn't give a wide v. tall bias (like res from all buildings do)

 

[Bezurn]

It would depend on the actual numbers of the tech generated from buildings to determine the balance of wide vs tall. Also adding a % modifier penalty for additional cities would help to balance this, along with the global happiness.

However, a 4x game should be about building something big, not creating 3-4 cities and sitting in a corner. A tech heavy strategy would simply repeat the past mistakes of providing a narrow focus on that strategy leads to overall better success for given games. I'm tired of building libraries first or second.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It would depend on the actual numbers of the tech generated from buildings to determine the balance of wide vs tall. Also adding a % modifier penalty for additional cities would help to balance this, along with the global happiness.

However, a 4x game should be about building something big, not creating 3-4 cities and sitting in a corner. A tech heavy strategy would simply repeat the past mistakes of providing a narrow focus on that strategy leads to overall better success for given games. I'm tired of building libraries first or second.

A tech heavy Strategy should be an OPTION, ie not the worst strategy, but definitely not the best...(it would sort of be a Jack of All Trades strategy).

for that to happen
1. there is some science you get no matter what...either on all population or all buildings (and a flat amount from all population is simpler than all buildings each modifying science in addition to whatever else they do)
2. You can do things that will boost that science, but not much

Ideally in 30-60% of the games you wouldn't build libraries until into the late Renaissance (and only in your major cities).

If they can have science buildings that are like that, then it is OK.

Imagine if Libraries only gave you one science per 3 pop ( or 1 per 5 pop or 1 per 10 pop).

Then would Science only buildings be OK?

At some magical point they move from being OP to being worthless... and if you find the spot right in between, then it is good.

(of course they are a prereq for the National College, and Universities... but what if those were toned down as well)

 

[Bezurn]

I rather enjoyed the benefits that buildings gave in Civ 4 rathern than Civ 5. A library would give you science, but it would also give you culture. A courthouse would give you stability, but it would also give you espionage, ect. (I'm not including specialist slots as they go along with the focus of the building).

Civ 5 most buildings do one thing, and so they are rather focused and boring. At times they hardly seem worth the maintenance (coliseums). Aside from some unique UB's the only way to give buildings a secondary benefit was to enhance them with religion.

My hope is that we get a return to a more diverse set of abilities for buildings

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I rather enjoyed the benefits that buildings gave in Civ 4 rathern than Civ 5. A library would give you sience, but it would also give you culture. A courthouse would give you stability, but it would also give you espionage, ect. (I'm not including specialist slots as they go along with the focus of the building).

Civ 5 most buildings do one thing, and so they are rather narrow and focused on that one thing. Aside from some unique UB's the only way to give buildings a secondary benefit was to enhance them with religion.

My hope is that we get a return to a more diverse set of abilities for buildings

I tend to disagree, I think single purpose buildings gave a clear choice (although some choices were clearly better)

Even in Civ4, those secondary benefits were usually truly secondary.. Culture was tacked on (all it was for was border fights and cultural wins). Espionage was literally tacked on as an expansion system. So buildings just for that weren't worth it.

What I would prefer is for each building to do one thing, but to have that one thing actually worth building a building for (many times not always).

 

[Louis XXIV]

I get the concept of clear focus, but I thought the focus was a little too clear in Civ5, which detracted from flavor. In addition, there was more of a possibility of tradeoffs (you could have a high science, no culture building or a medium science, medium culture building, etc.).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I get the concept of clear focus, but I thought the focus was a little too clear in Civ5, which detracted from flavor. In addition, there was more of a possibility of tradeoffs (you could have a high science, no culture building or a medium science, medium culture building, etc.).

You had the trade offs with different levels

Library+Monument+Amphitheater
or
Library+University
or
Monument+Amphitheater+Writer's Guild

Yes you would Eventually build them all, but you would also Eventually build both the high science building AND the medium science+medium culture building.

I do agree the flavor was lost a little... it seems to make sense that Libraries would give culture.

However, that flavor
1. will be less constraining for futuristic buildings
2. can be re-added in with things like values(social policies) + affinities (religion)... which provides even more flavor

 

[Louis XXIV]

The problem was when combined with the tech tree. The clarity of choice was also a tech tree choice. Military or infrastructure. If infrastructure, wealth, food, or science. The answer, according to the consensus, is science. If science buildings were scattered and you had the choice between high science and nothing else or medium science with other benefits, you'd have to choose your path based on tradeoffs. Right now, there are essential techs that cause problems with balance between playstyles and I do think making things more muddy and less clear help redress that problem.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The problem was when combined with the tech tree. The clarity of choice was also a tech tree choice. Military or infrastructure. If infrastructure, wealth, food, or science. The answer, according to the consensus, is science. If science buildings were scattered and you had the choice between high science and nothing else or medium science with other benefits, you'd have to choose your path based on tradeoffs. Right now, there are essential techs that cause problems with balance between playstyles and I do think making things more muddy and less clear help redress that problem.

That is the problem that we are looking at, boosting science is too powerful.

So the science boosters should be weaker. (enough that Education, Writing, Philosophy, Sci Theory, etc. are not worth rushing towards...unless you are trying a tech rush...which shouldn't be the only strategy)

If the Science buildings boosted by 3-5% instead of 33-50% you would not see them rushed for (the nature of bulbing+G.Scientists is also a bit of a problem)

The problem is you could increase your science by too much-too easily. Making it a "best strategy".

 

[Matthew.]

Problem with science in Civ5 was that it was tied to tech progression. Which sounds odd, because that was the purpose of science. But that is the point. If a "strong game" is determined by getting through the tech tree faster, the only option is science. You cannot purchase your way through techs, or some how brute force it through military, so science always comes first.

And yes, that is Civ5. Without knowing much about BE, it is still relevant. If BE has some tech-tree equivalent, and there is a science modifier which is the exclusive way to move through that tree quicker, the problem will persist.

The way to solve (or rather how I would solve) would be to disconnect tech and science in some way. Have science boost your empire in another way (maybe with a slight boost to tech, but as others have noted, interacting empires generally stay on relatively equal tech levels, so it should be impossible to boost ahead to stealth bombers while your competition hasn't even discovered flight. Feel free to come up with your own sci-fi terms for stealth bomber )

 

[Louis XXIV]

That is the problem that we are looking at, boosting science is too powerful.

So the science boosters should be weaker. (enough that Education, Writing, Philosophy, Sci Theory, etc. are not worth rushing towards...unless you are trying a tech rush...which shouldn't be the only strategy)

If the Science buildings boosted by 3-5% instead of 33-50% you would not see them rushed for (the nature of bulbing+G.Scientists is also a bit of a problem)

The problem is you could increase your science by too much-too easily. Making it a "best strategy".

But that also makes things a bit boring. When Civ5 started out, population, not science, was far more important. It meant it was better to build a city than a library. City specialization is a good thing and the reduced science percentages hurt that. A 3% increase in science is almost not worth building with maintenance costs.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You don't need to dis connect science and technology.

You just need
1. Technology to not be the Only important thing in winning
2. The science boosts available to not be too large

I agree a 3% boost is not worth a building
But a 50% boost is a must have

So the % boost needs to be less than 50, but more than 3
It just needs to be balanced
(30%, 20%, 10%?)

Science got a 200% bonus from all std buildings
Gold got 83%
Prod got 35%

If they all got the 83% bonus gold did, it might be more balanced

 

[Matthew.]

It is the same thing, just different wording. With your #1, science is the only important thing to win BECAUSE it is connected to tech. If you want a military advantage, tech. If you want an economic advantage, tech. As long as the two are connected as strongly as they are in Civ5, it will be the go-to option.

If you specifically make other systems important to winning, you are also disconnecting that tie, same thing.

Note I did say that science could give a small tech bonus, I just don't think it should be the only thing it does. I know I am oversimplifying here so no need to point it out, but "science" generally is higher knowledge ~> higher efficiency. It could operate as a way to make other systems in the game better.

A crude example: A military focused colony may have better soldiers and/or better management of military, but the science focused colony would make up for it through being on the latest edge of technology. Laser rifles vs. traditional rifles, something like that.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It is the same thing, just different wording. With your #1, science is the only important thing to win BECAUSE it is connected to tech. If you want a military advantage, tech. If you want an economic advantage, tech. As long as the two are connected as strongly as they are in Civ5, it will be the go-to option.

If you specifically make other systems important to winning, you are also disconnecting that tie, same thing.

Note I did say that science could give a small tech bonus, I just don't think it should be the only thing it does. I know I am oversimplifying here so no need to point it out, but "science" generally is higher knowledge ~> higher efficiency. It could operate as a way to make other systems in the game better.

A crude example: A military focused colony may have better soldiers and/or better management of military, but the science focused colony would make up for it through being on the latest edge of technology. Laser rifles vs. traditional rifles, something like that.

That's what tech/science does ALREADY.. It gives you a bonus to everything
The only problem is that the generic bonus is too high

If you had a choice between building a library or a barracks, the barracks should always be what the military player builds... But instead it is the library, because you get enough of a science boost to get better tech troops much greater than the promoted troops.

The scale of the science boosts (including specialists, g.scientists, ras) is the only real problem forcing you to go for the science boosts.

 

[Matthew.]

That's what tech/science does ALREADY.. It gives you a bonus to everything...

You are confusing the pacing of the game with "bonus to everything". If you break down the game far enough, it is essentially a race to the end of the tech tree. Even vanilla culture games and cooked domination games don't completely break away from this base idea. Win = other end of tech tree. Science = faster movement through tech tree. As long as these two are tied, science is the optimal strategy.

To reword it to get a better perspective, what should determine the pacing of the game? The answer here is subjective, so it will vary. Note, we aren't talking about Civ5, we are talking about a new game that can be anything it wants to be. In fact, it doesn't even need to follow the formula of end tech tree = win.