How the science mechanic needs to be rebalanced

[KrikkitTwo]

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.

That factor (winning=end of tech tree) is a problem

However
1. it is not Quite true even in CivV.. you are helped quite a bit by reaching the end, but you also have to do stuff on the way/when you get there

2. You can use things Other than science boosters to boost science... if I make my empire bigger through internal development or conquest, then more science follows.

And it does look like BE won't be end of the tech tree=win...
It was stated the warpgate (for Purity+Supremacy victories) is available mid game
The "Contact" Victory seems to be doing some research that is not ON the tech tree (but is unlocked by special factors)
And of course, Conquest is available from turn...after the last faction lands

Now there is the Practical... but I would hope that Practically a military-heavy strategy is better than a research-heavy strategy for Conquest, and that the Affinity victories, while sped up by technology aren't nearly requiring it.

 

[sugerdady87]

Science has alway "been king" in the real world. Why would you devalue it in a Civ franchise? That would only serve to divorce it from reality. Humans are not particularly fast nor strong, biologically speaking. The one thing that has separated us from other animals is our raw intellect. That intellect translate itself into what we call science. It should be "king" in Civilization BE.

Also, to say most civilizations in the real world has been roughly on par with each other is blatantly false. That's false today, and it was even more so in the past. Like a professor of mine said, most historians are generally ignorant on economics, science and engineering. So when they tell stories, they talk about large interesting parts of it like the big battles, or big bombs. What you never hear are those hundreds of societies that no longer exist for various technological advancements they never made, or that the confederacy could no longer export cotton to collateralize debt borrowing from Europe, leading to a lack of equipment and supplies long before "Sherman's March to the Sea" (ignoring the fact that they were already technologically and economically behind), or the pygmies living in Africa who cannot read or write...

 

[sugerdady87]

That factor (winning=end of tech tree) is a problem

I can't agree with this at all. Why should a civilization who hasn't develop antibiotics be able to win against another in the information age? Unless i'm misinterpreting what you're saying. Tech is the solution to everything even in the real world. In the present Civ, I would consider a strategy where you're able to win early without focusing on tech to be cheesy. I.E. sacred sites rush.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I can't agree with this at all. Why should a civilization who hasn't develop antibiotics be able to win against another in the information age? Unless i'm misinterpreting what you're saying. Tech is the solution to everything even in the real world. In the present Civ, I would consider a strategy where you're able to win early without focusing on tech to be cheesy. I.E. sacred sites rush.

1. There is a difference between Having tech and focusing on it.

2. Civ is Not a simulation

In civ the game you can do things to increase your tech at the expense of other things
Science buildings
Science specialists
Rationalism
Research agreements

All of those let you give something up for science.
If science is the only important thing, then those shouldn't even be there. Becaause if its the Best strategy, then its not a choice... and not really a strategy.

For civ to be a good game, any "best choice" shouldn't be a choice in the game.
It should be assumed automatically.
Or you change the game so that it is balanced with the other options.

 

[boghog]

I don't think it's logical or feasible to decouple science and tech progression. But that doesn't have to matter as long as you have other ways to progress through the tech web, too. In older iterations of the game

• techs could be traded, so focussing on wealth was a viable alternative to science focus
• conquering a city gave you technology thus making a military focus a way to compensate for less science focus.

There could be other ways:

• boosting the efficiency of espionage, where you can have more or better spies than the others at an appropriate opportunity cost
• making knowledge flow more abundantly along strong cultural ties or trade connections - making them a way to compensate for lacklustre research efforts (rubber banding depending on trade or cultural influence)

I think historically very few technologies were discovered independently in culturally connected states.

 

[cooldude1128]

Hey guys, how about this to fix a beelining problem? Later techs have much larger beaker costs, but having X, Y, T, and R techs speeds researching that tech up by 10% for every one you have. Beelining is less efficient because the prices of techs are really high unless you have several other techs that speeds up the research rate of that one. I think this would go really well with the tech web idea, too.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Hey guys, how about this to fix a beelining problem? Later techs have much larger beaker costs, but having X, Y, T, and R techs speeds researching that tech up by 10% for every one you have. Beelining is less efficient because the prices of techs are really high unless you have several other techs that speeds up the research rate of that one. I think this would go really well with the tech web idea, too.

I think they are in favor of beelining.
Just that many techs should be equally worth beelining to.
(so science techs should help you less than other ones)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Hey guys, how about this to fix a beelining problem? Later techs have much larger beaker costs, but having X, Y, T, and R techs speeds researching that tech up by 10% for every one you have. Beelining is less efficient because the prices of techs are really high unless you have several other techs that speeds up the research rate of that one. I think this would go really well with the tech web idea, too.

Except the problem is beelining down the science side. That'll help you more than any other beelining strategy and, once you get the techs you need, will help you fill in the holes more quickly.

 

[True_Candyman]

Except the problem is beelining down the science side. That'll help you more than any other beelining strategy and, once you get the techs you need, will help you fill in the holes more quickly.

Maybe i'm missing something or looking at it too simply, but couldn't a lot of civs problems be solved if you couldn't use the technology tree to enhance your science, or social policies to enhance your culture?

If they made the technology tree boost all other aspects of your game, and improvements to your science come from other aspects of the game, you couldn't get these scenarios where a mechanic becomes so necessary and self reliant that it becomes a dominant feature.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Maybe i'm missing something or looking at it too simply, but couldn't a lot of civs problems be solved if you couldn't use the technology tree to enhance your science, or social policies to enhance your culture?

If they made the technology tree boost all other aspects of your game, and improvements to your science come from other aspects of the game, you couldn't get these scenarios where a mechanic becomes so necessary and self reliant that it becomes a dominant feature.

(By that arguement no production boosting buildings either)

However, it is an interesting comparison. It illustrates the cost-benefit factor.
They used to have social policies that gave free social policies or made them cheaper.
They were generally under powered or over powered.... Seen as a waste, since they often didn't pay for themselves

There are actually no science boosting techs, instead there are techs that unlock science boosting buildings.
The real trade off is if that production is worth the science... and that is something that can be adjusted.
And if it is only Sometimes worth the production to build the science building, then it will only Sometimes be worth researching the tech.

 

[Nashoa]

The problem with science in Civ V is that no matter your victory option its almost always best to focus on science first, even domination most of the time. And in many ways that makes sense with the march through history theme of Civ V. In BE I hope they lessen its importance a bit but the victory conditions don't sound like it.

Take this Warp Gate thing you get mid game. Getting the Warp Gate faster will always be better, if its anything like Civ V for thos victory types.

What I would like too see personally is making focusing on science over everything else be a risky strategy. We Humans are both very clever and very stupid at the same time. Since its a Science Fiction theme:

Supremacy: should run the risk of awaking a skynet in one of your cities that kills everyone, takes over the city, starts producing death machines and has double your tech rate. And will eat the entire world if not killed. That borehole you built that was going to solve all your production and energy problems, well its expanding at 3 tiles a turn and eats a city.

Harmony: Maybe you contact the planet sure but in your arrogance and ignorance you piss it OFF. Can also do a biological version of Skynet. Or your people evolve but they no longer want anything to do with you sub human animals, and lose some cities.

Purity: You go back to earth full of hopes and dreams and they shoot you and steal your land. Or you in your ignorance open the flood gates and start having Crazy levels of population growth, they found city after city in your land and you better have a lot of space farms and gold.

And dozens of others you could do. You should also run the risk focusing to much on other things of hurting science hard or military. Focus too much on religion and you become pacifics and can not built military units at all. You can play around with this a lot.

A nightmare to code I'm sure but I can dream.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Its a Lot simpler just to make science buildings give a small bonus / high cost.

So you can go for them only if you are focusing on a science heavy strategy.

 

[reddishrecue]

Science has a habit of spoiling the civilians. There are many tech trees that usually spread throughout the tree that end up giving users many different new useful stuff. Most technologies aren't even used sometimes and spoils many players.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Maybe i'm missing something or looking at it too simply, but couldn't a lot of civs problems be solved if you couldn't use the technology tree to enhance your science, or social policies to enhance your culture?

If they made the technology tree boost all other aspects of your game, and improvements to your science come from other aspects of the game, you couldn't get these scenarios where a mechanic becomes so necessary and self reliant that it becomes a dominant feature.

It seems hard to pull that off, though. Particularly in Civ (might be easier here) where technologies for libraries and universities seem almost inevitable.

My solution was to scatter science buildings across all tech trees and have dual-use buildings where science is one of a couple things it offers.

I'm not sure if any of this applies to a Tech Web, though. I'd have to see more details first before I can even begin to think about it. But, if I had to guess, there are science buildings in every direction.

 

[True_Candyman]

It seems hard to pull that off, though. Particularly in Civ (might be easier here) where technologies for libraries and universities seem almost inevitable.

My solution was to scatter science buildings across all tech trees and have dual-use buildings where science is one of a couple things it offers.

I'm not sure if any of this applies to a Tech Web, though. I'd have to see more details first before I can even begin to think about it. But, if I had to guess, there are science buildings in every direction.

Building on that, what would be great would be if science buildings could give restricted science buffs.

So say we have 6 main trunks in this tech web, certain science buildings could give a major boost to one trunk, a minor boost to another, and a minimal boost to the rest. They could be used to encourage research into less popular areas and make strategies involving different elements more viable.

It still wouldn't be a perfect scheme, but say science boosts were all down a particular strain, if you want to min max for science, you're gunna have to fend off people who have been able to tech militarily faster and have an advantage over you, or miss out on wonders.

 

[Wodan]

It's a valid observation and concern, that any "rich get richer" scheme has inherent gameplay imbalances.

How about a stupid question... do we really need science buildings? Or, what if the "science" buildings don't boost but instead provide other benefits? Such as, your military is stronger (because your Lab is researching/fine tuning your weapons to make them better).

 

[Matthew.]

That factor (winning=end of tech tree) is a problem

However
1. it is not Quite true even in CivV.. you are helped quite a bit by reaching the end, but you also have to do stuff on the way/when you get there

2. You can use things Other than science boosters to boost science... if I make my empire bigger through internal development or conquest, then more science follows.

1. Yes, but any other "focus" you go for starts with science.

2. Which has been nerfed. And rightly so, IMO. The snowball scenario wasn't much fun, player or AI.

Look, it is quite easy to test your theory out. Just mod the game to greatly nerf the boosts, play a few games, then see if you are altering your behavior any. There may be a slight variance, but the path of science is still going to remain on top.

I can agree on the general principle. Like I said, I think we are saying essentially the same thing, we are just going about it a different way. Although only nerfing the boosts wouldn't be enough, other things would need to be changed in addition.

For example, we can take the new culture game. If you take two different culture games with the same exact pacing (hitting techs at the same pace), but one focuses on the right wonders and great works combinations, the other just kind of coasts along with whatever. The culture focused Civ will win the culture game, the other may never surpass anyone in influence.

This is, in theory, how the science game should work. It isn't necessarily that pacing and science need to be decoupled, rather it just shouldn't be effective at all until much later in the game, like tourism. Libraries, uni's, and schools shouldn't boost your pacing, but rather be a way to set up a good science win. Much like how culture buildings exist to set-up a culture win, but don't do much until the later, relevant techs unlock.

Perhaps "decouple" isn't the best word, but rather something like add another stat pool, much like culture and tourism. Such as "tech" and "research". Tech would be something that naturally evolves throughout the course of the game, but it isn't until later that you can start investing heavily into research to get the science edge and win the game.

Of course that isn't the only option. Another could be something like 1. greatly nerfing the science given; 2. nerfing early Great Scientists; 3. buffing late game Great Scientists (or maybe even just keep the same, not like they aren't strong as is ). The idea being to essentially keep the current science game the same (mass bulbing), just greatly delays when you can begin doing said strategy.

 

[Rebel Fighter]

I think someone else said it well in that a solution to the problem is to make the boosts from other buildings much higher than they are already to balance with the science. This way, all aspects of the game such as gold, production, culture, etc. are balanced with science.

Remember, CBE will have a tech WEB not a tech TREE. This means that Firaxis can really change up how the mechanics work from how they operate currently.

 

[Aeson]

The balance just needs to be found where a player will have a tough time deciding whether to take 1 beaker, 1 cash, 1 production, or 1 culture in a general sense (situationally, you might have an easier decision) ... and make the game so that their availability is roughly similar. There's a lot of ways to do this, the important thing is that balance. (Applies to everything. Expand vertically or horizontally. More military now or research to stronger military later.)

Separating research and technology somewhat would be very interesting. Make cash and production more important in regards to building and upkeeping all infrastructure (including research), so players have to give something up in order to focus heavily on research. Yah, you could go 100% research for a while, but if your research labs start crumbling away due to lack of funding that might not have been the best move long-term. Make beelines and research focus into situational tactics, rather than game-after-game game-long necessities.

The problem (or main benefit depending on your viewpoint) with that approach is it becomes rather micro-intensive to keep track of how much you're spending on each building and what each of them are actually worth to you. Which to keep, which to let go, which to build, which to not build. I'd find this very fun, but likely there are players who would get frustrated by it. For that reason it's probably better to stick with the "balance output" approach.

 

[Aeson]

I think CivBE can do a lot more in regards to this than Civ could. Civ has to roughly stick to a timeline that history has set. Players expect tech to progress at something approaching a realistic speed. Min/maxing it might allow players to significantly diverge from that, but most players are going to see development at somewhere around historical levels for what general era they are in.

In CivBe there is no known timeline to follow. If tech progression is slower because of a mechanic, that's not as obviously a bad thing. same with tech progression is faster. You certainly don't want Stealth Fighters flying around in 1500 BC, or hordes of horsemen conquering empires in the 21st century ... but who knows what's supposed to be going on in 2950 AD?