I haven't played Civ5 in a while and was wondering if science...

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Gucumatz, Nov 22, 2013.

  1. Gucumatz

    Gucumatz JS, secretly Rod Serling

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,181
    Has the science issue (the +5% per city founded) from BNW been addressed yet. As a whole it made going wide completely illogical from a mathematical sense in most cases and therefore led to optimal human points of creating only a few cities (say 3-5) in Multiplayer. Effectively, creating new cities only served to hinder you and make you obsolete and it de-incentivized early game wars often. Point being, consensus among MPers was it was somewhat unbalanced. Tall games had already been probably the best strategy before hand but now incentive to go wide has been drastically reduced.
     
  2. Ninakoru

    Ninakoru A deity on Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    Madrid, Spain, Europe
    Nope, is the same as always. I find it is a good brake to stop wide supertech power.
     
  3. charon2112

    charon2112 King

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    990
    Location:
    Massachusetts USA
    Wouldn't +5% science per city be good for a wide empire?
     
  4. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Sure charon, but it's MINUS 5%/city (on a standard-size map). -3 for large, -2 for huge.
    EDIT: Doh! It IS +5% to the COST of the techs. Must've had a brain short.

    The science penalty is an abstract device to penalize UNDEVELOPED wide empires. I believe it adjusts the base cost of each tech, so when you have gobs of science the increase is negligible. It really is not a problem -- much less a problem than ranged/siege units being able to so easily take their targets down to zero hit points.
     
  5. Crafty Bison

    Crafty Bison King

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    756
    I think liberty should include a reduction in this penalty somewhere at the bottom so you have to commit to the full tree, down to 3% or 4%. It would make liberty more competitive with tradition, and allow a wide empire if you plan for it.
    I really love Liberty starts but know I'm usually playing a sub-optimal game (in sp anyway). It'd be good to see a balance between the two reintroduced.
     
  6. limluigi

    limluigi Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    38
    If that would be the case then liberty would almost always be the optimum tree. With just 4 cities of your empire, you would have an 8% cost out compared to people going for tradition with the same amount of cities. Not to mention it doesn't really solve the wide problem, since people would still probably settle for less cities even if they're going liberty because of that 3% tech cost increase.
     
  7. georgie

    georgie Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    137
    However, it would provide a needed alternative to tradition. Tradition, as is, is already almost always the optimum tree.

    I'm not sure if there's ever going to be any solution or what would even be a solution to this "wide problem." However, it will make wider empires much more tenable if a player chooses to go down Liberty.
     
  8. limluigi

    limluigi Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    38
    As I said, it would be more "tenable" but not optimal. Just like what it is today. The 5% cost increase is actually manageable if you don't mind getting behind on tech. But the same could still be said even if it would be changed to a 3% cost increase. There would still be no reason to expand your empire within those what I would call "core cities". The same would still be said, just that you get more techs due to lesser science increase cost but you won't necessarily have the incentive to expand.
     
  9. Karmah

    Karmah Emperor Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,122
    Ask yourself before settling how hard it is for a new city to produce 6% of your current science.
    In most case it isnt.
    When i want to go wide ,I usually just go wide 'slower' but I still end up with 10 to 20 cities lategame. Just every new city I found will cost me quite some gold , up to 2k a city in order to rush buy growth and science building in order to have it produce me as fast as possible those 6% of my science ,where a new city becomes a plus. (but endgame with order + mercantilism and big ben it s just quite cheap to rush buy).
     
  10. Magma_Dragoon

    Magma_Dragoon Reploid

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,354
    It isn't your current science, that would mean the penalty was compounded, which it isn't. The break even is 5% of the capital's science output.

    IIRC, heuristic maths shows 8 cities is the ideal number for liberty wide for ideal ratio bpt/tech cost for a game lasting about 280 turns.
     
  11. Karmah

    Karmah Emperor Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,122
    yeah well ok it ain t your current science , it is the tech cost , so more like 1-1/1.05 so 4,7% of science penalty :)
    That doesn t change much
     
  12. VicRatlhead5199

    VicRatlhead5199 King

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    966
    Location:
    Michigan
    Each time you settle a new city send an internal trade route there with food. Build or buy a library and a university ASAP and you'll hardly notice your science getting slowed at all. A well developed wide empire will still beat an OCC empire in the science game. That Jesuit education belief is great for going wide.

    The cost increase just nerfs those cheesey 10 cities by turn 100 strategies.
     
  13. Strategist83

    Strategist83 King

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    625
    No, it didn't.

    Do the math: It's a 5% malus. Early cities you found provide much more than a 5% bonus compared to the empire - new cities increase science rate, same as they increase culture rate. The only reason to hold off settling more cities remains a) running out of happiness or b) preparing to construct a national wonder. The science malus is a speed bump and nothing more.

    It's only later that new cities initially decrease your science rate. Even then, they just need a little population and the basic science buildings to break even. You need to be late in the game with few turns left for new cities to not be worth founding.
     
  14. joshua43214

    joshua43214 King

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    985
    I have noticed from both challenges and GoTM's that the folks that are getting the sub 250 turn wins tend to have 6 cities, and cross 1400 bpt. Compared to OCC where you are effectively capped at ~650 bpt, going wider makes more sense if you can stay happy
     
  15. Quineloe

    Quineloe Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    458
    Is that so? I thought, the more cities you settle, the slower you progress through policies, because unlike science, which is mainly boosted by buildings that you can have in every city, the big culture buildings - guilds and wonders - can only be built once. So any new city you found gives you very few culture while considerably raising policy cost.
    +1 liberty, +3 monument, +4 amphitheater, +5 opera house and +6 with museum. Then you get at best +58% from Broadcast tower and Sistine Chapel, so we're looking at +11 culture from a city without unique buildings.
     
  16. Polisurgist

    Polisurgist King

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    630
    I like the idea, but I still think it would be better to have a cumulative penalty on the output of each city in both science and culture, than having it add to the costs of policies and techs the way it works now. Every city would then be an increase, the increases would have diminishing returns but would never go negative (though they'd eventually get real close to zero).
     
  17. Amask

    Amask Oogala Boogala

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    Toronto
    It sounds nice at first, but it would be almost like civ III. There is no good reason for the cities built later to be less productive than the ones built earlier. Would i be able to exchange the penalty between two cities, this last city I captured that happens to be very nice, and a previously built oil-grabbing tundra city?
     
  18. Dardis

    Dardis Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages:
    25
    The only thing with just basing culture generation on city building output, is that there are usually other culture boosters from width. For example, early width with shrines in the build order drastically increases the likelihood of getting mosques/pagodas/monasteries, which each give another +2 culture per city. Also the city-state culture challenges are based on total culture produced, so you become a shoe-in for victory if you are much wider than the opposition.
     

Share This Page