Modeling Scientific and Cultural Progress

[chaosprophet]

Well there already is a soft requifement mixing civics and techs, we saw in one of the screens that the eureka effect for democracy is building three sewer systems, which requife the correspondi g tech.

Actually we don't know if sewers are unlocked through the tech tree or the culture tree yet.

 

[polypheus]

If it's a great people thing, isn't pop = science somewhat realistic then? Most human attributes, like intelligence, are distributed normally. It is much more likely to find someone with an IQ of 160 in a population of 10000 than 1000.

If that were the case, then why aren't the most populous nations in Earth's history the most technologically advanced?

Since that clearly hasn't been the case in the past and isn't the case now, the pop=science is simply untrue. UK, for instance, has made a lot more scientific advancements than nations several times its size both past and present.

 

[Gorbles]

Technological advancement isn't based solely on what scientific principles that nation is able to demonstrate.

The Ancient Egyptians first discovered a use for penicillin. It didn't benefit them greatly / to the extent that it benefitted the Western world after it's introduced into (at the time) modern medicinal teachings.

Another case in point: everything Da Vinci ever prototyped, ever.

 

[Big J Money]

For this discussion to matter, I think the OP needs to be reframed.

I'm not sure I agree without better evidence that in Civ V, Science = Population.

This is true in the early game, but once you are gaining other bonuses and multipliers from other sources like buildings, policies and wonders, I would need to see the actual breakdown of how the science of the "most performant" scenario - per era - looks like.

But yes, as of turn 1, before the first era really begins, Science = population.

 

[qwerty25]

For this discussion to matter, I think the OP needs to be reframed.



I'm not sure I agree without better evidence that in Civ V, Science = Population.



This is true in the early game, but once you are gaining other bonuses and multipliers from other sources like buildings, policies and wonders, I would need to see the actual breakdown of how the science of the "most performant" scenario - per era - looks like.



But yes, as of turn 1, before the first era really begins, Science = population.

Here's a sample late game science focused city from Carl's guides on science.

Example Science Output for a Single City
This differs from the City above, which has a Mountain and is a Korean City with less Population. Let's look at the math for a City with 50 population, 6 Academies nearby and access to three of the four +% Buildings. The sample Civ has Rationalism and has taken on the Freedom Ideology for New Deal to boost output of Academies and allows them to use all Specialists in all Cities because they consume less food.

     84 Science from Terrain (6 Academies)
     13 Science from Buildings (+3 Palace, +3 Public School, +4 Research Lab, +3 National College)
     46 Science from Specialists (Specialists in ALL Slots in ALL buildings with Slots for +2 Science each)
     50 Science from Population
     50 Extra Science from Population
     --------------------------------
     243 Base Science
     --------------------------------
     City Modifier: 150% (so multiply by 2.5)
     --------------------------------
     547 Base Science Output
     +10 Science for Trade Routes
     557 Science from this City, then multiplied by the Empire Bonus for Adopting Rationalism:
     +10% Science from Rationalism because the Empire is Happy
     613 Total Science produced by this City.

Libraries and public schools allow you to double science for each pop.
In the early to mid game I'm pretty sure one won't have academies running around and not so many specialists... So population still accounts for the vast majority of science.

 

[chazzycat]

OP your premise is pretty flawed. Civ 5 science was never about overall population, it's about the concentration of that population in large vertical cities that are capable of hitting all the bonuses.

Here's a sample late game science focused city from Carl's guides on science.
(paraphrased)
1 city of 50 pop
613 science output

Now do you really think that 5 cities of pop 10 would come anywhere close to that output? Due to NC + academies it's clear that pop=science is hugely oversimplified. Let's not even get into the fact that Great Scientists account for such a massive portion of overall science in civ 5.

If that were the case, then why aren't the most populous nations in Earth's history the most technologically advanced?

UK, for instance, has made a lot more scientific advancements than nations several times its size both past and present.

Ah, yes but London was the largest city in the world for almost 100 years, from 1825-1915, the same period in time which they were making all their discoveries. It had the proper CONCENTRATION of population to form a scientific powerhouse, just like would happen in game.

 

[historix69]

Population = Science can be traced back to Civ1, where Science came from Trade and Trade was produced by working tiles with river, road, railroad or coast. In late game all tiles were usually having railroads and gave an average of 2 Trade per Tile (or so). If your science rate was 50%, then it was 1 science per pop which was modified by Library and University modifiers. (There was also Trade from special resources and Traderoutes to other cities in Civ1.)

In Civ5 you have numerous modifiers (buildings, academies, social policies, wonders) which allow a well developed big city having a much higher science output compared to a group of small less developed cities. Science output of small cities in late game is usually insignificant and compensated by the 2%-5% extra Tech costs per city.
(Edit : see the detailed example above from Carl's Guide)

An alternative to science per population would be limiting science to specialists and special science tile improvements (academy), allowing an unlimited number of specialists per city (with buildings/wonders, etc. modifying output).

 

[Janskey]

If that were the case, then why aren't the most populous nations in Earth's history the most technologically advanced?

Since that clearly hasn't been the case in the past and isn't the case now, the pop=science is simply untrue. UK, for instance, has made a lot more scientific advancements than nations several times its size both past and present.

Well, if Einstein happened to be born in the middle of a civil war in Rwanda...

 

[killmeplease]

in civ4 commerce tiles still should be worked by population, so more population means more science, i dont see any fundamental difference here.

 

[Magil]

in civ4 commerce tiles still should be worked by population, so more population means more science, i dont see any fundamental difference here.

That's like saying that population produces every yield in the game except happiness.

Yes, you needed population to work the tiles, but there's a large difference in commerce/science output between a city working cottages and farms and a city working mines and workshops.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

In practice it is correct that in Civilization IV the more population the faster science rate. Hammers can be turned into beakers and gold. Cottages can be built in most places.

Given that there is two sepearated tech trees I assume they may put the science buildings in the culture tree so that science don't help science.

 

[polypheus]

Ah, yes but London was the largest city in the world for almost 100 years, from 1825-1915, the same period in time which they were making all their discoveries. It had the proper CONCENTRATION of population to form a scientific powerhouse, just like would happen in game.

There are lots of cities throughout history, past and present that had the concentration of population. But many of them were not scientific powerhouses by any means.

That's because it isn't just raw population but also the "quality" of that population in terms of level of education, per capita wealth and culture. Mind you its not that some humans are intrinsically better than other humans of course. But some humans are living in a society where they are more educated, more wealth per capita, culture that is more open and conducive to advancement, more interconnected by trade etc.

A city like, say, Seoul or Tokyo has far more technological innovation than probably most or even all other similarly concentrated third world cities combined.

So I think Civ game should be trying to somehow model this so that if a Civ grows big and fast then you can easily end up with a very populous but third world nation equivalent. OTOH, a small but perfectionist Civ could be a technological powerhouse.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Third world nations tend to lack stability which is not represented in the game, well if you raid and destroy enemy improvment often, that would be basically third world. First world nations tend to be far more productive in pretty much every area.

 

[chazzycat]

There are lots of cities throughout history, past and present that had the concentration of population. But many of them were not scientific powerhouses by any means.

A city like, say, Seoul or Tokyo has far more technological innovation than probably most or even all other similarly concentrated third world cities combined.

Of course population concentration is not the only factor guaranteeing a strong science output, but it's certainly more accurate than total population as you originally stated. The concentrated city must be properly developed as well, to hit the multiplier bonuses. Development means ample production to build buildings, ample defense to prevent invasion, ample culture to get the right policies, etc. Basically a lot of factors other than population.

Your example of huge 3rd-world cities with bad infrastructure only proves this point further. These cities are not properly developed and so their science output is very low. Tokyo and Seoul are of course, very highly developed. So if Seoul has the same population as a 3rd world city, but provides exponentially higher science output, how again does this prove that "pop = science"?

 

[killmeplease]

Yes, you needed population to work the tiles, but there's a large difference in commerce/science output between a city working cottages and farms and a city working mines and workshops.

its also a difference between 1 base science per pop and up to 7-8 in a city with science buildings and rationalism policies. maybe you arent happy with industrial cities producing science? though its perfectly reasonable, as e.g. industrial revolution started in coal mines, with Newcomen's steam engine, not in Oxford or Cambridge centers of learning or London City, where most of commerce was produced. I mean technologies are produced by working people and engineers not less than scientists. And I'd say Civ4's science coming from commerce is a much less realistic model.

 

[Magil]

its also a difference between 1 base science per pop and up to 7-8 in a city with science buildings and rationalism policies. maybe you arent happy with industrial cities producing science? though its perfectly reasonable, as e.g. industrial revolution started in coal mines, with Newcomen's steam engine, not in Oxford or Cambridge centers of learning or London City, where most of commerce was produced. I mean technologies are produced by working people and engineers not less than scientists. And I'd say Civ4's science coming from commerce is a much less realistic model.

Historical accuracy concerns me a lot less than playing well, balance, and general feel. I feel like removing commerce from the game made improvements less interesting. It's not like you ever worked trading posts post-BNW unless they were in jungle (because of the interaction with universities). Why? Because growing your city was -always- the one right choice, post BNW. Food, food, food, all the time.

Despite the rather silly assertions that in IV population = science, there was a legitimate trade-off in tech rate when you were working mass farms and when you were working cottages. There's no such trade-off in V. There's no interesting decision to be made. You look at the terrain and there's one correct choice. Cities pretty much all feel bland and generic because they're all the same. All your cities produce science, and you're going to build the scientific infrastructure everywhere because why not?

I really couldn't care less about historical accuracy, you can find examples for pretty much any factor improving science. Commerce, a measure of how well your citizens interact and trade with themselves and other civilizations certainly aided scientific progress. At least as much as having a lot of people focused in a very small area.

 

[killmeplease]

as you have stated food became the main concern for the player with BNW. so the problem is not in civ5 mechanics but in its ballance. gold is the weaker yield and food is the strongest so theres no real choise. also science buildings having huge modifiers compared to other doesnt help.

and in civ4 there wasnt much choise too as you'd end up sticking to either cottage economy or representation scientists economy with the first choise prevailing. there would be some specialized cities like GP farm, Hero Epic city, maybe Wall Street city (usually the one with grand temple or whatever that gold generating building was called) but thats all.

i'd say most specializable cities were in civ rev as there was no global slider but a gold-science switch for each city.

 

[Magil]

as you have stated food became the main concern for the player with BNW. so the problem is not in civ5 mechanics but in its ballance. gold is the weaker yield and food is the strongest so theres no real choise. also science buildings having huge modifiers compared to other doesnt help.

and in civ4 there wasnt much choise too as you'd end up sticking to either cottage economy or representation scientists economy with the first choise prevailing. there would be some specialized cities like GP farm, Hero Epic city, maybe Wall Street city (usually the one with grand temple or whatever that gold generating building was called) but thats all.

i'd say most specializable cities were in civ rev as there was no global slider but a gold-science switch for each city.

Specialist vs. cottage economy aside, I found that I wanted about 1 production-focused city for every 2 commerce-focused cities in Civ IV, to add to the national wonder cities. It's not like 1 city (the heroic epic city) was good enough to produce all your military units when you had a late-game sprawling empire. There were also "fishing villages" which barely had any terrain at all and just existed to work seafood and provide trade routes (one of which would be a respectable port city with Moai Statues). While those kind of cities weren't all that interesting in and of themselves, they did provide a little variety in your empire. It's not like "cottage economy" means "cottage every tile"!

There are plenty of individual choices to be made in developing IV's terrain besides just deciding whether to go cottages or specialists, because where you put what -mattered-. Thinks like chaining farms to irrigate grain resources that weren't near fresh water impacted your decisions, and your empire performed best when you found a food surplus that was good enough to grow while working cottages and farms, but not so fast that you ran up against your happy cap before you were ready to slave them off again. Let's not forget, food was extremely important in Civ IV too, especially due to the overpowered Slavery civic (yeah IV wasn't balanced either, but it was at least interesting in its imbalanced nature). But it did have a cost, in that working all food meant you were working less cottages. That's the real concern. There needs to be a cost for running max food, and it needs to matter, and it just doesn't in BNW.

I do feel like terrain improvement might be a little more interesting in VI, with all the adjacency bonuses, filtering all the way down to farm triangles giving all farms in the triangle +1 food. I am just concerned that if science and culture use population to determine the base yield, then food becomes the god yield again.

 

[killmeplease]

It's not like "cottage economy" means "cottage every tile"!

pretty close to that especially with +1 hammer per town from universal suffrage (iirc).

I am just concerned that if science and culture use population to determine the base yield, then food becomes the god yield again.

food wasnt the god yield in vanilla civ5 as growth exponent was too steep and there was not that much happiness from policies.
i mean if balanced properly this system is no evil.

 

[Magil]

pretty close to that especially with +1 hammer per town from universal suffrage (iirc).


food wasnt the god yield in vanilla civ5 as growth exponent was too steep and there was not that much happiness from policies.
i mean if balanced properly this system is no evil.

+1 Hammer per town is nice but production costs at that stage of the game mean it's a nice perk rather than a total replacement for real production improvements. Especially since towns take a while to grow in new cities.

Yeah, vanilla V had a different set of issues. Mostly that late game buildings were absolutely terrible. It wasn't so much that the happiness wasn't there, just that the payoff for a "tall" city wasn't worth it. Plus the library had 2 scientist slots, which made it better than any of the other science buildings.

However, note that food was still quite important, it's just that Maritime city-states gave you so much that everything else became irrelevant. Population still was an important resource, but you wanted it spread out over as many cities as possible rather than clustered in a few, because 3 libraries in 3 different cities was better than a library, a university, and a public school all in 1 city. This problem actually continued in Gods and Kings and it wasn't until BNW's science penalty per city that it became not true.

VI seems to be approaching the problem differently to control "food is the god resource". It seems to be soft-capping population on a per-city with amenities and housing, much like IV did with health and happiness. That does make me more hopeful than I might have previous come off as.