Porcelain Tower.

[ColinTH]

I see three Wonders as being very important in the upcoming patch.
1 - Hanging Gardens.
2 - Hagia Sofia. (my favourite wonder even before the patch).
3 - The porcelain Tower.

It's highly unlikely that we'd be able to get all three of them on Deity, so I'd write off the Hanging Gardens and work towards the other two.
We miss out on the Porcelain Tower, and Persia who did get it have also researched the Rationalism tree. There is a case for not doing RAs with them in my opinion, I think given the situation I would only do an RA with them if no one else had the gold to actually carry one out, even then I'd be sceptical. Or is it a case of cutting your nose to spite your face?
If on the other hand we are successful, would we have a problem getting any more RAs for the same reasons, I mean would the AI civs be programmed the same way that we might be thinking?

 

[Strategist83]

Ehh, Persia? Why are you mentioning Persia? They're a Piety civ, not rationalists.

 

[MkLh]

Yeah, forget the Hanging Gardens on Deity, it's not buildable. Some guy tried it with Egypt and succeeded something like 1-2 times of 5. It's not good enough unless you are willing to restart multiply times. Hagia Sofia -> take a free engineer -> rush the Porcelain Tower sounds like a solid plan. I'm not sure if HG is reliably buildable on Deity though.

 

[ColinTH]

Ehh, Persia? Why are you mentioning Persia? They're a Piety civ, not rationalists.

I used Persia as an example. I could have used any Civ, it doesn't really matter it's not the point of this post. It was just the first Civ that came to mind, thanks though for pointing out the shortcomings of my post. You're quite right, Persia are a Piety Civ.

The point of it is, if you build the Porcelian Tower is it likely that AI Civs will hold back from doing RAs with you?

 

[CYZ]

I used Persia as an example. I could have used any Civ, it doesn't really matter it's not the point of this post. It was just the first Civ that came to mind, thanks though for pointing out the shortcomings of my post. You're quite right, Persia are a Piety Civ.

The point of it is, if you build the Porcelian Tower is it likely that AI Civs will hold back from doing RAs with you?

Considering the fact the AI plays to make you lose... I mean to win, yes.

Considering the Devs skill in coding AI, no.

 

[ColinTH]

Yeah, forget the Hanging Gardens on Deity, it's not buildable. Some guy tried it with Egypt and succeeded something like 1-2 times of 5. It's not good enough unless you are willing to restart multiply times. Hagia Sofia -> take a free engineer -> rush the Porcelain Tower sounds like a solid plan. I'm not sure if HG is reliably buildable on Deity though.

I've done the experiment myself while following a post on this. The guy I was following was doing it on standard length Deity difficulty and got 4/5 as Egypt and 2/5 as England. He was doing it by chopping down all the forrests around his city which could have a major impact later, especially on an Archipelago map type where forrest are scarce so not really viable in my opinion.

That's the starting strategy I'm considering for when the patch hits, my real question is though how will having the Porcelian Tower effect the likelihood of getting RAs with other Civs?

 

[MkLh]

That's the starting strategy I'm considering for when the patch hits, my real question is though how will having the Porcelian Tower effect the likelihood of getting RAs with other Civs?

Most likely no (if you're speaking of a single player game). The AI is not nearly smart enough for that. I don't think either that the devs would hard code to AI things like "don't make RA with a Civ who has the Porcelain Tower". These kind of hard coded rules that link the AI behavior with individual wonders would only mess things up.

 

[Airey]

It's highly unlikely that we'd be able to get all three of them on Deity

(seriously? try taking 1)

Hagia Sofia -> take a free engineer -> rush the Porcelain Tower sounds like a solid plan. I'm not sure if HG is reliably buildable on Deity though.

Considering they move GL back, players should have a better chance at it.
Maybe hard building PT is viable, if leaving all the early wonder alone.

 

[elprofesor]

I've done the experiment myself while following a post on this. The guy I was following was doing it on standard length Deity difficulty and got 4/5 as Egypt and 2/5 as England. He was doing it by chopping down all the forrests around his city which could have a major impact later, especially on an Archipelago map type where forrest are scarce so not really viable in my opinion.

That's the starting strategy I'm considering for when the patch hits, my real question is though how will having the Porcelian Tower effect the likelihood of getting RAs with other Civs?

The free GE from meritocracy is gone now, so these numbers will probably change post-patch (he was probably beaten to it by an AI popping a GE).

 

[wcbarney]

Considering the fact the AI plays to make you lose... I mean to win, yes.

Considering the Devs skill in coding AI, no.

C'mon! That's a rather low blow, isn't it? I'm not a computer geek or anything, but I am pretty computer literate and have done a lot of coding back in the day. I'll bet that most of us would be thrilled to be good enough to get a job coding for Firaxis/2K.

 

[CYZ]

C'mon! That's a rather low blow, isn't it? I'm not a computer geek or anything, but I am pretty computer literate and have done a lot of coding back in the day. I'll bet that most of us would be thrilled to be good enough to get a job coding for Firaxis/2K.

You're right. I'm pretty sure the devs are very able to code it. Past experience makes me think they won't though.

Proves perhaps that no matter what skill you have in coding it all depends on what you do with it. Goes for alot of things actually.

 

[MkLh]

Considering the fact the AI plays to make you lose... I mean to win, yes.

Actually it would be a silly mechanism game-play vise. Why put a lot of effort to get RA bonuses if you can't make RAs anymore after you have them? I don't think even Civ5 devs would consider such a mechanism.

 

[CYZ]

Actually it would be a silly mechanism game-play vise. Why put a lot of effort to get RA bonuses if you can't make RAs anymore after you have them? I don't think even Civ5 devs would consider such a mechanism.

I wouldn't be for it either. But according to the play-to-win ideal AIs should be more hesitant to engage into RA's that are more beneficial to the other party, especially if that party is already ahead or catching up.

Personally this sounds way too strong for one wonder. I know I won't be RAing with the civ that builds it.

 

[André Alfenaar]

Research agreements now give a tech boost instead of a free tech. Tech boosts start at 50% of the median value of all techs you can research. Can be boosted to 100% if you both start Rationalism and build the Porcelain Tower.

So Porcelain Tower grants 25% of the total boost RA's can give. That is a good bonus, but not as strong as it seems. The reward is only given at the end of a RA. Compare this with 50% unhappiness of specialists (Freedom), which allows to have you more scientists EVERY TURN. Or the Great Library or universities or ...

 

[fmlizard2]

Chichen Itza is still #1. It already may be the best wonder, and now it gets +4 added to it.

 

[oledavy]

Whenever Civ5 Mutliplayer gets to the point where it's not a clickfest (would love to see pitboss added) The Porcelain Tower and Rationalism could add some interesting dynamics to gameplay. Would you, as a player, be willing to make an RA with another human-run civ that netted the Porcelain Tower and/or the rationalism opener - knowing they would get more beakers per RA.

 

[Martin Alvito]

So Porcelain Tower grants 25% of the total boost RA's can give. That is a good bonus, but not as strong as it seems. The reward is only given at the end of a RA. Compare this with 50% unhappiness of specialists (Freedom), which allows to have you more scientists EVERY TURN. Or the Great Library or universities or ...

Suppose that you are on a standard Pangaea. You're attempting to win by Science, and you sign four waves of six RAs each before the game ends. Increasing the yield of those RAs by 25% gives you the equivalent of six free techs, in addition to the Great Scientist that the Porcelain Tower also gives you.

Nothing in the game will be able to compete with the power of the Porcelain Tower and the Rationalism opener post-patch. Even Democracy on Quick speed is only good for 3-4 extra techs right now.

 

[Randall Turner]

Yep, Porcelain Tower is key.

Also, the reason to be leary of Arabia is that they're usually so rich, they'll leverage RA's and sometimes City-States (depending on what they roll for victory conditions) better than the average AI civ, they're often leading the tech race.

Nothing wrong with the logic there that I can see.

 

[Bibor]

Suppose that you are on a standard Pangaea. You're attempting to win by Science, and you sign four waves of six RAs each before the game ends. Increasing the yield of those RAs by 25% gives you the equivalent of six free techs, in addition to the Great Scientist that the Porcelain Tower also gives you.

Nothing in the game will be able to compete with the power of the Porcelain Tower and the Rationalism opener post-patch. Even Democracy on Quick speed is only good for 3-4 extra techs right now.

I agree this might be one of possible scenarios.

And then there are those more realistic scenarios in which 2 civs get wiped out, 2 are hostile/guarded with impossible demands, and 3 remain friendly... for some time.

 

[Randall Turner]

You think he's overstating the advantage, Bibor? I think he might be understating it.

He's assuming a one-for-four payoff, basically. I read it as one-for-two, or one-for-three post Rationalism. The Porcelain Tower is a very straightforward +50% beakers per research agreement. (One extra for every two signed.) Rationalism then gives an additional 50% beaker bonus, ie, base 100 beaker median tech is...

50 per RA "naked"
75 per RA w/Porcelain Tower (we'll get it just before being able to take Rationalism, probably.)
100 per RA w/both bonuses

So, depending on how you interpret the "equivalent to x extra techs/RA's" thing, I think Martin's off, but on the conservative side. <shrug> Edit: Martin, I understand you're saying it'll give x extra techs, but I think it's more accurate to present it in terms of extra RA's, ie, reflects the percentage gain more accurately.

You're implying the usual "limit on RA partner" bound, but that's hard to quantify, and sensitive to playstyle (ie, I can engineer friendly partners). I'd also make the observation (and this might be more relevant) that a guarded AI civ doesn't turn down research agreements like they do luxury trades, etc. Do you have some reason to believe that'll change? The whole AI gold availability thing is probably going to change a bit, again, hard to predict exactly how - but a really strong economy can "finance" a partner by pre-gifting enough gold to allow the AI to sign the research agreement.