Proposed change to rationalism

[Datgingah]

Currently one of the best policy cards is rationalism, which reads:


"Extra Science from buildings in Campuses: +50% if city population is 10 or higher, +50% if district has at least +3 adjacency bonus."


Right now, between that and natural philosophy, most people will always be running those as maximizing science is always important. It is minimal investment, with little opportunity cost, and often is so much better then any other economic policy that you'll have to run it.


So I propose a hard nerf to it, I believe it should read:


"Extra Science from specialists in Campuses: +1 science from campus specialists if city population is 10 or higher, +1 science from campus specialists if district has at least +3 adjacency bonus."


This puts the bonus onto specialists, which still need to be buffed, as well as increasing the cost of gaining all that free science. Cards for the other districts that are functionally the same thing can receive the same change. This would be a hard buff to specialists, and hopefully would increase the diversity of economic policies that are viable, and reduce the amount that have to be functionally run the whole game.

 

[Sostratus]

This puts the bonus onto specialists, which still need to be buffed, as well as increasing the cost of gaining all that free science. Cards for the other districts that are functionally the same thing can receive the same change. This would be a hard buff to specialists, and hopefully would increase the diversity of economic policies that are viable, and reduce the amount that have to be functionally run the whole game.

Yes! I think everyone in that thread basically complains about this whether they know it or not.

"Extra Science from specialists in Campuses: +1 science from campus specialists if city population is 10 or higher, +1 science from campus specialists if district has at least +3 adjacency bonus."

Because the scale of the science is so reduced, and the need to run specialists is actually a bit more of a handicap than it appears (require you to run 3 pop to it instead of on terrain) you might be able to get away with not making it a conditional bonus, and just directly boosting scientists. Small cities can't run many specialists and big cities may not have great campus spots. You could also make it a +2 logical OR instead of +1 for each piece.

As an aside, I've also thought that doing away with most buildings' flat bonuses and focusing on per pop boosts (for science and culture at least) would dovetail well by sacking building +% yield cards for cards boosting specialists. I also think another really fun way to stab the problem would be to introduce a set of cards that are like veterancy but perhaps a touch better: +50% towards X district and buildings in X district. (And of course a similar combo card for AQ/Dam/Canal. Call it Waterworks.)
Then you've got
+100% adjacency (IMO this offer the exact kind of carrot you want to offer players - a bigger bonus for placing districts well!)
+100% specialist output (that's what +2 is, and writing it this way covers harbor and encampment specs who have multiple yield types, and an extra boost for having t3 buildings!)
+50% build speed.
So you even have a "catch up" option to focus your infrastructure building. "Oh I need to get on top of producing more gold." Slot in the CH build card. Etc. If you dramatically rebalanced the game to make districts and such expensive to upkeep, you could tie the build speed card with a maintenance reduction bonus too.

Only thing we'd need is new cards for the harbor, IZ, and encampment specialists. The other 4 we could just swap the effect directly. There's also the question of if you want to allow specialists to have Great people points or not.

 

[Datgingah]

Yes! I think everyone in that thread basically complains about this whether they know it or not.

Because the scale of the science is so reduced, and the need to run specialists is actually a bit more of a handicap than it appears (require you to run 3 pop to it instead of on terrain) you might be able to get away with not making it a conditional bonus, and just directly boosting scientists. Small cities can't run many specialists and big cities may not have great campus spots. You could also make it a +2 logical OR instead of +1 for each piece.

As an aside, I've also thought that doing away with most buildings' flat bonuses and focusing on per pop boosts (for science and culture at least) would dovetail well by sacking building +% yield cards for cards boosting specialists. I also think another really fun way to stab the problem would be to introduce a set of cards that are like veterancy but perhaps a touch better: +50% towards X district and buildings in X district. (And of course a similar combo card for AQ/Dam/Canal. Call it Waterworks.)
Then you've got
+100% adjacency (IMO this offer the exact kind of carrot you want to offer players - a bigger bonus for placing districts well!)
+100% specialist output (that's what +2 is, and writing it this way covers harbor and encampment specs who have multiple yield types, and an extra boost for having t3 buildings!)
+50% build speed.
So you even have a "catch up" option to focus your infrastructure building. "Oh I need to get on top of producing more gold." Slot in the CH build card. Etc. If you dramatically rebalanced the game to make districts and such expensive to upkeep, you could tie the build speed card with a maintenance reduction bonus too.

Only thing we'd need is new cards for the harbor, IZ, and encampment specialists. The other 4 we could just swap the effect directly. There's also the question of if you want to allow specialists to have Great people points or not.

I agree that maybe the nerf I was proposing went a little too hard, but a +100% bonus to specialist slots does sound like a better way to word it, as it would make tier 3 buildings even stronger - allowing Campus specialists to max out at 18 science actually makes them sound very worth running in a higher population city, and would push the city specialization concept even further.

As for allowing specialist points in, maybe that would be the perfect time to re-add the conditional statements? Make the campus version of the card state:

"Extra Science from specialists in Campuses: +100% bonus to campus specialist yields, +1 great scientist point from campus specialists if district has at least +3 adjacency bonus."

This further promotes good district placement as well, no? A win/win, and it does limit it to +3 extra great scientist points per city, so while stronger I don't think it is yet overpowered. For theater squares it might get a bit complicated though, unless it provided all three great persons. Harbors/commercial hubs could be combined into one card and either provide the respective great person, or both provide great merchant points (a buff to the harbor imo).

Encampments could go one of two ways, always providing great general points, or giving encampments adjacency bonuses, which I think could be fine. Could be something like:
Major adjacency from strategic resources, harbors, industrial zones, and encampments.
Standard adjacency from luxury resources, neighborhoods, and aqueducts.
Minor adjacency from hills, forests, and districts.
The adjacency bonus would probably be for production/gold, but loyalty could also be an interesting route to take. If it was production it would be fitting of the mirror relationship seen between it and industrial zones a lot.

I don't love the idea of population dependent yields as that really starts pushing the game to civ V's 4 city tall, but it could possibly work in moderation. I do like the idea of "catch-up" infrastructure, though I think introducing those at too early a point could be broken and easily rushed. Maybe Renaissance and later for most of them. Lumping the bonus districts together in a 'waterworks' card is also great too, and allows them to be much stronger in general.

 

[Sostratus]

I don't love the idea of population dependent yields as that really starts pushing the game to civ V's 4 city tall, but it could possibly work in moderation. I do like the idea of "catch-up" infrastructure, though I think introducing those at too early a point could be broken and easily rushed. Maybe Renaissance and later for most of them. Lumping the bonus districts together in a 'waterworks' card is also great too, and allows them to be much stronger in general.

Well, this is a thorny topic but converting science/culture primarily back to population (we already get 0.5 of each per) doesn't lead to tall - it leads to a desire for a high population. The difference is that wide players have traditional wide advantages, but tall players save on infrastructure because they have to build fewer copies of campuses etc.
The factors that led to civ5 4 city tall were threefold: the national wonder requirements, the tradition tree, and the science penalty. None of these things exist in civ6; before BNW was patched to add the science penalty, and in fact in GK, wide play was extremely strong. In fact, even at the last patch, religion supported ICS was a viable if cheesy way to compete with tall empires. (This is because being able to spam trading posts and select social policies meant you could absolutely bury them in gold and production output.)
Without those skewing factors in the game (and getting rid of civ6's free amenity per city) you would change the dynamic from "wide vs tall" to "total population" which could be achieved with fewer high pop cities or many lower pop cities. Ultimately you should be able to achieve similar population density over a given space.

As for allowing specialist points in, maybe that would be the perfect time to re-add the conditional statements? Make the campus version of the card state:

"Extra Science from specialists in Campuses: +100% bonus to campus specialist yields, +1 great scientist point from campus specialists if district has at least +3 adjacency bonus."

Well some people argue that it's the specialists, not the buildings, that should have the points. Just comes up a lot, thought I might toss it out there.
I don't think you need to add adj to the encampment since it's bonus is the defensive ability.
I guess we would need to play-test a bit and see how often specialist economies can actually function to determine if combining multiple districts' specialist types into one card is OP or not (because combining building cards would be decidedly OP.) Although i could definitely see an argument to combine +specialist yield with +build speed/-upkeep for the same district.

 

[Datgingah]

Well, this is a thorny topic but converting science/culture primarily back to population (we already get 0.5 of each per) doesn't lead to tall - it leads to a desire for a high population. The difference is that wide players have traditional wide advantages, but tall players save on infrastructure because they have to build fewer copies of campuses etc.
The factors that led to civ5 4 city tall were threefold: the national wonder requirements, the tradition tree, and the science penalty. None of these things exist in civ6; before BNW was patched to add the science penalty, and in fact in GK, wide play was extremely strong. In fact, even at the last patch, religion supported ICS was a viable if cheesy way to compete with tall empires. (This is because being able to spam trading posts and select social policies meant you could absolutely bury them in gold and production output.)
Without those skewing factors in the game (and getting rid of civ6's free amenity per city) you would change the dynamic from "wide vs tall" to "total population" which could be achieved with fewer high pop cities or many lower pop cities. Ultimately you should be able to achieve similar population density over a given space.

It has been a while since I have played civ V non-BNW, so I totally forgot that it was not always the way to go. As I think about it I could definitely see making districts more population bonus oriented. But would it be limited to campus/theater squares? Or should every district that provides yields as its main focus have a similar effect? That might be the hardest buff gold ever got in a way if that was true.

Well some people argue that it's the specialists, not the buildings, that should have the points. Just comes up a lot, thought I might toss it out there.
I don't think you need to add adj to the encampment since it's bonus is the defensive ability.
I guess we would need to play-test a bit and see how often specialist economies can actually function to determine if combining multiple districts' specialist types into one card is OP or not (because combining building cards would be decidedly OP.) Although i could definitely see an argument to combine +specialist yield with +build speed/-upkeep for the same district.

I hear what they are saying, but making only specialists provide the science does seem a bit restrictive to me. Making them provide a larger chunk of the pie though is totally fine imo, which is why I liked the doubling of their yields with a card (and potentially a great scientist point). Agreed on the encampment, though it did give me the idea that luxury resources should be usable as adjacency for some district (especially as they are limiting district placement otherwise). Maybe theater squares/commercial hubs/harbors could get a standard? Or even the worst district - entertainment complex/water parks.

I think maybe early game don't combine the bonuses, but as the game progresses it would probably be more fine. The only reason I combined harbor and commercial hub is they are both gold focused. Sort of how campus/industrial zone card is combined later in the game (Communism).

 

[Sostratus]

I hear what they are saying, but making only specialists provide the science does seem a bit restrictive to me.

Sorry if I was unclear - I meant the Great Scientist points, not the science itself. Obviously the buildings should do something. But if had some kind of model where building tiers give different stuff instead of just flat yield all the time, I think that would best apply to //. The harbor does what it does, fairly well I think* and the IZ feels pretty good right now; although the factory wouldn't be a bad candidate for local bonus +X per citizen, powered bonus +5aura or something. Kind of like communism's bonus. Temples, for example, could give faith per religious citizen, and campus/theater could simply augment the base rate of 0.5 per citizen, perhaps some +% in there too. The commercial hub I'm less certain on: on the one hand, you probably do need a way to generate straight up gold just to pay for things. On the other hand, the district could be so much more with trade routes and such. Aerodrome/encampment/EC are fine as is. I strongly doubt we will see people spam encampments for the production.

(*save for possibly some lighthouse production to fishing boats tweak)

Agreed on the encampment, though it did give me the idea that luxury resources should be usable as adjacency for some district

Coughs in German Have you heard about our savior, the Hansa? Das Uber-district?

 

[Datgingah]

Hmm well having both the building and the specialists provide great scientists points allows for good tall v wide so I’m okay with either.

I could see maybe tier two buildings adding the population based effect? This could be consistent among all of them. Like university adds +0.3 science/citizen, and temples add +0.5 faith/citizen. The base yield they add might have to be reduced though. Maybe further added on by tier 3 which adds another 0.5/citizen. I think a bank or seaport adding maybe 0.3 gold/citizen would make them a much more desirable building in general. If all this was done though, should their maybe be a cost of requiring a citizen to work it for all those effects to be active? Or maybe amenities? It being free with that many yields could snowball a lot.

In industrial zones maybe the type of power could change the bonus more. Maybe double adjacency but no local for coal, +0.4 production/citizen local and +5 production aura, and nuclear could do +0.5 production/citizen aura or something. Just a thought.

I agree on the encampments/etc though, no need to spam. Though I would like entertainment complex’s to maybe be more desireable then they currently are. As is to me they’re either for adding science to jungles or making the colosseum.

And oh I know how great the hansa is. I just wish all could bask in a similar, albeit weaker, glory.

 

[Sostratus]

If all this was done though, should their maybe be a cost of requiring a citizen to work it for all those effects to be active? Or maybe amenities? It being free with that many yields could snowball a lot.

Using a pop dependent models for some yields (and I don't think it should be the primary focus of every district, just the research ones and possibly the faith one) necessarily means that to get benefit out of them, you need to have the pops. So having 25 pops in one city or in 3 cities will end up netting roughly the same amount of science; this is good!

Currently a Uni grants +4 science. Even at +0.5 science per citizen, you'd need to get to size 8 to make up to where we are now. If you made it like, +0.25 per , then you'd need to be size 16. The key is that that change breaks the back of campus spam because when a city is small, only the well placed campuses contribute at all. And if you keep some districts on flat yields or some other system tied to not population, then campus will be a viable choice without being the only choice.

 

[Datgingah]

I would definitely be okay with that change then, given the current effect of rationalism were changed to something like what was suggested earlier. Or maybe the effect of it actually became the population dependent one: "Cities with a campus provide +0.5 science/citizen", although that does run the risk of running back to just creating a new meta-centralizing card.

So yes after some thought I agree, population bonuses as well as a change to rationalism to make it specialist focused might push the game in more interesting directions.

 

[acluewithout]

I'd just like Campuses and Science to be "better". The current campus spam is so silly.

A bit of the problem is just FXS design of having "the science one, the culture one, the gold one" etc. They do it for districts of course, but also governors, policy cards, great people, City States, alliances. It would be more interesting if some yields didn't have a "specialist" district or whatever, and you had to just figure it out.

Anyway. Campuses. I think it'd be cool if Campus buildings were the ones where you got most of your yield from specialists. I think that's more interesting that per pop, because Specialist require you to have not only pop, but also a plan for feeding everybody and you have to give up tile yields.

I'd rather Gold be more geared around "per pop", maybe incorporating ideas like tax. Borrowing from EU IV, you could maybe have say Holy Sites and buildings buffing gold per pop or providing +% gold, representing it being easier to adminstrate tax (at least up to like the Renaissance). Something like that.

 

[acluewithout]

On the Rationalism Card etc, I do think these Cards would be better if they focused on buffing Specialists more than buildings.

I find then whole “+50% for pop, +50% for adjacency” a bit, er, daft I guess. It doesn’t really encourage pop or adjacency so much as it just encourages specifically 10 pop and +3 adjacency. The changes to Rationalism etc. are an obvious kludge and the gameplay shows it.

I’d rather buildings give you great people and a certain base yield, and then you’re forced to use Specialists and you can then buff Specialists with Policy Cards, Tier 3 Buildings etc. to get more yields, and projects to get more great people points (plus gold and faith buying great people). You can then have a bit of Governors buffing things by Pop or with +%.

Specialists are kind of inherently interesting precisely because whenever you use them they don’t also generate food. I don’t think Specialists need much buffing - the June update was pretty good on that - but it would be fun if you needed them more by making just having buildings a less reliable source of yields (or at least, less reliable source of science, culture and production).

(Sorry. In a rush. Hopefully most of that made sense...)