Rationalism change and usual "balance changes" leading to no balance at all

People don't really complain about the +100% adjacency cards, ever. Those reward you for executing the districts well, although many districts are just map rng.

Everyone and their mothers focus on the building yield cards because those are way stronger for the most part. I think that's pretty poor policy card design - one of the hallmarks of poor design fit is that you can't really just change the numbers to fix the problem.
Personally they could address a lot of the issue directly by making the cards give bonus yields to specialists which is tied to population (need people to fill the slots) and buildings (which grant the slots.) So it would functionally still be a building card, contingent on population, and you could even add a factor for quality by saying something like "+X yield to specialists, +Y extra if the adjacency exceeds N." Also makes specialists actually matter.

"Noooooo y-you can't do that Sostratus, I don't want to have to work scientist slots to boost my science! I want it given to me from my universities merely existing!!!"
If you were a true disciple of the path of knowledge, you would make sure to work those scientist slots.

And we could finally have another card for the IZ and harbor...
 
Civ isn't won by just having the highest Science-per-turn. Your same argument applies to attempting a culture victory when Pericles is in the game. While Theater Squares don't have the same dependency on map generation for adjacency that Campuses have, it's also not the case that you're going to build Wonders and Entertainment Complexes in all your cities. Pericles has a natural advantage in getting the adjacency boost from Grand Opera, yet I don't see a complaint about that.

You call out Korea, Japan, and Australia for being even more OP as a result of this change...but Rationalism doesn't come until the Renaissance. If you let a science civ play its science game uncontested through the Renaissance, yeah, it's going to be an uphill battle to win the space race or maintain an army that has technological superiority.

Play to the map, but also play to your opponents. Trying to force a culture victory against Pericles is misguided. Likewise with Korea and science. If that's not the game you want to play then do what you can to disrupt. Korea is just as squishy early game as any other opponent. Any theoretical boost they get from slotting Rationalism is moot if they're eliminated. Or just harass them and pillage their Campuses. It's difficult for me to distinguish what you're saying from the complaint that "Science-oriented civs are better at science." Which...of course they are. I think there's an interesting and related discussion we could have about Japan and Australia since they get boosts across the board, but that's not the point you're making.
 
Civ isn't won by just having the highest Science-per-turn. Your same argument applies to attempting a culture victory when Pericles is in the game. While Theater Squares don't have the same dependency on map generation for adjacency that Campuses have, it's also not the case that you're going to build Wonders and Entertainment Complexes in all your cities. Pericles has a natural advantage in getting the adjacency boost from Grand Opera, yet I don't see a complaint about that.

The problem is there are a lot of generalist civs, and a Science Victory is the most accessible way for a generalist civ to win a game.

(Well you can also try to early rush your neighbors, but to be fair, every civ can technically do that.)
 
I was cautiously optimistic that the rationalism changes would encourage growth, but after pissing around today trying to make it work, I am far more skeptical. Without any bonuses to growth, you need a little more than 1200 surplus food to hit population 15. It only takes about 500 to hit pop 10. To reach 15 population in 200 turns, you need to average 6 surplus food per turn - and that's if you never hit your housing cap or run into amenity issues. For any city that you settle post ancestral hall its even worse because you have even less time to grow your city to 15 pops before winning the game. Food chops only help so much. With my science games (the longest games) more often than not taking 200-250 turns, there simply isn't enough time to grow more than a couple cities to size 15. Players who win even faster have it even worse. Population 10 was actually something that could realistically be achieved in a lot of cities but was also a number you still had to make an effort to reach (at least reach in a reasonable time frame). Now I doubt the pop 15 benchmark is even worth trying for the vast majority of my cities. Kind of disappointing tbh.

Civ isn't won by just having the highest Science-per-turn. Your same argument applies to attempting a culture victory when Pericles is in the game. While Theater Squares don't have the same dependency on map generation for adjacency that Campuses have, it's also not the case that you're going to build Wonders and Entertainment Complexes in all your cities. Pericles has a natural advantage in getting the adjacency boost from Grand Opera, yet I don't see a complaint about that.

You call out Korea, Japan, and Australia for being even more OP as a result of this change...but Rationalism doesn't come until the Renaissance. If you let a science civ play its science game uncontested through the Renaissance, yeah, it's going to be an uphill battle to win the space race or maintain an army that has technological superiority.

Play to the map, but also play to your opponents. Trying to force a culture victory against Pericles is misguided. Likewise with Korea and science. If that's not the game you want to play then do what you can to disrupt. Korea is just as squishy early game as any other opponent. Any theoretical boost they get from slotting Rationalism is moot if they're eliminated. Or just harass them and pillage their Campuses. It's difficult for me to distinguish what you're saying from the complaint that "Science-oriented civs are better at science." Which...of course they are. I think there's an interesting and related discussion we could have about Japan and Australia since they get boosts across the board, but that's not the point you're making.

Winning science victory is largely about having the most science per turn. How quickly you get through the tech tree is by far the biggest factor in determining when you win (or if you outright lose). Also, without fail the AI really underperforms after the first 70-80 turns or so. It doesn't matter if an AI Korea on the other side of the world is 10 techs ahead of you by the renaissance because their science will inevitably flatline. The AI just doesn't know how to keep increasing their science in the mid-late game.
 
Civ isn't won by just having the highest Science-per-turn. Your same argument applies to attempting a culture victory when Pericles is in the game. While Theater Squares don't have the same dependency on map generation for adjacency that Campuses have, it's also not the case that you're going to build Wonders and Entertainment Complexes in all your cities. Pericles has a natural advantage in getting the adjacency boost from Grand Opera, yet I don't see a complaint about that.

Grand Opera is not that good of a card.because the base culture of theater square buildings is fairly low to account for being able to hold works. Also great scientists can boost the yield of campus buildings and there's none of that for theater squares.

The other thing is that you have to research most of the tech tree for science victories, but you don't need to research anything close to the full civics tree for cultural victories, making a high science yield much more needed than a high culture yield even in their respective victories. By the time you get Grand Opera, you're not too far away from Cold War, which can end the game.
 
Okay, good thing we're taking the science victory example and running with it because I happened to make that my first run of the patch, and on a fairly Plain Jane civ for it as well. Pardon my online speed for the sake of comparing numbers.
Spoiler From the turn of finishing the game: :
5hudx7.png
u1nqc0.png

On the one hand, I was lucky enough to spawn right in between "continents", to explain my mission yields, mountain ranges, and fissures. On the other, call it compensation for the Hermetic Order invite finally popping on turn 92 and blessing me with a very fun two ley lines near some districts I'd already built... and an IZ that belonged in Korean lands anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess my conclusion is that +4 ain't easy but there are ways around it, and making ends meet in that regard makes being more selective with your city spots more of an option. I didn't realize it before, but hitting +3 on your favored district in most cities was doable as almost every civ in almost every situation with how adjacency rules have shaped up over time. Still don't think I should be as worried about strong civs getting stronger as I am about yield creep.

Personally they could address a lot of the issue directly by making the cards give bonus yields to specialists which is tied to population (need people to fill the slots) and buildings (which grant the slots.) So it would functionally still be a building card, contingent on population, and you could even add a factor for quality by saying something like "+X yield to specialists, +Y extra if the adjacency exceeds N." Also makes specialists actually matter.
I kinda like this idea, shades of Civ V specialists/"guild cities" and making tall shine in the late game. Also hints more toward "specializing" your cities like the devs said districts were supposed to do way early on - only got one or two cities you can squeeze a +4 campus (taking the science victory example and running with it still) out of? No problem; go hard into growing them into science cities and let the others do other things. Might be nice to have an alternative strategy to going in on campuses in *every* city.
 
Last edited:
The problem is there are a lot of generalist civs, and a Science Victory is the most accessible way for a generalist civ to win a game.

(Well you can also try to early rush your neighbors, but to be fair, every civ can technically do that.)

Personally, culture/diplomatic end up as my defaults if I'm not sure what else to do. And regarding early rushes, yeah, that's the point. OP's complaint seems to be that there's no counter-play to Korea's science game once it hits Rationalism. My point is that there is counter-play: disrupt their science game before it hits that point. Or else switch focus away from winning science.

Grand Opera is not that good of a card.because the base culture of theater square buildings is fairly low to account for being able to hold works. Also great scientists can boost the yield of campus buildings and there's none of that for theater squares.

The other thing is that you have to research most of the tech tree for science victories, but you don't need to research anything close to the full civics tree for cultural victories, making a high science yield much more needed than a high culture yield even in their respective victories. By the time you get Grand Opera, you're not too far away from Cold War, which can end the game.

Granted that Grand Opera is not a card that people should use. My reply to your second paragraph, and to @greenOak 's response, is that I will not deny that Rationalism is relatively better for certain civs than others if your sole goal is to get through the tech tree as quickly as possible. But science is not the sole victory condition. Australia/Japan/Korea slotting Rationalism does make it more difficult for another, non-science-specialized civ to win the space race. But it doesn't affect that same civ's ability to win a cultural or diplomatic game. The player has a choice. If the player chooses to continue running at the boulder instead of around it (i.e., the player continues trying to win the science victory despite not disrupting Korea/Japan/Australia's science game) it's not reasonable to complain that the boulder is at fault.
 
Granted that Grand Opera is not a card that people should use. My reply to your second paragraph, and to @greenOak 's response, is that I will not deny that Rationalism is relatively better for certain civs than others if your sole goal is to get through the tech tree as quickly as possible. But science is not the sole victory condition. Australia/Japan/Korea slotting Rationalism does make it more difficult for another, non-science-specialized civ to win the space race. But it doesn't affect that same civ's ability to win a cultural or diplomatic game. The player has a choice. If the player chooses to continue running at the boulder instead of around it (i.e., the player continues trying to win the science victory despite not disrupting Korea/Japan/Australia's science game) it's not reasonable to complain that the boulder is at fault.

It is true that you have a choice, but it is under something incredibly oppressive. That's why there's always so many complaints about science civs, because touching that really opens up a can of worms.

Science also locks a lot more units than anything else, as well as wonders too, meaning that you are almost required to play the science game even when not aiming for it and the only reason we don't is the AI is potato.

Oh, and don't forget a Science Victory can greatly stall a culture victory by getting Moon Landing.

But then again, I suppose Faith is also somewhat oppressive as religious victories are also pretty fast and sometimes unstoppable and also a huge role in domination/culture victories. . (looks at Japan again!) Then again IMO Holy Sites one of the best districts too. Their buildings are cheap and even without a religion, you can pull 10 faith or so with whatever random beliefs you may pick up for more benefits.
 
Civ isn't won by just having the highest Science-per-turn. Your same argument applies to attempting a culture victory when Pericles is in the game. While Theater Squares don't have the same dependency on map generation for adjacency that Campuses have, it's also not the case that you're going to build Wonders and Entertainment Complexes in all your cities. Pericles has a natural advantage in getting the adjacency boost from Grand Opera, yet I don't see a complaint about that.

Because Grand Opera is rubbish, even if you have +4 Theatre Squares.
 
People don't really complain about the +100% adjacency cards, ever. Those reward you for executing the districts well, although many districts are just map rng.

Everyone and their mothers focus on the building yield cards because those are way stronger for the most part. I think that's pretty poor policy card design - one of the hallmarks of poor design fit is that you can't really just change the numbers to fix the problem.
Personally they could address a lot of the issue directly by making the cards give bonus yields to specialists which is tied to population (need people to fill the slots) and buildings (which grant the slots.) So it would functionally still be a building card, contingent on population, and you could even add a factor for quality by saying something like "+X yield to specialists, +Y extra if the adjacency exceeds N." Also makes specialists actually matter.

"Noooooo y-you can't do that Sostratus, I don't want to have to work scientist slots to boost my science! I want it given to me from my universities merely existing!!!"
If you were a true disciple of the path of knowledge, you would make sure to work those scientist slots.

And we could finally have another card for the IZ and harbor...

I'm pretty happy with all the changes in this patch, but I find your idea really good. That would make it more balanced and still encourage the tall play!

Okay, good thing we're taking the science victory example and running with it because I happened to make that my first run of the patch, and on a fairly Plain Jane civ for it as well. Pardon my online speed for the sake of comparing numbers.
Spoiler From the turn of finishing the game: :
5hudx7.png
u1nqc0.png

On the one hand, I was lucky enough to spawn right in between "continents", to explain my mission yields, mountain ranges, and fissures. On the other, call it compensation for the Hermetic Order invite finally popping on turn 92 and blessing me with a very fun two ley lines near some districts I'd already built... and an IZ that belonged in Korean lands anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess my conclusion is that +4 ain't easy but there are ways around it, and making ends meet in that regard makes being more selecting with your city spots more of an option. I didn't realize it before, but hitting +3 on your favored district in most cities was doable as almost every civ in almost every situation with how adjacency rules have shaped up over time. Still don't think I should be as worried about strong civs getting stronger as I am about yield creep.


I kinda like this idea, shades of Civ V specialists/"guild cities" and making tall shine in the late game. Also hints more toward "specializing" your cities like the devs said districts were supposed to do way early on - only got one or two cities you can squeeze a +4 campus (taking the science victory example and running with it still) out of? No problem; go hard into growing them into science cities and let the others do other things. Might be nice to have an alternative strategy to going in on campuses in *every* city.

I agree with you that +4 make it more interesting and the planning makes the game funnier (at least to me, that i always look for the best spots for cities, never trying to grab more land for the sake of it).

The only thing is that for your example I do not think spain is the best in this situation, as the scientific and religious districts have the science bonus when adjacent to missions. It is the same for "work ethic", I think Spain is one of the few civs that must try to avoid adjacency bonuses from these policy cards.

(In reality I don't know what is better, if have a big adjacency or to have 6 missions around the campus).
 
People don't really complain about the +100% adjacency cards, ever. Those reward you for executing the districts well, although many districts are just map rng.

Everyone and their mothers focus on the building yield cards because those are way stronger for the most part. I think that's pretty poor policy card design - one of the hallmarks of poor design fit is that you can't really just change the numbers to fix the problem.
Personally they could address a lot of the issue directly by making the cards give bonus yields to specialists which is tied to population (need people to fill the slots) and buildings (which grant the slots.) So it would functionally still be a building card, contingent on population, and you could even add a factor for quality by saying something like "+X yield to specialists, +Y extra if the adjacency exceeds N." Also makes specialists actually matter.

"Noooooo y-you can't do that Sostratus, I don't want to have to work scientist slots to boost my science! I want it given to me from my universities merely existing!!!"
If you were a true disciple of the path of knowledge, you would make sure to work those scientist slots.

And we could finally have another card for the IZ and harbor...

Yes! Its pretty loopy just how little specialists interact with the rest of the game. It feels like they are in there purely for traditions sake. The buildings give you so much for just existing like the bricks themselves just seep raw knowledge.
 
Then they can never hit +4...

I agree that the card needs to scale better.

So they can't use Rationalism... they're still getting +3 campuses in every city that are half price and provide science to any mines nearby. Would they need it?
 
The Seowon is the one that worries me most. Australia, Japan, Netherlands and Brazil all have to do a bit of work and planning to get +4 campuses. On the other hand changing Seowon to +3 would make it imposssible for them to ever trigger rationalism with adjacencies...
 
Are you serious?

Oh noes, I guess Korea's science game would be completely ruined. Clearly nothing else could be done with their design to offset the loss of rationalism.

If you're that worried about it boost the science bonus they get for mines to compensate. This would actually encourage them to actually have to do some planning in regards to where they put their UD rather than just going "derp, +4 seowon everywhere, I'm so good at this game". If you're worried about boosted mines being too strong early in the game just have the size of the bonus scale with either where they are in the tech tree or with game era. There are plenty of changes they can make that would give Korea the science they'd miss out on through sacrificing the use of one policy card, and most of them would make Korea infinitely more interesting to play.
 
I think that is a good change.

I personally think they did it as a buff for Hermetic order, but it will also slow down a little the games, as science would be more difficult to obtain.
 
So they can't use Rationalism... they're still getting +3 campuses in every city that are half price and provide science to any mines nearby. Would they need it?

Actually that's a great idea. Korea is frequently jetted ahead long before Rationalism even comes into play. It would balance them out a bit and many civs have a hard time using Rationalism now anyways.
 
Back
Top Bottom