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

Presumably they would still be able to use rationalism if they had a size 15 city? For balance it sounds like it would probably be ok as a change. Korea starts off with a big lead in science but gradually gets overtaken. Or maybe reduce seowons to +2 or +1 and shift the mine bonus onto the seowon's adjacency not the mine that way it would require a bit more setup same as the other civs that can reliably hit +4
 
Presumably they would still be able to use rationalism if they had a size 15 city? For balance it sounds like it would probably be ok as a change. Korea starts off with a big lead in science but gradually gets overtaken. Or maybe reduce seowons to +2 or +1 and shift the mine bonus onto the seowon's adjacency not the mine that way it would require a bit more setup same as the other civs that can reliably hit +4

That'd make it similar to Maya's Observatory with Mines instead of Farms and Plantations to make it more engaging. I'm not sure what the historical/cultural rationale would be for it though. Then again Korea's bonus as it now doesn't feel very Korean in any sense.
 
Then again Korea's bonus as it now doesn't feel very Korean in any sense.

I know this is not the topic of this post, but ever since I play with the Koreans (Joseon) of Humankind, I began to find Civ VI's Korean design acceptable - Joseon in Humankind has a ability to let every piece of coastal water and lake generating science. I mean it's a clever design, but I failed to see how it relates to Joseon in any sense; Joseon was not the pioneer of underwater exploration or something.

For the record, I think the design logic behind the Seowon is that IRL Seowons were tend to establish in rural areas, far from nearby towns, with its own agricultural fields and servants like a manor; the no-districts-next-to-seowon rule is a way to represent this "ruralness".
 
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.

That was pretty much my thought process, yeah, but apparently some people just find that to be too wacky and crazy to take seriously...

Presumably they would still be able to use rationalism if they had a size 15 city? For balance it sounds like it would probably be ok as a change.

...and Seowons already provide extra food to help their cities grow larger, too, so there's actually some synergy here.

But apparently if they don't have access to every single bonus to science on top of their half price campuses, easy +3 adjacencies, half of the rationalism bonus, science from mines, and extra science from governors they're completely neutered and their science game has been ruined, so what do I know... :mischief:
 
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.
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding but I didn't try to factor missions into the placement of those districts, or at least it took a backseat to even the holy sites since I was actually using work ethic like you mentioned. Likewise all the campuses are placed pretty much without regard for missions, so their adjacency alone should be reflective of "default" placement which was all I wanted to make a point about.
 
Last edited:

I think the main benefit of the Rationalism change is just that it’ll make that card and similar cards basically irrelevant for most players. In other words, the cards are still dumb, but now most players can at least feel like they’re justified ignoring them.

I honestly can’t understand how Science is intended to work. There’s a bunch of things that give science. None of them have any real trade offs. You just, I dunno, “build more science”. Other yields seem to have little mini-games around how you generate and use them. Not science - just put Pingala in one city, then keep throwing down campuses and you’re fine.

Or maybe that is the design? Just build Science. There’s no other logic. Just build it instead of doing other things.

Post this patch, I am genuinely feeling fairly sanguine about Civ. There’s a few things that are still annoying or just wrong headed, but on the other hand there a lot of better balance decisions now (like amenities), SS is now not totally broken, most of the other game modes feel interesting enough, the next two modes actually look pretty good.

Looking at it from this angle, I think the Rationalism changes basically more Science into the realm of “yeah... that’ll do, I guess”. I agree with a lot of you comments in your post. There are a lot of ways Science could be done better. There’s also a bit of a general yield inflation issue across the board, but particularly with Science. But overall, I think Science is kinda ok where it is.
 
Out of the 4 policy cards that give +50%/+100% to yield, Rationalism is the best by far. Not only because it is easier to get +4 adjacency bonus with the Campus and the double adjacency card overall than other districts: Holy Site needs natural wonders (rare) or mountain range, Theatre Square needs to build up the bonus with EC/WP and wonders, and Commercial need a lot of effort with river and harbor.
Furthermore, the combined double adjacency card in the late game is widening the gap because the best one is Five-Year Plan (Campus/Industrial Zone) due to high focus on Science and how the Coal Factory works. It is followed by Ecnonomic Union (Commercial Hub/Harbor), mostly because of the Shipyard. Sports Media and Scripture can't rivalise.

But mostly because the policy is more rewarding due to Campus' building giving more yields:
  • Library (+2), University (+4), and Research Lab (+3-8), for a total of 9 to 14 but -3 Power. Also, Hypatia gives +1 to Library, Isaac Newton +2 to Universities, and Albert Einstein +4 to Research Lab, increasing the maximum to 21 Science!
  • Amphitheatre (+2), Museum (+2), and Broadcast Center (+2-6), for a total of 6 to 10 but -3 Power.
  • Shrine (+2), Temple (+4), and Synagogue (+5) for a total of 11 but no Power consumption. Available way earlier, but no combined double adjacency cards.
  • Market (+3), Bank (+5), and Stock Exchange (+4-11), for a total of 12 to 19 but -3 Power. But since Gold is at least twice as effective as the other yield, it is a "6 to 9.5" to yields.

I do not say that the Theatre Square and the Commercial Hub do not have value. On the contrary, but their value do not come from their building but more from the Trade Route and Great Works slots. Since Free Market and Grand Opera policy cards do not increase the Gold of trade route or Culture of Great Works, those policies would be less powerful than Rationalism.

If Rationalism is unbalanced, and need a balance, the balance shouldn't only come from making the prerequisite being harder to achieve, but also redirect the Science output from building to somewhere else, like:
  • University: +2 Science, +1 Housing. Population in the city yields +0.15 additional Science.
  • Research Lab: +2 Science, +4 Science additionally when Powered (3 Power). 1 random free Eureka at completion. (probably stupid and unbalanced suggestion, but I am throwing ideas)
Maybe something should be done for Hypatia, Newton and Einstein.
 
Last edited:
So in my opinion introducing +4 rationalism is a huge nerf to nearly every civ.

Rationalism was a strong source of science, but people give it way too much credit. In a hypothetical scenario, where you only have one slot that you're willing to use for science, Rationalism (the pre-nerf version) wouldn't be your best choice for most of the time it's available. Natural Philosophy unlocks earlier, it doesn't have requirements and, by the time you unlock Rationalism, it's quite likely that you'll get more science from doubling your adjacency, even if they aren't that great. You might get a few turns where Rationalism will give you more science than Natural Philosophy, but the difference won't be that big, and by then, you'll be about to unlock Five-Year-Plan. Point is, unless you're going hard on science and adopting both policies, a weaker Rationalism won't matter, since you have Natural Philosophy as a better choice. The only victories where you want to go hard enough on science that you'll actually need Rationalism are Scientific and Domination, and even in a Scientific victory, the International Space Agency Policy is more relevant than Rationalism. You can compensate its absence with culture, to unlock the ISA Policy earlier. On top of that, even though I disagree with Lily's strategy to keep most cities at 4 pop, he isn't wrong about controlling population to keep your cities Ecstatic, or at least avoid going negative. While the Civs you mentioned are going hard for 15 pop to boost Rationalism, other Civs can focus on amenities and try to enjoy a 20% boost to all yields.

The effect this change has is that Rationalism is more circunstancial now, and you can go for other strategies, if you think you won't be able or it won't be worth to fulfill the requirements.
 
Out of the 4 policy cards that give +50%/+100% to yield, Rationalism is the best by far. Not only because it is easier to get +4 adjacency bonus with the Campus and the double adjacency card overall than other districts: Holy Site needs natural wonders (rare) or mountain range, Theatre Square needs to build up the bonus with EC/WP and wonders, and Commercial need a lot of effort with river and harbor.
Furthermore, the combined double adjacency card in the late game is widening the gap because the best one is Five-Year Plan (Campus/Industrial Zone) due to high focus on Science and how the Coal Factory works. It is followed by Ecnonomic Union (Commercial Hub/Harbor), mostly because of the Shipyard. Sports Media and Scripture can't rivalise.

But mostly because the policy is more rewarding due to Campus' building giving more yields:
  • Library (+2), University (+4), and Research Lab (+3-8), for a total of 9 to 14 but -3 Power. Also, Hypatia gives +1 to Library, Isaac Newton +2 to Universities, and Albert Einstein +4 to Research Lab, increasing the maximum to 21 Science!
  • Amphitheatre (+2), Museum (+2), and Broadcast Center (+2-6), for a total of 6 to 10 but -3 Power.
  • Shrine (+2), Temple (+4), and Synagogue (+5) for a total of 11 but no Power consumption. Available way earlier, but no combined double adjacency cards.
  • Market (+3), Bank (+5), and Stock Exchange (+4-11), for a total of 12 to 19 but -3 Power. But since Gold is at least twice as effective as the other yield, it is a "6 to 9.5" to yields.

I do not say that the Theatre Square and the Commercial Hub do not have value. On the contrary, but their value do not come from their building but more from the Trade Route and Great Works slots. Since Free Market and Grand Opera policy cards do not increase the Gold of trade route or Culture of Great Works, those policies would be less powerful than Rationalism.

If Rationalism is unbalanced, and need a balance, the balance shouldn't only come from making the prerequisite being harder to achieve, but also redirect the Science output from building to somewhere else, like:
  • University: +2 Science, +1 Housing. Population in the city yields +0.15 additional Science.
  • Research Lab: +2 Science, +4 Science additionally when Powered (3 Power). 1 random free Eureka at completion. (probably stupid and unbalanced suggestion, but I am throwing ideas)
Maybe something should be done for Hypatia, Newton and Einstein.

Rationalism was a strong source of science, but people give it way too much credit. In a hypothetical scenario, where you only have one slot that you're willing to use for science, Rationalism (the pre-nerf version) wouldn't be your best choice for most of the time it's available. Natural Philosophy unlocks earlier, it doesn't have requirements and, by the time you unlock Rationalism, it's quite likely that you'll get more science from doubling your adjacency, even if they aren't that great. You might get a few turns where Rationalism will give you more science than Natural Philosophy, but the difference won't be that big, and by then, you'll be about to unlock Five-Year-Plan. Point is, unless you're going hard on science and adopting both policies, a weaker Rationalism won't matter, since you have Natural Philosophy as a better choice. The only victories where you want to go hard enough on science that you'll actually need Rationalism are Scientific and Domination, and even in a Scientific victory, the International Space Agency Policy is more relevant than Rationalism. You can compensate its absence with culture, to unlock the ISA Policy earlier. On top of that, even though I disagree with Lily's strategy to keep most cities at 4 pop, he isn't wrong about controlling population to keep your cities Ecstatic, or at least avoid going negative. While the Civs you mentioned are going hard for 15 pop to boost Rationalism, other Civs can focus on amenities and try to enjoy a 20% boost to all yields.

The effect this change has is that Rationalism is more circunstancial now, and you can go for other strategies, if you think you won't be able or it won't be worth to fulfill the requirements.

That's very strange. I tend to play casually at immortal mostly and grow a rather big empire both in number of cities and size with a good adjacency. I use the mod that display the yields of policies (can't remember the name atm) and rationalism(pre-patch) is never a really strong source of science compared to the early one that double adjacencies or the late green one that give +5(?) % per suzerainety. I tend to slot it anyway because moaaar science but sometimes I give it up for a more beneficial one. Maybe the mod is counting wrong but I never really observed it being wrong.
 
That's very strange. I tend to play casually at immortal mostly and grow a rather big empire both in number of cities and size with a good adjacency. I use the mod that display the yields of policies (can't remember the name atm) and rationalism(pre-patch) is never a really strong source of science compared to the early one that double adjacencies or the late green one that give +5(?) % per suzerainety. I tend to slot it anyway because moaaar science but sometimes I give it up for a more beneficial one. Maybe the mod is counting wrong but I never really observed it being wrong.

The mod is called "Better Report Screen", made by @Infixo, and now there's one that shows the yields directly on the policies (Extended Policy Cards). These mods are eye-openers to how strong or weak these yields policies actually are. Rationalism can get quite strong once you have some campuses with at least a university, but Natural Philosophy and Five-Year-Plan are the policies that will carry you throughout most of the match, then ISA will finish the job. When you build a campus, the first thing you get is adjacency and, if you have at least +3 adjacency there, Science from buildings won't pass your adjacency into you get a University. Add to that the population and adjacency requirement, and Rationalism just can't catch up to Natural Philosophy fast enough, unless you chop/harvest the buildings or buy it with gold, which isn't always an option. Research Lab is nice, but it comes too late to make a huge difference for Rationalism. At the end of the day, rationalism is a good boost for science, but it doesn't carry the science game on its back. Now that the requirements are higher, it's too little, too late, and it costs too much.

It's also worth mentioning how often policies that usually aren't discussed or that are underrated are a better source of yields than Rationalism, mainly if you aren't focusing on science. Trade Confederation is often better, mainly if you aren't spamming campuses, then later Market Economy is quite strong, though it's in a leaf civic, so it's easy to just skip it, if you're beelining later civics. Raj is criminally underrated, though it's better if you play on huge maps than on standard, so I imagine standard players aren't as thrilled to adopt it.
 
Last edited:
The mod is called "Better Report Screen", made by @Infixo, and now there's one that shows the yields directly on the policies (Extended Policy Cards). These mods are eye-openers to how strong or weak these yields policies actually are. Rationalism can get quite strong once you have some campuses with at least a university, but Natural Philosophy and Five-Year-Plan are the policies that will carry you throughout most of the match, then ISA will finish the job. When you build a campus, the first thing you get is adjacency and, if you have at least +3 adjacency there, Science from buildings won't pass your adjacency into you get a University. Add to that the population and adjacency requirement, and Rationalism just can't catch up to Natural Philosophy fast enough, unless you chop/harvest the buildings or buy it with gold, which isn't always an option. Research Lab is nice, but it comes too late to make a huge difference for Rationalism. At the end of the day, rationalism is a good boost for science, but it doesn't carry the science game on the back. Now that the requirements are higher, it's too little, too late, and it costs too much.

It's also worth mentioning how often policies that usually aren't discussed or that are underrated are a better source of yields than Rationalism, mainly if you aren't focusing on science. Trade Confederation is often better, mainly if you aren't spamming campuses, then later Market Economy is quite strong, though it's in a leaf civic, so it's easy to just skip it, if you're beelining later civics. Raj is criminally underrated, though it's better if you play on huge maps than on standard, so I imagine standard players aren't as thrilled to adopt it.

I always figured this was the case... I usually stuck with Natural Philosophy over Rationalism before maybe slotting both at the same time later on. Rationalism becomes a lot more useful if you've got lots of science city states and/or recruited great people that boost your building yields but that varies from game to game.
 
I think the main benefit of the Rationalism change is just that it’ll make that card and similar cards basically irrelevant for most players. In other words, the cards are still dumb, but now most players can at least feel like they’re justified ignoring them.

I honestly can’t understand how Science is intended to work. There’s a bunch of things that give science. None of them have any real trade offs. You just, I dunno, “build more science”. Other yields seem to have little mini-games around how you generate and use them. Not science - just put Pingala in one city, then keep throwing down campuses and you’re fine.

Or maybe that is the design? Just build Science. There’s no other logic. Just build it instead of doing other things.

Post this patch, I am genuinely feeling fairly sanguine about Civ. There’s a few things that are still annoying or just wrong headed, but on the other hand there a lot of better balance decisions now (like amenities), SS is now not totally broken, most of the other game modes feel interesting enough, the next two modes actually look pretty good.

Looking at it from this angle, I think the Rationalism changes basically more Science into the realm of “yeah... that’ll do, I guess”. I agree with a lot of you comments in your post. There are a lot of ways Science could be done better. There’s also a bit of a general yield inflation issue across the board, but particularly with Science. But overall, I think Science is kinda ok where it is.

They should go back to science being a function of gold and reintroduce the slider.
 
Also, lets face it, at the end of the day, all that matters is if you built Kilwa Kisiwani and got suzerainty over at least two science city-states. If you get that, it isn't a nerfed rationalism that will stop you from kicking any Civ in the butt with whatever Civ you're playing.
 
The effect this change has is that Rationalism is more circunstancial now, and you can go for other strategies, if you think you won't be able or it won't be worth to fulfill the requirements.

I agree. Slotting in Rationalism as a permanent policy was getting a little stale. I look forward to exploring other policies now that the choice isn't as one-size-fits-all. It does have a little issue of having civs who already have a strong science game (e.g. Australia and Korea) even more at an advantage.
 
Yields from power are not boosted by the policies

I made some tests, and:
  • If a Campus has 4 or higher adjacency bonus only througth the 'Natural Philosophy' and 'Five-Year Plan' policy cards, those Campuses do not trigger the +50% from the 'Rationalism' policy cards. I am not going to lie: I thought it was working.
  • 'Rationalism' policy card increases the yields from Power, but do not increase the yields given by City-State.
  • 'Rationalism' policy card also increases the additionnal yield from Hypatia to Libraries, Newton to Universities, and Einstein to Research Lab.
  • 'Alchemical Society' enjoys the +2 Science from Isaac Newton ability (+2 Science to Universities) and from the 'Rationalism' policy card, but does not enjoy from the +2 Science from City-State's third Envoys' bonuses toward Universities. Why? (tested with Korea)
  • The 'Seowon' does not enjoy the major adjacency bonuses from Ley Lines.
I don't know if all of this is intended, but I found out that I wasn't aware on how all of this was working.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom