You could always gift them some gold to get one.
Also no longer worth it in BNW. AIs without either cash or GPT flow normally have abysmal science beaker rates compared to the ones flush with cash / GPT.
You could always gift them some gold to get one.
If you're wanting to assess how much science they're making, you could do worse than looking at the score breakdowns, and seeing how much score they have from techs. Not precise, of course, but probably marginally more reliable than counting pop.
I have to say though, when I play I tend not to review these numbers on a turn by turn basis, so generally am not very situationally aware in that sense. Because of that I tend to just ask myself what my gold situation is, and if I am needing the gold for something else. I tend to pretty much run my gold close to the red unless I'm saving up for something specific, so its always an opportunity cost question when offered an RA.
Also no longer worth it in BNW. AIs without either cash or GPT flow normally have abysmal science beaker rates compared to the ones flush with cash / GPT.
Are you assuming a 1:1 value ratio of : ? That seems like a pretty bad assumption.That would describe the G&K RAs and also Vanilla's.
However, in BNW, you get the LOWEST players yield for the last 8 turns. If he's an era or more behind; you are unlikely to get enough science from the RA to cover your gold cost.
I don't feel I am missing anything by not making RA's, but am I incorrect?
i feel its kind of unfair another civ feels i need to subsidize it for its own poor planning and/or misfortunes.
And this is different from real life, how? Whoever said it had to be "fair"?
Or, another way to look at it: Clearly, since you're ahead, you have an unfair advantage (even if due to your better planning, at this point in time it's an unfair advantage). So, giving some as part of the deal makes it more fair from their perspective.
Well, the AI apparently is adamant on making it "fair" for them. Lets say i am the world tech leader, which is usually true in a game vs. only AI's , then : i am the most lucrative option for research partner ,and , will be the first choice of all other Civs. However , financial constraint would leave me unable to be reasonably expected to constantly do RA with everyone all the time. Supply and demand comes into play now ,I should be getting tribute from THEM. They should be in a bidding war for the worlds best RA.
Yes, you are. Quite clearly you are missing out on .
... you forgot to add that such a choice is also keeping science from the AI by not signing such an RA. That is an important strategic decision in many instances and a valid tactic. If gaining science means giving the AI science it needs, it may be better to simply not sign the RA. This is often the case in my games as I see no reason whatsoever to help AIs that I plan to defeat sooner or later (usually sooner, which means that it's bad to have an active RA, anyway).
Also, no one mentioned yet that the RAs in G&K are bugged very badly and it is a very bad idea to sign them due to that fact. Basically, an RA can result in no gain at all or maybe 1 science, and when the bug was confirmed, the details were not offered (at least not while I was on the forum, anyway). Signing RAs in G&K is rather like playing Russian roulette. Since there are many other tactics for victory, there was no point to use them when the outcome was extremely uncertain.
Well, the AI apparently is adamant on making it "fair" for them. Lets say i am the world tech leader, which is usually true in a game vs. only AI's , then : i am the most lucrative option for research partner ,and , will be the first choice of all other Civs. However , financial constraint would leave me unable to be reasonably expected to constantly do RA with everyone all the time. Supply and demand comes into play now ,I should be getting tribute from THEM. They should be in a bidding war for the worlds best RA.
... you forgot to add that such a choice is also keeping science from the AI by not signing such an RA. That is an important strategic decision in many instances and a valid tactic. If gaining science means giving the AI science it needs, it may be better to simply not sign the RA. This is often the case in my games as I see no reason whatsoever to help AIs that I plan to defeat sooner or later (usually sooner, which means that it's bad to have an active RA, anyway).
I find this a fascinating discussion. Is it worth it to miss out on some of my if it means denying the AI ? In what instances is this a good strategy and what instances not?
... you forgot to add that such a choice is also keeping science from the AI by not signing such an RA. That is an important strategic decision in many instances and a valid tactic. If gaining science means giving the AI science it needs, it may be better to simply not sign the RA.
That's an entirely different question. Is it worth it to sign a DoF solely to get the RA?there's also the very important point about Declaration of Friendship and its consequences.
You mention you don't help them with resources, etc. That, too, is missing out on a lot... e.g., if you trade lux resources with an AI, YOU get +4 plus some chance of city celebrations. Again, the flip side of this coin is that ALL of the AIs (except one) get a relative MINUS 4 .I always find it far more efficient to avoid helping the AI with RAs (science plus allowing encroachment for settling and spying), resources, or other assistance (e.g., gold). The exceptions are if an AI is in very bad shape or is in a specific situation where they can deal with another AI that is problematic (until I can deal with the problem myself, of course).