Research

[Ahriman]

and not following how it affects small, peaceful players vis a vis warmongers.

I think the idea is small players who have less science output benefit because they contribute less science to the pool, which is then split evenly between the players.
Eg: if I am 75 science and you are 125 science then we get 10 science each. So I get a larger proportional boost (10/75) than you do (10/125).

I think the idea is that warmongers benefit less because it is harder for them to get DoFs.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's the same percentage bonus to tech regardless of era, and early game gains are exponentially better than late game gains, so saving would be counterproductive. Increasing the cost with each signing is the same mechanic great people and golden ages use. Increasing the cost based on era or tech level penalizes isolated starts.

Conquerors make every peaceful AI angry, blocking DoF opportunities. Out of the DoFs a conqueror can sign, small/peaceful empires get an advantage. The reason is peaceful leaders have less cities and population, and therefore less base science than a player who starts conquering. This gives them a larger proportional increase from combined research.

For example...

100 Peaceful
200 Conqueror
Shared: 300 * 0.05 = 15

115 / 100 = +15% Peaceful
215 / 200 = +7% Conqueror

The peaceful player gets twice as much value out of the DoF than the conqueror. The actual difference depends on how far behind the peaceful player is.

 

[Ahriman]

It's the same percentage bonus to tech regardless of era, and early game gains are exponentially better than late game gains, so saving would be counterproductive

I disagree.
If I can spend 300 gold for 400 beakers in the early game or 300 gold for 4000 beakers in the late game, that difference really does matter, because the gold costs of other benefits do not scale in this way; 500 gold is going to buy me (close to) 60 CS influence in either case. It will buy me the same contribution to buying a library or granary in either case. For buying everything else in the game, the gold : output ratio stays roughly constant, and for buying everything the utility of that benefit is higher in the early game than in the late game.

Increasing the cost with each signing is the same mechanic great people and golden ages use

No it isn't, because with golden ages or great people you still get the same output (1 great person, X turn golden age) in the early or late game, so there is no incentive to defer. And arguably the utility of the great person is higher in the early game (and you already retain the ability to save the great person, which IMO should not require any unit maintenance cost).

I see no need for the cost to depend on the number of previous RAs you have had.

 

[Seek]

I disagree.
If I can spend 300 gold for 400 beakers in the early game or 300 gold for 4000 beakers in the late game, that difference really does matter, because the gold costs of other benefits do not scale in this way; 500 gold is going to buy me (close to) 60 CS influence in either case. It will buy me the same contribution to buying a library or granary in either case. For buying everything else in the game, the gold : output ratio stays roughly constant, and for buying everything the utility of that benefit is higher in the early game than in the late game.

I see no need for the cost to depend on the number of previous RAs you have had.

There may not be a *need* necessarily, but if you consider (1) the opportunity cost for not signing early RAs and jumping to key tech(s), (2) the relative difference in terms of turn count for techs instead of beaker output is more important in this case and (3) it makes for more interesting decision-making throughout the game.

With (1), your opponents could snowball away from you by signing RAs and reach Education, Rifling, etc far before you and possibly take the game - in this case is it better to save the cheap RAs for the late game? Sometimes it might be, but not always - and this creates (3).

With (2), which is more meaningful: if it takes 25 turns for Civil Service which an RA would lower to 15 turns, or using an RA to shave 1-2 turns off of a Modern era tech which can normally be researched in 5 turns? Hypothetical numbers used of course, but I've had many games where this was true. So in this case would it be better to save the RAs for the expensive late-game techs? Not usually, but sometimes - and this also creates (3).

So while there is no need for it, I support this proposal as I think it'll create a more interesting game.

 

[Ahriman]

I disagree, I don't think it is fun to be having to calculate all kinds of opportunity costs. I think the RA research bonus should be a reward for sustained good relations, I don't think you should suffer from signing a research agreement now by making future research agreements more expensive.

Keep in mind, in pre-patch TBC, we got this 5% bonus from just a RA for free.
What we are proposing now is to keep that system but add a gold cost.
So relative to pre-patch TBC we are reducing the value of research sharing. So the idea that suddenly we can race ahead and get to Rifling super-early is not realistic. We aren't talking about vanilla research agreements that give (half of) a tech, we're talking about a 5-10% bonus.
I think the gold cost for these research agreements needs to be very low, and needs to scale by era. Otherwise; suppose it costs X, with X~- 200 gold. That is a terrible deal in the early game, but an excellent deal in the late game. I don't think we want it to be the case that getting a research agreement in the early game (which might only be 3-5 beakers per turn) is a waste of gold.

With (2), which is more meaningful: if it takes 25 turns for Civil Service which an RA would lower to 15 turns, or using an RA to shave 1-2 turns off of a Modern era tech which can normally be researched in 5 turns?

You're not considering the fact that the opportunity cost of X gold varies.
You can't just ask which is more meaningful a benefit, you have to also ask which is more meaningful a benefit: cost ratio. The opportunity cost of paying X gold for a research agreement is much higher in the early game, because gold is scarce. In the late game, gold is common.
Also: how is a 5% research bonus going to reduce Civil Service from 25 turns to 15?
The research turn reduction is proportional. If the research agreement reduces a modern era tech by 1-2 turns, then it is probably going to reduce a medieval era tech by 1-2 turns (assuming a roughly constant number of turns per tech throughout the game).

Given that before we had the same mechanism with zero gold cost, and it was arguably too strong but not super-too-strong, I would suggest that the gold cost needs to remain fairly low in the early game. The benefit isn't that large. The research advantage should be a reward for having a DoF, if you sign the DoF then you should nearly always want to take it.

But more to the point; other gold costs retain roughly constant output : cost ratios (a granary costs you X gold whether you buy it on turn 50 or turn 300). Other benefits should also do so.

* * *
By the logic you have, we should make unit and building purchases cost more for each one you buy. Because, you know, it would create more complicated decision-making.
But I hope we can agree that would be not-fun.

 

[Seek]

Tbh, I would welcome a return of the vanilla RA mechanic because it's more fun to get the big boost than a small percentage increase to research, and this method would work better in that scenario than with the TBC mechanic. Your other arguments are solid too, so I'll concede the point for now.

[WRT the Civil Service scenario: The beaker rate is 5% of combined research so it's often about 10% of each civ's individual research, and at harder levels the AI will more likely have more beakers/turn than the player so it's often 12-15%. Also, at that stage of the game research increases quite rapidly for all civs so it's safe to assume that by the time 10 turns have gone by the research gained from the RA will increase. The example may be slightly optimistic, but not too far off I think.]

 

[Txurce]

I disagree, I don't think it is fun to be having to calculate all kinds of opportunity costs. I think the RA research bonus should be a reward for sustained good relations, I don't think you should suffer from signing a research agreement now by making future research agreements more expensive.

I agree. While there are pluses to the mechanic Thal and Seek prefer, a DoF and increased costs per era (as in vanilla) should be the total price of an RA.

 

[Txurce]

Tbh, I would welcome a return of the vanilla RA mechanic because it's more fun to get the big boost than a small percentage increase to research, and this method would work better in that scenario than with the TBC mechanic. Your other arguments are solid too, so I'll concede the point for now.

Having played a couple of games so far on vanilla and refreshed myself with the mechanics there, I definitely support this, precisely for the fun factor.

 

[Ahriman]

So, basically the post-patch vanilla mechanic, but with a requirement to have a DoF? I could live with that, though I might suggest a slightly steeper cost variation by era; maybe slightly cheaper in the early game, but more expensive in the late-game.

 

[DragonGreen]

I personally like the RA giving a 5% bonus (Thal's current variant) with a DoF. It's really upgrading the DoFs in a very good way.

But I disagree the need to pay for the RA, regardless the number of uses, this is because this would not be a bonus anymore, since there are enough needs to be payed for.

The same applies to the open borders agreements effecting the trade income bonus, meaning that the current implementation in TBC/CiVUP is really fine.

 

[Txurce]

I personally like the RA giving a 5% bonus (Thal's current variant) with a DoF. It's really upgrading the DoFs in a very good way.

But I disagree the need to pay for the RA, regardless the number of uses, this is because this would not be a bonus anymore, since there are enough needs to be payed for.

The same applies to the open borders agreements effecting the trade income bonus, meaning that the current implementation in TBC/CiVUP is really fine.

To be clear, the DoF part would stay - we're talking about switching 5% for a lump sum.

Otherwise, you're generally in favor of more gold for the builder - duly noted!

 

[Thalassicus]

So basically what you'd like is to keep track of the 5% per turn and award it at the conclusion of the RA? I can do that. It's basically the same thing after all.

I admit it'll be frustrating to program though - I never liked working with the savegame code. The per-turn approach is simpler and lazier.

 

[Txurce]

So basically what you'd like is to keep track of the 5% per turn and award it at the conclusion of the RA? I can do that. It's basically the same thing after all.

I admit it'll be frustrating to program though - I never liked working with the savegame code. The per-turn approach is simpler and lazier.

That's what I think Seek meant, and what I would prefer... but if it's a pain, make it low-priority, since what we have now works.

 

[Thalassicus]

It won't be very difficult, probably less than an hour's work. I just avoid the savegame stuff because it's not my code, and is put together a little oddly.

 

[Zaldron]

Having played a couple of games so far on vanilla and refreshed myself with the mechanics there, I definitely support this, precisely for the fun factor.

The fun factor of getting research in one shot is great. But I find that figuring out which AI has money I can buy for GPT just to sell to a broke AI for GPT just so I can sign an RA with them is boring busywork and really reduces the fun-factor.

 

[Txurce]

The fun factor of getting research in one shot is great. But I find that figuring out which AI has money I can buy for GPT just to sell to a broke AI for GPT just so I can sign an RA with them is boring busywork and really reduces the fun-factor.

Yeah, I never go to that much trouble.

 

[Architect]

I think this is one of those things that is better left unchanged. Having more things to trade with the AI is good. Being able to be risky and sign these agreements with AI that might DoW is fun. Having consequences for doing a beeline is good.

Also the vanilla Great Scientist is way more fun as is the Great Library. I think the tech trees are now in a such a place that being able to pop a few techs here and there is just not going to break the game but it sure is fun.

 

[Txurce]

I think this is one of those things that is better left unchanged. Having more things to trade with the AI is good. Being able to be risky and sign these agreements with AI that might DoW is fun. Having consequences for doing a beeline is good.

Also the vanilla Great Scientist is way more fun as is the Great Library. I think the tech trees are now in a such a place that being able to pop a few techs here and there is just not going to break the game but it sure is fun.

This has been my experience playing vanilla so far.

 

[bwoww78]

I'm curious if this is the idea Thal is going to go for and how the mechanic would work:

So, basically the post-patch vanilla mechanic, but with a requirement to have a DoF? I could live with that, though I might suggest a slightly steeper cost variation by era; maybe slightly cheaper in the early game, but more expensive in the late-game.

admittedly this is a kind of selfish post, but here's my reason why:

I typically play for realism on the standard codiform earth YNAEMP in standard time (Russian expansion/spacerace, Roman conquest of Europe, China building great wall to fend off Mongols, etc.) Depending on who I choose to play as and what kind of competition I'm looking for, sometimes I'll go with 10-15 civs and CSs, but other times 18+ civs and as many TSL CSs as will fit. I typically leave all victory types open, so the end game is competitive (though i'm never a fan of domination wins myself as they contrast with realism). Most recently post-patch with TBC v.8.0 I'm playing as my favorite, Washington (pioneer forts ftw), with as many civs as I thought would work and still be playable (i.e. 20).

I found myself doing great fending off the Aztecs and Iroquois (even taking their capital and making it New York, my new gold/merchant hub) and DOF Incas since the start. The issue I've found with TBC 8.x RA mechanism is that by the time I "discovered" the old world, their centuries of DOFs put the rest of the world about 5-12 techs ahead of me. The three of us on in the Western hemisphere never got the benefit of a friendly research bonus because personalities/proximity meant we mostly fought one another for territory, etc. Moreover, even if we had been peaceful, we lacked the sheer numbers the other continents has in friendship options.

Now at the start of the industrial era, I like the challenge of now having to focus on tech and maxing culture for SPs (which is basically realistic and what I planned to do once taking Onondaga anyways) but it's a little weird to be SO far behind. I'm finally to the point where I'm getting new DOFs for being as friendly as possible, but even though I've had the NC for 60-80+ turns with Barringer Crater and Old Faithful science bonuses, the 1-2 city civs that I know aren't tech focused are ahead of my 8 city empire by what seems like way more than normal. Only Persia has more cities with 10 (the world average is about 3) and has a 14 tech lead over me near the middle of the pack.

All that said, I'm not sure it is better to request a decrease in the % per turn from DOF RA (from 5% to 3% for instance) as it is seems like treating a symptom, not a problem. What comes to mind from this example is that the AUTOMATIC research benefit of DOF seems a bit OP or at least in need of tweeking, especially if you're relatively isolated until Navigation.

If the new mechanic will be "pay for RA with pre-req of friendship" as Ahriman mentioned above, then I would wholeheartedly agree as it requires a civ to intentionally focus on tech and not just try to be peaceful/diplomatic. I don't know what goes in the back-end of AI flavor-ing to increase peacefulness/friendship, but I'm assuming it's not the same as the flavors for science, which the current 5% per turn DOF mechanic does not distinguish between. I guess what I'm getting as is that it feels like the AI is becoming friends for diplomatic purposes and not tech ones. If a civ wants a tech boost, jointly contributing resources (i.e. gold) towards the cause seems more logical than just being friends. Being friendly, after all, is already buffed by OB gold per turn.

Lastly, I'd also agreed that the "science-boost" concept like post-patch vanilla is more fun to plan for when mapping your research. though i am no modder and will humbly take whatever Thal and company decide... thanks again

 

[Ahriman]

The issue I've found with TBC 8.x RA mechanism is that by the time I "discovered" the old world, their centuries of DOFs put the rest of the world about 5-12 techs ahead of me. The three of us on in the Western hemisphere never got the benefit of a friendly research bonus because personalities/proximity meant we mostly fought one another for territory, etc. Moreover, even if we had been peaceful, we lacked the sheer numbers the other continents has in friendship options.

Sounds exactly like real history. I think this is pretty much the inevitable consequence of playing on an Earth map, where Eurasia is huge and resource filled, and the Americas really aren't.
So to some extent, this is a map issue rather than a mechanic issue. It does penalize very isolated civs, but I'm not sure if that is a feature or not. It is nice to have a reward for exploration.