Science probably shouldn't be based on pop.

[SpearMan153]

No comments on my above idea?

Did people not read it or do they not think it's an elegant solution?

since you asked for feedback

I don't see a need to split beakers into science and innovation, the same effect could be achieved by playings with:

- base beakers per person
- multipliers for science buildings
- beakers per science specialist
- bonuses from SP
- tech costs per era

As I see it base beakers is the same as your innovation output concept with buildings and SP etc beeing the same as you science output concept. You just need to tweak the numbers to make the base beakers per person less important the all other sources.

or am I missing something?

 

[_hero_]

I think an interesting idea would be to allow the modifiers of science buildings to increase over time, with use. That way it creates a trade off between trying to get the buildings ASAP or getting the troops first and worrying about the buildings later.

This could somehow be tied in with Great people, so that as specialists work the building the modifier goes up, say 0.25% per turn. Every 4 turns, your University would increase your science output by an additional 1%.

This could be carried over into the other great people as well. It would certainly add economic depth to the game, and would put some more juice in the small, super city empire that the devs claimed to have wanted.

 

[SpearMan153]

The idea that any game mechanic in any version of civ can be considered "realistic" is kind of silly imo. Real world is way too complex.

Neither the civ4 nor civ5 model work from any realism point of view (imo)

Although I never had any problem with sliders I do prefer the split gold/science you get in civ5 (mainly because you have so much you can spend gold on). In civ4 you would always have your science slider as high as possible. And it is kind of silly to think of any real world nation putting so much into R&D.

In the civ world all things being equal a larger civ will always out tech a smaller civ (excluding tech trading/research agreements). all civ versions have been bigger = better.

In civ5 It's fine that you get your puppet cities giving you increased science. Conquering cities in civ4 would do the same (once you got past that early stage of the game where you could crash you economy through over expansion) every city would add to your economy which would add to science via the slider.

Remember in civ5 you don't control what your puppet builds (and you just killed half the science in getting it). They emphasise gold not science. So a self settled empire of the same size will out tech a puppet empire of the same size (assuming you build the science buildings of course). If you want full control of your puppets you need to build a courthouse = additional economic cost.

Also in civ5 a rational civ will out tech a civ the same size but with its SP invested elsewhere which is good.

 

[Leuf]

Civ games should model immigration and emigration. I always assumed that the "We Love the President" pop booms of old were modeling this. But it would be interesting if specialists or great people could also decide to emigrate if there was a city that had significantly better opportunities for them (as well as room and food). Brain drain is very real and is partly responsible for Africa's lack of science production, and massively responsible for the lack of health care workers in Africa for instance.

I think that could be interesting. Great People would have to be more powerful, and you'd have to remove the option to use them immediately as the civs that were using a strategy that would make them less likely to be able to hold onto them would just always pop them immediately for the short term gain. If you had culture and wonders as one of the factors that would draw them to you that would help in forcing you to have more balance in what you build. The larger empire would be more likely to spawn more great people, but they would have a harder time holding onto them. Then you could get into a culture war and have culture actually mean something in the later game when you aren't going for a cultural victory.

 

[blind biker]

Actually, most science today comes from the private sector,

Totally not true. I guess you don't work in science, so you could be excused for your ignorance. In any case, the private sector's contribution to science is orders of magnitude smaller than that coming from research and academic institutions. Sometimes private sector funds part of the academic research, but the research still doesn't come from the private sector (even if part of the money does). And to clarify, we're talking of a ratio of hundreds to 1, regarding public to private scientific output.

 

[skallben]

Totally not true. I guess you don't work in science, so you could be excused for your ignorance. In any case, the private sector's contribution to science is orders of magnitude smaller than that coming from research and academic institutions. Sometimes private sector funds part of the academic research, but the research still doesn't come from the private sector (even if part of the money does). And to clarify, we're talking of a ratio of hundreds to 1, regarding public to private scientific output.

Define science. Maybe the ratio in cutting edge physics have that ratio but what about refinement of a combustion engine? Are you really saying that every car manufactureres R&D gets outdone times 100?

In the context we are talking here I supposed (maybe wrongly) that what we mean with science as far as V goes, is the real hard applied solutions that changes the world we live in. You meantion Academic research, maybe it is just here but Academia can be rather dismissmive of anything not being done the exactly as it's own formula.

And no, I don't work in science, what I am saying is based on University class. Maybe I am wrong but as for now I just believe what we define as science differs.

 

[JohnnyW]

since you asked for feedback

I don't see a need to split beakers into science and innovation, the same effect could be achieved by playings with:

- base beakers per person
- multipliers for science buildings
- beakers per science specialist
- bonuses from SP
- tech costs per era

As I see it base beakers is the same as your innovation output concept with buildings and SP etc beeing the same as you science output concept. You just need to tweak the numbers to make the base beakers per person less important the all other sources.

or am I missing something?

If you split the yields of population and bulildings you can directly make the yield of the population worth less than the yield of buildings instead of having to make it relative. With the current system any multiplier to beaker production will affect both population and building yields (and terrain...).

You could balance it differently. IDK if it would be easier or harder.

 

[blind biker]

Define science. Maybe the ratio in cutting edge physics have that ratio but what about refinement of a combustion engine? Are you really saying that every car manufactureres R&D gets outdone times 100?

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. It just happens that my research field involves fuel cells for mobile and automotive applications (I am in materials sciences, micro and nanosciences - an nice marriage of chemistry and physics), so I have a pretty strong base from which I can shoot down your misconception. Companies invest in R&D as little as they can get away with. Marketing and sales budgets dwarf R&D by a lot.

There are companies that want to cooperate in research, of course - but that goes into the category of investing as little in R&D as they can get away with. The R&D is done (very cheaply) in academia or research institutes. Still, the predominant research money comes from the state budget.

 

[blind biker]

In the context we are talking here I supposed (maybe wrongly) that what we mean with science as far as V goes, is the real hard applied solutions that changes the world we live in. You meantion Academic research, maybe it is just here but Academia can be rather dismissmive of anything not being done the exactly as it's own formula.

Dude, are you for real? Do you think quantum physics didn't change the world we live in? Then let's throw away all those pesky transistors, integrated circuits and all that is made from them (radio/tv/mobile phones/computers/satellites/MP3 players/practically EVERYTHING as everything contains electronics). None of that would exist without fundamental sceintific research!

 

[skallben]

Dude, are you for real? Do you think quantum physics didn't change the world we live in? Then let's throw away all those pesky transistors, integrated circuits and all that is made from them (radio/tv/mobile phones/computers/satellites/MP3 players/practically EVERYTHING as everything contains electronics). None of that would exist without fundamental sceintific research!

No man, I'm only in your head. I worded that post poorly but I think you understand that is not at all what I believe. All those things you just mentioned are what normal people actually experience from the breakthroughs, that is how the experienced everyday change. That is not the same as denying those are made possible through research.

What I tried to say from the beginning is that further adaptation and integration of such breakthroughs into products people use require work aswell, in many cases that is work that is not recognized as science even though further innovations and discoveries are made in the process. The line between science & engineering is not allways clear, at least when trying to define what qualifies as science. If we exclude all additional work made to make a certain product function then I am sure your numbers are correct, I also recognize that there are things that corporations cannot do just because it's not profitable for them.

We are going OT and clutter the thread. Please PM me if you wanna go on with this.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. It just happens that my research field involves fuel cells for mobile and automotive applications (I am in materials sciences, micro and nanosciences - an nice marriage of chemistry and physics), so I have a pretty strong base from which I can shoot down your misconception. Companies invest in R&D as little as they can get away with. Marketing and sales budgets dwarf R&D by a lot.

There are companies that want to cooperate in research, of course - but that goes into the category of investing as little in R&D as they can get away with. The R&D is done (very cheaply) in academia or research institutes. Still, the predominant research money comes from the state budget.

This. While I don't work in any science field my brother does, specifically as a Chem. Engineer in Membrane Techonlogy. His work is mostly of use to the private sector, yet he works for a government owned and funded company. They do get some private funding, when asked to investigate a particular area, but the vast majority of their research findings are patented and sold on after the event, with government funding fuelling most projects.

Most of his fellow students working in the private sector (mainly big pahrma) are essentially working as quality control, with very little by way of original research. Actually the only private research carried out in pharma are small operations who just twiddle different chemical formulae around in computer simulations, find those that bind, and then batch patent thousands for selling on to the majors when one or two have interesting properties (often found by accident)

 

[Smote]

IBM manages to actually have a profitable R&D.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

IBM manages to actually have a profitable R&D.

A little thing called tax breaks. The area I do have expertise in is accounting, and the amount of tax breaks available for "research" is often higher the figure put in. So a lot of companies inflate their R&D budgets simply to ensure they get the juicy tax breaks available for it.

 

[blind biker]

IBM manages to actually have a profitable R&D.

Every company has an R&D that is profitable.

 

[blind biker]

Most of his fellow students working in the private sector (mainly big pahrma) are essentially working as quality control, with very little by way of original research. Actually the only private research carried out in pharma are small operations who just twiddle different chemical formulae around in computer simulations, find those that bind, and then batch patent thousands for selling on to the majors when one or two have interesting properties (often found by accident)

Very accurate!

One of the two guys who got the last year's Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on graphene (the two are Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov) has once, on a conference, approached a company representative, and asked him if they would be interested in this graphene stuff. The suit very candidly answered that they would just follow the development (not done by them, of course) from the sidelines, and as soon as it becomes clear that some applications may emerge from graphene, they would file patents like a machine gun (literally, hundreds in a matter of a few weeks), and if the scientists would object, they'd bury them under a mountain of lawyers.

I thought that this anecdote was very instructive.

 

[Smote]

Every company has an R&D that is profitable.

Directly profitable... via patent deals...

 

[blind biker]

Directly profitable... via patent deals...

Well my friend, it still applies: nearly every company has an R&D department that is directly profitable through their patents... because nowadays companies patent every little fart they produce, to cover themselves - so those patents are directly profitable. They are either used to cover the company (in case another company tries to sue them, they can counter-sue with their patent portfolio) or to sell licenses to other companies.

Take Nokia, for instance: they make a nontrivial amount of money from selling patent licenses to other companies in the same business. Except for Apple, which decided not to pay, and are now being sued by Nokia.

So what I think you had in mind are companies that only produce IP, is that correct? There are many like that: ARM would be a great example, but AMD is quickly going in that direction, too, and Rambus has been there for some time. Problem is, these companies make IP but little actual science. Patents are, ever more often, just cleverly worded application notes, so that a simple and straightforward property or application cannot be used by anyone else who doesn't have the patent. That's not really science - it's lawyercraft.

 

[JohnnyW]

Problem is, these companies make IP but little actual science. Patents are, ever more often, just cleverly worded application notes, so that a simple and straightforward property or application cannot be used by anyone else who doesn't have the patent. That's not really science - it's lawyercraft.

And lawyercraft (read as bullsh**) is why I left law school. Didn't realize just how bad it really was til I got in it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess the main difference (other than scale) is the process.

There are two ways to do R&D. Privately, and publicly. If it's done privately, then chances are that it's for profit. Nothing wrong with that: it's our engine of economic growth. However, in private research, we hold our cards close to our chests and keep as many secrets as possible. (in fact, there's a benefit if your competitors can be tricked into replicating your work: failed or not)

Public research doesn't have to be for profit, because it creates a public good. We share our findings as fast as we can. We get prestige if other people read our findings and find them useful. If you replicate my work (successfully), I benefit and you benefit (as long as you're not too delayed in your replication).

The final advantage is that people can mine the public data to generate their own ideas.
I'm also under the impression that public funding of R&D completely dwarfs private investment into R&D. In private industries, R&D funding has to compete for advertising funding. It doesn't matter if you don't make a better product, if you can convince people you are making a product better.

 

[blind biker]

I guess the main difference (other than scale) is the process.

There are two ways to do R&D. Privately, and publicly. If it's done privately, then chances are that it's for profit. Nothing wrong with that: it's our engine of economic growth. However, in private research, we hold our cards close to our chests and keep as many secrets as possible. (in fact, there's a benefit if your competitors can be tricked into replicating your work: failed or not)

Public research doesn't have to be for profit, because it creates a public good. We share our findings as fast as we can. We get prestige if other people read our findings and find them useful. If you replicate my work (successfully), I benefit and you benefit (as long as you're not too delayed in your replication).

The final advantage is that people can mine the public data to generate their own ideas.
I'm also under the impression that public funding of R&D completely dwarfs private investment into R&D. In private industries, R&D funding has to compete for advertising funding. It doesn't matter if you don't make a better product, if you can convince people you are making a product better.

I agree. I'd like just to add as a clarification: In the private sector, R&D facilities and personnel are regarded more as drawback than a benefit. This sounds counter-intuitive and almost outrageous, but you have to keep in mind that every man and machine that is dedicated to R&D is taken away from production! Example: in my country there is interest in laser ablation techniques, that could be used in many fields (and so the interest exists in various industries), but they are ALL reluctant to invest in a laser ablation system of their own, if they don't have an exact process with parameters and practices already in place. Instead, the government funds a research institution (VTT, principally) that acquires the various laser ablation systems - DPSS, fiber, CO2, excimer, nanosecond & femtosecond etc. etc. from few tens of watts to several kilowatts - and the scientists there develop various processes suitable for various materials, speeds, structure sizes, depths, cut and drill qualities etc. etc. and once they develope them, they share them with the industry. No company would invest even in a mid-size DPSS ablation station that would cost some 300.000 EUR. That would be too small for production for most cases, so it's pure "loss". If they want a production system, that's going to cost more, and using it for R&D would be considered a huge financial loss. Better keep buggering on with what they have, invest in marketing, find new markets, perhaps invent a slightly better mousetrap, invest in a new design... keep buggering on rather than developing something new.