Science quest by CS

[atreas]

I wonder if anybody can explain the obvious anomaly between science quest and culture of faith quests. While on the two latter it counts the exact amount of culture/faith gathered, in the first it counts the amount of techs discovered - not even the total amount of the beakers value of these techs. Which means you can easily lose a science quest being in the Atomic era by somebody two eras or more behind - absurd IMO. Btw, that can never happen in any of the other categories - the best is the best. And if they wanted to do it that way, then for culture they could also count the number of policies discovered (ridiculous, equally ridiculous to what happens to science).

Can anybody figure out why on earth it is like that?

 

[Vintage Port]

That is a good point. It should be beakers so it matches up with the others.

Sometimes, to ensure I "win" the quest, I will pick up some of the cheaper techs if I'm out ahead. (i.e., sailing line or iron -> Chem/Fertilizer)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I wonder if anybody can explain the obvious anomaly between science quest and culture of faith quests. While on the two latter it counts the exact amount of culture/faith gathered, in the first it counts the amount of techs discovered - not even the total amount of the beakers value of these techs. Which means you can easily lose a science quest being in the Atomic era by somebody two eras or more behind - absurd IMO. Btw, that can never happen in any of the other categories - the best is the best. And if they wanted to do it that way, then for culture they could also count the number of policies discovered (ridiculous, equally ridiculous to what happens to science).

Can anybody figure out why on earth it is like that?

To give the lesser behind civs a better shot at City State Alliances.

ANYBODY can win a science quest, as it counts the number of techs researched.

ONLY THE BEST OUTPUT wins both Faith and Culture quests, meaning that if you one once, chances are you gonna be the dominating force for the rest of the game because you give out so much faith/culture. Quite frankly I think the latter quests are the unfair ones, but it's hard to re-work them.

If it was case of science output, you know it would always be the tech leader all the time as that person has the highest amoutn of beakers per turn.

 

[atreas]

To give the lesser behind civs a better shot at City State Alliances.

ANYBODY can win a science quest, as it counts the number of techs researched.

ONLY THE BEST OUTPUT wins both Faith and Culture quests, meaning that if you one once, chances are you gonna be the dominating force for the rest of the game because you give out so much faith/culture. Quite frankly I think the latter quests are the unfair ones, but it's hard to re-work them.

If it was case of science output, you know it would always be the tech leader all the time as that person has the highest amoutn of beakers per turn.

Very nice point indeed. You mean that the best is only the best for culture and faith (and especially for faith it can rarely change), but NO, for science we play a lottery? Call it pseudo-science lottery then...

 

[Sabrina]

I don't think it is unfair. If you are in the atomic era and the others are 2 eras behind, you ARE already making much more science per turn, which puts you in the same playing filed for the quest, even if the techs you are researching are more "expensive". Plus, you are not considering the fact that when a quest is given, you may already be 1 turn away from discovering a tech.

 

[atreas]

^^Or (even worse) to be one turn away from a tech and one from Rationalism finisher. But that's exactly my point - and you are backing it up with your very argument - that it is random, while the other two quests are not. Unfair is not my problem, but why specifically in science quest to have a lottery?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

^^Or (even worse) to be one turn away from a tech and one from Rationalism finisher. But that's exactly my point - and you are backing it up with your very argument - that it is random, while the other two quests are not. Unfair is not my problem, but why specifically in science quest to have a lottery?

It's not Random, an AI that has no intrest in getting ahead in tech will never win the race, it's still an effort, but it is fair that anybody can get it.

 

[atreas]

Maybe it is my English that are failing me. I ask why there is some anomaly between the various types of quests and I listen to nice things like "fair".

Do you mean that the programmers thought of creating a more democratic (random) quest? Bah. Most probably they missed it IMO (as a programmer). Otherwise they would have done the same at least with culture points and policies (which are EXACTLY the same).

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Culture is too "wavy" for it to work, the more you expand the more expensive the policies become, despite your culture flow increase, Science stays primarily the same, the techs never raise in price, and only lower by most civs owning that tech.

 

[pilot00]

Culture is too "wavy" for it to work, the more you expand the more expensive the policies become, despite your culture flow increase, Science stays primarily the same, the techs never raise in price, and only lower by most civs owning that tech.

What do you mean science stays the same? More science buildings and pop (therefore more expansion) means more beakers, which means more/faster techs. And thats why they count techs and not beakers. For culture it works the opposite, more cities more culture but less/slower policies. So to keep it even they had to do it this way. On one count flat generation, on the other count results.

All things considered faith is the anomaly. It can be generated in larger sums with more cities but city numbers plays no negative result to its end product.

 

[atreas]

What do you mean science stays the same? More science buildings and pop (therefore more expansion) means more beakers, which means more/faster techs. And thats why they count techs and not beakers. For culture it works the opposite, more cities more culture but less/slower policies. So to keep it even they had to do it this way. On one count flat generation, on the other count results.

All things considered faith is the anomaly. It can be generated in larger sums with more cities but city numbers plays no negative result to its end product.

So the point seems to be: reword the player with most cities in culture (by not counting SP but points, rewords him again in faith (which is really an anomaly as well, for many reasons), and then DON'T reword the player with the most pop/buildings in science, because if they counted points he would be the winner (although here the Tradition players would really disagree with you on the correlation between number of cities and beakers, but after some turn your statement really stands).

The only reason I can think for not doing it for culture is that there wouldn't be enough SP to count in 30 turns. Probably that's why they didn't do it there as well.

 

[Browd]

Culture and faith are easy -- just count the culture and faith points. Yes, wide has an advantage on each, although a tall civ focused on culture can be competitive.

On beakers, they could have used cumulative beaker generation, but they would have had to take account of beakers from RAs and GS bulbs and perhaps "implied beakers" from tech stealing. By focusing on number of techs, they eliminate the need to count beakers (just count techs), give a tall player the ability to compete by strategic selection of techs to research and reward a player for successful tech steals.

Frankly, seems neither fair nor unfair -- just easier to compare, and easier for the player to plan.

 

[pilot00]

Culture and faith are easy -- just count the culture and faith points. Yes, wide has an advantage on each, although a tall civ focused on culture can be competitive.

On beakers, they could have used cumulative beaker generation, but they would have had to take account of beakers from RAs and GS bulbs and perhaps "implied beakers" from tech stealing. By focusing on number of techs, they eliminate the need to count beakers (just count techs), give a tall player the ability to compete by strategic selection of techs to research and reward a player for successful tech steals.

Frankly, seems neither fair nor unfair -- just easier to compare, and easier for the player to plan.

I would hardly change my tech plan on the off chance to just to appease a city state.
Exceptions exist ofc but in principle not many would do.

Agreed on the complexity of the Beakers, do stolen techs count?

 

[Browd]

Stolen techs count as techs researched for purposes of CS science quests.

EDIT: Back when RAs were broken (double counting beaker overflow), if you had a science quest running during the time you also had one or more RAs maturing, it would make sense to leave some low-cost techs unresearched and more expensive techs with just one turn remaining. One turn before the RAs were to resolve, queue up the low-cost/one-turn techs to generate insane beaker overflow. Of course you wanted to this mostly for the beaker overflow, regardless of whether any CS science quests were pending, but the side benefit of winning CS science quest(s) was nice.

 

[pilot00]

Stolen techs count as techs researched for purposes of CS science quests.

EDIT: Back when RAs were broken (double counting beaker overflow), if you had a science quest running during the time you also had one or more RAs maturing, it would make sense to leave some low-cost techs unresearched and more expensive techs with just one turn remaining. One turn before the RAs were to resolve, queue up the low-cost/one-turn techs to generate insane beaker overflow. Of course you wanted to this mostly for the beaker overflow, regardless of whether any CS science quests were pending, but the side benefit of winning CS science quest(s) was nice.

I can agree to that, though it no longer is the case.
However with the mechanics as they are now its a bit of risk to do so don't you agree? (if you have a specific tech plan in mind that is)

 

[Browd]

Oh, yeah. I wouldn't do this for a CS quest, and it's no longer compelling for RAs either.

 

[Biologist]

The quest does say the CS is interested in the rate of scientific advancement, not the level of sophistication. They don't care how powerful the winning civ is technologically, they want the civ that is showing the most intellectual progress as evidence by technological advancement. Even if Civ A has Lasers and Civ B just discovered the Wheel, Animal Husbandry, and Sailing, Civ A is intellectually "stagnant" while Civ B is "progressive".

In an example this extreme, the CS priorities for forming an alliance seem quite silly.... but then, city states often ask for resources within their borders to be connected to player trade routes (having "heard of their great value"), or request a road to their capital and then blockade their own borders.

 

[Browd]

Or ask you to discover the last Natural Wonder on the map ... which is located inside their own borders.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Or ask you to discover the last Natural Wonder on the map ... which is located inside their own borders.

I have it.
Every City-State president is a 6-year old.