Science

[Thalassicus]

If we make science depend on villages and favor tall empires, we solve two problems at once:

• Undervalued villages.
• Science comes mainly from population.

@Seek
Are you thinking that proposal (as described) would not have the listed effects, or do you believe the proposal is not feasible? Those are two different things to discuss.

It does matter, because one city reaching 16 pop takes a huge amount of turns compared to two cities reaching 6 pop.

...
1) further devalue Merchants (why would you ever work a Merchant over a village?) and buffs Scientists (with 2/pop, working a scientist slot gives a 150% increase while with 1/pop it's a 300% increase)
2) cause a return of the gold overabundance only recently resolved.

Moving Aqueducts earlier in the tech tree would change the population balance... but we're getting off topic. I'm trying to find ways to make science come from sources other than undeveloped population.

1. If a tile and specialists produce equal yields, then the value of those specialists is equal. If this is not the case it's a problem with the yields themselves, not the specialists. Besides, scientists are currently less powerful than merchants:
   
   Spoiler :

   From the yields thread:
   
   22 = villages
   03 = merchant
   09 = market
   ====================
   34 / 12 = 2.8 per
   03 / 34 = 9% from merchants
   
   
   24 = 2 * 12 pop
   12 = 1 * 12 library
   03 = 3 * 01 scientist
   ====================
   39 / 12 = 3.2 per
   03 / 21 = 8% from scientists
2. It's not possible to draw this conclusion with the information we have so far, because we have no specific numbers to go with the proposal described in the first quote.

 

[Seek]

@Seek
Are you thinking that proposal (as described) would not have the listed effects, or do you believe the proposal is not feasible? Those are two different things to discuss.

Regarding listed effects, making the proposal function properly - to favor tall cities - will be tremendously difficult (given the limitations of feasibility, discussed in the next paragraph) and has the potential to create some nasty side-effects (like ICS). mitsho's idea (make villages -1) is one I proposed in the Rebalancing Proposal thread and could work to prevent total spamming of villages. If we go with this idea I'd favor reducing villages by 2 as well (see below).

Regarding feasibility, I'll note this, edited this into my last post:

I recall you saying there was issues with adding science to improvements when you were developing the Jade Hall. If I'm wrong, we can work with the village-science idea via buildings in a way that favors developed cities more easily.

If we could add science on villages through mid- or late-tier buildings the proposal would seem more viable to me.

Moving Aqueducts earlier in the tech tree would change the population balance... but we're getting off topic. I'm trying to find ways to make science come from sources other than undeveloped population.

1. If a tile and specialists produce equal yields, then the value of those specialists is equal. If this is not the case it's a problem with the yields themselves, not the specialists. Besides, scientists are currently less powerful than merchants:
   
   Spoiler :

   From the yields thread:
   
   22 = villages
   03 = merchant
   09 = market
   ====================
   34 / 12 = 2.8 per
   03 / 34 = 9% from merchants
   
   
   24 = 2 * 12 pop
   12 = 1 * 12 library
   03 = 3 * 01 scientist
   ====================
   39 / 12 = 3.2 per
   03 / 21 = 8% from scientists
2. It's not possible to draw this conclusion with the information we have so far, because we have no specific numbers to go with the proposal described in the first quote.

1. Agreed, and shifting science away from population will upset the current balance - that's precisely the point. Unfortunately, when it comes to gold, villages and merchants do not have equal yields - villages have +1 if riverside, and either +1/+1 or +2 over merchants (unless on desert or tundra).
2. I think it's a safe assumption, because we will want to work as many villages as possible to remain competitive in science, so unless villages are severely nerfed (as proposed above) we will see a vastly larger average gpt.

 

[Txurce]

Having said that, why are we looking for new ways to reward developed cities with more science than undeveloped ones (given that they already get more science from buildings and specialists)? There’s no ICS in VEM; human players already build plenty of improvements; warmongers already tend to limit city size; and most importantly, low-development AI like the Mongols and Danes need all the help they can get acquiring science.

Thal, could you answer my question? The following exchanges left me even more in the dark.

I suspect villages are a moderate to low priority for most people.

If science depends more on villages in a way that favors tall empires, we solve two problems at once:

• Undervalued villages.
• Science comes mainly from population.

Are undervalued villages something we're trying to address here as well? Is the problem simply that you want everything used roughly as much? I tend to agree with your surmise that people don't value them for the same reason I mistakenly undervalue GM's in game play (until recently). I do think mixing them in with science would only muddy the ""problem(s)."

But you also say you want to favor tall empires more. I can't tell if that's a current goal, but it's something I've been wondering about lately. If it is a goal, villages may not be the answer, since they obviously limit growth. Early on my food comes from farms; later, when I am running specialists, it comes from farms in the capital, although there is room for more villages in the other cities.

I think the simplest and most effective way to favor tall empires would be to return the National Wonders to the previous primarily %-based benefit. I believe the change was made to counteract super-capitals, so we could experiment with limiting NWs to maybe 3 or 4 per city (less harsh than Civ4's 2/city, but would encourage more city specialization).

I agree with this. It's why I argued a while ago that some of the big changes - including the de-emphasizing of the capital that I argued against - hurt tall civs. I'll play tall today, to compare results against my recent series of wider science games.

This is also one of the few suggestions that doesn't scream collateral damage to me.

 

[Thalassicus]

[W]hy are we looking for new ways to reward developed cities with more science than undeveloped ones?

You bring up a good point; I didn't explain the reason behind this very well. I've edited the original post with a more clear explanation.

 

[Seek]

@Txurce, I don't really see the need for the proposed shift either. Large population cities without any science buildings doesn't yield that much science, and ICS isn't an issue in VEM in part because of that.

Disregarding that, a couple other ideas:

1. Reformulate Enlightenment and Freedom policies - make Free Thought +17% on Universities and [X bonus] on Public Schools and give the science on villages to a Freedom policy (perhaps the one increasing TR gold). This would create tension between taking Enlightenment with wide empires (unlikely to get many PSs up rapidly) and tall empires (unlikely to work as many villages).
2. Rather than buff high-tier science buildings, reformulate Oxford. Have it require Public Schools and give it a percentage and/or population bonus, maybe ditching the free tech if necessary.

As we become better at the game, we want to feel like our raising skill is making a difference. Automatic bonuses help everyone about the same, while developed bonuses reward player skill more. Consider two hypothetical situations. Our skill at placing improvements, constructing buildings, and so on matters more in situation B than A:

A. Yield comes only from undeveloped sources (like population, trade routes).
B. Yield comes only from developed sources (buildings, improvements, and specialists).

I see growth as the "development" of science in my games - it's the tension between production and growth that makes the game interesting and fun in many ways. I wouldn't describe it purely as "undeveloped sources" because one can settle a production-rich site, grow to pop four and be able to get a couple dozen buildings up rapidly. That city is useful, pays for itself in gold, culture, happiness, etc, but will be stunted scientifically, thus giving impetus to grow and acquire more happiness in order to do so. It's a trade-off whether to grow or produce, often. I admit shifting some of the science away from population would increase that tension, but I think we should tread very carefully here.

 

[Txurce]

Lowering the value of an undeveloped population makes sense to me if the goal is to raise the bar of success. But I go back to these two points: human players already develop their cities, and some AI don't. The potential AI issue is much bigger, because it throws off the entire game - for an example, look no further than the current "slacker AI" problem.

But even on the human side, it seems to me that you are looking to find something we could do that we aren't doing already, to make science more pro-active. Since we already do a lot - build expensive buildings, grow those big populations, work to keep them happy and paid for - and adding more pieces will just become another item on the science checklist, I'd guess that you're looking to create more trade-offs: in other words, more science is now going to cost you this as well.

I don't see how this could be done in a way that favors tall civs over wide and/or undeveloped ones. It seems like a tall order rife with inevitable complications and potential side effects. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, in comparison to 1) improving the AI, particularly its growth and GW issues, 2) cracking the culture issue and balancing it, and 3) tuning the tall-wide dynamic.

 

[Thalassicus]

I see growth as the "development" of science in my games - it's the tension between production and growth that makes the game interesting and fun in many ways.

Growth is required for most yields (less so for culture).

2 depends on 1 (undeveloped) working 1 tile (developed).
2 depends on 1 (undeveloped).

Tall-wide balance is easy to adjust by moving food sources around. I've moved the Aqueduct to Construction to help that in the next version.

@Txurce
I change focus every few weeks to keep my brain from melting. The more time we focus our mind on one task, the less creative we become.

Off to lunch! I'll be back later.

 

[Txurce]

Thal - that I understand and would always support!

Seriously, it's the hardest part of any creative endeavor that's not a job. Getting stuck on the details - zooming in with the microscope - is the natural expert tendency. It's also the general tendency in this forum, given the number of mathematically-oriented players. Pulling back for the perspective needed to look at the big picture is the best way to build a more-wide-than-deep game like VEM Civ.

On a related note, I've noticed that you are adding a lot of excellent features in the remaining window before G&K.

 

[rfxmills]

I haven't had a chance to take all this in and come up with a plan yet, but from a quick skim I don't think buffing tiles helps tall vs wide, or undeveloped vs developed. Buffing specialists would though.

On a side note, I've found that there is so much free food available from buildings and SPs that a 10 pop city can support 8 specialists even without the SP which reduces how much food they eat.

 

[Jaybe]

Aye, increasing dependence on specialists was my first thought also. Increasing quantity of science specs will also increase number of GS, though.

Thal, one way to enhance science value of developed cities would be to rescind your 2 sci/pop change, while reducing science costs by a smaller amount.

--
Science pacing: Ideally, I believe the player should be ready to start research on Future Tech#1 on the last turn of the game (turn 500/750/1500). Is this generally where the pacing is; faster; slower??

 

[sukritact]

Reading the modified OP, couldn't it be as simple as making higher tier buildings provide more science per pop (adjusting production and maintenance costs accordingly to make them less attractive for ICS and wide empires), or introduce some buildings that branch out from the already existing buildings just for that purpose, maybe giving them multiple/harder to achieve building requirements so they can only be built in developed cities.

This should mean science would be more of a thing you'd have to actively invest in.

And if you want it to be something you have to weigh and consider, you could introduce mutually exclusive buildings best suited for different situations.

I think the empires enhanced modmod introduced something similar?

 

[MortalD]

Cant we simply set a building to req a specific population to be build ? Like u cant train settlers in pop 1 cities.

Pop of 8 for University for example.

 

[Thalassicus]

[...] introduce some buildings that branch out from the already existing buildings just for that purpose [of science from developed sources]

This is something I thought of too. We obviously can't buff the library directly because it'd alter balance between it and other structures. However, we could introduce a new science building in an early era, or add a science effect to an existing building. It would maintain balance between the buildings, while still allowing us to shift some science off of basic population.

 

[Zaldron]

More unworked tiles. One citizen works 1 tile, and unworked tiles don't produce anything. Say we have 20 to build N cities:

1 city
16
4 per city + 1 per = 20
Can work 16 tiles

2 cities
6 per city
4 per city + 1 per = 20
Can work 12 tiles

The tall empire can get more use out of tile bonuses, since it's working more tiles.

The tall empire may be working more total tiles but almost certainly fewer villages because they'll be focusing strongly on food and production. If you gave science to villages, farms, AND mines, I think that might help accomplish what you want. I'm specifically excluding (non-wheat) resources because those tiles will be the first worked by a wide empires typically.

 

[learner gamer]

I suspect villages are a moderate to low priority for most people. I think the reason is partially gameplay (gold can't build wonders) and partially psychological: production gives an immediate local effect, whereas gold is pooled into a more nebulous global supply.

@Thalassicus: is it possible that the low priority of villages is actually a reflection of the amount of gold provided by a village being too low relative to the hammers produced by a mine, given the hammer:gold conversion cost of constructing units / buildings?

To put it another way, the purchase costs of buildings start at around 200% of their base hammer cost, and go upwards from there. However, the gold provided by a village is not 200% (and more) of the hammers that come from a mine. This is why, going back to your quoted passage, I almost inevitably find it quicker to build stuff by using hammers rather than use gold to buy it....especially during the early game.



As an aside, re: your analysis of how many unworked tiles exist in N cities. How do your results change if city 2 can settle one or two luxuries? To put it another way, what are you implicitly assuming about how many luxuries city 2 settles if remains constant?

 

[void_genesis]

What about making the %benefit of any tier science building depend on how completely you build them in all of your cities (similar mechanic presumably to calculating when a national wonder can be built).

This would tend to slow the expansion of a civ going for a science victory. It would slow the research of an expansionist or war mongering civ as well.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Zaldron
We know tall empires currently build few villages. If we make villages better for tall empires, tall empires will logically build more villages. We're generally going to build what's best for us.

The exception is psychological factors... which are more difficult to overcome. I personally believe gold is underappreciated because it's less tangible than production (global instead of local). It's sort of like how I buffed cultural and militaristic citystates, but it took a year for them to start getting prioritized equally with maritimes. We're human beings, and our decisions tend to be driven by habit.

@Thalassicus: is it possible that the low priority of villages is actually a reflection of the amount of gold provided by a village being too low relative to the hammers produced by a mine, given the hammer:gold conversion cost of constructing units / buildings?

Gold has more uses than production. That means gold would be overpowered if we only compare #1 to balance them:

Production

• Building things (one city over time)

Gold

• Building things (anywhere, instant)
• Unit/building/road maintenance
• Bribing citystates
• Purchasing tiles
• Trade deals
• Opportunities

 

[gunnergoz]

What if we give villages more science points, and reduce the science from undeveloped pop, like you suggest...but the amount of science villages produce depends upon buildings (libraries, or perhaps new ones as yet undefined, spinoffs of libraries and universities) and perhaps policies.

Basically you shadow what is already happening for gold production.

Instead of 1 undeveloped pop generating 1 , you would have, say, 1 undeveloped pop generating .25

Here's what it might look like:

A city with 12 pop, a library, and 1 scientist:

3 = basic population (12 * .25)
3 = library
3 = scientist
11 = villages (11 * 1)
====================
20 total

Then, to boost the total, you add buildings and policies that enhance the output of villages' science.

So here's the same sized city with more advances:

3 = basic population (12 * .25)
3 = library
3 = university
9 = scientists (1 from library, 2 from university)
16 = villages (11 * 1.5) (additional .5 multiplier from university)
====================
34 total

Add in, for example, a "mandatory schooling policy #1" which boosts the village multiplier by an additional .5

Later, a multiplier for a "national literacy push policy #2", could take the undeveloped population production up from .25 per pop to .5 per pop

Giving you this:

6 = basic population (12 * .5) (includes policy #2)
3 = library
3 = university
9 = scientists (1 from library, 2 from university)
22 = villages (11 * 2) (.5 multiplier from university and .5 multiplier from policy #1)
====================
43 total

And so on...basically treating science more like gold in how it is generated. It would make players have to choose whether to use their developed population for villages or for mines, etc.

 

[MortalD]

Gold

• Building things
• Unit, building, and road maintenance
• Bribing citystates
• Trade deals

Add opportunities to that, and would be good to point out that with gold u can buy anything, anywhere and instantly

 

[gunnergoz]

I did not want to keep editing my previous post, but did want to add that this approach could give tangible benefits to those civs that decide to create cities where there are few other luxury or strategic resources to justify the placement...in effect, allowing for cities that reward their foundation by producing science (and gold), if not in production output.