Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
@gunnergoz
That's my thinking as well.
That's my thinking as well.
Science
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
I have been playing the NiGHTS Mod as well and there are some interesting facets to it, including the concept of academies which, like villages, produce much local science when worked...but they do not come from GP, but can simply be created by a worker after the requisite tech has been researched. The only problem I see with it is that there is nothing to prevent "academy sprawl" and a city, especially near mountains (which give academies in the mod a powerful boost) can become a real science powerhouse.
That may not be a bad thing, unless it is gamed to the point that all you have to do to win is beeline science and build science cities as you work towards a science victory.
I personally prefer the vanilla way to do things, which is that academies are powerful science-producing tiles that are placed by GP, and whose output can be enhanced by later tech and policies, supplementing the village science output surrounding them.
Although...is there some way for the game to recognize an academy tile and "reward" science production in the villages and mines surrounding the tile the academy occupies? That might be interesting: a sort of a "science park" idea.
That may not be a bad thing, unless it is gamed to the point that all you have to do to win is beeline science and build science cities as you work towards a science victory.
I personally prefer the vanilla way to do things, which is that academies are powerful science-producing tiles that are placed by GP, and whose output can be enhanced by later tech and policies, supplementing the village science output surrounding them.
Although...is there some way for the game to recognize an academy tile and "reward" science production in the villages and mines surrounding the tile the academy occupies? That might be interesting: a sort of a "science park" idea.
@gunnergoz
I appreciate your examples but I don't think I've ever had a game where even one or two cities had the 10-11 grassland to make working that many villages supportable, not to mention that such city would have no production.
Also in a 12 pop city you can't work 11 villages AND three scientists.
And I'm pretty sure that such a setup would still emphasize wide empires.
For example in your base case, two cities of 6 would offer 3pop+6lib+6scientist+10village=25 science, rather than 20 science in a single city. This is a 25% science increase just for creating an extra city.
But now let's say you split it into four cities of three pop: you get 3pop+12lib+12scientist+8villages=35 science, or almost *doubling* my science for splitting the same amount of population into smaller cities, the exact opposite of what we're trying to encourage here.
I appreciate your examples but I don't think I've ever had a game where even one or two cities had the 10-11 grassland to make working that many villages supportable, not to mention that such city would have no production.
Also in a 12 pop city you can't work 11 villages AND three scientists.
And I'm pretty sure that such a setup would still emphasize wide empires.
For example in your base case, two cities of 6 would offer 3pop+6lib+6scientist+10village=25 science, rather than 20 science in a single city. This is a 25% science increase just for creating an extra city.
But now let's say you split it into four cities of three pop: you get 3pop+12lib+12scientist+8villages=35 science, or almost *doubling* my science for splitting the same amount of population into smaller cities, the exact opposite of what we're trying to encourage here.
I see the difference between tall and wide empires as such that tall empires have their population working the same cities, where as wide empires have their population working in different cities. Comparing these two, tall empires capitalize on +% modifiers, where as wide empires therefore capitalize on rare terrain; i.e. luxury and strategic resources. Applying the above, and taking into account the two other effects of cities 
c5unhappy: and less 
), tall empires can therefore exchange [ or 
] for +%
more efficiently than wide ones.
Based on that, could add a policy that gives per excess similar to that piety policy which gives per excess .
Something I thought about was buildings that cost a flat amount of one resource, but multiplying another by modifier. Wide empires want flat amounts, where as tall ones love modifiers due to concentrated effort. The university already does this; exchanging
for +%. What about an earlier building that exchanges 
for +%? Can buildings give negative production? (or in other words, cost production for maintenance instead of gold) I see essentially two categories of buildings emerge: Flat for flat exchange for wide empires, e.g. for (since they can build one in each city) and flat for multiplier exchange for tall empires, e.g. for +% (for concentrated effort). Currently in the game we also have flat for population-based flat exchange, e.g. for [ per 
], which seems to benefit both styles roughly equally, since it's both a flat exchange for wide empires, as well as population-based which works fine for tall ones.
There are also other categories of buildings that currently do not exist: modifier for flat exchange, or -% for +, which would strongly favor wide empires, because losing percentages matters little to large numbers of highly specialized cities; and flat for population-based modifier exchange, which means for [+% per ] and absolutely favors tall cities:
Let's assume, say, 1 (from library) and a +10% modifier for the above theoretical building, per :
1 citizen * 1.1 science = 1.1 science
2 * 1.2 = 2.4 (+1.3 from previous)
3 * 1.3 = 3.9 (+1.5)
4 * 1.4 = 5.6 (+1.7)
5 * 1.5 = 7.5 (+1.9)
...
18 * 2.8 = 50.4
19 * 2.9 = 55.1 (+4.7)
20 * 3 = 60 (+4.9)
...and so on.
c5unhappy: and less ), tall empires can therefore exchange [ or ] for +% more efficiently than wide ones.Based on that, could add a policy that gives
per excess similar to that piety policy which gives per excess .Something I thought about was buildings that cost a flat amount of one resource, but multiplying another by modifier. Wide empires want flat amounts, where as tall ones love modifiers due to concentrated effort. The university already does this; exchanging
for +%. What about an earlier building that exchanges for +%? Can buildings give negative production? (or in other words, cost production for maintenance instead of gold) I see essentially two categories of buildings emerge: Flat for flat exchange for wide empires, e.g. for (since they can build one in each city) and flat for multiplier exchange for tall empires, e.g. for +% (for concentrated effort). Currently in the game we also have flat for population-based flat exchange, e.g. for [ per ], which seems to benefit both styles roughly equally, since it's both a flat exchange for wide empires, as well as population-based which works fine for tall ones.There are also other categories of buildings that currently do not exist: modifier for flat exchange, or -%
for +, which would strongly favor wide empires, because losing percentages matters little to large numbers of highly specialized cities; and flat for population-based modifier exchange, which means for [+% per ] and absolutely favors tall cities:Let's assume, say, 1
(from library) and a +10% modifier for the above theoretical building, per :1 citizen * 1.1 science = 1.1 science
2 * 1.2 = 2.4 (+1.3 from previous)
3 * 1.3 = 3.9 (+1.5)
4 * 1.4 = 5.6 (+1.7)
5 * 1.5 = 7.5 (+1.9)
...
18 * 2.8 = 50.4
19 * 2.9 = 55.1 (+4.7)
20 * 3 = 60 (+4.9)
...and so on.
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
I wasn't claiming there were 3 scientists, only one scientist that generated 3 science points...sorry if that was not clear.
Don't take the science generation numbers given as final figures, they are only to make the points of discussion...the actual science points generated by the various contributing elements would have to be finessed by testing so neither wide nor tall civs are given too many advantages over one another.
As for the examples, that is all they were, examples for the sake of discussion...not specific game strategies or techniques. Production strategy was not germane to the discussion so I left it out of the examples and focused on science point generation.
BTW, Why do villages have to be restricted to grasslands? They can very easily go on any flat or hill terrain and gain some of the underlying bonuses. I don't limit villages to only grasslands in my play. Just sayin'
I'm just looking at other ways to generate science apart from raw undeveloped population in cities. What I see as a problem is that the Civ V designers seemed to have wimped out when it came to science and decided to have it generated by raw unproductive population since that would supposedly negate the tall vs wide issue, i.e. 2 cities of 12 pop generate as much science as 1 city of 24 pop or 6 of 4 pop.
Villages don't have to be restricted to grasslands, assuming you're say working some farms. In your example though, every single citizen was working a village and the only way for that to provide enough food is for pretty much every one of them to be on grass (two plains or one hill and you would have no growth at all).
A % science modifier per building constructed might be a good way to go with a much lower base-per-pop science. Then wide empires have to make a lot more buildings to get the bonus, helping to equalize things.
Dunkah
Emperor
Just some food for thought.
I haven't heard anyone mention that if you move Science to villiages then you have the ability to squash another players science output by plundering thier villages.
I certainly like that idea! Remember in Civ IV if you plundered a City it would shrink into a village or village to a town or hamlet or whatever it was. It gave you a reason to get out of the cities and protect your countryside.
Or a reason to fight a war even if you didn't have as strong of an army.
I haven't heard anyone mention that if you move Science to villiages then you have the ability to squash another players science output by plundering thier villages.
I certainly like that idea! Remember in Civ IV if you plundered a City it would shrink into a village or village to a town or hamlet or whatever it was. It gave you a reason to get out of the cities and protect your countryside.
Or a reason to fight a war even if you didn't have as strong of an army.
It would also make barbarian raids much more dangerous. I suppose a side effect of doing this will be an increased emphasis on military.
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
If you think that villages represent the majority of populations - in ancient days in particular - that did not live within the cities but in the countryside around them, then it makes sense. And in modern terms, the villages do represent the suburbs that grow around city centers. No way I want Ghengis stomping around in my neighborhood! 
wobuffet
Barbarian
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,248
How long has this been true? With the AI yield/production bug fixed, I'm not sure I like this.
If it's wonder competitiveness we're after, I'd rather face a fixed 20% AI Wonder production boost than simply handing AIs a free technology.
I agree with both parts of this, but I can't state any objective reason for preferring one over the other besides "handing out a free tech feels unfair"
Txurce
Deity
One reason would be that Pottery gives somebody a huge edge on the GL... but I guess that would apply to just about any tech.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
It's unchanged since the game's release. Here's the vanilla settings:
<HandicapInfo_AIFreeTechs>
<Row><TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_KING</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_EMPEROR</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_IMMORTAL</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_ANIMAL_HUSBANDRY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_EMPEROR</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_ANIMAL_HUSBANDRY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_IMMORTAL</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_ANIMAL_HUSBANDRY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_MINING</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_IMMORTAL</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_MINING</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_THE_WHEEL</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
</HandicapInfo_AIFreeTechs><Row><TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_EMPEROR</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_IMMORTAL</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_POTTERY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_ANIMAL_HUSBANDRY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_EMPEROR</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_ANIMAL_HUSBANDRY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_IMMORTAL</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_ANIMAL_HUSBANDRY</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_MINING</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_IMMORTAL</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_MINING</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
<Row><TechType>TECH_THE_WHEEL</TechType><HandicapType>HANDICAP_DEITY</HandicapType></Row>
In vem I removed animal husbandry and the wheel from the list a few months ago. The 20% AI wonder production bonus was added a week ago in v151.5.
learner gamer
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 657
@Thalassicus: To try an add a little rigour to this debate re: the importance of mines and villages, I’ve put together a very simple spreadsheet (originally in .xlsx format, then zipped using 7-zip and attached below) illustrating the benefits of building versus buying units and infrastructure.
To be precise, I’ve considered the case of two civs at 3 pop working (i) 2 riverside farms and a riverside mine and (ii) 3 riverside villages. I considered this example purely to make a comparison in which both civs produced the same amount (here 6) of food per turn, to remove any distortion caused by different science rates between the civs.
The attached spreadsheet considers 5 scenarios for each civ:
(i) The post trade, post mining and pre-sailing world: this provides insight into the attractiveness of villages and mines at game start.
(ii) Post sailing, where the village builder receives one more gold per turn from villages.
(iii) Post iron working, which adds a hammer to mines (which is compared to post sailing villages)
(iv) Post patent law, which adds one gold to villages (assuming mines have their IW bonus for comparison)
(v) Post engineering, which adds a further hammer to riverside mines (assuming the village building civ has taken patent law for comparison.)
Admittedly, this analysis is very simplistic. It does not consider for example the impact of alternative ways of growing to pop 3 (or a multiple thereof). Nor does it consider the impact of snowball effects that might result from having a unit (eg. a worker to improve tiles) or building earlier. It also focuses solely on the return from working 3 tiles and quite deliberately ignores the food and hammers provided by the starting tile and palace, to focus solely on comparing the influence of mines and villages. For all this, I think it is still rather informative.
For simplicity, I have assumed the building purchase multiplier to be 3 and the unit purchase multiplier to be 4 throughout, which is not inconsistent with the values in your mod. However, both of these values can be changed simply by altering the values in cells B1 and B2. Indeed, the table could easily be adjusted to examine other scenarios if wanted by adjusting the values underneath the table.
The table is very self-explanatory. The first two sections covering columns B-E illustrate the hammers per turn and gold per turn earned by the two civs under each of the 5 scenarios mentioned above. Column F illustrates the ratio of extra gold earned by the village building civ (ie. after deducting any gold earned by the mine building civ) relative to the extra hammers gained by the mine building civ. This is shown just to illustrate how it differs in each scenario from the gold : hammer ratio in your mod. Columns G and H meanwhile show the amount (in % terms) of extra time taken by the village building civ to buy a (i) building and (ii) unit, compared to the mine building civ. In game terms, a value of 50% for instance would mean that a unit or building which took 10 turns to build would take 15 turns to buy.
IMHO, a few things stand out:
(i) Villages are very poor substitutes for mines in the pre-sailing period, since buildings will take 50% and units a whopping 100% longer to buy. The two questions I’d ask as a result are (i) should villages actually start off providing 3 (rather than 2 currently) extra gold and (ii) if not, is sailing the best tech to require the village builder to have to research in order to make villages a viable alternative, especially bearing in mind that the village building civ may be landlocked? If you really want the village builder to have to research a tech to add gold to villages, how about using something like the wheel or maybe maths (which is en route to currency)? As an aside, to the extent that you feel that there is some psychological factor restraining the appeal of villages, I wonder if the real story is that gamers have found mines to be so superior to villages in the early game that they simply keep on building them.
(ii) It is always at least as efficient to build infrastructure using mines as it is to buy it. It is always more efficient to build units rather than buy them – sometimes considerably so. To the extent that tall empires (consisting of few cities) might require fewer units to defend themselves, this might suggest that the mod encourages gamers to construct villages in tall empires.
(iii) The village builder is pretty much required to take patent law as a social policy. In the absence of the extra gold provided by this social policy, it will take 67% longer to buy a building and a whopping 122% longer to buy a unit in the post engineering era. (I guess another option is to ally with a militaristic CS and hope they provide unit(s) sufficient for you to ward off a DoW.) To the extent the village builder will want this social policy early, it again suggests the mod favours constructing villages in tall empires.
(iv) The table fails to take any account of the extra food provided by riverside farms from civil service. In this example, the mine builder would have 2 extra food per turn. This might, as suggested in the thread, warrant adding a science bonus to villages to compensate.
(v) The main question I have is whether the benefits of doing the other things on your list here (under "Gold"):
justify the kind of advantages that are available to the mine builder illustrated in this table. Whilst I’ve suggested this won’t be the case in the very early game, I’d be very interested to know the views of gamers such as you, Seek and Txurce who are more familiar with the mod than I am. Any thoughts about this (as well as any suggested corrections) from you guys (and of course others) would be very welcome.
To be precise, I’ve considered the case of two civs at 3 pop working (i) 2 riverside farms and a riverside mine and (ii) 3 riverside villages. I considered this example purely to make a comparison in which both civs produced the same amount (here 6) of food per turn, to remove any distortion caused by different science rates between the civs.
The attached spreadsheet considers 5 scenarios for each civ:
(i) The post trade, post mining and pre-sailing world: this provides insight into the attractiveness of villages and mines at game start.
(ii) Post sailing, where the village builder receives one more gold per turn from villages.
(iii) Post iron working, which adds a hammer to mines (which is compared to post sailing villages)
(iv) Post patent law, which adds one gold to villages (assuming mines have their IW bonus for comparison)
(v) Post engineering, which adds a further hammer to riverside mines (assuming the village building civ has taken patent law for comparison.)
Admittedly, this analysis is very simplistic. It does not consider for example the impact of alternative ways of growing to pop 3 (or a multiple thereof). Nor does it consider the impact of snowball effects that might result from having a unit (eg. a worker to improve tiles) or building earlier. It also focuses solely on the return from working 3 tiles and quite deliberately ignores the food and hammers provided by the starting tile and palace, to focus solely on comparing the influence of mines and villages. For all this, I think it is still rather informative.
For simplicity, I have assumed the building purchase multiplier to be 3 and the unit purchase multiplier to be 4 throughout, which is not inconsistent with the values in your mod. However, both of these values can be changed simply by altering the values in cells B1 and B2. Indeed, the table could easily be adjusted to examine other scenarios if wanted by adjusting the values underneath the table.
The table is very self-explanatory. The first two sections covering columns B-E illustrate the hammers per turn and gold per turn earned by the two civs under each of the 5 scenarios mentioned above. Column F illustrates the ratio of extra gold earned by the village building civ (ie. after deducting any gold earned by the mine building civ) relative to the extra hammers gained by the mine building civ. This is shown just to illustrate how it differs in each scenario from the gold : hammer ratio in your mod. Columns G and H meanwhile show the amount (in % terms) of extra time taken by the village building civ to buy a (i) building and (ii) unit, compared to the mine building civ. In game terms, a value of 50% for instance would mean that a unit or building which took 10 turns to build would take 15 turns to buy.
IMHO, a few things stand out:
(i) Villages are very poor substitutes for mines in the pre-sailing period, since buildings will take 50% and units a whopping 100% longer to buy. The two questions I’d ask as a result are (i) should villages actually start off providing 3 (rather than 2 currently) extra gold and (ii) if not, is sailing the best tech to require the village builder to have to research in order to make villages a viable alternative, especially bearing in mind that the village building civ may be landlocked? If you really want the village builder to have to research a tech to add gold to villages, how about using something like the wheel or maybe maths (which is en route to currency)? As an aside, to the extent that you feel that there is some psychological factor restraining the appeal of villages, I wonder if the real story is that gamers have found mines to be so superior to villages in the early game that they simply keep on building them.
(ii) It is always at least as efficient to build infrastructure using mines as it is to buy it. It is always more efficient to build units rather than buy them – sometimes considerably so. To the extent that tall empires (consisting of few cities) might require fewer units to defend themselves, this might suggest that the mod encourages gamers to construct villages in tall empires.
(iii) The village builder is pretty much required to take patent law as a social policy. In the absence of the extra gold provided by this social policy, it will take 67% longer to buy a building and a whopping 122% longer to buy a unit in the post engineering era. (I guess another option is to ally with a militaristic CS and hope they provide unit(s) sufficient for you to ward off a DoW.) To the extent the village builder will want this social policy early, it again suggests the mod favours constructing villages in tall empires.
(iv) The table fails to take any account of the extra food provided by riverside farms from civil service. In this example, the mine builder would have 2 extra food per turn. This might, as suggested in the thread, warrant adding a science bonus to villages to compensate.
(v) The main question I have is whether the benefits of doing the other things on your list here (under "Gold"):
justify the kind of advantages that are available to the mine builder illustrated in this table. Whilst I’ve suggested this won’t be the case in the very early game, I’d be very interested to know the views of gamers such as you, Seek and Txurce who are more familiar with the mod than I am. Any thoughts about this (as well as any suggested corrections) from you guys (and of course others) would be very welcome.
Txurce
Deity
I couldn't begin to be as rigorous, but my experience dovetails with the conclusions above. I always build farms and mines (and almost always lumber mills), adding villages only later in the game, when my population is sufficiently large, and villages gain a science reward.
Emergencies aside, the reason I buy very few units or buildings is that what gold I have usually goes to RA's and CS. Very early in the game, before I spend money on those deals, I do buy monuments and production buildings like water mills, granaries, and sometimes stables. Late in the game, when RA's are harder to come by and CS start taking care of themselves, I'll occasionally build a high-end science building in a low-hammer city, or even multiple buildings for late cities.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Production is good for local construction, while gold is for global construction. If a 10 city is producing 20, that can be redirected to a newly-founded 1 city. The new city can get lots of buildings right away which would otherwise require many turns to slowly construct. This lets the new city focus on food tiles for growth.
city is producing 20, that can be redirected to a newly-founded 1 city. The new city can get lots of buildings right away which would otherwise require many turns to slowly construct. This lets the new city focus on food tiles for growth.
Txurce
Deity
Production is good for local construction, while gold is for global construction. If a 10
That's what I do when useful in late games if I'm playing wide and still building. By the time I decide to focus a city on gold, it's usually late game anyway, when it's big and has the requisite buildings and slots.
learner gamer
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 657
I think the key word in that sentence is “lots”. You see, whilst I agree with the notion that gold can be used to help bring a new city online by buying a few buildings – indeed it’s something I do too when the situation allows – I rarely find I can buy “lots”.
Instead, IMHO, simple maths (ie. on the scale used in my spreadsheet) tells me that:
(i) the rate of gold accumulation from villages across an empire is so slow – especially in the early game; and
(ii) the gold : hammer multipliers are so high
that building (early game in particular) villages and using the gold to buy buildings and especially units (eg. a perhaps a military unit to defend the city) simply isn’t going to buy much at all.
To put it another way, let’s look at your example of a city generating 20 GPT and ask: how many turns is that city going to have to save it’s 20 GPT for, so that it’s available to insta-buy some infrastructure in a new city? Using data from your mod, let’s assume that I want the new city to be able to insta-buy just 3 early buildings:
(i) a monument costing 50 hammers / 160 gold
(ii) a granary costing 60 hammers / 198 gold
(iii) a watermill costing 90 hammers / 288 gold.
In other words, all I’m looking to do is add the most basic levels of culture, food and hammers to the city. Should you wish, please feel free to replicate this experiment buying other buildings (eg. a stable instead of a watermill). You’ll reach the same conclusion.
The total cost of the above is 646 gold. This means that it’ll take a city generating 20 GPT a whopping 33 turns (with 14 gold left over) to save sufficient gold to pay for just this most basic of infrastructure in the new city. Of course, if you also want to buy a military unit to defend the city, then the time over which the (here pop 10) city must save it’s GPT for lengthens considerably, because of the unit’s higher purchase multiplier. Buying just a warrior (at 5 times hammers) in this example for instance, would cost 250 gold and add 12.5 turns to the time spent saving gold (ie. taking us to a whopping approx. 45 turns)...during which none of the GPT generated in this example is available to be used to do the other things in your list (eg. buying CS, signing RAs etc.)
FWIW, it’s simple maths such as this which means that I tend to play similarly to Txurce by the sound of it – and I’m willing to wager that most others (if not everyone else) does too:
Unfortunately, I think that very simple maths clearly tells you to avoid relying on villages - especially in the early game when, IMHO, they need to be avoided like the plague.
rfxmills
Warlord
Something to consider when balancing these improvements against each other is that villages aren't the only source of gold, while mines and lumber mills are pretty much the only source of hammers.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
This. I make the vast majority of gold in the early game from meeting CSs and selling luxuries and OB. It isn't until maybe t100 (around the time I enter Ren) that I begin to use villages maximally and rely more on gpt, because I've got population up to where I can assign citizens to villages and maintain decent production.
Similar threads
