Science

[learner gamer]

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.

Agreed 100%. All the maths is doing IMHO is confirming why this is the better option.

 

[Txurce]

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.

This is about when I start building villages as well, and then only inland in my larger cities. It makes sense to play like this, but more importantly, I don't think it needs to be balanced. Most of us agree that villages are more than "villages," and a largely non gold-driven economy based on the capital and the countryside until later in the game makes sense.

 

[learner gamer]

It makes sense to play like this, but more importantly, I don't think it needs to be balanced.

IMHO, the main reason it needs balancing – in particular in the pre-sailing era – is the clear advantage the mod provides to hill laden starts.

 

[Txurce]

IMHO, the main reason it needs balancing – in particular in the pre-sailing era – is the clear advantage the mod provides to hill laden starts.

For me, hills = hammers, flat = population. I don't want a start tilting heavily in either direction. Fortunately, most starts are reasonably balanced. While the ultimate start is probably one tilting toward hills, I don't think a major adjustment is needed - and any change to villages will have major repercussions, just as changes to river and coastal tiles did. Keep in mind that the current Village question is about enhancing tall civs and reducing passive science; adjusting villages for gold wouldn't affect that very much.
Again, that gold doesn't come into its own until later in the game makes historical, evolutionary sense, and I don't see any reason to have the game emphasize it from the start.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's concerning if improvement choices are not challenging... but that's a topic for a different thread.

Other than villages, what alternative would you propose for solving the original problem?

 

[Txurce]

Do you mean the passive science aspect of population, or whether villages are worth building at the start of the game?

 

[Thalassicus]

Science

 

[sukritact]

Here's what I'm thinking

Lower the science per pop down to 1, add an flat science bonus to the palace (or just to the player) for initial compensation, or maybe lower tech costs (this should only be for first few techs). Introduce a set of buildings that will increase the science rate.

I'm thinking of something like this. Each of the new buildings could introduce a science per pop that would eventually stack up in addition to other effects such as science on villages. The later ones have higher maintenance and more requirements (the Natural History Museum requires four buildings) but would be more powerful than the Scriptorium.

Basically I'd rely on a combination of buffing some of the improvements with science (either directly or indirectly) and the introduction of new science buildings.

Production and Gold rely on a combination of tiles being worked and multipliers through buildings. That's what we should try to introduce for Science.

 

[learner gamer]

@ Thalassicus: In response to your original post re: reducing the gold provided by CS. (I saw what you did there! )

It would solve the early game issue but IMHO it’s very much the wrong solution to the problem because it doesn’t address the hammer: gold imbalance that’s at the root of the unattractiveness of villages highlighted (i) in the responses to the question you posed in post 20 of this thread and (ii) by my very simple spreadsheet.

I guess the issue I have with Txurce’s view is this statement:

any change to villages will have major repercussions, just as changes to river and coastal tiles did.

since, if all that happens is that villages start as +3 gold (instead of +2 currently) – which is the main recommendation highlighted by my spreadsheet – then I’m struggling to see how it has “major repercussions”. Perhaps Txurce’s seeing something I’m not, but all that’s being done as far as I can see is to make villages a viable alternative to mines at game start. They’ll still be inferior to mines (which I understand you want, given the flexibility that gold provides) – but now not devastatingly so. To make full value of a village, the gamer will still need to take patent law to make riverside villages worth 5 gold, assuming you remove the +1 gold to villages from sailing.


Re: your edited post. I agree wholeheartedly that science needs to come less from pop and more from actually having to do or build something. Indeed, IMHO, there have been some very good solutions posed to the issue in this thread. Now of course there is another one: increase the gold provided by villages above what I’ve mentioned at game start (perhaps analogously to how the gold from customs houses gets increased as the game progresses) – and add another education building or two that the gamer would be required / incentivised to build. Indeed, it was this notion that brought me to the thread in the first place.

On reflection though, it now seems to me that implementing this kind of solution successfully requires an insight into the level and volatility of the game’s science : gold balance, which, having just picked up the mod again after some time away, isn’t something I’m at all well placed to offer insight on. All I can say is that, based on my current game with v. 152.12, I’m not sure that the value of 1 gold = 1 science, which you seem to be implying in the OP.

 

[Txurce]

If all that happens is that villages start as +3 gold (instead of +2 currently) – which is the main recommendation highlighted by my spreadsheet – then I’m struggling to see how it has “major repercussions”. Perhaps Txurce’s seeing something I’m not, but all that’s being done as far as I can see is to make villages a viable alternative to mines at game start. They’ll still be inferior to mines (which I understand you want, given the flexibility that gold provides) – but now not devastatingly so.

I agree that villages don't come close to the value of mines in the early game, and doubt they ever will (or should). I am foreseeing repercussions with regard to villages vs farms. (I don't think most humans build villages on hills.) Start raising the value of villages, and you affect the value of farms. That will have repercussions on other aspects of the game (good or bad, I don't know.)

 

[gunnergoz]

Would it be possible to have a building (or several) that bleeds off some gold production and turns it into science passively, without player intervention? It would be a tradeoff since gold reserves would be depleted a bit, but there might be an automatic switch to turn it off if gold reserves approach zero.

 

[Txurce]

The goal seems to be making science more pro-active by having more of it come from choices other than simple population. Because this is not something broken or even particularly unsatisfying, it is important to avoid a solution that nerfs tall civs and (more importantly with regard to overall game-play) the AI.

Lower the science per pop down to 1, add an flat science bonus to the palace (or just to the player) for initial compensation, or maybe lower tech costs (this should only be for first few techs). Introduce a set of buildings that will increase the science rate. Each of the new buildings could introduce a science per pop that would eventually stack up in addition to other effects such as science on villages. The later ones have higher maintenance and more requirements (the Natural History Museum requires four buildings) but would be more powerful than the Scriptorium.

Basically I'd rely on a combination of buffing some of the improvements with science (either directly or indirectly) and the introduction of new science buildings.

Sukritact has combined some prior suggestions, added some of his own, and laid it out extremely effectively. I call it the Jade Hall approach, and agree that, on the whole, it's the way to go. The upside is that, like the Jade Hall, new pop-based science buildings reward tall civs who focus on them, potentially creating a needed separation from the strengths of wide civs. (Wide civs are nerfed the most by this approach, as they should.)

In order for the new buildings to work as advertised, I don't think they should be expensive, simply because there are a lot of them, and there is only so much time in the game. The goal here isn't to make it harder to do well in science, but to make it a choice. (I see this as the biggest caveat to the entire approach.)

That leaves us with the question of the AI. In my current game, America with 8 cities has double the pop of Spain with 31, but the two of them are slightly ahead of my Korea in beakers on t225. This is great, and what we want to avoid nerfing. Most AI civs will not benefit from the Jade Hall approach, but... the AI builds villages to excess. So if villages gave science after reaching the Renaissance era (or tech), then a fast-growing AI would benefit more than the typical human player, but still allow a tall human civ to compete in this arena by building villages at that point as well.

Taking some version of Sukritact's construct should work, and only require minor tuning afterward.

Two minor points:

Korea doesn't benefit from the villages, but they are doing well enough, I think.

The Museum of Natural History doesn't seem like a good name for that improvement. "College" would be more obvious, even as a placeholder. Something like "Salon" may work.

 

[gunnergoz]

I would still like to see some way to make villages more relevant and useful from the beginning because they represent a degree of historical accuracy in the game and also provide a useful target for marauders and pillagers to loot.

While it is true that much "progress" historically came out of inventions made in cities (where the early schools, libraries and churches were found), most of the world's population has lived outside of city walls, in towns...and now lives in sprawling suburbs, i.e. the village's modern equivalent. But progress was not limited to inventions made in cities, but also by individuals working in more remote locations.

Which is why I think science output should have some linkage to villages from early on.

 

[Txurce]

I would still like to see some way to make villages more relevant and useful from the beginning because they represent a degree of historical accuracy in the game and also provide a useful target for marauders and pillagers to loot.

While it is true that much "progress" historically came out of inventions made in cities (where the early schools, libraries and churches were found), most of the world's population has lived outside of city walls, in towns...and now lives in sprawling suburbs, i.e. the village's modern equivalent. But progress was not limited to inventions made in cities, but also by individuals working in more remote locations.

Which is why I think science output should have some linkage to villages from early on.

Not enough scientific progress came from remote locations early on to justify a historical argument for giving villages science from early on. The Renaissance arrives at about the one-third mark of the game. That seems early enough for me (not to mention accurate from Civ's Western perspective.)

 

[Thalassicus]

I don't think most humans build villages on hills.

I build them more often than mines. I find them particularly valuable in two situations:

• Coastal start (higher Sailing priority)
• Horse-focused game (lower Iron Working priority)

When neither of these situations are true, I find the two improvements about equal in value. I concentrate mines in my military-production city with a farm/village mix everywhere else. I focus my midgame spending on purchasing tiles and buildings.

 

[Txurce]

I build them more often than mines. I find them particularly valuable in two situations:

• Coastal start (higher Sailing priority)
• Horse-focused game (lower Iron Working priority)

When neither of these situations are true I feel villages are equal to mines. I concentrate mines in my military-production city, and build a farm/village mix everywhere else. I focus my midgame spending on purchasing tiles and buildings.

I guess they would be equal, if you buy most buildings in your cities. I don't see how that's possible until later in the game (if ever), and before that, would see no reason to build a village on any tile that can give me hammers. But different strokes for different folks... as long as you don't modify the game to boost your preferred play-style!

 

[gunnergoz]

Not enough scientific progress came from remote locations early on to justify a historical argument for giving villages science from early on. The Renaissance arrives at about the one-third mark of the game. That seems early enough for me (not to mention accurate from Civ's Western perspective.)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The science input from villages might be low at first (say, .25 each at start), but could build over time. There's more at stake here than just science, it is also the value of villages to the overall game IMO.

 

[Thalassicus]

I usually like to make things more challenging for myself - consider all the warfare nerfs.

Remember how when you first played Bismark you got a new perspective on warfare? You could try something in the next game, just to experiment with something new:

• Conquest game with England.
• Spend money on only units, buildings and tiles.
• Build production improvements around a chosen military-production city.
• Build 1-2 farms per each other cities, and villages everywhere else.

A gold-focused game works for peaceful leaders too (Arabia in particular), but an expansionist game can best use gold's shared-construction advantage between developed and undeveloped cities.

 

[Txurce]

A gold-focused game works for peaceful leaders too (Arabia in particular), but an expansionist game can best use gold's shared-construction advantage between developed and undeveloped cities.

Thank you for the always-appreciated nudge to try something new.

I definitely see your point regarding conquest - I played somewhat similarly when I played Germany. I think I will try it with England (rather than the Ottomans!), since I haven't played with them since first testing the mills. But the benefit to conquest seems obvious enough that I was thinking of playing as you propose in a wide/warmongering science game (the gold equivalent to my Songhai/French culture-based wide/warmongering games).

Does that seem about as instructive to you?

 

[Thalassicus]

Any coast-settling strategy would be ideal (doesn't have to be conquest), since water is symbiotic with a gold-focused trading economy. Naval games are when I spam almost entirely villages. Farms are rarely needed since water provides lots of food, and Sailing+Villages+Commerce goes well together. Harbors combined with Liberty+Commerce provide about 8 base production per city. Whales and Pearls also provide early production now.