Scotland science example

[kryat]

There’s been a bit of commotion about whether or not Scotland is great at science. Here are some screenshots from my last game with them. My settings were Immortal, standard speed, Europe TSL, with Victoria in the game.

Also, please keep in mind, this was played on an iPad while flying, so I wasn’t aiming to play fast or optimal. Notably, I forgot to get divine spark. However, I’m in the Information Age, and I was able to recruit all great scientists through Carl Sagan except Albert Einstein (ouch, should have patronized), However, because of Hypatia and Newton, my libraries and universities were fantastic. And no, it didn’t hurt that I was able to keep Bologna and Hattusa from mid-game on. I was also currently running rationalism, but nothing to boost adjacency, since that was terrible in this game.

Of course, no great scientist is exclusive to Scotland. But Scotland has a unique way of cornering them. You’re almost guaranteed to get the good ones, especially with effort.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I would like to say that I appreciate people that actually back up what they say. Well played.

However, I am not too sure how much Scotland contributes to this. The thing here is you are a bit lopsided towards science. If your science was a bit weaker and you had gotten Globalization earlier, you would have ended up with more overall science via International Space Agency as well as the production boost from Ecommerce resulting in an economy more suited to rush space projects. The other thing is when the GS's started paying off; Hypatia does help I would admit. However, you don't seem to have many cities, so the bonus isn't as big as it could be.

That being said, the scientist points are certainly something to consider.

 

[enKage]

I do agree GPP ability of Scotland is great. But it is very fragile and has a huge oportunity cost. I disagree the rest of scottish enlightment is good.

And believe me or not, 800 science t320 is not so impressive. My last game was 247 victoy, generating ca. 1200 science per turn, starting in flatland with low forest with expansions into flatland, tundra or desert. And I got it not because I skipped most great scientists, but because I was able to setlle arctic with 2-3 resources nad rapidly grow them to over 10 pop using not scientific Cree bonus of trade routes and mekewaps.
I was not able to recruit all great engineers, but I aimed for the specific one giving wonder construction for Amunndssen. Single 11 pop not ecstatic arctic city, with 2 seaamber and a fish only, the rest arctic hills, generates over 100 science. And I had a few of them.
This is why I would always take crazy Cree rationalism growth over scottish enlightment, allowing to quickly reach 10pop in places none other civ would be even able to settle (this alone IMO should secure Cree a place in top15 scientific civs, but community eliminated them before even top20).
This is why I would always take Japanese guaranteed +3 adj bonus for campuses even on flatland over +10/20 science and GPP.
This is why I would always take Gorgo, Kupe, Cyrus, Lautaro, Saladin culture bonus over scottish enlightment to reach rationalism EARLIER.
And so on
Rationalism is king

 

[Sostratus]

However, I am not too sure how much Scotland contributes to this.

Getting Hypatia and Newton outweighs, IMO, literally any civ ability, likely including korea. I guess the GPP helps, but especially once the difficulty rises there is no guarantee you will be able to get some of the early scientists. Any civ can always run campus project to try to snag a particular scientist in any case.

I'd be fairly confident that most general economic civs- Germany, Cree, Aussie (even without the adjacency), Inca- could beat scottish science just by being able to have more stuff. I think OP sort of demonstrated that. (It doesn't mean scotland is bad, it just means that it's easier to drive quantity than quality.)

 

[Victoria]

At T150 you should have a city making over 100 science regardless of Scotland or not but if you have fast culture you really get science (and gold/faith) benefits a lot earlier.
Newton amd Einstein you should get every game, Hypatia is a nice free 320 gold library and a little bit of extra science, 2 pop in every city worth.
5% for happy cities is the benefit because it is not costly to have happy cities.

the best measurement of how good a civ is a an SV is how fast they can do it, how fast peacefully they can do it and how much you enjoy that civ. Scotland just does not seem to be top 10 for me in any of the 3 categories despite trying but for other that may be fun. But unless you have your head around fast victories the logic for voting for civs will be poor. To downvote someone like Pericles with the reasoning that they just have a wildcard slot or Suzerain does not matter just shows a lack of understanding.
Voting will never be accurate because we all have differing levels of understanding and I suspect there is so emotion in there at times.

EDIT: Some corrections to your arguments posted just now @kryat ... and note, full respect for arguing the case, it brings good debate to the table

A city that got Hypatia and Newton and has a university and a campus adjacency of 2 will be on par with a city with the same buildings, but didn’t get the great scientists, but has adjacency bonus 3.

In any SV you should get Newton, and the adjacency bonus of 3 is in fact 6 because you should always be slotting the double adjacency card. An extra +1 adjacency for Hojo is worth 2 Hypatia of science.

They recruit great engineers

In a fast SV you get a helpful wonder engineer or maybe 2 but they come at a cost because everything you build before about T120 is vital so you sacrifice vital things to get less vital engineers. Maybe you don’t, I guess I do get one or 2 without much extra but it is a question of how valuable they are.

Sorry this is long winded. It might be my last chance to make a pitch for Scotland. I really think they deserve a top 5-10 spot, more than Saladin, Pericles, Trajan, Monte, or Wilhelmina.

Do not apologise, you have every right to your say but if you played a fast game with say Pericles you would see they just finish faster. You like playing Scotland, great, vote for them but I am just trying to explain why others feel the opposite. I like playing a Scottish SV but I do know I am having to sacrifice other things to get 10% so often leave it at 5.

 

[kryat]

And believe me or not, 800 science t320 is not so impressive.

Rationalism is king
View attachment 547911

At T150 you should have a city making over 100 science regardless of Scotland or not but if you have fast culture you really get science (and gold/faith) benefits a lot earlier.


the best measurement of how good a civ is a an SV is how fast they can do it, how fast peacefully they can do it and how much you enjoy that civ.

These are valid criticisms. I am not a fast player in general. I rarely finish before T300 with anyone. I definitely could have played this game better. I had Bologna and Oracle, and yet I only had 2 theater squares empire wide. In retrospect, I could have had more culture output, and I definitely felt that as a drag. I literally sat on great writers at several points in this game.

That said, this was also a difficult map to get going. I had room for two cities on Britain without conquering Victoria (one half in tundra with no fresh water), and my third city was mostly a dud in Southern Ireland. There were no science adjacency bonuses on the British Isles. Otherwise, it took a while to discover Spain was fortuitously uninhabited, and that definitely turned into my best settlement locations. I had hoped for somewhere easier to get to in the Baltics as a colony site, but alas, Sweden and Poland were in the game, and I had no appetite for conquest. That left me with Iceland and Northern Africa.

Additional problems were less than efficient great people. Galileo was great once he got to the alps, but the Rainforest explorer had nowhere to go, and poor Darwin had to trek to Turkey to get Pamukkale for a whopping 2 tiles of natural wonders.

That said, these examples were not meant to demonstrate speed, but to show potential.

To downvote someone like Pericles with the reasoning that they just have a wildcard slot or Suzerain does not matter just shows a lack of understanding.

I have never successfully completed an Immortal+ game with Pericles, and not for a lack of trying (but my strategy for him could be off). My experience with him has been that he has the inverse problem as Robert, having plenty of culture, but no science. I probably just need to build campuses instead of commercial hubs earlier though.

 

[enKage]

That said, this was also a difficult map to get going.

This is also the reason of hard downvoting. Being so extremely map/conditions dependent.
Hojo, Seondok, Alexander, Gilgamesh, Curtin, Poundmaker (...) can do ANY map. All of them would be able to take huge science advantage even from north Russia/Scandinavia unsettled in your game and for sure better use of Iceland

BTW I understand your defence of Scotland. Probably everyone is crazy in love with certain leader

 

[Lily_Lancer]

815 science at turn 120 may be fantastic, rare but not impossible actually.
If given 320 turns a rational estimation shall be 10,000+ science and culture per turn regardless of map and Civ chosen.

Spoiler :

Just a random capture of how much science Mongolia generates when doing a diplomatic victory.

 

[Disgustipated]

Thing is, I feel Scotland isn't as map dependent (although luxury resources are indeed important). Although a good map certainly helps. I gave up on that thread after seeing civs like Netherlands beat out Robert. I'm not buying it. Netherlands in particular suffers from "flat" starts. Scotland sometimes gets flat starts, but not always. Now the multiplayer criticism is indeed valid. But guess what, civs like Korea are a huge target in multiplayer. I would warrior rush them instantly. Their only hope is isolated or defensive terrain. As for civs like Netherlands and China, I've never did as well with them as I have with Scotland. Same goes for Arabia. People are just letting their personal bias influence votes, I admit some bias, but I'm going through win times and science output to make my judgements.

Ai also seems to do well with Scotland, provided they don't start next to an aggressive neighbor. Though Korea so tends to do best if they survive.

 

[bengalryan9]

815 science at turn 120 may be fantastic, rare but not impossible actually.
If given 320 turns a rational estimation shall be 10,000+ science and culture per turn regardless of map and Civ chosen.

Spoiler :

View attachment 548057

Just a random capture of how much science Mongolia generates when doing a diplomatic victory.

Yes, the fact that Mongolia generates a ton of science after you've conquered all but one city sure is impressive. Truly an inspiring "diplomatic" victory. Come on, man...

 

[Bangau]

Just a random capture of how much science Mongolia generates when doing a diplomatic victory.

I think the majority of players do not go full domination on their way to SV, DiploV or CV. You are most likely right that it's often the most efficient way to go, and you are clearly very good at it. I don't think many of us often reach 2000+ science on turn 200 deity... Why don't you play the GOTM games? Or make an entry for one of the CFC competitions in the HOF? Would love to see more of your strategies!

 

[bengalryan9]

Thing is, I feel Scotland isn't as map dependent (although luxury resources are indeed important). Although a good map certainly helps. I gave up on that thread after seeing civs like Netherlands beat out Robert. I'm not buying it. Netherlands in particular suffers from "flat" starts. Scotland sometimes gets flat starts, but not always. Now the multiplayer criticism is indeed valid. But guess what, civs like Korea are a huge target in multiplayer. I would warrior rush them instantly. Their only hope is isolated or defensive terrain. As for civs like Netherlands and China, I've never did as well with them as I have with Scotland. Same goes for Arabia. People are just letting their personal bias influence votes, I admit some bias, but I'm going through win times and science output to make my judgements.

Ai also seems to do well with Scotland, provided they don't start next to an aggressive neighbor. Though Korea so tends to do best if they survive.

Well I think the issue with all of the victory type elimination threads is that the rules are a bit too open ended. You get some people voting on SP performance while others vote for MP performance. You get some people voting under the assumption that map conditions are perfect, and others voting assuming it's a random map roll. You get people voting for who can give you the fastest victory (which in and of itself is pretty map dependent), and people voting for who gives you the greatest chance at victory. You get people voting with huge maps in mind (more city states and religions) and people voting with small maps in mind (less of both). And in the end of the day, you'll get the argument that none of it really matters anyways, because you'll be better at every victory condition if you just go conquer 95% of the map. We're all voting with slightly different criteria in mind, which is why some of the results seem odd at times.

I do think they lead to some good discussion, though, even if people do get a bit aggressive at times. I know I have read comments in those threads that have made me look at civs or mechanics in different lights, or that have lead me to try different approaches.

 

[afeld]

Why does everyone sleep on Scotland's leader ability. +100% production and two movement speed is insane. I understand that some games it is impossible to trigger, but trigger it on avg only once per game and its already better than >50% of the other leader abilities. Trigger it 2 or 3 times a game, and it is by far the single strongest leader ability in the game.

My last Scotland game I had two separate friends who had eligible cities. I was able to time it so that I basically had 100% up-time on the double production and movement speed from turn 110 until the end of the game. I was able to snag a turn 185 science victory with just four cities and zero actual warfare. Civs conquer cities early game all the time, just bribe the civ that lost the city to be your friend and then you have absolutely insane production.

I understand that on civfanatics, consistency is king when doing these type of rankings. I can understand someone rating Japan or Greece higher for Science Victory, but not sure how anyone makes the argument that the Cree are better.

 

[kryat]

Why does everyone sleep on Scotland's leader ability. +100% production and two movement speed is insane. I understand that some games it is impossible to trigger, but trigger it on avg only once per game and its already better than >50% of the other leader abilities. Trigger it 2 or 3 times a game, and it is by far the single strongest leader ability in the game.

My last Scotland game I had two separate friends who had eligible cities. I was able to time it so that I basically had 100% up-time on the double production and movement speed from turn 110 until the end of the game. I was able to snag a turn 185 science victory with just four cities and zero actual warfare. Civs conquer cities early game all the time, just bribe the civ that lost the city to be your friend and then you have absolutely insane production.

I understand that on civfanatics, consistency is king when doing these type of rankings. I can understand someone rating Japan or Greece higher for Science Victory, but not sure how anyone makes the argument that the Cree are better.

Agreed. Bannockburn is surprisingly easy to trigger. You just need to be actively looking for times when it’s open. It’s not like you actually need to send the troops to liberate...

 

[Sostratus]

Why does everyone sleep on Scotland's leader ability. +100% production and two movement speed is insane. I understand that some games it is impossible to trigger, but trigger it on avg only once per game and its already better than >50% of the other leader abilities. Trigger it 2 or 3 times a game, and it is by far the single strongest leader ability in the game.

My last Scotland game I had two separate friends who had eligible cities. I was able to time it so that I basically had 100% up-time on the double production and movement speed from turn 110 until the end of the game. I was able to snag a turn 185 science victory with just four cities and zero actual warfare. Civs conquer cities early game all the time, just bribe the civ that lost the city to be your friend and then you have absolutely insane production.

I understand that on civfanatics, consistency is king when doing these type of rankings. I can understand someone rating Japan or Greece higher for Science Victory, but not sure how anyone makes the argument that the Cree are better.

Probably because it’s mostly a worse version of Australia’s. Either you need to lose a city (which is very rare for players here, but a possibly exploitable gimmick) or an ally does. It’s only on war declaration rather than when a city is liberated too, which makes liberating captured CS off the table. And you can unilaterally free a city, you don’t need to liberate an ally’s city. (I forget if it still works on free cities.)
I don’t think Bannockburn is bad by any means, but most people don’t interact with the CB system much for the diplo service CBs, so it probably doesn’t translate into their strategic planning when it comes earlier at defensive tactics.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think even when not playing for max efficiency, there are a lot of misconceptions. I mean. Here is a rigged start with tons of mountains around my capital and Hungary attacked me from like t20-70. Oh wait... No, this is actually pretty low end. (Btw, this is also my response to the "mountains are OP" thread). Meme start, Meme civ, Meme strategy (audience chamber lol)

Having even a modest amount of culture means at a minimum better cards which will result in a better economy. My base science doesn't even clear 600, but ISA brings it up a lot. So does stuff like Integrated Space Cells. Also I had barely enough promotions for governors to get vitals like purchasing districts (why do people keep ignoring this).. Too bad I didn't build Kilwa. I really hate games like that.

It should be noted that getting moon landing does get you a huge culture boost so maximizing your science vs policies is necessary. After this you only need the inertia to get yourself to Synthetic Technocracy to finish projects quicker. At the very least you want it to get you to Globalization.

Amundsen-Scott is also another reason why you want that culture now too.

But what you certainly don't need is a ton of gold you're never spending. I notice a lot of people tend to just hoard gold until the last turn. They even prioritize gold over science/culture. Why? If you end up the game with 30k gold, that's not a good thing. That means it's 30,000 worthless yields.

You should also note that if I actually cared, I would have removed Rationalism/ISA by now. That's because science is no longer useful once you've researched the last tech you need. So having high science yield by that point is useless. This is also why you want early bonuses. You want a burst of science, not the highest yield. At the tail end of a science victory, you are focusing on running those boost projects. You want multiple cities with good production and also have a bunch of builders saved. One of the more important things is to make sure you didn't spend your build charges on useless things.

Also, Great Scientist points. Who really cares? Just buy out Einstein/Newton. Honestly, if I need Sagan, things are already bad.

Spoiler :

Now before I get memed on for finishing so late, here's a save so if you can do better feel free to share. I like to learn anyways.

I don't have a t1 save sadly as I probably planned on ditching this game. It's on Immortal and here's a t7 save. I'd really like to see how people do early aggression on it though, lol. That's kinda beyond me. Granted I made the mistake of going for religion but w/e.

Spoiler :

Also mostly everyone denounced me because of -40 for "different governments". Lame. Also don't call me a warmonger; I'm allied with the same civ that spent literally 20% of the game trying to kill me. And if you saw what Japan tried to do, you would kill him too.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I think the majority of players do not go full domination on their way to SV, DiploV or CV. You are most likely right that it's often the most efficient way to go, and you are clearly very good at it. I don't think many of us often reach 2000+ science on turn 200 deity... Why don't you play the GOTM games? Or make an entry for one of the CFC competitions in the HOF? Would love to see more of your strategies!

When I was playing GOTM games and achieving things like T150 SV or T120 CV, people say these games are too specialized and do not generalize to general situations. You know, people always have reasons.

I myself never finish after T200 unless for Diplo or Score victory (which the mechanism forces you to play through much more turns), or on specific settings (such as no chopping and harvesting, under which setting a usual SV is around T210). My first Civ6 game is a T196 SV.

Now I just feel boring with normal speed and focus more on MP and online speed strategies.

The capture is just a random situation of T200, since 200 turns is too many turns, people easily get boring clicking "next turn" and start capturing everything.