1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[GS] Shall we inherit number-of-city Science and Culture Penalty to Civ6?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Lily_Lancer, Oct 25, 2019.

  1. cvb

    cvb Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Messages:
    361
    I suppose, you had some "standard" terrain adjacency in mind when choosing '3 campuses by turn x', perhaps 2 or 3 points per campus.
    So in order to take care of weak campus spots, I'd suggest to adjust the number of permitted campuses [for 2*N*(N+1) Population] by the number of involved campus terrain adjacency points.
    Ie. a "blank" campus counts 1, a 2mountains campus counts 3.
    Yes, the predictability wouldn't be nice. But we have a more general issue here: modifying the rules (VALID FOR ALL PLAYERS) is one thing - and we humans love to add more and more complicated & complex rules ... look everywhere!

    The other thing is, that the procedures which control the behaviour of the AIplayers have no magic awareness helping them to adapt to changed rules. They obey of course to the existing rules, absolutely. But if they are somehow optimized (to the original rules) and perform comparably 'good', they probably become by tendency weaker under changed rules. The current example is quite harmless - I just write now, the issue is ubiquitous.

    (I'm tired of the argument, that all is fair, because the rules are the same for human & AI.)


    .
     
  2. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,540
    Not quoting posts here, because I refer to multiple posters, but I have to chime in that:
    • I agree fully that tech cost progression when being eras ahead should be MUCH higher than the current 20 % value. I think I use 40 % myself in my mod, and it's not too high.
    • I agree fully that we need some sort of cool-down on captured cities. There was one of the older games that had citizens being in protest when cities were captured (2 and 3 had it, not sure if 4 also had it), this was definitely something I would like to see come back.
    • I agree that some empire management limit that scales with government type and governors would be a good thing. Linking to stronger negative happiness and much more severe penalty for prolonged negative happiness (revolts) would be welcome.
    • I don't see a problem with linking yields with population for higher level buildings, but I agree that there needs to be tighter restraints on how easy it is to grow a city very big. I few comments on this:
      • Civ6 has attempted this with some success with housing, and this could use further tweaking (for starters, let's remove that god-damn spy mission that makes everybody shy away from neighborhoods as if they were plague-infected).
      • Secondly, I think the food system needs to be re-balanced, and specifically I've always been against the mana-from-heaven mechanism that is making food appear out of nowhere from domestic trade routes. I think food constraints should be a seriously limiting factor to growing mega-cities, and I think once cities grow very big, they should need to have that food supplied from other cities, that can transfer their food to the big cities rather than making magical food-and-production-out-of-nothing by sending domestic trade routes. This way, you would not be able to grow all your cities to mega-cities.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2019
    Elhoim and cvb like this.
  3. cvb

    cvb Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Messages:
    361
    civ4 had it. :thumbsup:

    automatically, "City.isDisorder() means 'Vive la resistance!' for several turns after conquest of a foreign city OR 'Our civilization is in Anarchy' while changing civics OR ... (espionage)? ..."

    scripted via City.setOccupationTimer()

    .
     
  4. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,718
    All good points.

    The thing about “max three campuses” is that it forces you to maximise adjacencies, because you can build only three.

    If the game was going to have a cap on Campuses, I’d suggest there be mechanics that let you raise the cap (a bit like how you can increase the cap on spies) or it be a soft cap (eg escalating costs for every campus beyond x campuses).

    The game does have a cool down mechanic.
    Captured Cities suffer negative loyalty based on Grievances with the original owner. You have that immediately when you capture the City (of course), but what’s interesting is that you can have more negatives later if you keep annoying the original owner.

    The captured city is also more vulnerable to negative loyalty generally because it’ll be at the edge of your empire and will have lost population.

    On trade routes, I agree the food and hammers just appearing from nothing seems a bit silly, but it is just an abstraction and it does make trade easy to understand.

    I think the pieces that are maybe missing are that:

    (1) cities with lots of food don’t really produce more food (except maybe because they have more districts). What I’d like to see is a building or some other mechanic so that eg bonus food resources at the destination city adds additional food to trade routes.

    (2) I think previous games had a mechanic where excess food turned into production for settlers. I wouldn’t mind a similar mechanic, maybe even applying to builders, so that big cities were more of an engine for growth. Either that, or maybe Cities with Pop X increase growth is surrounding Cities[1], or maybe even just have unique growth Wonders they can build.

    [1] I guess they do sort of already, because big Cities increase loyalty pressure, and high loyalty boosts growth. But all that is currently quite weak.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2019
    Elhoim and cvb like this.
  5. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,050
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    Regarding food, I like how AoW: Planetfall handled it. There's a global pool, and a tab in the cities in which you can set what to do with food, with several options:

    - Add all excess food to the pool.
    - Add half your excess to the pool.
    - Take food from the pool.
    - Do not participate.

    There's some wastage, so the addition is not 1:1, with some buildings reducing that penalty. It's much better than trade routes producing food out of thin air, and allows you to better manage your city growth, slowing down some cities and increasing the growth rate of others.

    I think internal routes should be a system like this in which you can share food and production, with buildings improving the trade rate.
     
    Hakan-i Cihan likes this.
  6. ezzlar

    ezzlar Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,629
    Interesting thread. I am not so good at translating ideas into good game mechanics but there are some things I usually think about:

    - The Roman Empire. With Civ 6 mechanics it would never fall. Huge production, huge army, huge science and lots of loyalty.
    - Science is linear. Four universities working on the same idea is four times as effective as one university. That is not realistic.
    - Science is constant over time. An empire can be science leader for thousands of years. Science should vary over time or over different type of techs (maybe tied to government?). Golden/Heroic age does at least become harder to get if you just had one, but not impossible. Dark age makes the next Golden/Heroic easier to get.
    - Science should be giving roughly the same amount of beakers if you go the wide or the tall road (and doing it good). But they shouldn´t be able to be combined, going both wide and tall to give you twice the amount.
    - Empire size does nothing when changing civics. No anarchy or penalties.
    - I still like that Civ 6 wants you to beeline things, but there is seldom a downside if you beeline the right stuff. Beelining science always gives you the upper hand.
     
  7. KayAU

    KayAU King

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    691
    Good post, I am especially intrigued by this thought:
    I actually didn't think about that, but this could be a fairly natural way to balance the advantages of wide empires: make it more time consuming, costly or risky to change governments and/or policies.
     
  8. GKShaman

    GKShaman Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages:
    349
    Research Lab should be +1 for every 2 citizens like the library used to be.

    Currently to make massive science I need to build several cities get the flat +2 / +4 yields. If it scaled with city size I couldn't just throw down Reyna and buy a full city.

    A nation with double the people deserve double the science, culture, etc. Just make gaining pop and keeping loyalty a little tougher maybe?
     
  9. Monthar

    Monthar Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,984
    Location:
    Elmendorf, Tx
    I just had an idea that might work. What if the current yields from districts and buildings were added to that number of tiles in that city. Thus a campus with a base of 4 means the first 4 tiles worked in that city get +1 science. So if you only had a 1 pop city with a campus you'd only get 1 science no matter how good the adjacency is. Essentially you're adding the yield to the citizens up to the max the district or building can support.
     
  10. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,050
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    I like the idea of this progression for science/culture/gold:

    Tier 1: Flat yield.
    Tier 2: Pop-based yield.
    Tier 3: Power dependent yield.
     
  11. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,495
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Just commenting to underline how much I like and have always liked this concept.

    There were a lot of threads on this topic in like, mid 2017 that came to the same consensus. It’s a good progression that balances a lot of gameplay needs.
    You can do so much with the power system... (assuming you can make power dependent modifiers, haven’t worked out how to do that but I’m sure in principle it’s possible) for example, a third tier building could consume power to provide yield per specialty district in the City, etc. it can be whatever balance requires!
     
  12. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,540
    I agree with this also, and would add specialists to the third tier as mentioned above.

    I actually think they did try to implement the power thing exactly this way, they've just failed to get the numbers right so far. Problem is tier 3 buildings generally give too little returns to make them worth it, plus tech cost does not scale steeply enough to make you dependent on tier 3 buildings to carry you through.
     
    KayAU likes this.
  13. ezzlar

    ezzlar Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,629
    Another oddity: Workshop is about as efficient as a factory when producing stuff (without power). With power, just a bit less good. Is it even possible to construct a tank in a medieval workshop? I would have preferred larger jumps between tiers, maybe 3/8/20. Adjust production costs and tech costs. Ancient techs should be ok with a library but Nuclear Fission shouldnt be ok with 25 libraries.
     
  14. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,414
    I have always felt that techs should bleed out into adjacent civs and if you war in a foreign country it should not take them long to get a Unit tech once they have destroyed a unit.
    I find libraries and universities and labs (now) are OK. A science project should perhaps be based on pop not production with modifiers for libs and unis. It feels weird it is based on production. Basing it on gold and pop probably feels better but gold is too available and a gold to science conversion like this probably abusive, in particular changing district balance.
    CS’s add way too much for what they are but really help the overall game mechanics and meaning of CS but 3-4 science CS’s just overpower science. If you look at the real science footprint pop does OK but CS is just crazy.
    Anyway, that’s just me and it’s too late in VI’s cycle but just wanted to say it.
    I have no idea how electrocuting scientists produces more yield though. Take it from an old psych nurse (many moons ago), ECT does not help memory or inspiration but does help some madness.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    acluewithout and Elhoim like this.
  15. Jeppetto

    Jeppetto Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe it's because until the city is powered they have to experiment with deadly solutions in dark room. Having lights on increases their efficiency.
     
  16. kb27787

    kb27787 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,931
    Well, I say we can implement the penalty but make it apply to only conquered cities not originally founded by you and CS. (Eleanor's ability and cities that flip to you are not considered as fulfilling such). Make the penalty as harsh as it was in Civ V (15% more culture cost to research civics, and 5% decreased science/culture output per city)

    In exchange, make razing cities give yields as if all the city's unrazed improvements and districts were pillaged (so basically, razing is speed-pillaging)

    That ought to balance things out nicely.
     
  17. cvb

    cvb Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Messages:
    361
    I love the 'science project should perhaps be based on pop'-part!
    Btw, "gold is too available" :D What can you do, if you have an excessive Central bank and negative interest rates begin to look on simple savings bank books ...

    Hey wait, what? Too late?? You surely mean your roller coaster ticket "Be part of the making of C6" is coming in its final phase ... I haven't even started, because I had a lot of debugging in my life already and am not keen on playing minesweeper whenever a new extension or patch hits the game. :)

    .
     
    Victoria likes this.
  18. kotpeter

    kotpeter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Gender:
    Male
    How about we add a kind of "Cultural capital" and "Scientifical capital" capital to Civ 6? A Cultural capital is a city in your empire with a special building (a national wonder?), and within X tiles of this city (X=12?) culture income is 100%, and it declines exponentially the farther cities are from the cultural capital (above the threshold of X). Same thing about scientifical capital.

    Also, the same thing could be applied to faith income, however, "Religious" capital is obviously is a holy site.

    What do you guys think?
     
  19. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,718
    Yeah. I really don't like that progression at all.

    I like that the game largely focuses on flat yields, with per Pop yields being limited to Governors and some very specific situations (Religious Beliefs and Theocracy) and +% being very rare (and so very valuable).

    I think a better progression would be:

    • Tier 1 Buildings, Flat Yield

    • Tier 2 Buildings, Flat Yield + Building has some additional bonus, e.g. boost certain resources (e.g. Workshop improving Luxuries), or area effect, or additional yields but only if there's a Governor in the City (e.g. Banks provide more Gold if there's a Governor in the City).

    • Tier 3 Buildings, Flat Yield + Additional Yield from Power + boosts Specialist (hey, it does that already!). Maybe some Tier 3 Buildings also have an additional effect - e.g. Stock Exchanges gives additional Gold if there's a Governor in the City.

    • City States, generally don't give bonus to Tier 1 or 2 Buildings. Instead, they give you bonus yields in your Capital (and, like, maybe Cities with Governors), and maybe 3 and 6 envoys gives you +% yields for projects or building certain related buildings. The exception would be Mercantile City states that would still give gold for Markets, Banks, Lighthouses and Shipyards.

    • Policy Cards. Re-work all the Rationalism type policy cards. Maybe they give +% based on Population (up to +100%) (@Lily_Lancer 's idea). Maybe the boost the yields of Specialists. Somethign like that.
     
  20. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,495
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Someone raised to my attention that the civ5 penalty was linearly stacking and didn't compound, so i played around and found that under the assumption most of your science comes from buildings (ie most cities produce about the same, no massive bias to first cities like civ5) you'd actually slow the game down significantly but it wouldn't curb ICS the way one might think (I pasted the message I wrote into the spoiler.)
    Spoiler :

    Well there becomes a practical asymptote:
    If all cities produce the same level of science (with how civ6 campuses work, that's not horribly inaccurate) then we can express the penalty in a few ways vs num of cities:
    First, the actual cost increase at each point.
    Second, the effective multiplicative cost increase (100->105 is 5% but 105->110 is a little less)
    Third, the % change in the number of cities and thus science output (eg 2->3 cities is a 50% rise)
    Fourth, the actual % change in our science rate (The %change in num of cities divided by the effective cost increase.)
    Fifth, we can invert that number and compute an actual % change in the time to research a tech.

    This last number is the critical figure because if the longest tech in the game takes you, say, 20 turns to research, then anything below a 5% cost reduction won't actually reduce the time it takes to research that tech. (Research overflow will still save you but once you get down to 2%, we are talking less than a turn saved per era.) This is very important if you then decide to play on online speed, for example.

    I also expressed science rate as the overall rate so you could compare two different non adjacent points.

    Anyways, your effective change in science rate increases forever, although the slope drops very fast. Of course you incur a penalty because it takes time to build infrastructure, but I'm handwaving that (albeit it was a critical factor in the 4 city tradition meta, due to free stuff form the social policies and national college) Here's the first 30 cities:

    Highlighted on the right is when you cross the 5% threshold. That's really starting to split hairs and it's only 13 cities. To double your overall rate from there you need to have 61 more cities... Interestingly, 8 cities is only half the rate as 30.

    But regardless, the reason I dislike penalties like this is because they only affect the research rate at the individual civ level, and completely ignore the positional (who's beating who) side of the game. You'll never be able to have a wide empire that isn't extremely science focused that can compete because of such a penalty, for example.

    The last column strictly rises, and i would argue people would still try to land in the 20-30 city bracket because they will still be out-researching the 10 city guys by a large amount. But you'd add about 50%+ more turns to the game for victories that happen near the end of the tree. A penalty like this does give the asymptotic behavior that is needed but it does it in a way that targets playstyle rather than the fact that competitively 30% more science = unstoppable death ball whereas 30% more faith or production or gold or food = nice to have but could go either way.

    City states are a huge part of this problem because they scale with map size but other things don't. That said, if 3/6 envoys rewards were just +1 yield per specific specialist that would be much healthier for the game.
    Regardless, as aesthetically pleasing as flat yields are they do add so much wide pressure for the global resources (gold/sci/culture) it's just nuts. Per-pop effects by themselves serve to proxy flat yields at lower pop levels and wonderfully have the dynamic that the more spread out your pop is the more copies of those buildings you have to build (a natural but fair penalty IMO.) Plus, it gives a viable path for a player to think about expanding up rather than out at times. The lack of opportunities to invest in bigger & better cities rather than more cities is the mechanical lynchpin behind ICS, per pop is one way to get there. But ultimately there is almost no choice because there's virtually no district synergy within a city (something like specialty district A is rewarding you for having specialty districts B,C,D beyond mere adjacency- easy example is R&F democracy's per district production/housing boost, but imagined as a building effect.)
    That kind of effect, eg research lab throws down +2 science per specialty district in the city when powered, would work just as well, largely because it's really just proxying population. (And it has a natural cap at x7.)
     
    acluewithout likes this.

Share This Page