Simplification?

[12agnar0k]

What he said, in civ4 gold was 99% of the time, simply put maximum into science, because this is the best way to win, and in civ5, science again will be just as necessary, so if the slider was left in the importance of gold would be decreased because all the options that you can do with it as I listed will simply be for the most part ignored and science will be golds primary use, which again demeans its importance. May as well remove gold all together. Instead they have removed the slider differentiating between gold and science, so now gold is more important simply because its not just a "means to a scientific end". While technically with a slider you could use gold as it will be used in civ5, you wouldn't if you had any desires to win the game, they have removed the obsolute feature which allows for much better game play.

 

[tom2050]

So each citizen makes a science beaker and a gold? And they are seperate? Therefore the primary ways of increasing gold/science would be:
1. improvements
2. social policies
3. larger cities with more citizens
* With option 1 and 2 being able to target gold or science specifically.

Did I miss a thread that spells out the inner workings of the economy?

 

[Celevin]

When I heard about the slider going away, I immediately thought they were trying to reel in obscene science levels and trying to keep all players to a closer standard. But the entire "1 beaker per citizen" sounds like it's completely breaking away from that, as all it'll end up being is bigger empire = more science. At least in Civ4 a bigger empire will have higher maintenance, lowering your science and balancing things out.

That's the worst part about breaking up science and gold. Now you can't use maintenance to limit science.


I thought they would have kept in cottages. Make trading posts give gold, and make cottages give science. With maintenance costs, players would have to balance out how many of each they can afford. Due to the balancing act and "built time" to reach max size, smart players would benefit from thinking their empire through.

 

[bjbrains]

So each citizen makes a science beaker and a gold? And they are seperate? Therefore the primary ways of increasing gold/science would be:
1. improvements
2. social policies
3. larger cities with more citizens
* With option 1 and 2 being able to target gold or science specifically.

Did I miss a thread that spells out the inner workings of the economy?

There's some stuff in the analysis thread, but this is how gold/science appear to work:
Gold: Gathered from tiles much as commerce was (aka, bonus resources/riverside bonus), trading post improvement with hunting increases gold yield. Buildings and specialists can increase gold yield, policies that affect gold yield are certainly possible, but we only know 4 policies out of at least 50.
Science: Each citizen gives one base beaker. There are buildings and specialists that can increase beaker income (such as the library). It has also been said that there are 'unique tile improvements' that give science, but we haven't seen them, and they don't appear to be on any of the earlier techs.

So to summarize:
Every city will be producing some science, larger cities will produce more, and specialists/science increasing buildings will be important to generate more science.
Gold can be 'farmed' more naturally, but there is no base income for it.

BTW, an important limiting factor for larger empires is that the happy cap is global now. So there will be definite limits on how much science you can get by spamming city growth.

 

[JonoLith]

What is it that's so bad about the civ4 gold/science slider? Is it just because the devs said so?

I'll try to be as plain as I can. I dislike the gold/science slider because it adds a layer of confusion to something that can be simple. It's removal has made the system simpler in the way that it is easier to manuever.

Let's say we have a worked tile that produces 10 gold. (I understand this is not the case, ever, but it's an example.) In civilization 5, with the removal of the slider, I will always recieve 10 gold. I know exactly where that gold is coming from, and I can see exactly where it's going. If I look at a simple "Where is my gold going to" screen, it will go into Maintenance, and Army, which are directly tied to gold.

I can then do the same with Science. Presumably buildings will create science, and I can cleanly see what is producing how much science. Let's say I have a single building producing 10 beakers, or science. Easy and clean to see how much science I'm making, and a simple "This is how much science you have" that simply adds up all the buildings producing science you have.

This system is simple, and easy to see where both my gold and science are.

In Civ 4, with the slider, it is more confusing. A certain percentage of your gold is transfered into science, and so to find out exactly how much science you are producing, you have to calculate the total amount of gold you're making, then find the percentage of that going into science, but then you also have to factor in amount of percentages from buildings that are effecting individual cities, and then you have factor in how much money each individual city is putting into science to be effected by gold, and so on and so on.

Under the slider system, it becomes VERY difficult if I desire to balance my books. Perhaps I see value in sacrificing gold production for culture, or food, or what have you. I which to know EXACTLY how that effects me. A system without a slider is much more precise, and I can decide, on a tile by tile basis, how to effect my empire, rather then just a blanket wash of tens of percentages.

That's the real point I want to arrive at. It's the control and precision that the new system provides. I can have one city dedicated ENTIRELY to gold production, and another ENTIRELY to production, and another ENTIRELY to science and so on and so forth, and it will be precise choices, rather then simple guesswork, and general ideas.

I hope I've been clear with why I like the removal of the slider.

 

[Ahriman]

It also makes the value of buildings variable; your bank might give you 4 gold today, but only 2 gold tomorrow, because the slider value changed.

 

[Commander Bello]

What he's saying is that now that you cannot easily convert potential science to gold (and vice versa), along with the increased importance of gold (For unit/road upkeep, rushbuying from the start, city-state relations, and tile 'rushexpanding'), you now have make more decisions about your cities. You still have control over those incomes, but, unlike civ 4, you have to work to produce each one separately. Gold was pretty much irrelevant in Civ 4 beyond niche uses (late game rushbuying mainly), and city upkeep was just subtracted from your research (effectively). You get to control your output based on how you develop your cities, the same way you did in civ 4 with GP farms, Production cities, and commerce cities. Now you actually have to make decisions about gold and science instead of just running the slider.

I still don't get it.

In Civ4, it was about creating commerce.
If enough commerce was created to pay my expenses (troops, maintenance, civic upkeep and that incredible "inflation" thing), the rest could be spend for science, culture and espionage.

Now I have to care for science and commerce (gold) seperately, which to me looks like more manual effort. Actually, in Civ4 commerce was the one good which was distributed evenly all over your empire, while food and production were not (which, no doubt is and was bad).

The examples which you've given for the new use for gold could have been implemented into Civ4's system without any problem, and still you could have adjusted the wealth/science ratio with a slider.

I'll try to be as plain as I can. I dislike the gold/science slider because it adds a layer of confusion to something that can be simple. It's removal has made the system simpler in the way that it is easier to manuever.

Let's say we have a worked tile that produces 10 gold. (I understand this is not the case, ever, but it's an example.) In civilization 5, with the removal of the slider, I will always recieve 10 gold. I know exactly where that gold is coming from, and I can see exactly where it's going. If I look at a simple "Where is my gold going to" screen, it will go into Maintenance, and Army, which are directly tied to gold.

And in which way this wouldn't have been the case for Civ4?

I can then do the same with Science. Presumably buildings will create science, and I can cleanly see what is producing how much science. Let's say I have a single building producing 10 beakers, or science. Easy and clean to see how much science I'm making, and a simple "This is how much science you have" that simply adds up all the buildings producing science you have.

Once again, in which way would this have been different for Civ4?

I know about the "beaker costs" for a given technology, and the slider tells me how much of these beakers I will make.

This system is simple, and easy to see where both my gold and science are.

Since I assume that in Civ5 it will still be the overall of your empire which determines when you will get a technology, or how much you will have to pay for your military and your roads, and whatnotever, I don't see the advantage in looking at an individual tile improvement, building or whatever?

At the end of the day it will be the result of the whole of my empire, which is important.

In Civ 4, with the slider, it is more confusing. A certain percentage of your gold is transfered into science, and so to find out exactly how much science you are producing, you have to calculate the total amount of gold you're making, then find the percentage of that going into science, but then you also have to factor in amount of percentages from buildings that are effecting individual cities, and then you have factor in how much money each individual city is putting into science to be effected by gold, and so on and so on.

The funny thing is, in Civ4 this is done with the help of the slider functionality, as it clearly states, whether you will make gold, loose gold and how much science you're creating.

Under the slider system, it becomes VERY difficult if I desire to balance my books. Perhaps I see value in sacrificing gold production for culture, or food, or what have you. I which to know EXACTLY how that effects me. A system without a slider is much more precise, and I can decide, on a tile by tile basis, how to effect my empire, rather then just a blanket wash of tens of percentages.

The only thing I can say to this paragraph: see above.
With the slider I know EXACTLY how the slider effects me.

I hope I've been clear with why I like the removal of the slider.

I am terribly sorry, but as far as I am concerned, you have been anything but not clear.

 

[Commander Bello]

It also makes the value of buildings variable; your bank might give you 4 gold today, but only 2 gold tomorrow, because the slider value changed.

"Banks" were a misconception in Civ4, no doubt, since they didn't give interest on your wealth (= gold in your treasury), but on your income - which is just unrealistic.

Yet, this was not the fault of the slider, but a misconception. So what?

 

[bjbrains]

I still don't get it.

In Civ4, it was about creating commerce.
If enough commerce was created to pay my expenses (troops, maintenance, civic upkeep and that incredible "inflation" thing), the rest could be spend for science, culture and espionage.

Now I have to care for science and commerce (gold) seperately, which to me looks like more manual effort. Actually, in Civ4 commerce was the one good which was distributed evenly all over your empire, while food and production were not (which, no doubt is and was bad).

The examples which you've given for the new use for gold could have been implemented into Civ4's system without any problem, and still you could have adjusted the wealth/science ratio with a slider.


And in which way this wouldn't have been the case for Civ4?

Once again, in which way would this have been different for Civ4?

I know about the "beaker costs" for a given technology, and the slider tells me how much of these beakers I will make.

Since I assume that in Civ5 it will still be the overall of your empire which determines when you will get a technology, or how much you will have to pay for your military and your roads, and whatnotever, I don't see the advantage in looking at an individual tile improvement, building or whatever?

I think you're obsessed with the concept of a "Civ 4.5" where all the concepts from civ 4 are ported. I think you're missing that these changes are intentionally different from Civ 4, and whether they 'could have been' in civ 4 isn't relevant. Also, the different ways in which gold/science are gathered in civ 5 couldn't have been implemented into the slider system, since for that they have to be from the same source.

 

[Celevin]

I don't like or dislike the slider, I just find it unnecessary. Now what I feel is worry on exactly how science is generated, and if I'll have enough "uses" for my gold. I better always have something to spend gold on.

There really should be a science tile improvement like there is a gold tiling improvement, and I should have to balance my "chequebook" to make sure I have enough gold to cover turn-to-turn expenses like city and military maintenances.

 

[bjbrains]

I don't like or dislike the slider, I just find it unnecessary. Now what I feel is worry on exactly how science is generated, and if I'll have enough "uses" for my gold. I better always have something to spend gold on.

There really should be a science tile improvement like there is a gold tiling improvement, and I should have to balance my "chequebook" to make sure I have enough gold to cover turn-to-turn expenses like city and military maintenances.

I think rush-buying, rush-tile-expansion, and city state influence 'buying' will provide enough gold sinks. We'll have to see though.

 

[Celevin]

Well there is a gold->culture and gold->science conversion in the form of city states giving you culture for gold, and research pacts, it's just at a much more controlled rate than Civ5. Instead of the slider going to 100%, imagine that it can only hit 10-50% maximum, I guess.

 

[Commander Bello]

I think you're obsessed with the concept of a "Civ 4.5" where all the concepts from civ 4 are ported. I think you're missing that these changes are intentionally different from Civ 4, and whether they 'could have been' in civ 4 isn't relevant.

And I think, you are completly missing the point.

What I am targetting are the arguments why a certain new feature needed to be done that way and why it would not have been possible to do it based on Civ4 (aka = known design).

It starts with the 1upt vs stacks discussion, in which people mix number of units with the stack system.
It continues with the gold/science slider, in which people are arguing how confusing that slider would have been.
Next is the topic of social policies, which - as we just learned - cannot be changed anymore. As being a German, I perfectly know that in the last 100 years my country experienced monarchy, democracy, dictatorship (twice) and democracy again.
And for a lot of countries in the world it is at least similar.

As far as I see it, this couldn't be depicted under Civ5's social policies, which in turn means this "feature" is badly designed.

I am all for the introduction of hexes. I find the idea of city states very appealling. I would love 1upt when it would come in zoomed-in combat screens, because there it could work.

I am not a defender of the unmodified Civ4, not at all. There are reasons why the last unmodified Civ4 game I've played dates back to late 2005.

But the reasons which are presented here in this forum to justify the changes are crap.
And in addition to this, I would prefer if they would have adressed the known issues of Civ4 by fixing them, instead of replacing them with completely new features, which are likely to come with the same load of problems.

There are quite some chances that these new design elements will no longer have the old flaws. Ok. But they are likely to have new ones and - god forbid - they might be even worse.

 

[Ahriman]

"Banks" were a misconception in Civ4, no doubt, since they didn't give interest on your wealth (= gold in your treasury), but on your income - which is just unrealistic.

Wha?

I think you are thinking about banks like a retail consumer, rather than the impact of a banking system on an economy.

An increase in commercial activity and wealth generation is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of having a banking system.

 

[bjbrains]

So you agree with me that you just want a changed civ 4 then? Because that's exactly what I'm getting from you.

 

[Commander Bello]

An increase in commercial activity and wealth generation is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of having a banking system.

The "wealth generation" is done based on what your bank account is worse and/or what you have to pay if you take out a loan.
Loans are missing completely, and getting a premium to your income, regardless of what your bank account holds is - at least - questionable.

So you agree with me that you just want a changed civ 4 then? Because that's exactly what I'm getting from you.

I've answered that in the other thread in which you confronted me with the same question.

 

[Earthling]

So you agree with me that you just want a changed civ 4 then? Because that's exactly what I'm getting from you.

I'm going to answer this, I know it wasn't directed at me and I'm not answering for anyone else, but:

Yes, in principle I would have been quite happy with a game that strongly continued civ4's design philosohpy and tradition. It is the same game series after all, most sequels to games often are like a newer, updated version of the game.

Some things I'm always explicitly for - and this things are major enough that they definitely represent a new edition of the game:

-Hex tile system/new terrain and worlds: I really think the game needed a fresh outlook on the map, I actually agree the old 20-tile square cities were getting old. And I'm hoping the new mapscripts (well, hoping for spherical worlds especially) are up to the task. Again, I give much credit to some great modders as regular civ4 maps certainly don't compare, tectonics is barely doable, but civ5 could exceed here, have better elevation and more.
-New and improved AI: this is my top priority in anything really. Civ4 with a better AI and diplomacy I would keep on playing for decades - well I like a lot of civ4 enough I'll keep playing some anyway.
-Next generation graphics: not something I'd demand, but it's going to happen anyway, and gives a new feel to the game.
I've said before I'm actually not one of the fans looking for "new units" or "new civs" so much since these can be modded in great detail, and anyway they include most of the same civs, Rome, Greece, China, England, France, and so on in all games.
-Improved combat system: Hear me out, I'm not going for irony. I'm not a fan of what they actually chose as their new system, the 1upt mechanism, but in principle I agree with the idea in a new iteration. Most ideas I would have proposed myself are probably closer to what we see in other strategy games, but novel ideas of city garrisons and sieges and army warfare instead of unit-by-unit battles and on the non-tactical level, more distinct reasons and goals for warfare, we're not going to see so much of in actuality.

But back to the question again - don't be surprised at this reaction, people are trying to be reasonable you know, and realistically, a sequel to a game, especially a successful game like the civ series, should develop the spirit of its predecessors. And I would say it's really true, what we've seen in civ5 is some of the biggest changes in features and gameplay through the civ series - the civ3/4 transition still had all sorts of arguments and stuff (not me so much back then, but still, always here on these forums debates raged). But there you could say, overall at least, that mostly civ4 was adding new features civ3 didn't have - civ5 has scrapped some things from civ4 is part.

And in one other way - a new expansion brings in new gamers and new things to the community, the really unfortunate business with Steam and people mad at 2k and all is tough. But even if the game was far more like civ4 - the new version, new graphics, new whatever would in real world terms result in new developments for the community, competition, or so on.

 

[JonoLith]

I still don't get it.

I'll give it one more try, and rather then pick it apart word by word, please do try to take the point as a whole. Also, my math may be fuzzy, but that hardly matters in truth. The steps are still correct. Basically, what I'm saying, is if you choose to question my point because my math is wrong, I will tell you that I don't care.

This is as stark as I can make it.

Both Examples will assume that you have two cities, labled A and B, both with 10 tiles, that each produce 1 gold. (This is a touch unrealistic, but it is simply as an example to illustrate the point.)

Both Examples will also assume that you have a total maintenance cost of 5 gold. Given that you are only making 20 gold pieces, (2 cities at 10 gold a piece is 20 gold) then you are running at 25% maintenance costs. (5 of 20 is 25%)

Slider System

You have a maintenance cost of 25%, but the slider only allows for incriments of 10%. You must have your slider set at 30%. This will give you 14 gold pieces to do with what you will. (70% of 20 is 14) You will have 5 gold going into maintenance, and 1 gold going into your treasury as excess.


Now, if we assume that we are interested in doing nothing but science, then that means 14 gold goes to science. Assuming that 1 beaker is equal to 1 gold, that means you are recieving 14 beakers. If we assume that something costs 140 beakers to research, you will recieve it in 10 turns.

Now, Let's say we have a building that adds 100% in city A to science. So, because half of the empire's money is coming from each city equally, it is actually quite simple to calculate. 7 gold pieces are coming from city A into science. This means that city A is doubling it's number to 14, which means that the empire total is twenty one. As a note, this was a very simple calculation, but as more and more cities get added, it gets harder and harder to do, and as the percentages change from easy numbers to calculate, into numbers that produce multiple decimal points, it gets harder to do.

Now, let's say you wish to, for one reason or another, drop the gold earned in a city from 10 to 5. What effect is that going to have on overall science production? So the path that must be taken to discover what the overall effect on the empire is thus; Calculate the gold output of the individual city, then account for the percentage that the slider is at, take that number and apply any city bonuses to science through buildings, and you'll arrive at your number.

So, let's say we wish to lower city B's output to 5. That means you're maintenance remains the same, so you still need 5 gold to cover it, which is now 33.333333% of gold produced. Let's assume that maintenance is split evenly between the two cities, so you have 2.5 gold coming from City B, at zero additional bonuses, and you have 7.5 coming from city A at 100% which will equal 15, for a total of 17.5 science produced.

As you can see, this is tedious work, and gets quite overwhelming, especially as more and more cities get added on. As a reminder, this is what must be done every single time you wish to alter any kind of gold in any city, for any reason under this system.

Let's look at the other system.

No Slider System.

You recieve 10 gold in each city for 20 gold. You get 15 gold a turn because of maintenance costs of 5 gold a turn.

City A builds a building that gives 5 points of science. You now have 5 beakers a turn.

You wish to drop the gold produced in city B to 5 from 10. You now produce 10 gold a turn. You still produce 5 beakers a turn.

Which system would you say is easier?

 

[Commander Bello]

I'll give it one more try,

Thanks for the effort.

Unfortunately, your examples are flawed, as the basic assumptions are already flawed.

In Civ4, the slider is used to split the surplus of commerce (not being used for units, city maintenance, civic upkeep and inflation) between treasury (gold) and science (beakers) - just to stay with the two basic ones, I will just ignore culture for the moment.

Slider System

You have a maintenance cost of 25%, but the slider only allows for incriments of 10%. You must have your slider set at 30%. This will give you 14 gold pieces to do with what you will. (70% of 20 is 14) You will have 5 gold going into maintenance, and 1 gold going into your treasury as excess.

Already wrong.

You will have 15 commerce, which by the slider you can split in steps of 10% between treasury and science.
This is broken down to the individual cities relating to their contribution to the nation's overall commerce.

I will admit that there are problems due to Firaxis' unfortunate affection to go with small integers (which later was partially reworked to allow for decimals, too) and the resulting rounding.
Nevertheless, the principle stays the same:
You have created 20 commerce, of which 5 are taken away for maintenance, thus leaving 15 to be split between treasury and science.

Since in your example no further costs are to be covered, you may set the slider to 100% science, thus creating 15 beakers each turn.

Now, Let's say we have a building that adds 100% in city A to science. So, because half of the empire's money is coming from each city equally, it is actually quite simple to calculate. 7 gold pieces are coming from city A into science. This means that city A is doubling it's number to 14, which means that the empire total is twenty one. As a note, this was a very simple calculation, but as more and more cities get added, it gets harder and harder to do, and as the percentages change from easy numbers to calculate, into numbers that produce multiple decimal points, it gets harder to do.

Assuming equal maintenance per city (2.5 in your example), city A would generate 7.5 beakers per turn. Since that building is generationg additional 100% of the beakers, the total of city A would be 15 beakers.
The total for your empire (which would be displayed next to the slider) then would be (7.5 + 7.5) for city A and 7.5 for city B, totalling up to 22.5 for your empire.

Here we face the undenied weaknesses of Firaxis' kind of thinking, because this will lead to 22 beakers for science with the rest being added to your treasury.

Now, let's say you wish to, for one reason or another, drop the gold earned in a city from 10 to 5. What effect is that going to have on overall science production? So the path that must be taken to discover what the overall effect on the empire is thus; Calculate the gold output of the individual city, then account for the percentage that the slider is at, take that number and apply any city bonuses to science through buildings, and you'll arrive at your number.

So, let's say we wish to lower city B's output to 5. That means you're maintenance remains the same, so you still need 5 gold to cover it, which is now 33.333333% of gold produced. Let's assume that maintenance is split evenly between the two cities, so you have 2.5 gold coming from City B, at zero additional bonuses, and you have 7.5 coming from city A at 100% which will equal 15, for a total of 17.5 science produced.

As you can see, this is tedious work, and gets quite overwhelming, especially as more and more cities get added on. As a reminder, this is what must be done every single time you wish to alter any kind of gold in any city, for any reason under this system.

Luckily, the slider functionality will do all these calculations for us (with the mentioned problems of roundings, since beakers are of non-fractional dimension) and will display all the resulting values.
I can even run local deficits, and nevertheless I can adjust the slider for my empire according to my likings.

Honestly, I cannot really see where the problem is.

Let's look at the other system.

No Slider System.

You recieve 10 gold in each city for 20 gold. You get 15 gold a turn because of maintenance costs of 5 gold a turn.

City A builds a building that gives 5 points of science. You now have 5 beakers a turn.

You wish to drop the gold produced in city B to 5 from 10. You now produce 10 gold a turn. You still produce 5 beakers a turn.

Which system would you say is easier?

Honestly, I think the slider system is easier, since all I am interested in (as far as getting technologies is concerned) are the total number over all of my empire.

I just don't care whether city A or city B or city Z are producing more or less (under the assumption that I've set up each city in a way in which it produces the max of what it shall produce [food, production, science]).
Since technologies are a nation-wide effect, all I am interested in are the total number for all of my empire => slider.

 

[tom2050]

The slider system is impossible in Civ 5, now that I see what is going on (or what is thought to happen).

The slider cannot exist because it cannot do anything with the way Civ 5 economy seems to be setup.

Before, the slider would divide the total gold of your empire. But in Civ 5, each citizen makes a seperate gold and a seperate science beaker, so there is nothing at all to 'Slide and Divide' (as I like to say , and won't be able to do anymore!)

So if wealth and science are seperate, slider was taken out because it just doesn't function when each citizen of a city creates wealth and science 100% seperately.

It's too bad, Slide and Divide had strategies of it's own. Goodbye Slider, you will be missed until you are re-introduced in Civ 6.