Suggestion: change the Cohesive Values virtue

[Zet]

Cohesive Values: -10% Culture needed for new virtues

The problem is that according to some preliminary math I've done, it takes far too long for this virtue to break even (around 30 virtues). The break even point should be somewhere in the late game if the player goes straight for Cohesive Values. If the player takes it up later, possibly after mostly filling up some other tree, the culture investment will never be regained. And this is with a single city: the more cities are founded, the more the break even point is pushed back (not by much, but still).

I'd suggest changing this to a different effect because the current effect is not all that exciting anyway.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It like all other virtues give you synergy bonus, getting other virtues faster is a pretty nice bonus + it get stronger the more you focus on culture.

 

[Zet]

It like all other virtues give you synergy bonus, getting other virtues faster is a pretty nice bonus + it get stronger the more you focus on culture.

I'm not sure if I expressed myself well enough: in a typical game, it might never give you virtues faster than not taking it. If you take it, you get nothing but future virtues come a little bit faster. If you take something else, you get a bonus right away. So not taking it puts you ahead by one. It takes so long to pay itself back that the game may very well be over or already decided by the time. The break even point happens at around 30 virtues. Free virtues from wonders or other sources don't count as they don't increase virtue costs.

Of course there's the synergy bonus, and it's required for other virtues so it's not totally useless, but no virtue should be this bad.

It doesn't get stronger then more you focus on culture either, as it's a percentage reduction.

PS: I really think this virtue is just an oversight, because at first glance one would think that a 10% reduction in virtue costs should take 10 virtue to break even, but that's not actually what is happening.

 

[cooldude1128]

I agree. It should be stronger, around 15% or 20%.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Really, all the culture-bonus virtues in Knowledge need to go or be remade into add-on perks. Get .25 culture per citizen... or just continue getting virtues that benefit other systems? Less culture penalty per city... or just continue getting virtues I actually want? Culture per health that I don't even have because Knowledge doesn't have per-city health bonuses, or get a real virtue instead? Spend 2000 or so culture to get 7 culture per wonder... or literally throw my culture into this trash can I just found?

Does anyone open up their trade screen and give the AI a 2000 gold loan in return for gold per turn? No because you have things to spend that gold on now. So why does it make sense to operate culture the same way and call it a bonus?

Spending 100x culture to get 1x culture per turn never made sense outside of the Vanilla CiV culture victory condition, and is a big part of the reason that victory condition was so meaningless and boring, and shouldn't have been reanimated here, after the dev's had 4 years to learn from that mistake. It wasn't thought out.

As it stands Knowledge is a really problematic tree even outside of lacking early game efficacy. It really needs the spots that these 4 dud virtues are taking up for other perks, ones that offer outright bonuses to non-culture game systems or that incentivize player culture focus (though it already does that pretty well with Technoartisans and Applied Aesthetics).

 

[Gokudo01]

Yes i feel like knowledge is weak too. And they even dared to nerf Field Research ...

Leaving the tier 1 part really underswhelming.
The tier 2 is a vast joke except Applied Aesthetics. Even community medicine is mediocre, they could have at least given a real great bonus in your capital ( 1 health for 3 citizens in the capital)
You have to rush the tier 3 part to start getting cool stuff.

I think Knowledge is the weakest tree atm. The Best part of these virtues are the synergy bonus...

 

[GhostSalsa]

Even community medicine is mediocre, they could have at least gave a real great bonus in your capital ( 1 health for 3 citizens in the capital)

No Community Medicine is very good, it just requires support from solid per-city health sources from elsewhere.

Even when you are at 11 pop and 17 pop in a city, which is when it is least effective, it still works out to about 10% less unhealth from pop, and naturally is more effective at every other pop, except the first 5. But I'm not actually sure what the unhealth per pop rate is in BE so it might be better than that.

I'd say it's as strong or stronger than either health bonus in Industry alone, and whether it beats the health bonus in Might is up to your playstyle.

But it needs another health bonus in Knowledge backing it up, otherwise you're not getting anything out of half your Knowledge policies since they require health that Knowledge doesn't give you.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The only thing I would change right now in the knowledge tree is creative class to give a health bonus based on how much culture your generating per turn, lets say 1 health per every 10 culture per turn.

The 10 reduction gets stronger the more culture you generate per turn because you will get more policies and the reduction become stronger the more policies you get.
Then we can also talk about which policies you would had instead, most of the early ones are rather weak if compared to later ones, syngergies are in many cases worth as much as a policy so we also have to take that in account.

 

[Velasti]

PS: I really think this virtue is just an oversight, because at first glance one would think that a 10% reduction in virtue costs should take 10 virtue to break even, but that's not actually what is happening.

I respectfully disagree with your mathematics. It is possible I don't understand the mechanics, so I've outlined my working for you.

Assume you've beelined straight for it.

According to my maths, that takes 5 virtues to break even, assuming it was the 4th virtue taken. After that, everything is a gift.

The cost of the 4th virtue is 84 culture.

Virtue Number|Vanilla Cost|Discounted Cost|Difference|Cumulative Total
5|120|108|12|12
6|164|147.6|16.4|28.4
7|216|194.4|21.6|50
8|276|248.4|27.6|77.6
9|344|309.6|30.96|108.56

Assuming it was the 34th virtue taken, the cost of which is 4644 culture, I calculate it takes 8 virtues to break even.

Virtue Number|Vanilla Cost|Discounted Cost|Difference|Cumulative Total
35|4920|4428|492|492
36|5204|4683.6|520.4|1012.4
37|5496|4946.4|549.6|1562
38|5796|5216.4|579.6|2141.6
39|6104|5493|610.4|2752
40|6420|5778|642|3394
41|6744|6069.6|674.4|4068.4
42|7076|6368.4|707.6|4775.6

Something I would like to ask - founding additional cities increase culture costs by 10%, compounding, right?

I wonder how many cities it takes to increase your culture production by 10%.

 

[Zet]

I respectfully disagree with your mathematics. It is possible I don't understand the mechanics, so I've outlined my working for you.

Assume you've beelined straight for it.

According to my maths, that takes 5 virtues to break even, assuming it was the 4th virtue taken. After that, everything is a gift.

I can't make any sense of your math, sorry.

My analysis is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=533642

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Have you tought about this virtue in this way:

Lets say we increase our culture to allow us keep getting virtues in 10 turns.
If you pick this virtue you will then get new virtues in 9 turns.
This mean that if you pick that virtue you will have 1 turn advantage on you next virtue, 2 turns on the virtue after, you 10 virtue will come after only 90 turns you will have 11 virtues 1 turn before the one that did not pick the reduction will have 10.
Don't underestimate turn advantage + the strong virtues are deap into the trees.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Have you tought about this virtue in this way:

Lets say we increase our culture to allow us keep getting virtues in 10 turns.
If you pick this virtue you will then get new virtues in 9 turns.
This mean that if you pick that virtue you will have 1 turn advantage on you next virtue, 2 turns on the virtue after, you 10 virtue will come after only 90 turns you will have 11 virtues 1 turn before the one that did not pick the reduction will have 10.
Don't underestimate turn advantage + the strong virtues are deap into the trees.

Haha. You're giving the CV taker an advantage in assuming that their output on turn 10 is now "second policy cost / 10" per turn while the control player is still at "first cost / 10." So why did the control player just make less culture that turn in your scenario? Then at turn 19-20 the CV player is at "third cost / 10" output while you're assuming control player is still at "second cost / 10" output. Then at turn 28-30, 37-40, 46-50, 55-60, 64-70, 73-80, 82-90, the CV player is outputting and spending more culture, that you are glancing over as equal to the control. If the control were actually outputting culture at the same level as the CV player they would be accruing virtues close to 9 per turn by the end too.

Put differently, because your example is a really confusing way to try to intuit this problem, you've assumed the CV player is still outputting what the control player would be, and that this culture output is increasing at a stepped rate so that every 10 turns it is "next cost / 10." This means that on turn 10, the CV player is not making the control "next cost / 10", nor even .9 of that, so it actually will just miss getting the third policy on turn 18 after all, because it needs to be stepping up output every 9 turns, not 10.

Let's stick to measuring the culture costs as numbers not turns.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Something I would like to ask - founding additional cities increase culture costs by 10%, compounding, right?
.

it doesn't compound

1 city =1 x base cost
2 cities =1.1x base cost
3 cities=1.2 x base cost
4 cities=1.3 x base cost
500 cities=50.9x base cost

if you only look at the virtues themselves, it actually takes about 30 virtues to balance out.
However if you count the synergies gained (because you have 1 extra virtue in Knowledge and Tier 2) its ahead after ~20 virtues.

 

[Gokudo01]

...

It's 0.75 negative health per citizen, 4.5 for six citizens.

Community Medicine brings it to 3.5 for six -> 0.583 per citizens. ( not exactly because it doesn't reduce negative health but gives you positive health, that means it doesn't reduce the impact of Eudaimonia)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It's 0.75 negative health per citizen, 4.5 for six citizens.

Community Medicine brings it to 3.5 for six -> 0.583 per citizens. ( not exactly because it doesn't reduce negative health but gives you positive health, that means it doesn't reduce the impact of Eudaimonia)

With eudemonia its even better

Normal...4.5 for 6 citizens (1.33 pop/health)
Community..3.5 for 6 citizens (~1.7 pop/health)
Eudamonia...3.375 for 6 citizens (1.77 pop/health)
Eu+Comm...2.375 for 6 citizens (~2.5 pop/health)

 

[Gokudo01]

With eudemonia its even better

Normal...4.5 for 6 citizens (1.33 pop/health)
Community..3.5 for 6 citizens (~1.7 pop/health)
Eudamonia...3.375 for 6 citizens (1.77 pop/health)
Eu+Comm...2.375 for 6 citizens (~2.5 pop/health)

and you dont count the fact that Eudamonia works on any kind of negative health, manufactures, cities, etc ...

 

[Galgus]

I agree with you here on its ineffectiveness, aside the lack of satisfaction in a "Buy 10 get one free!" coupon instead of a virtue.
_________________________________

Perhaps instead it could give a culture and tech boost whenever an affinity-related technology is researched - just brainstorming.

Really, all the culture-bonus virtues in Knowledge need to go or be remade into add-on perks. Get .25 culture per citizen... or just continue getting virtues that benefit other systems? Less culture penalty per city... or just continue getting virtues I actually want? Culture per health that I don't even have because Knowledge doesn't have per-city health bonuses, or get a real virtue instead? Spend 2000 or so culture to get 7 culture per wonder... or literally throw my culture into this trash can I just found?

Does anyone open up their trade screen and give the AI a 2000 gold loan in return for gold per turn? No because you have things to spend that gold on now. So why does it make sense to operate culture the same way and call it a bonus?

Spending 100x culture to get 1x culture per turn never made sense outside of the Vanilla CiV culture victory condition, and is a big part of the reason that victory condition was so meaningless and boring, and shouldn't have been reanimated here, after the dev's had 4 years to learn from that mistake. It wasn't thought out.

As it stands Knowledge is a really problematic tree even outside of lacking early game efficacy. It really needs the spots that these 4 dud virtues are taking up for other perks, ones that offer outright bonuses to non-culture game systems or that incentivize player culture focus (though it already does that pretty well with Technoartisans and Applied Aesthetics).

I agree with this assessment, and it is essentially why I hated the Aesthetics tree in BNW.

Technoartisans and Applied Aesthetics are the best culture-related virtues in the tree since they incentivize culture gameplay rather than pay culture for (maybe) more culture.

 

[Velasti]

I can't make any sense of your math, sorry.

My analysis is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=533642

If someone could tell me how to format that table properly, that would be better.

if you only look at the virtues themselves, it actually takes about 30 virtues to balance out.
However if you count the synergies gained (because you have 1 extra virtue in Knowledge and Tier 2) its ahead after ~20 virtues.

Thanks for the stuff Krikkit, that is good to know.

When you guys say "balance out", you mean "Player one, who took CV, is ahead of player two, who did not take CV, by one virtue". I.e.

The break-even point is where a player taking Cohesive Values would have 1 extra virtue over a player that doesn't. That assumes the first player going straight for Cohesive Values.

I.e. the assumption is that you bee-line for CV, then immediately leave the tree.

That isn't what 'balancing out' means to me. Balancing out means:

1) You recoup the loss of your investment (culture you spent).
2) You have spent the same amount of culture, and you have more virtues.

@Zet: Using your definition, Community Medicine, Networked Datalinks, Metaresearch Methods and Information Warfare are all not deemed to be worth it.

Irrespectively, regardless of the definition, with CV Player One gets TechnoArtisans OR Information Warfare sooner than Player Two gets TechnoArtisans or Monomyth.

(Assuming this is a player with Madjinns approach to health)

Further, according to your own definition, the break-even point is virtue 5. Because for x number of turns at virtue 5, the player taking cohesive values has 1 extra virtue over player 2.

In fact, if you look at Zet's maths, there is an absolutely colossal flaw. This isn't about "How much you spend". It's about "how much you save".

One way of looking at it: By Virtue 9, you have saved 209 culture. That means that the REAL cost of Virtue 10 is 1220 culture with a further discount of 209, for a cost of 1011 culture.

However for player 2, the real cost of virtue 10 is 1340 culture.

Looking at Madjinn's KP stream, he has 57 culture income per turn by turn 176. I believe he got 2 free virtues, so he's about to purchase virtue 10.

For player two (Madjinn), virtue 10 is purchased on turn 176.
For player one, virtue 10 was purchased 17 turns beforehand, on turn 159.

That's the important nuance that your simulation lacks. The comparing factor isn't number of virtues, it's the number of turns used to obtain those virtues.

And by your own definition, the player who takes CV "breaks-even" every time she purchases a virtue before the other player, for the number of turns it takes the second player to catch up with her. Then there's a set amount of time, before she breaks-even again.


(Note I use the "discount" as a means of calculating the turns saved. Clearly the true calculation is the sum of culture over the last x turns, but well, I couldn't be bothered to go through the stream for that level of detail)

 

[Zet]

In fact, if you look at Zet's maths, there is an absolutely colossal flaw. This isn't about "How much you spend". It's about "how much you save".

Saving culture means nothing. What good is having saved an amount equal to the cost of CV, if this doesn't translate to any in game advantage? Virtues mean something because they give bonuses, except CV, which only makes future virtues come slightly faster at the cost of not getting a bonus right away. This is how I look at things, and CV is really bad from this perspective.

 

[Velasti]

No, you understand nothing. Saving culture means nothing. Virtues mean something because they give bonuses, except CV, which only makes future virtues come slightly faster at the cost of not getting a bonus right away. This is how I look at things, and CV is really bad from this perspective.

You're thinking too short-term.

Taking CV means I beat you to the bonus from TechnoArtisans. So irrespective of your life perspective, you're wrong.

You're playing a strategy game. The long-term advantage is significantly better than your instant gratification.

The only one who understands nothing is you, because you're unable to apply long-term strategic thinking to dispel your instant gratification fallacy.


Saving culture obviously means that every other bonus from every other virtue is obtained sooner.

This is a paradox within your own definition. You EXPLICITLY say " the culture investment will never be regained", and yet it is regained within 5 virtues.
You explicitly define the break even point as "the point where a player taking Cohesive Values would have 1 extra virtue over a player that doesn't", and yet this happens every time the player with CV beats player 2 to the next virtue, before player 2 catches up.

This is a turn based game, and you're ignoring the most important resource for your theory crafting.

It seems people are just complaining to complain, not actually thinking seriously about the way that a game of Civ works.

Besides instant gratification makes the following techs worthless:
Foresight
Frugality
Homesteading
Helping Hands
Pioneer Spirit
Settler Clans
Adaptive Tactics
Survivalism
Scavenging
Military Industrial Complex
Special Service
Integrated Arms
Channel Wrath
Networked Datalinks
Metaresearch Methods
Creative Class
Memeweb
Learning Centres
Labor Logistics
Scalable Infrastructre
Entreprenurial Spaceflight
Standardised Architecture
Liquidity
Social Investment
Superior Engineering

All of those virtuals require an investment for a long-term benefit. So exactly what makes you think they are superior to CV is beyond me.