I'm curious whether this education property would fluctuate a lot between cities or if it will tend to propagate more like pollution and crime.
I believe it's setup to propagate fairly similarly to crime and disease.
I can see the benefits of having the border cities that are more likely to see war have less education, while the well-protected capital would have more education.
Probably true but I think the overall effect of greater education will be better - will just enforce that you have to adapt to some growing concerns as the property value expands. Less education as a strategy would be possible yes but probably would be an overall worse position. As noted in a quote below, it's important to make one side or the other generically 'better' or worse for the sake of the AI. However, I certainly could see a clever player being able to exploit strategic differences here and perhaps eventually, if players find one end of the scale to be unusually better under clearly definable circumstances then we could try to implement that into the AI's consideration process.
Differing AI personalities could certainly see the best way to manage the property in different ways but I think that the impact of such reduced research and yields would be lethal if maintained for too long that way.
However, I'm not sure how the math would work out with global modifiers like the anarchy time.
Perhaps those should be reduced to account for multiple cities so that more developed games aren't potentially overwhelmed with modifiers. The best case scenario would be that only the city with the greatest modifier is taken into account but that has its own problems. Perhaps a National property value could determine anarchy times etc... but we don't have any User Interface for viewing a National Property level.
In general, right now it seems preferable to let education slide early in the game, at least on Eternity scale, since lower food reqs is huge when it can take a city a hundred+ turns to grow.
I'm thinking the impact on the yields would offset this benefit to the point that it's rather questionable if this strategy would be effective.
A potential -200% food needed does sound silly though. Some of that will be offset by the early civics but even then, population could skyrocket if you let education slide long enough.
Is population so likely to skyrocket when your food income is so low? Mind you, it would certainly be an interesting strategy in the beginning of the game as you say because it would empower you to rely more on hunting based food but later this wouldn't be able to compensate for the loss of Food Yield.
But mostly I want to see this system in place so I can try it out. I say go for it.
Cool
i think that you are taking the point of view of the moderm society when it comes to population: only have children when you have a home and a family.
I take this position because I believe modern society has this view because it is in fact a more highly educated society than most societies ever have been - this due to the most organized public education infrastructure that has ever been known to mankind's history - at least since the introduction of official public schooling.
however you need to take into account that those are economic factors,not educational ones.nowadays it takes a lot of money to support children ,and that's why there are economic helps of the goverments to help families with more than two childs.
Has there ever been a time when raising children was a minimal effort that took adult focus away from other potential achievements? Kids are kids and they're always going to be as taxing on a raising adult's resources in terms of time and assets as any source could possibly be. No matter what era, raising a child SHOULD (and the educated realize this) be an important decision to make that takes into account the means to manage that responsibility. In many societies, people have children without planning - and in more cases than not, this can be directly attributed to a lack of education itself as the knowledge of the means by which to ensure proper planning was lacking among those individuals. Even in the most prehistoric times the ones with knowledge could, and often did, practice birth control in one way or another. That's nothing new.
another example, there are a lot of examples of scientisc and musians that comes from families with many children but that were highlly educated for that time.
Keep in mind that it only slows growth, not cuts it off. It also expands the overall food yield by a lot so your people, having more wealth and prosperity under a higher average education level, are not completely incapable nor unwilling to raise families, even large ones. The difference is that they do so because they can do so responsibly which means they wait, if need be, until they can, which does slow things a little for them. But not by much considering that they're more likely to have those resources that gives them the confidence to raise their kids in the safety of prosperity. With disease levels being reduced by higher education levels, health would be higher too and thus the mortality rate of those children born would be higher. In all honesty, the offset between more food and better health would balance growth so that it only slows a little with higher education, not much. Thus offering a challenge to players (who aren't following this discussion) to see the overall equation as being far more positive for the highly educated society.
let's look at the other side of the coin: in your system,in a idiotcracy families will be having lots of children. but why? why do they have to have such a big population growth?
Because they don't have the awareness of not only how not to, but why not to. They aren't as responsible because they have no guidance so they breed without consideration of consequences. Consequences that very well could include starvation as food supplies are wiped out by the same lack of education. Look at what happens in many 3rd world countries today and you'll see exactly what I mean. Women that cannot possibly feed their kids are having them faster than those in civilized nations commonly do.
also in your example of savagery vs sophistication, normally the side with more educated and organize leaders have much more soldiers .for example rome had much more soldiers together than any of the tribes.
Higher educated societies also have a bonus to production. So the structure as proposed does support that. Just because more educated societies produce a more war resistant sentiment among its population wouldn't mean that it couldn't produce more units... particularly when units become the method by which those societies (on particular civics) are able to keep their people happy despite war weariness.
if they were at numerical disadvantage in some battles,it's was because the legions were in all the parts of the empire. another example the british and the zulus.althougth the zulus were more,it was due the size of the expedition that was send there,not that the zulus were more.just look how many soldiers were use in the napoleonic campains.
I get the impression you believe I'm suggesting a military unit production modifier being stronger on a lower education level... I'm not. Sure some civics can put food towards unit production but that's certainly not going to be better for the less educated nation when food production is higher on greater education levels. The problem with the population modifier on lower education is that it pushes pop to levels that cause more problems rather than solves them. One thing you might notice about C2C... particularly where crime and disease are concerned... if you overgrow your ability to address those issues you actually lose more benefits than the population brings you - then you end up having a starving and unhappy nation that can't effectively manage itself and the added population becomes a problem - one that COULD be solved by other brutal means such as slaving. Eventually I'd like to see Evil vs Good defined for leaders and influence their behaviors and strategies accordingly so that there is in fact a dark way to play that is almost as valid as a 'light' way to play. This moves us a step in that direction.
finally , there are always artist ,painters , high grade students that are in favour of wars
Sure but they would rarely outweigh the liberalizing effects of honest education. My base presumption here is that the education system is honest which isn't quite to the level of realism I'd like to develop but beyond the scope of the game to define the difference. So I'd like this system to lean in the direction of assuming that the education being delivered to the people is MOSTLY honest enough to get them thinking deeply and clearly. I think we may see a system of Social Philosophies being spread like religions eventually and in that case we may then be able to tweak education values based on what social philosophies are dominant in the city. For now we have to make a base assumption that the education is predominantly insightful and true. And in that case, most educated humans would feel more likely to be opposed to war and see it as a brutal means to accomplish complex goals.
ps: it also seem to me ( althougth i'm almost sure that i'm wrong)that you think that no educated people doesn't care about being killed(and in case of radicals,is true) while in reality the low educated peasants/workers force to figth were the first to run away
That very fear is exactly what keeps them from being resistant to their own nation's authority. They don't have the confidence to feel that they can have any kind of meaningful opinion on a national level conflict itself and usually feel victimized by being forced to be a part of it but are also subject to being more easily manipulated into feeling a sense of pride at being a part of a system that is greater than themselves, one that in their own ignorance they easily trust to have the best of intentions. The WELL educated usually see the real motives of those in power and usually, quite rationally, object. At least they remain suspicious because a truly educated person learns to think for themselves and not rely on someone telling them what is truth and what to do. Simply put, Lower educated people, throughout history, are followers while higher educated people are more inclined to either lead or object to being led.
I believe though that in a completely voluntary military system with higher educated individuals choosing to be there, you'll find morale reaches its highest points which is why when morale is inserted into the whole picture, higher education levels would lend to higher morale.
+100% needed to grow slows growth by half (ie. divides by 2). -99% needed to grow speeds growth by a factor of 100. They are not equivalent. The equivalent/opposite to +100% is -50%, as that speeds growth by the same factor of 2.
Then the equivalent of +200% is -66.67%, since it speeds growth by the factor 3. A 'linear' equivalence relation doesn't work in this case.
Ok, GREAT observations on the math that I wouldn't have noticed until (maybe) observing it in-game. I'll adjust the values on the negative factor there accordingly. Thanks for this insight!
You could give higher Education-Effect-Auto-Buildings a "+3
with Desportism", +2
with Totalitarism" etc. If you scale that correctly, this could indirectly work as revolution modifier for such civics.
Happiness modifiers? I suppose that could work... and would make sense and be more generic to affect rev levels as well as happiness. Cool... feel free to plot that out for me on the chart and I'll include them as you write them out (provided I see similar values to what you're showing there as those seem within balance.) I suppose some inverse happiness among the more educated under greater democratically aligned civics since those people would feel more capable of having a 'say' and the more educated they are the more they would feel that their voice should matter.
And the problem with higher growth rates for low educated people is most certainly the AI: It knows that high Crime is bad and low crime is good. It's also easy to teach it that high education is good and low is bad. But teach it that high education is good sometimes and in some cities while low education is good at other times and in other cities... well, I guess this would be a total mess
You're right but I made a number of strategic observations above. Low education as a positive thing MIGHT be useful if other brutal strategies are also taking place which may make a personality driven AI benefit from being tweaked to see low education as a positive thing. But even then, overall the impact on a city from low education will always be worse than the impact of a high education UNLESS you suffer from so much unhappiness from war weariness as a result - a scenario that was taking place throughout Medieval Europe and one of the major reasons for the dark ages - leaders throughout that era NEEDED the people to be pretty stupid so they could be easily manipulated into accepting their petty and constant warfare which was based on the most selfish of aristocratic ideals. That also led society to remain stunted for over a thousand years with very little real scientific progress taking place due to so many people being kept in the dark (thus Dark Ages.)
For now, an AI that sees low education as bad and high education as good WILL be more successful than the other way around even if there may be times in the developing nation's lifespan when the situation may best call for the opposite approach. Therefore, the AI's setting to see high education as good is generically appropriate until further AI adjustments can be made later.
?
).
