Time victory seems broken?

[tripleducky]

"Also an increase in tech cost by 10%"
Ah. So that's exactly how it works. There's the hidden formula. Just so you know, those formulas DO create an ideal "ratio" of tall to wide. If you think about "what buildings can I feasibly actually build" compared to the relative static cost of the final tech on the tech tree, you can actually extrapolate a tall vs wide formula. It will vary depending on the game but you should be able to guess at how many cities to go. Obviously going order and wide with free research centers or whatever sounds pretty legit.

But you see what I mean, in civ 6 I'm like 40% sure 7 or 8 base is the wai 2 go.

The real question now is if puppets affect the formula? And are there any other hidden formulas you can tell me about?

Edit: My guess: 4 or 5 is ideal barring your little "free research center" trick. But I haven't played that much so who knows? P.S. Turn 494 victory on prince. https://imgur.com/aXHYmlE Thanks to you guys I didn't sleep last night.

Edit again: the ideal ratio would definitely probably depend on your policies, so there's going to be some variance I don't doubt.

 

[Gazebo]

"Also an increase in tech cost by 10%"
Ah. So that's exactly how it works. There's the hidden formula. Just so you know, those formulas DO create an ideal "ratio" of tall to wide. If you think about "what buildings can I feasibly actually build" compared to the relative static cost of the final tech on the tech tree, you can actually extrapolate a tall vs wide formula. It will vary depending on the game but you should be able to guess at how many cities to go. Obviously going order and wide with free research centers or whatever sounds pretty legit.

But you see what I mean, in civ 6 I'm like 40% sure 7 or 8 base is the wai 2 go.

The real question now is if puppets affect the formula? And are there any other hidden formulas you can tell me about?

Edit: My guess: 4 or 5 is ideal barring your little "free research center" trick. But I haven't played that much so who knows? P.S. Turn 494 victory on prince. https://imgur.com/aXHYmlE Thanks to you guys I didn't sleep last night.

It isn’t secret knowledge - it’s on the science tooltip on the top bar. And it isn’t necessarily 10%.

G

 

[tripleducky]

It isn’t secret knowledge - it’s on the science tooltip on the top bar. And it isn’t necessarily 10%.

G

I missed it so it may as well be secret. And you saying it isn't necessarily 10% sounds PRETTY SECRETIVE.

Edit: oh it says 7% for me. Does it vary?

 

[ashendashin]

I missed it so it may as well be secret. And you saying it isn't necessarily 10% sounds PRETTY SECRETIVE.

It varies on map size. Huge is 5%(4?) and I'm not sure if standard is actually as high as 10.

 

[tripleducky]

It varies on map size. Huge is 5%(4?) and I'm not sure if standard is actually as high as 10.

does that makes sense though? because aren't the maps equally crowded making it equally challenging to get an equal plot of land? or am I wrong?

 

[tu_79]

I missed it so it may as well be secret. And you saying it isn't necessarily 10% sounds PRETTY SECRETIVE.

Edit: oh it says 7% for me. Does it vary?

Yes, map size. I usually play on smaller maps, thus a bigger penalty.
That ratio you are talking about is not written in stone. As I said, cities don't start being as productive as your capital, there is an investment in turns and resources.

does that makes sense though? because aren't the maps equally crowded making it equally challenging to get an equal plot of land? or am I wrong?

There's a whole rationale on this in one of the balance threads, if you are interested. Short story, it works better this way.

 

[Moi Magnus]

does that makes sense though? because aren't the maps equally crowded making it equally challenging to get an equal plot of land? or am I wrong?

No. As is vanilla, higher size give more space to each players. If I remember correctly, Large has 12 civs but has room for ~15 of them, an Huge is worst.

Moreover, if you consider domination victory, you still need to conquer the whole world.

 

[Gazebo]

I missed it so it may as well be secret. And you saying it isn't necessarily 10% sounds PRETTY SECRETIVE.

Edit: oh it says 7% for me. Does it vary?

Secretive implies malicious intent. Lack of reading on your part isn’t secretive on my part.

G

 

[tripleducky]

I did a four base and didn't finish again. I'm doing the math right now and the mod looks very bad on 4 base. Unfortunately, I actually liked this system in vanilla. I wasn't a fan of expanding beyond fighting for your starting area. I guess this is pretty much a domination mod. I did the math, only very quickly, so I could be leaving out some huge ever-present determining factor, but it seems like it pays to conquer 100% of the time if you win.

We'll see if I keep playing but that wasn't the balance I was looking for personally. I like a little border friction not an all out conquest campaign.

 

[Gazebo]

I did a four base and didn't finish again. I'm doing the math right now and the mod looks very bad on 4 base. Unfortunately, I actually liked this system in vanilla. I wasn't a fan of expanding beyond fighting for your starting area. I guess this is pretty much a domination mod. I did the math, only very quickly, so I could be leaving out some huge ever-present determining factor, but it seems like it pays to conquer 100% of the time if you win.

We'll see if I keep playing but that wasn't the balance I was looking for personally. I like a little border friction not an all out conquest campaign.

Just so you know, innumerable reports of 4-city wins are scattered all over the forum at all difficulties. I don't want to malign your playing skill, but two games in and you've decided it's the mod's fault you can't win? I disagree, respectfully.

G

 

[tu_79]

I did a four base and didn't finish again. I'm doing the math right now and the mod looks very bad on 4 base. Unfortunately, I actually liked this system in vanilla. I wasn't a fan of expanding beyond fighting for your starting area. I guess this is pretty much a domination mod. I did the math, only very quickly, so I could be leaving out some huge ever-present determining factor, but it seems like it pays to conquer 100% of the time if you win.

We'll see if I keep playing but that wasn't the balance I was looking for personally. I like a little border friction not an all out conquest campaign.

Sounds like you want to try Incas next.

 

[tripleducky]

Just so you know, innumerable reports of 4-city wins are scattered all over the forum at all difficulties. I don't want to malign your playing skill, but two games in and you've decided it's the mod's fault you can't win? I disagree, respectfully.

G

Well I did win, I just did it on 7. I'm saying I pulled out a calculator and calculated that with a 10% cost increase, assuming your finished cities are generating 300-350 science each, which seems reasonable from my playthroughs, you needed to generate like less than 50 science on another city to make it worthwhile for a science victory, even at like 7 bases. I did it really quick and I don't know if I'm correct, but that seems like it REALLY favors expansive play.

And I'm not making a decision. My post was riddled with words like "seems," "don't know" "could be." I don't see how you're being helpful. Honestly I'd just be reading other threads except whenever I do a search for something like "tall" on this forum, nothing helpful SEEMS to come up.

So here is my reasoning. In the game THAT I WON (7 city) I was generating 300ish science per city (without converting hammers to science) and the one I just lost 300ish (4 city). on four base that means it should take uhh... 17.5 turns to research the final tech tree options. On 7 base it should take about 11 turns. That's a huge difference. And that's with the small map's 10% increase per city. Unless there's some way to massively increase the per-city science output in a smaller empire, then how are you supposed to win?

Honestly I'd love to know what to do. If someone linked me to a video of a four city victory, or a post on one, that would be great. I'm having trouble finding anything using the search engine. I'll go looking through the forums for a bit because I don't expect anyone to stick their neck out to make me understand. And I have taken advice I've received on this thread.

Edit: I'm just highlighting key points for the lazy readers. I realize I'm posting essays on here. And also if I didn't want to learn I wouldn't be posting here I'd just give up.

 

[tu_79]

Unless there's some way to massively increase the per-city science output in a smaller empire, then how are you supposed to win?

Euh, great people?

 

[tripleducky]

Euh, great people?

Is there a difference in how many great people you get with a smaller empire because I didn't notice one.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Smaller empire can make it easier to pick tradition and artistry, both giving a bonus to great persons generation.

 

[ashendashin]

Also important to consider that there are civs actually designed to play tall. You can't just stubbornly refuse to adjust to the situation and expect things to go well. There is no single strategy that should be applied to all starts.

 

[Gazebo]

Well I did win, I just did it on 7. I'm saying I pulled out a calculator and calculated that with a 10% cost increase, assuming your finished cities are generating 300-350 science each, which seems reasonable from my playthroughs, you needed to generate like less than 50 science on another city to make it worthwhile for a science victory, even at like 7 bases. I did it really quick and I don't know if I'm correct, but that seems like it REALLY favors expansive play.

And I'm not making a decision. My post was riddled with words like "seems," "don't know" "could be." I don't see how you're being helpful. Honestly I'd just be reading other threads except whenever I do a search for something like "tall" on this forum, nothing helpful SEEMS to come up.

So here is my reasoning. In the game THAT I WON (7 city) I was generating 300ish science per city (without converting hammers to science) and the one I just lost 300ish (4 city). on four base that means it should take uhh... 17.5 turns to research the final tech tree options. On 7 base it should take about 11 turns. That's a huge difference. And that's with the small map's 10% increase per city. Unless there's some way to massively increase the per-city science output in a smaller empire, then how are you supposed to win?

Honestly I'd love to know what to do. If someone linked me to a video of a four city victory, or a post on one, that would be great. I'm having trouble finding anything using the search engine. I'll go looking through the forums for a bit because I don't expect anyone to stick their neck out to make me understand. And I have taken advice I've received on this thread.

Edit: I'm just highlighting key points for the lazy readers. I realize I'm posting essays on here. And also if I didn't want to learn I wouldn't be posting here I'd just give up.

We're all here to help. But, that said, you did say this:

it seems like it pays to conquer 100% of the time if you win.

Seems is a hedge word, but 100% is hardly a hedge. More like a nicely-trimmed lawn.

G

 

[tu_79]

Is there a difference in how many great people you get with a smaller empire because I didn't notice one.

I've said this more than once, so it's now a meme of mine. There are a few civs designed as 'learning this mechanic' civ. Try Arabia, for raw GP generation, so you get the right feeling of great people strength. Try Incas for a safe turtling tall experience. Try Austria for a tall diplomatic game with crazy GP output in capital. Try India for an amazing growth, a bit like Incas, but with a peculiar religious game. Try Byzantium for an unique tall religious game.
Any of those civs will give a better feeling of what is really playing tall.

EDIT. Korea goes without saying.

 

[tripleducky]

We're all here to help. But, that said, you did say this:



Seems is a hedge word, but 100% is hardly a hedge. More like a nicely-trimmed lawn.

G

In this case it is not a hedge word, if I'm understanding what a hedge word is. I actually am genuinely perceiving it to be that way, I'm not trying to be polite.

Edit: I'm perceiving it that way and I'm not sure of myself that is.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Well I did win, I just did it on 7. I'm saying I pulled out a calculator and calculated that with a 10% cost increase, assuming your finished cities are generating 300-350 science each, which seems reasonable from my playthroughs, you needed to generate like less than 50 science on another city to make it worthwhile for a science victory, even at like 7 bases. I did it really quick and I don't know if I'm correct, but that seems like it REALLY favors expansive play.

And I'm not making a decision. My post was riddled with words like "seems," "don't know" "could be." I don't see how you're being helpful. Honestly I'd just be reading other threads except whenever I do a search for something like "tall" on this forum, nothing helpful SEEMS to come up.

So here is my reasoning. In the game THAT I WON (7 city) I was generating 300ish science per city (without converting hammers to science) and the one I just lost 300ish (4 city). on four base that means it should take uhh... 17.5 turns to research the final tech tree options. On 7 base it should take about 11 turns. That's a huge difference. And that's with the small map's 10% increase per city. Unless there's some way to massively increase the per-city science output in a smaller empire, then how are you supposed to win?

Honestly I'd love to know what to do. If someone linked me to a video of a four city victory, or a post on one, that would be great. I'm having trouble finding anything using the search engine. I'll go looking through the forums for a bit because I don't expect anyone to stick their neck out to make me understand. And I have taken advice I've received on this thread.

Edit: I'm just highlighting key points for the lazy readers. I realize I'm posting essays on here. And also if I didn't want to learn I wouldn't be posting here I'd just give up.

Culture victory benefits from having few cities (there is a bonus for having "less cities").
However you are right, more good cities is always better. Settling/Capturing a city is an investment, you are using ressources that you could have used for other purposes, but it is efficient.

If you have more gold that what you need to invest in all your buildings, more happiness than what you need, and more units that what is needed for defensive wars, then you don't have enough cities.