Villages too strong in GEM 1.05?

[Zaldron]

As I was playing my first game with GEM 1.05, I'm not even to Ren era yet but it seems that villages are extremely strong compared to farms and possibly equal to mines only because production is so powerful.

I picked up the policies in tradition (which is finished) and commerce (cherry-picked) to boost villages so a farm is +1f and a village is +2g +2s (on a rivier farm gets +1f and village gets +1g). I know food is more valuable than gold or science but not *that* much more so. Do villages seem too powerful compared to farms now?

 

[mystikx21]

As I was playing my first game with GEM 1.05, I'm not even to Ren era yet but it seems that villages are extremely strong compared to farms and possibly equal to mines only because production is so powerful.

I picked up the policies in tradition (which is finished) and commerce (cherry-picked) to boost villages so a farm is +1f and a village is +2g +2s (on a rivier farm gets +1f and village gets +1g). I know food is more valuable than gold or science but not *that* much more so. Do villages seem too powerful compared to farms now?

For my own version I moved the +1 on villages in tradition (to rationalism as +2), that makes it less potent early on.

Farms can get +3 total (with one tree opener and a tech) versus +3/3 max (with two different trees and a tech) as a result there.

Does that seem too powerful? Maybe, but you have to invest that way for a long time before they become that powerful by delaying the science bump.

 

[Ahriman]

I think what we should do is move back to a design where trading posts basically mimic mines.

+1 gold base, +1 gold with a classical era tech (optics?), +1 gold on fresh water with a medieval era tech (currency? which is weak now that markets got moved to trade), +1 gold non non-fresh-water with a Renaissance era tech (Economics?).

Keep science for population, science buildings, and science specialists. Villages should be for gold production. There is no particular synergy between gold production and science production; different kinds of cities are good for different things. One of the biggest advances in Civ5 over Civ4 was to split commerce into science and gold, so you could have different cities that specialized in different things. I think we should keep this.

This way, a gold city will build lots of trading posts, a science city will build lots of farms.

 

[mystikx21]

I think what we should do is move back to a design where trading posts basically mimic mines.

+1 gold base, +1 gold with a classical era tech (optics?), +1 gold on fresh water with a medieval era tech, +1 gold non non-fresh-water with a Renaissance era tech (Economics?).

Keep science for population, science buildings, and science specialists. Villages should be for gold production. There is no particular synergy between gold production and science production; different kinds of cities are good for different things. One of the biggest advances in Civ5 over Civ4 was to split commerce into science and gold, so you could have different cities that specialized in different things. I think we should keep this.

This way, a gold city will build lots of trading posts, a science city will build lots of farms.

There is a cross-over from villages and science in jungles later in the game... but that has more to do with the jungles than the villages likely on them, likewise rationalism adds +1 later. More generally however, I agree they shouldn't be producing science by default but only from active actions later.

 

[Ahriman]

There is a cross-over from villages and science in jungles later in the game... but that has more to do with the jungles than the villages likely on them, likewise rationalism adds +1 later. More generally however, I agree they shouldn't be producing science by default but only from active actions later.

Science on jungles is ok, though I think unnecessary, and the benefit from Rationalism is from a Rationalism social policy - it isn't really a benefit from the villages themselves.

I think in general that jungle should be inimical to development, like desert or tundra. I think there's a problem when jungle + village is as good as grasslands + village, and in fact eventually jungle + village is better. Jungle tiles should probably lose 1 food unless cleared, and then they get the +1 science from universities and +1 science in the late-game. So there is a tradeoff; jungles are annoying early on, but are good later if you leave them around until then. As of now, unless you need to farm that tile, jungles are a clear bonus.

 

[wobuffet]

I think in general that jungle should be inimical to development, like desert or tundra. I think there's a problem when jungle + village is as good as grasslands + village, and in fact eventually jungle + village is better. Jungle tiles should probably lose 1 food unless cleared, and then they get the +1 science from universities and +1 science in the late-game. So there is a tradeoff; jungles are annoying early on, but are good later if you leave them around until then. As of now, unless you need to farm that tile, jungles are a clear bonus.

Could not agree more. Tradeoffs are fun!

One other thing: I think it'd be fun if chopping jungles, as with forests, yielded some or instant .

 

[Thalassicus]

I want to feel our skill makes a difference as we get better at the game. Bonuses from developed sources like improvements, buildings, and specialists reward our ingenuity more than undeveloped sources like population. The Mentor's Hall and science on villages make science depend more on development, which makes skill more important, and the game more enjoyable for me. There's some discussion about this in the science thread. I did a quick search, and I think two posts I talked about it are: here and here. Science on villages makes them more useful for tall empires, since gold is mainly useful for wide empires.

In terms of improvements, the goal is for each city to have:

• A few type improvements like fish/farms.
• A few type improvements like lumbermills/quarries.
• Remaining tiles filled with type improvements like villages and luxuries.

 

[Ahriman]

Making science rely more on "developed sources" is already accomplished by the mentor's hall, library, university, public school, and research lab. It doesn't need trading posts to do that. To get science you need the combination of population + infrastructure. A single population point gives you 1 science, which is then more than quadrupled by all the modifiers. Basic population alone isn't giving you significant amounts of science beyond the early game.

Also, basic population *is* a developed source; it comes from working farm tiles and building food/growth/happiness boosting infrastructure. Population doesn't come for free, you have to work for it. You have the opportunity cost of working gold or production tiles, you have the infrastructure requirements of granaries, aqueducts and the like, and you have to manage that population with happiness.

I don't see any good justification for making science come from villages.

In terms of improvement balance, the goal there is for each city to have 1-2 farms, 1-2 mines, and the remaining tiles filled with villages.

Why? How is that balanced, if most tiles are villages? Why should every city have to have the same improvement? That's not fun or interesting.

To me balance and interesting decisions come when there is meaningful differentiation across tiles, not when "remaining tiles are filled with villages". I should want to construct/work different kind of improvements in different cities. In a production city, I'll want mostly mines and lumbermills. In a gold city I'll want mostly trading posts and won't necessarily bother with food structures. In a science city I'll want lots of farms and food production infrastructure and all the science buildings. In a great person city I'll want farms, food production buildings, gardens and buildings with the appropriate specialist slots for the great person strategy I'm pursuing.

 

[Thalassicus]

I posted analysis in the science thread that 50-80% of science comes from undeveloped sources in the unmodded game. I prefer to have more come from developed sources like improvements/buildings/etc. A combination of villages and population helps this in its own way, less so than the Mentors' Hall but still a contributing factor. I described this in detail around post #217 of the science thread.

The question we face with improvements is which tiles to build on. If we never build villages (like in the unmodded game), our options are limited to farms and mines, which are often mutually exclusive. In the unmodded game improvement choices are usually an automatic habit that requires less thought than other activities. To think of it another way, it puts us on the left side of the complexity scale, which is less fun than the center.

In Communitas our choice on hills is usually between a mine or village, and on flatland we choose between a farm or village. This leads to about 2 choices per tile, with similar importance, and different bonuses. There's more villages because they can exist on any tile.

 

[Ahriman]

I posted analysis in the science thread that 50-80% of science comes from undeveloped sources in the unmodded game

No you didn't. You posted an analysis that said 50-80% of science comes from undeveloped sources in the unmodded game *in the very early game*. Not true once you have scientist specialists, academies, universities, public schools, research labs, etc.

And then you shifted away from that model already by adding the mentor's hall.

Consider a size 15 city with mentor's hall, library, and university.
It has 40 science. Only 37.5% is coming from basic population.

Add in a 5 research academy and 2 scientists at 3 science each. Now only 15/51 = 29% of science is coming from basic population.

Most of the game does not occur pre-medieval era.

Science on villages is not needed to have only a moderate amount of science coming from basic population.

I also don't see that reducing the yield from basic population is necessarily important, because population is not "basic", it requires investment (in farms, happiness, food generation buildings).

If we never build villages (like in the unmodded game), our options are limited to farms and mines

Who never builds villages in the unmodded game? In almost every wide game I play I'll concentrate most production in large specialist cities, while other cities are mostly for happiness/culture/gold and stay a moderate size.
Who would never build villages if they have 2 gold each, rising to 3 gold? I build villages in (the older versions of) VEM all the time.

In Communitas our choice on hills is usually between a mine or village, and on flatland we choose between a farm or village. This leads to about 2 choices per tile, with similar importance, and different bonuses.

How is this not true in a world where villages give gold and only gold? There are still 2 choices, with similar importance, different bonuses.

In my version (and the core game version) on flatland I can choose to go for more science (buildnig a farm) or more gold (building a village). There's a tradeoff. In your version, both choices mean more science.

You keep posting your bell curve, but the figure is wrong when you mislabel the axes. In my version, in the middle there is a tradeoff; you can get gold or food. But your version is on the dull right end, where both choices lead to science and gold (farms lead to gold via trade route income).

 

[Zaldron]

Making science rely more on "developed sources" is already accomplished by the mentor's hall, library, university, public school, and research lab. It doesn't need trading posts to do that. To get science you need the combination of population + infrastructure. A single population point gives you 1 science, which is then more than quadrupled by all the modifiers. Basic population alone isn't giving you significant amounts of science beyond the early game.

I'm going to go with Ahriman in this case and agree that population *is* in fact a developed source, and that there is no need to further and put science onto villages.

Is one food worth more than two gold to a tall? Most likely. Is one food better than THREE gold? Really close call, making a very interesting decision. Is one food better than 2 gold 2 science? No way, the choice is gone and even more of a no-brainer than the original 1 food vs 2 gold choice. This falls in the "one choice is always better = not fun" end of your graph.

 

[mystikx21]

I'm going to go with Ahriman in this case and agree that population *is* in fact a developed source, and that there is no need to further and put science onto villages.

Is one food worth more than two gold to a tall? Most likely. Is one food better than THREE gold? Really close call, making a very interesting decision. Is one food better than 2 gold 2 science? No way, the choice is gone and even more of a no-brainer than the original 1 food vs 2 gold choice. This falls in the "one choice is always better = not fun" end of your graph.

This.

I don't mind a policy tree or the jungles effect adding to villages (although I agree jungles are way too valuable in vanilla GK). These are active choices that require their own forms of investment and opportunity costs from long term effects.

While I was agnostic on villages adding +1 as a basic effect, there's still no reason they should add +1 from an early game policy choice, especially from a growth/culture intensive tree. Growth is itself a form of science and a growth intensive empire is going to want primarily food not science from a tile.

The primary interest for all players in villages comes as people run out of luxuries and coast/river for gold production or create gold specialised cities. That is still an interesting trade off and can be made more interesting by later game effects for villages (like rationalism or jungles/universities, or additional gold). Without adding science. Early and/or consistent additions of gold, such as at optics, guilds, or economics, should be fine to make them interesting.

 

[rhammer640]

All the reasoning already stated above but I'll throw in my voice with ahriman etc.

 

[Thalassicus]

As you said, only 20-30% of science comes from base population in the mod, which is the goal.

Who never builds villages in the unmodded game?

Firaxis removed villages from the first half of the game, which is what I'm talking about. The first half of the game has a greater effect on success than the last half.

If we compare population+villages to population alone, the combined approach is:

• More Engaging
  The combined approach involves more activity than population alone. Population is the same no matter where we assign it, while constructing villages and assigning citizens to work them involves an additional layer of decision-making.
• More Complex
  We have two strong options for what to build on each tile, instead of just 1 good choice. This makes the game a little more complex, which is what makes Civilization enjoyable.
• More Challenging
  Instead of automatically assigning improvements to tiles like in vanilla, we must decide which is better for the tile, and consider the proportion of improvements we want for each city. This rewards us for improving our skill at figuring out what improvements to build where.
• Has Precedent
  As you know, Civ 4's cottages improved both gold and science. This combined approach was very successful in that game.

These are all strong advantages of the combined approach. I copied some more of my thoughts below from the discussion in the Science thread.

A worked village is more active than either a village or a citizen.

To put it another way:

c = effort to sustain a citizen
v = effort to build a village
c+v = effort to sustain a citizen working a built village
​

Citizen+village must require more effort than a citizen.

Say we're asked a question with four answers. The rules of the game can be A or B:

• If we answer the question we get $100. If we don't answer, we get a pineapple.
  This has 1 action: deciding to answer the question.
  It's an easy choice, unless that's a strangely expensive pineapple.
  .
• If we pick the correct answer we get $100. If we don't pick the correct answer, we get a pineapple.
  This has 2 actions: deciding to answer the question, and selecting from available answers.
  It's harder since we have to think about the answers.

The second ruleset requires more actions than the first. It's comparable to the choice we make in Civilization:





In situation A (left) we get 1 with any answer to the question of "how to assign a citizen." In situation B (right) we get 1 only if we pick the village answer.

• has 1 action, growing population
• has 2 actions, growing population and working a village

That's why I think of the second as more "active" than the first.

 

[Zaldron]

Consider a size 15 city with mentor's hall, library, and university.
It has 40 science. Only 37.5% is coming from basic population.

Actually (to hopefully improve our argument) the city has 44 science (15 + 7.5 +7.5) * 148% (library is 15% as well as per pop). This means that with all the changes except science on villages ti would only be 34% from pop in the most basic of cases, which seems perfectly fine.

 

[Stalker0]

[*]Has Precedent
As you know, Civ 4's cottages improved both gold and science. This combined approach was very successful in that game.

Civ IVs cottage system is very different from Civ V's village system. I personally think CiV IV's economic model was better, but we can't make a few changes to villages and assume it works the same as cottages.


I haven't played the new patch enough to speak with confidence, but I can say that I raised my eyebrows really high at seeing the +1 science to village policy in tradition, as next to the 15% bonus to science in the GK rationalism, I considered the second most powerful policy in that tree. At the very least we could move it to the finisher.

 

[Thalassicus]

5-10% of science comes from villages in an average empire, so Monarchy adds another 5-10%. I think that's less than Monarchy's culture bonus, since everyone builds culture buildings, and culture comes proportionally more from buildings than any other source. (I have not analyzed the culture bonus in detail so it's an educated guess.)

 

[mystikx21]

I think that's an argument against including the village bonus on monarchy and leaving it as is with culture boosted.

 

[Zaldron]

Firaxis removed villages from the first half of the game, which is what I'm talking about. The first half of the game has a greater effect on success than the last half.

If we compare population+villages to population alone, the combined approach is:

• More Engaging
  The combined approach involves more activity than population alone. Population is the same no matter where we assign it, while constructing villages and assigning citizens to work them involves an additional layer of decision-making.
• More Complex
  We have two strong options for what to build on each tile, instead of just 1 good choice. This makes the game a little more complex, which is what makes Civilization enjoyable.
• More Challenging
  Instead of automatically assigning improvements to tiles like in vanilla, we must decide which is better for the tile, and consider the proportion of improvements we want for each city. This rewards us for improving our skill at figuring out what improvements to build where.
• Has Precedent
  As you know, Civ 4's cottages improved both gold and science. This combined approach was very successful in that game.

First let me start out saying that I have been playing this mod since about v63 of when it was still called TBC and it's extended my useful life of the game *significantly*. I say this because I have some comments below and they're areas I think could use improvement - I'm not addressing the 100s of areas that I feel this mod has improved things drastically.

If Firaxis removed TPs (Villages hereafter) from the early game, then *that's* the problem to solve: *put them back where they belong* on trade. Don't, as the initial change, also give them science. Keep them at 1 base +1 early tech gold.

* More engaging: OK, putting science on villages is probably more complex. I'll grant that, sufficiently balanced, it *might* be more engaging to have to manage science from improvements.

* More complex/more challenging: Right here is the crux of my problem with the science/village system as I don't believe the current version is more complex/challenging either. If you have time to respond to only one comment in my post, this would be it. Do you agree or disagree that 1f for a farm (freedom is *much much* later than village policies) and 2gold 2 science on a village with just a handful of policies are wildly unbalanced and completely removes the choice of improvement? You would *always* build a village when possible and use MCS and resource tiles to make up the food deficit. Instead of having a choice (which I *strongly* feel I do in base G&K), I have exactly one choice that's optimal for all playstyles all the time. If farms were two food everywhere (+1 with civil service on rivers), and villages were 2 gold 1 science (+gold on river) BAM we have choice again. If we disagree here (that 1f <<< 2g2s) then I'll drop this whole conversation.

* Has precedent: Why here, for this one issue do you choose to bring up civ4? Why not bring back stacks of doom, or anarchy, or single selectable governments, or transports? Why pick precisely one mechanic for this justification?

All this said, I *think* there's still a possibility of balancing this but the numbers don't work out right now as I see them.

 

[Ahriman]

Firaxis removed villages from the first half of the game

First half? no they didn't. There are 8 ages in the game. It's not like trading posts weren't available until the renaissance or industrial era.

The combined approach involves more activity than population alone. Population is the same no matter where we assign it, while constructing villages and assigning citizens to work them involves an additional layer of decision-making.

I think it is less engaging. You are pushing people into building villages, rather than having meaningful tradeoffs between farms, villages, mines and lumbermills.

We have two strong options for what to build on each tile, instead of just 1 good choice.

I think it is less complex than my option. In my option, farm vs trading post are both viable choices, and you'll build different ones in different places.

More Challenging
Instead of automatically assigning improvements to tiles like in vanilla, we must decide which is better for the tile, and consider the proportion of improvements we want for each city

It is less challenging. In my system, you will not automatically assign improvements to tiles, you must decide what better fits the tile. Farms and villages will give you different things. In your version, they both give you the same things (science and gold, directly or through larger pop/trade route income).

Has Precedent
As you know, Civ 4's cottages improved both gold and science. This combined approach was very successful in that game.

Civ5 deliberately abandoned the system of forcing gold and science to be the same thing. This was an improvement: we now had two different yields, we could now specialize cities in science *or* gold. Your system takes that away. A gold city is also forced to be a science city.

These are all strong advantages of the combined approach.

I disagree; I think these are all advantages of the gold-only approach.
"Vanilla" or "your system" are not the only option. If you think it is a no-brainer to not build trading posts in vanilla, then increase their yield. In (the old versions I played of) VEM, the system worked. I built both farms and trading posts in different places.

Actually (to hopefully improve our argument) the city has 44 science (15 + 7.5 +7.5) * 148% (library is 15% as well as per pop).

Thanks, I forgot this.