[NFP] Where do most our yields come from?

Lily_Lancer

Deity
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
2,387
Location
Berkeley,CA
Imagine a late-game scenario, with 1 15-pop city and 15 4-pop cities, each city has a campus with all its infrastructures, radiated by nuclear power plant. Has Kilwa wonder and double adj card, campus has an average adj of +2. Pingala assigned to the 15-pop city. All cities are kept to be ecstatic. Each city has 7 amenity, the Pingala city has 13 amenity. Kilwa and Diplo Zone are located in the Pingala city/capital.

Ignore science from tiles, trade routes, or Raj, or other sources. Assuming no specialists.

Scenario 1:
0 Scientific CS
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+3+2(Palace))*1.2=54.6 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3)*1.2=27.6 Science

Overall Science: 54.6+27.6*15=468.6 Science

Scene 2: Add 1 Geneva City State
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+6+3+3(Palace)+5(from Diplo Zone))*1.35=77.6 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3+6)*1.2=34.8 Science

Overall Science: (77.6+34.8*15)*1.15=689.5 Science

Scene 3: Add Taruga on top of Geneva, assuming each city has 2 resource in average.
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+6*2+3+4+10)*1.6=111.2 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3+6*2)*1.45=50.8 Science

Overall Science: (111.2+50.8*15)*1.15=1004.2 Science

Scene 4: Add Anshan on top of Geneva/Taruga, assuming Anshan has zero effect.

Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+6*3+3+5+15)*1.6=130.4 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3+6*3)*1.45=59.5 Science

Overall Science: (130.4+59.5*15)*1.15=1176.3 Science


By adding a Geneva we successfully increases science output by 40%, by adding Taruga we doubles the science output, having 3 science city-states will yield you 250% of science output than having 0 science CS.

Science CSs Total Science

0 468.6
1 689.5
2 1004.2
3 1176.3

Conclusion:
City-state bonus is overpowered and is the main source of science yields, even if we don't count Globalization.

Having different number of scientific city-states on the map influences your science progress very very much.
 
Last edited:
If you ignore their specific bonuses, and just count envoy bonuses, each CS adds about 120-ish science to the empire in this example. Which is a lot - roughly 25%. Of course, IRL, you will have science from some other source, and you're unlikely to somehow have 15 size-4 cities with research labs that all have 7+ amenities available to them.

Kilwa is a huge boost if you get the 2+ scientific CS for sure. And Geneva and Taruga obviously each can add a lot more too. But I definitely notice the lack of bonuses when you don't have any scientific CS nearby compared to when you have multiple nearby.
 
Well Geneva and Taruga are obviously better for these figures than say Hatusa and Mitla and you will probably only have the Uiversities for half or less of the game and the Research Labs for maybe a quarter of the game.

But I agree having at least 2 Science CS is pretty much mandatory for a HOF run with most Civs (I guess Norway and Babylon for example can partially ignore them).
 
Well Geneva and Taruga are obviously better for these figures than say Hatusa and Mitla and you will probably only have the Uiversities for half or less of the game and the Research Labs for maybe a quarter of the game.

But I agree having at least 2 Science CS is pretty much mandatory for a HOF run with most Civs (I guess Norway and Babylon for example can partially ignore them).

There's no reason not to build a research lab, and since you can chop it's hard to be lack of production.

University: 250 prod, 4 science
Research Lab: 440 prod, 8 science

The lab is more cost-efficient.
 
Oh I agree, I just meant you probably won’t get them unlocked and built until the game is well past halfway done so if you time average they are a bit less important than a snapshot implies.
 
Yeah the yields from CS's are game warping. I like the suzerain effects, but the raw yields are way too oppressive when selecting a strategy (one of the main reasons to ICS) I don't like it, it removes strategic options from the game.

Don't get me wrong, I like playing the map and trying to choose the best strategy to fit the map, but CS flat yields are too much. This isn't something that will be changed in a balance update though, so it's just here to stay, perhaps FXS can learn from this in civ7...
 
Yeah the yields from CS's are game warping. I like the suzerain effects, but the raw yields are way too oppressive when selecting a strategy (one of the main reasons to ICS) I don't like it, it removes strategic options from the game.

Don't get me wrong, I like playing the map and trying to choose the best strategy to fit the map, but CS flat yields are too much. This isn't something that will be changed in a balance update though, so it's just here to stay, perhaps FXS can learn from this in civ7...

I think the CS bonus shall have some restrictions. For example, 1 envoy: +1 science for library and palace if the city has 5+ population; 3 envoys: +2 for university and chancery if the city has 10+ population; 6 envoys: +3 for labs and consulate if the city's population is above 15.
 
I always thought a good balance would be that every standard game has 2 of each type of city state. They still have very different levels of power for Suzerainty ability but this means you always have a level footing for raw science and Kilwa.
 
I think the CS bonus shall have some restrictions. For example, 1 envoy: +1 science for library and palace if the city has 5+ population; 3 envoys: +2 for university and chancery if the city has 10+ population; 6 envoys: +3 for labs and consulate if the city's population is above 15.

That is a very neat solution, if they did that it would be great
 
This would be really easy to fix by stripping yields from buildings and relocating them to specialist slots, while tying city state yields to a finite and interruptible resource, like trade routes.
 
Yeah the yields from CS's are game warping. I like the suzerain effects, but the raw yields are way too oppressive when selecting a strategy (one of the main reasons to ICS) I don't like it, it removes strategic options from the game.

Don't get me wrong, I like playing the map and trying to choose the best strategy to fit the map, but CS flat yields are too much. This isn't something that will be changed in a balance update though, so it's just here to stay, perhaps FXS can learn from this in civ7...

Another way is to redirect the CS bonus to specialists.

1 envoy: +1 yield to palace and the 1st specialist of a district
3 envoy: +2 yield to consulate and the 2nd specialist of a district
6 envoy: +3 yield to chancery and the 3rd specialist of a district
 
if you play like a normal person and grow your cities, they will in fact generate science
 
if you play like a normal person and grow your cities, they will in fact generate science

This is simply not true. Growing the city is not what adds the bulk of the science - that the district, the buildings and the city states bonuses, all flat. In CIV V, it was indeed population adding the science. I miss that.
 
Seems a bit harsh.
You are saying that if I don't grow my cities I am not a normal person.
sorry that was indeed a bit harsh.

I get annoyed by the constant influx of posts by OP that all boil down to the same thing which is "my very specific, very extreme playstyle causes strange game imbalances therefore the game is imbalanced"

maybe consider playing differently i dunno

This is simply not true. Growing the city is not what adds the bulk of the science - that the district, the buildings and the city states bonuses, all flat. In CIV V, it was indeed population adding the science. I miss that.
I mean yeah, i understand OPs point especially about city state bonuses. if you have a ton of them on the map and they manage to not get killed, it certainly changes the game.

but capping all your cities at size 4 and then saying it's a problem with the game, not your playstyle? ok you lost me there
 
Maybe I am misinterpreting but I think this post boils down to “additional population should be a good thing but the new patch makes it a bad thing (at least after you have enough for the basics). The issue is that a lot of people seem to want the game to encourage Tall strategies more but the happiness changes are making many small cities better than a few very large ones - e.g. 4 cities with 4 pop each is way better than 1 city with 16 pop. They penalized having lots of POPULATION when if they really want to encourage tall they would have to penalize excess CITIES.
 
Maybe I am misinterpreting but I think this post boils down to “additional population should be a good thing but the new patch makes it a bad thing (at least after you have enough for the basics). The issue is that a lot of people seem to want the game to encourage Tall strategies more but the happiness changes are making many small cities better than a few very large ones - e.g. 4 cities with 4 pop each is way better than 1 city with 16 pop. They penalized having lots of POPULATION when if they really want to encourage tall they would have to penalize excess CITIES.

Yeah, you know it's kind of odd that the game totally walked back the Civ 5 changes to happiness that penalized wide strats. Did a lot of people not like this? Because now in Civ 6, there is actually no penalty to building more cities. Even in 4, excessive expansion resulted in ruinous upkeep. While in games prior, new cities would have horrible hammer yields from corruption. So now that I think about it, combined with how districts/district buildings/city states work, Civ 6 is by far the most favorable for wide strats in the entire history of the franchise.

Edit - unless you think loyalty is a really big deal.
 
Yeah, you know it's kind of odd that the game totally walked back the Civ 5 changes to happiness that penalized wide strats. Did a lot of people not like this? Because now in Civ 6, there is actually no penalty to building more cities. Even in 4, excessive expansion resulted in ruinous upkeep. While in games prior, new cities would have horrible hammer yields from corruption. So now that I think about it, combined with how districts/district buildings/city states work, Civ 6 is by far the most favorable for wide strats in the entire history of the franchise.

Edit - unless you think loyalty is a really big deal.

While I would like to see high population cities buffed, I like the way civ 6 deals with happiness is way more than civ 5. IMO, making tall play optimal is bad design. More cities should always be better. More population should always be better too, and that is where civ 6 struggles.

Maybe I am misinterpreting but I think this post boils down to “additional population should be a good thing but the new patch makes it a bad thing (at least after you have enough for the basics). The issue is that a lot of people seem to want the game to encourage Tall strategies more but the happiness changes are making many small cities better than a few very large ones - e.g. 4 cities with 4 pop each is way better than 1 city with 16 pop. They penalized having lots of POPULATION when if they really want to encourage tall they would have to penalize excess CITIES.

Another issue facing high population cities is that for most cities, there isn't enough time to grow them past size 15. Even with unlimited amenities how many cities are you realistically going to grow past 15? With the exception of cities founded in the first 50 or so turns, I find it very impractical to grow cities to such sizes. If the game lasted 100 turns longer, I would be much more inclined to grow large cities.

Ultimately though the problem boils down to the fact that extra science output you get from additional pops is unimpressive until you hit the rationalism thresholds. At least when the threshold was 10 it was possible to hit that mark in a lot of cities. Fifteen is too just too difficult given how quickly one flies through the tech tree. It takes more than double the amount of food surplus to grow a city to 15 than it does to grow a city 10 (about 500 vs 1200).
 
Imagine a late-game scenario, with 1 15-pop city and 15 4-pop cities, each city has a campus with all its infrastructures, radiated by nuclear power plant. Has Kilwa wonder and double adj card, campus has an average adj of +2. Pingala assigned to the 15-pop city. All cities are kept to be ecstatic. Each city has 7 amenity, the Pingala city has 13 amenity. Kilwa and Diplo Zone are located in the Pingala city/capital.

Ignore science from tiles, trade routes, or Raj, or other sources. Assuming no specialists.

Scenario 1:
0 Scientific CS
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+3+2(Palace))*1.2=54.6 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3)*1.2=27.6 Science

Overall Science: 54.6+27.6*15=468.6 Science

Scene 2: Add 1 Geneva City State
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+6+3+3(Palace)+5(from Diplo Zone))*1.35=77.6 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3+6)*1.2=34.8 Science

Overall Science: (77.6+34.8*15)*1.15=689.5 Science

Scene 3: Add Taruga on top of Geneva, assuming each city has 2 resource in average.
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+6*2+3+4+10)*1.6=111.2 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3+6*2)*1.45=50.8 Science

Overall Science: (111.2+50.8*15)*1.15=1004.2 Science

Scene 4: Add Anshan on top of Geneva/Taruga, assuming Anshan has zero effect.

Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+4+2+4+8+6*3+3+5+15)*1.6=130.4 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3+6*3)*1.45=59.5 Science

Overall Science: (130.4+59.5*15)*1.15=1176.3 Science


By adding a Geneva we successfully increases science output by 40%, by adding Taruga we doubles the science output, having 3 science city-states will yield you 250% of science output than having 0 science CS.

Science CSs Total Science

0 468.6
1 689.5
2 1004.2
3 1176.3

Conclusion:
City-state bonus is overpowered and is the main source of science yields, even if we don't count Globalization.

Having different number of scientific city-states on the map influences your science progress very very much.

  1. You're missing the +15% extra science from the Pingala Librarian base promotion
  2. You're using the two most powerful scientific city-states which both provide an additional percentage modifier (Geneva, Taruga)
  3. You're not using the Rationalism card and assume the same adjacency bonus in the 15 pop city (where it should theoretically be easier to attain) which may exacerbate the importance of small increases (a nitpick really)

For fun, I redo a similar exercise, only here I change the following assumptions:
+4 adj in 15 pop city
Rationalism card slotted in
No Kilwa Kisiwani
6 envoys to bland scientific city-states

Scenario 1: 0 Scientific CS
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+8+(2+4+8)*2+3+2(Palace))*(1+20%+15%)=85.7 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+3)*(1+20%)=27.6 Science
Overall Science: 85.7+27.6*15=499.7 Science

Scenario 2: 1 bland Scientific CS with 6 envoys
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+8+(2+4+8)*2+6+3+3(Palace)+5(from Diplo Zone))*(1+20%+15%)=101.9 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+6+3)*(1+20%)=34.8 Science
Overall Science: 101.9+34.8*15=623.9 Science

Scenario 3: 2 bland Scientific CSes with 6 envoys
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+8+(2+4+8)*2+6*2+3+4+10)*(1+20%+15%)=118.1 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+6*2+3)*(1+20%)=42 Science
Overall Science: 118.1+42*15=748.1 Science

Scenario 4: 3 bland Scientific CSes with 6 envoys
Total Science Output:
Pin:
(22.5+8+(2+4+8)*2+6*3+3+5+15)*(1+20%+15%)=134.3 Science
Other Cities:
(2+4+2+4+8+6*3+3)*(1+20%)=49.2 Science
Overall Science: 134.3+49.2*15=872.3 Science

Code:
Science CSs  Total Science  %-age increase

0              499.7               0.0%
1              623.9              24.9%
2              748.1              49.7%
3              872.3              74.6%


From this, I draw similar, but slightly different conclusions
  • You can increase significantly your science output with the appropriate infrastructure and envoys to scientific city-states (about 25% per city-state with 6 envoys)
  • The Kilwa Kisiwani bonus is very powerful and out of sync with how easy it is to currently suzerain multiple city-states
  • The combination of the increase of science output with the number of scientific city-states you have envoys at and the flat percentage bonuses (such as Kilwa Kisiwani, Geneva, Taruga) creates an exponential trend (interaction of the two effects).
Note: the latest patches have made it slightly harder to suzerain city-states and some modes such as Secret Societies and Heroes can make it harder if you do not follow certain paths, but not nearly as much as when city-states didn't start with walls.
 
Did a lot of people not like this?
Virtually everyone (most players honestly) who plays Civ5 on Warlord or above did not like that. Micro'ing cities are a bit fun, but missing out on expanding is definitely not.
 
Top Bottom