1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[GS] Why are people saying that tier 3 buildings are a waste of production?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Greasy Dave, Feb 24, 2019.

  1. Greasy Dave

    Greasy Dave Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    I have been reading in many posts on the forum that tier 3 buildings are a waste of production. I guess, I’m either doing something wrong or missing some aspect because I don’t understand why or what you replace them with. If they're a waste, what do people build? I’d be interested to hear a better explanation.

    I’ve only had time to play 2 games of GS. The first was Inca and I played the way I normally do – beeline to education, beeline to chemistry, beeline to spaceflight – head to SV.

    Then I read various threads here about how tier 3 buildings are a waste/ underpowered so I decided to play Mansa and try a slightly different strategy in my second game and limit my tier 3 buildings.

    TLDR: Not building research labs resulted in my tech rate not keeping up with late game techs and a 30 turn later science victory.

    What is it I’m not getting about this tier 3 buildings are a waste statements? Because from my experience they definitely make a difference?

    Detail about the playthroughs – (I don’t have the saves so I can’t remember exact figures and turns)

    Both immortal, standard speed, standard map and continents. I’m not the most efficient player or the best city manager so my pop sizes are never astronomic. The top 2 cities of these 2 games had 18 pops by end game. Most cities had about 10. The differences in city numbers and pops between games are insignificant. I normally hard build 3-4 cities. Conquer my neighbour and grab 4-6 cities by turn 100-120. Get monumentality and back fill any spaces – giving me between 10-15 basic cities. Both games had similar wonders. Both games I’m at space flight around turn 200. My tech rate is about 300-350 at that time.

    In the Inca game I’ve beelined chemistry. I hard build research labs and spaceport at the same time. By the time I’ve got my spaceport 30 turns later I’ve built / bought research labs and have 500 science per turn and have teched through to the Mars project. By the time I’ve launched the Mars project I’ve teched up to the final project and the lasers. I build boost these and win on 285.

    Second game I ignore tier 3 buildings. I beeline space flight. I’m actually faster at this stage of the game than the Inca game - I’ve been able to rush buy a lot of uni’s. Because it’s Mansa Musa, my Big Ben takes ages to hard build but when it comes online I can rush buy a space port at about 210 turn. I’m at about 300-350 tech rate. All my cities have uni’s and I’ve snagged Newton. I haven’t built factories and only have a couple of IZ’s. Mostly it’s a ton of markets, traders, universities and theatre districts. From launching my satellite it takes me 100 turns to finish. Without RL’s my tech rate is too low -I am snailing through the atomic and information era. Round about turn 240-250 I decide to change. I rush buy research labs and power infrastructure across the empire. By turn 260-270 I finally get above 500 research rate when I get Einstein. I am in the opposite situation to the Inca game – launching space projects then waiting to tech. I finish at turn 312.

    Between the two games there are some differences in GS recruited and tech boosts. But the differences are negligible. The real difference between the games was with the tech rate when I stopped my tech growth hard by not building RL’s.

    What is it I’m missing? Why do folks say that tier 3 buildings don’t matter? Are you imagining infinite city spam and pumping out settler after settler instead of the tier 3 infrastructure?
     
  2. MarigoldRan

    MarigoldRan WARLORD

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,316
    Yes. Or building military and killing a neighbor. Consider, for the cost of four Tier 3 building you could instead build 12 Waka Rakas (overpowered Incan UU) and crush your neighbors and get more science by taking over their districts.

    Right now I don't even build Tier 1 buildings. Just put down the Campus district for the bonus science or an encampment for Great General points, and spam units.
     
  3. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,950
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    The argument is that given they are only around for a short time they don't give sufficient return for the hammers invested.
    Some people will run projects instead.
     
    bbbt, RohirrimElf, Victoria and 2 others like this.
  4. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,036
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    People run projects. I rarely do this myself. I can't imagine anything more boring than running projects over and over. I'm a builder, I want to build things. From a RP perspective, it's ridiculous to be going into space without a research lab. Though I did do projects over and over in my Sweden game trying to get the Nobel prize achievement, luckily multi-queue made this somewhat bearable.
     
  5. leandrombraz

    leandrombraz King

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    975
    That's one way to play. Considering that Civ is flexible enough to allow different play styles, like being peaceful, a building being useful or not depend on what you're doing. If I already have a decent stand army and by that point I surely do since I build units early, building a unit would be a waste for me while the building would be invaluable, mostly T1 buildings. Even if you're going for units, Civ VI is all about specializing your cities, so ideally you would be building units in cities with an encampment and good production, while you have other cities with a campus making sure you keep that tech advantage to give you an edge. So, why not both? It's not a real choice, you can and should do both. Spamming units in every city is overkill and can potentially backfire in the current system, unless you're losing units left and right and really need a stream of new units to make up for your losses, in which case you might want to rethink your strategy.


    As for T3 buildings, The main argument against it is that it doesn't get more yields from CS and they come so late, you'l probably win before they have time to make a meaningful impact, sometimes you won't even have time to build them (Broadcast Center, I'm looking at you). IMO they play their role well, that's to speedy up progress and help you close your game if you need that final push towards victory. It'll buy you a few turns for sure and if you're not building it, what else are you doing? If you're going for science you want more science, so get more science.
     
    Siptah likes this.
  6. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,720
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    I'm pretty certain time will tell that, as is case with Civ4: the less buildings and more actual cities you have, the faster your research rate is going to be. Provided you can pull it off, while not triggering domination at the same time (not sure if there's domination in Civ6).
    If I understand correctly, building projects is basically what Building Research was in Civ4.
     
  7. Greasy Dave

    Greasy Dave Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    aha. So it's projects then. Thanks for the replies. I might try it out next game and see how I like/dislike it
     
  8. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,740
    Location:
    Lucerne
    Spoiler: it's deeply dissatisfying. But I guess with the queue in GS, it is at least bearable.
     
  9. leandrombraz

    leandrombraz King

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    975
    You can run projects but I don't see the point in avoiding T3 buildings, considering that:

    • By then you have a nice gold income, so you can buy T3 buildings in cities with low production. You can run projects while you do that;
    • High production cities can build it fast enough to be worth building it instead of running projects. You can run projects after that;
    • You can double building yields in most cities or at least get 50%, so the yields you get can be quite substantial. You also get another specialist slot.

    I'll make the same point I did about buildings vs units: You can and should do both. Projects are good but it won't hurt to build T3 buildings AND run projects.
     
    shaglio likes this.
  10. The googles do nothing

    The googles do nothing Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    325
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Sources of Science:
    Palace
    Population in your cities
    Districts
    Districts Adjacency in your cities
    Buildings in your cities
    Tiles in your cities
    Projects
    Great People
    Capturing other Civ's cities
    Pillaging other Civ's cities
    City State bonuses
    Wonders
    Policies
    Government
    Eurekas
    Alliances
    Trade Routes
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2019
  11. Sagax

    Sagax Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    Another, more situational argument against Research Labs: if you manage to grab both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, you end up with Universities that unconditionally provide +10 science. Research Labs can eat their hearts out.
     
    Elhoim likes this.
  12. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,209
    They are not a waste @Greasy Dave they are pointless if you are going to win a victory with a certain amount of turns.

    A lot of this discussion also comes from factories before GS... if a factory costs 400 production to make and produces 4 production a turn it is more than just the 100 turns to make the production back, it is what else more valuable could you have done 100 turns earlier.
     
  13. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,592
    Gender:
    Male
    You can try it yourself. Just try running projects and don't build any of them. Buy the occasional one. I think you will actually see very little difference on when you will win. You may also win faster.

    But it is already implied in your experience. If you're buying labs at 250 and finishing at 312, that's only 62 turns of relevance. And it's really not 62 turns, since probably by turn 290 victory is inevitable anyways. Actually I would probably argue that your victory was destined long before turn 200, and that's the whole point.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2019
  14. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,454
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    they really should have made Albert apply to research labs. Then Hypatia/Newton/Albert give +1/2/4 to Lib/Uni/Lab. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
     
  15. leandrombraz

    leandrombraz King

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    975
    I think that make some sense for local production (IZ with good adjacency + workshop) but not for a regional district. It isn't just 4 production, it's 4 on each city in range plus an engineer point. If you have 4 cities in range, therefore affecting 5 cities, that's 20 production, you make up for its cost in 20 turns and now you have 5 cities that produce faster. I also have a problem with seeing things that way because it doesn't take into consideration the advantage of having a city with more production per turn. You got to build something "more valuable" with the production that would go for that factory but now you want to build a wonder on that city or a city in range and you got a worse city for that than you would if you had build that factory. There's value in just having a city with more production for when you need it, even if you get that extra production per turn at a loss of total production. Even when you plan everything you do, there's a certain dynamism in Civ and having that extra production per turn help when you want to build something fast under a specific circumstance, even if by the end of the game you will have "wasted" total production to get production per turn.
     
    Seek likes this.
  16. Onii-chan

    Onii-chan Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2016
    Messages:
    516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    I mean if you're tryharding and just talking about theoretical efficiency then either building more military units to attack people or spamming projects is probably more effective as that has immediate impact whereas just getting Research Labs is a lot of hammers invested into something kicking in too late to really be game-deciding most of the time. Also take into account that military units all have nice +production cards you can play to get more use out of every hammer, whereas there is no such thing for regular buildings. So in that sense it's not that worthwhile

    However, that is only if you either a) play multiplayer, or b) actually give a damn about how many turns it takes you to win. I've personally never understood at all why turn time is somehow an indication of skill or how well you've played since different strategies are just plain more efficient than others and getting the quickest wins is usually just a result of going all-out world domination (which is extremely boring and tedious) and/or abusing a bunch of dumb game mechanics (like production overflow etc). I mean it's not like winning the game somehow against the AI is ever really a problem anyway so I would never worry about turn count for that reason either. In other words... instead of thinking about what the "best" way to play is, just play however you want to play and build whatever you want to build. That's all there really is to be said here


    As a side note, if there's anything that really isn't worth building in GS then it's Flood Barriers. Seriously unless you get them up before the very first sea level rise comes (in which case it's obviously worth it), their production cost keeps going up faster than you can build them and suddenly you'll be sitting there trying to build something costing 2000+ hammers and won't finish until all your coastal tiles have already plummeted to the bottom of the ocean. It took me more production to build a Flood Barrier in my capital than the Sydney Opera House last game I played...
     
    Elhoim, BrotherInJah, Kjimmet and 3 others like this.
  17. Sostratus

    Sostratus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    1,454
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Ever since they removed aura stacking, players just build one or two factory/power plant to cover everything, and the rest of the IZs sit empty. It's a sad state of affairs because a factory can be built and provide absolutely no benefit whatsoever beyond the +1 GE point.

    This is why I argue they should move the coal plant's bonus to the factory; its a local bonus with some teeth, so there's still a strong incentive to build factories in cities already covered by the aura. (And then make the aura +0 with no power /+5 with power.)
     
  18. leandrombraz

    leandrombraz King

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    975
    Valletta was a CS I never paid much attention to, now it's sitting there on Tier "Holy crab! That's OP" just next to Auckland, thanks to Flood Barriers. You pay 200 faith for a Flood Barrier if you have Valletta, so get Valletta if it's in your game, liberate it if you must. They should let you rush Flood Barriers with Military Engineers, this way your cities that aren't at a risk can help the cities that will get flooded. You can also use gold to buy the engineers.


    I actually like this, I think it's better than feeling like you have to build an IZ in every city, it fit better the city specialization focus of Civ VI. Some cities take care of the production while others do their thing.
     
  19. Onii-chan

    Onii-chan Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2016
    Messages:
    516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Yeah I've figured as much too, but well Valletta won't even be in every game so :/
     
  20. Equilin

    Equilin Prince

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    324
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a civ tradition, since players who finish (science victory) faster are usually players who micromanage and plan ahead better, in previous iterations. Less so in 6 with all the balance issues.
     
    Fluphen Azine likes this.

Share This Page