[NFP] Yield of Science under different population

[KKirrin]

Spamming chop cities late game is not really what this thread is about. It is about what gets you to the late game the fastest.

This seems like a really strange distinction as chopping in low pop cities with campuses will definitely get you to the late game faster—a huge part of your science will come from doing that, and it seems odd to not discuss how that strategy just became more powerful by default with the rationalism nerf. Apologies but I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get across here?

It seems that people are arguing against a bit of a strawman too... the central point is simply that small cities can pump a comparable amount of science under the right circumstances as larger cities, so unless you have a reason to grow bigger (more districts, pingala, a settler factory, wonders, etc) you’re better off focusing on more, smaller cities if—and only if—your focus is the fastest win possible. If you’re not playing to break your own record or someone else’s then who cares, play the way you enjoy the game

Fwiw though, There’s no possible world In a fast science victory (under 160 turns) where you don’t have izs or trade routes with the eurekas and inspirations required by iz/ch/harbor etc. Just building a ton of cities with only holy sites and campuses would be pretty inefficient

 

[Pietato]

This seems like a really strange distinction as chopping in low pop cities with campuses will definitely get you to the late game faster—a huge part of your science will come from doing that, and it seems odd to not discuss how that strategy just became more powerful by default with the rationalism nerf. Apologies but I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get across here?

It seems that people are arguing against a bit of a strawman too... the central point is simply that small cities can pump a comparable amount of science under the right circumstances as larger cities, so unless you have a reason to grow bigger (more districts, pingala, a settler factory, wonders, etc) you’re better off focusing on more, smaller cities if—and only if—your focus is the fastest win possible. If you’re not playing to break your own record or someone else’s then who cares, play the way you enjoy the game

Fwiw though, There’s no possible world In a fast science victory (under 160 turns) where you don’t have izs or trade routes with the eurekas and inspirations required by iz/ch/harbor etc. Just building a ton of cities with only holy sites and campuses would be pretty inefficient

Lily means an entire empire of 4 pop cities.

 

[AntSou]

It seems that people are arguing against a bit of a strawman too... the central point is simply that small cities can pump a comparable amount of science under the right circumstances as larger cities

1.
This thread is related to the upcoming update and the other thread called What the December Update Really Encourages, in which Lily concludes that:

Conclusion: The new changes strongly encourage us to keep our cities at 4 while building/dominating more cities.

So his argument is that the most efficient playstyle in the upcoming update will be to grow up to, but not exceed, 4 pop per city.

2.
The circumstances which you allude to in your comment do not exist in a normal playthrough. You'd have to turn on Firetuner for this comparison to be valid. Never mind about chops or anything else, his entire point falls flat since he does not consider differences in science yield across time.

He needs to go back to the drawing board and draw the same pop scenario, but this time take into consideration science yield over time. That would be much more informative.

 

[Myomoto]

Ultimately this is just a further symptom of the strange decision in Civ 6 to have the majority of yields come from buildings in specialist districts, and not from citizens working those buildings as specialists

 

[AntSou]

@KKirrin Here's a drawing to demonstrate what Lily's analysis is missing:

 

[KKirrin]

I’d be super interested in looking at charts between games with larger cities vs smaller, especially if broken down by turns/science counts. One of the biggest factors in breaking below 130 is when your science ramps up so that’d be some great data to have

My guess though is that those two curves would be reversed with hard data in the hands of equally skilled players, with the larger cities pulling ahead only after the smaller ones have gotten to 1 turning techs

 

[leandrombraz]

This analysis seems to be entirely done in a vacuum.

That's the problem with this kind of analysis. It's an useful knowledge and something that you should keep in mind, sure, but it never takes into account the ridiculous amount of variables this game has. It's a no plan survives contact with the enemy kind of situation. It looks pretty on paper, but when you're at it, there's a lot more going on than you anticipated.

Also how do you chop without production or gold to build builders?

How do you chop without woods? Every time people bring up chop in a theoretical scenario, it always sounds like woods are a renewable resource that is growing everywhere. You can go from nothing to research lab with 4-5 Magnus chops, sure, but do you have 4-5 woods to chop? And after you're done with your woods, what then? Magnus is also a limited resource, considering that it takes 5 turns to move him to another city, so you won't have him everywhere when you need him, you're going to have to choose where and when you want to use him. So Magnus is busy somewhere, your city has access to only 2 woods, one is in a third ring tile that you have to buy, it starts sounding a lot less like a good strategy to rely on chop like that. Chopping woods is powerful and it makes a huge difference, but it isn't a guaranteed, infinite resource. It will only get you so far and it won't always be an option. At the end of the day, you still need your cities to be productive.

 

[kryat]

And after you're done with your woods, what then? Magnus is also a limited resource, considering that it takes 5 turns to move him to another city, so you won't have him everywhere when you need him, you're going to have to choose where and when you want to use him. So Magnus is busy somewhere, your city has access to only 2 woods, one is in a third ring tile that you have to buy, it starts sounding a lot less like a good strategy to rely on chop like that. Chopping woods is powerful and it makes a huge difference, but it isn't a guaranteed, infinite resource. It will only get you so far and it won't always be an option. At the end of the day, you still need your cities to be productive.

This seems especially important for a max speed victory. Sure you can move Magnus and do a 5-chop research lab, but unless you've conjured 5 builders to do the chopping, it's going to take 8-10 turns per city. If you're gunning for a <T100 science victory, that's a significant portion of the game to get 1 city up and running.

 

[AntSou]

I’d be super interested in looking at charts between games with larger cities vs smaller, especially if broken down by turns/science counts. One of the biggest factors in breaking below 130 is when your science ramps up so that’d be some great data to have

My guess though is that those two curves would be reversed with hard data in the hands of equally skilled players, with the larger cities pulling ahead only after the smaller ones have gotten to 1 turning techs

That's just a dumb drawing. I would be interested in seeing an actual analysis as well. The point is just that his analysis can't rely on a snapshot in time to conclude 4-Pop are more efficient.

If he were to play and prove it through testing, that would be nice.

 

[TCBB]

How are you building everything, though?

Well quite.

Lily will never be able to achieve the scenario he’s created, because with only 4 population he’ll be stuck on, what, 20 production in his city for most of the game? Ergo, no university, no research lab, no commercial hubs for trade routes, no units to defend himself...

Just grow the city as normal. This kind of obsessive, min-maxing hypothesising is completely detached from reality.

 

[UWHabs]

That's just a dumb drawing. I would be interested in seeing an actual analysis as well. The point is just that his analysis can't rely on a snapshot in time to conclude 4-Pop are more efficient.

If he were to play and prove it through testing, that would be nice.

It also relies heavily on finding an unlimited supply of +4 campus locations for small cities. So, yeah, if you're playing Korea, campus spam in 4-pop cities make sense (although their governor bonus encourages tall cities, so you'd have to factor that in).

More likely, it simply means that Rationalism is a card I just won't slot in, because for the 1 city I have with a +4 campus, and the 1 city I have at 15+ pop, it's better to slot in other cards instead.

 

[Casualty of war]

What I believe Lily is trying to communicate, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, is that the population past pop 4 is more of a drain on your Amenities than a benefit to your Science per Turn. That it is more efficient to create a specialized 2 district, 4 pop Ecstatic city than a larger, less happy one.

Universities in Lily's games are bought, chopped or Faith-bought in almost all circumstances. Heck, I try real hard to have 1000 Gold or 500 Faith available the turn I finish Education. The high-production cities might build theirs, might but likely not.

Rationalism was an auto-slot that isn't anymore. That's a long stretch of inefficiency from 4 pop to 15 instead of 10. And to get that bonus in maybe one or two cities? To risk both diminishing your happiness and having insufficient population to benefit? Recalibrating Civilization mid-game....

 

[Lily_Lancer]

What I believe Lily is trying to communicate, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, is that the population past pop 4 is more of a drain on your Amenities than a benefit to your Science per Turn. That it is more efficient to create a specialized 2 district, 4 pop Ecstatic city than a larger, less happy one.

Universities in Lily's games are bought, chopped or Faith-bought in almost all circumstances. .

No I never buy them. In fact 4-pop cities don't yield much less production than a highly-populated one. Civ6 production is also not very related to population. Especially that you can also get tons of production by chopping and harvesting.

 

[Minou]

Question: in calculating the relative amount of science Lily, did you consider using surplus citizens to work in each of the 3 Campus buildings? That is another 6 science. Of course, you may already by able to occupy those slots at 4 pop or not be able to at 15 without starvation depending on how much surplus food you have.

Another thing to consider is that if you are running Campus Research Grants you can get 15% of your production in science, so 11 more pop working tiles with 3 production average (seems reasonable) provides another 5 science (plus faster accumulation of GS points).

This dual change is odd to me because seem to be encouraging both smaller cities with happiness and larger cities with the new 15 pop trigger. Personally, I think the change is stupid because getting to 15 pop takes so long that the game will be effectively over before most cities get there.

 

[Vargas1]

No I never buy them. In fact 4-pop cities don't yield much less production than a highly-populated one. Civ6 production is also not very related to population. Especially that you can also get tons of production by chopping and harvesting.

Where I'm struggling to follow your theory is in envisioning the type of map that has:

• Space for numerous cities containing spots for 4+ campus adjacencies
• Choppable production resources in each one of those cities to get enough production to build every building in a campus, including research labs
• Space in each of these cities to put a high-adjacency holy site to make Work Ethic worthwhile
• The ability to found a religion while also settling all of these prime spaces for high-adjacency campuses
• Enough of these resources and prime district slots within the first or second ring of the city, since it doesn't seem likely you have much income coming in, and/or
• Enough valuable resources (on top of everything else) such that you're not struggling for money
• Minimal threat from barbarians or other civs, since you're not going to have much ability to build an army
• No need for Kilwa (and therefore the boost to from scientific city-states) or most other wonders, and/or
• Somehow having the ability to chop in Kilwa and other key wonders while still having enough choppable resources for your built-up campus

I can certainly understand the theory that after a few major cities, it may make sense to keep all auxiliary cities small and focused on science. But I'm having a hard time seeing how in practice one could effectively get through a game with only 4-pop cities.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Where I'm struggling to follow your theory is in envisioning the type of map that has:

Because min-maxing is also a process of idealizing.

 

[Archon_Wing]

No I never buy them. In fact 4-pop cities don't yield much less production than a highly-populated one. Civ6 production is also not very related to population. Especially that you can also get tons of production by chopping and harvesting.

Got any sample games of this?

 

[Uberfrog]

Instead of becoming bogged down once again in an argument of optimal vs fun, the problem Lily’s analysis is exposing is that these two changes effectively counteract each other.

Firaxis clearly intended to encourage larger cities with the Rationalism changes. It’s a shame that they basically undid this with the amenities change. Another disappointing example where balance changes have seemingly been developed in isolation with nobody doing the maths.

 

[Equilin]

the problem Lily’s analysis is exposing is that these two changes effectively counteract each other.

It does not expose anything as this scenario is not based on real gameplay. Only a hypothesis of an imagined perfect scenario with the conditions otherwise impossible to create consistently applied indiscriminately to every city.

 

[Pietato]

Got any sample games of this?

He never has actual examples.