Yield value discussion (food vs others)

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Tomice, Feb 25, 2016.

  1. Tomice

    Tomice Passionate Smart-Ass

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,349
    Location:
    Austria, EU, no kangaroos ;)
    Sadly, I'm on a business trip as well and can't provide a long answer.
    But I love that such an interesting discussion started!

    First, I never meant to incline that something is fundamentally wrong with CBP. Quite the contrary, it's in an amazing state, and playing CBP is the best Civ5 experience I ever had (Sorry, Thalassicus! ;)).

    Second, totally removing science from pop seems very radical. It's quite realistic for the early eras and totally removing it creates a whole bunch of problems with early science.

    But we could significantly reduce its importance.
    We now have additional science/pop on library, school of philosophy, public school and research lab. IMHO, only the public school should provide it, while library, school of ph. and research institute are elite institutions by their very name. They should provide raw science and specialist slots, but not improve science/pop.

    My suggestion: 1 science for every second citizen as base, boosted by public schools.
    All other science buildings provide raw science. Plus maybe some science on forests (and possibly strategic resources or other sources on the map)

    This wouldn't change the game fundamentally, be much easier to balance, be very realistic and alleviate many problems we talked about recently.
     
  2. Wodhann

    Wodhann South American Norse God

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,507
    After banging my head against the wall quite a few times trying to come up with an idea for a simple health system, I've come to realize that... it's not really a good idea at all.

    For two reasons:

    1) We would have to change completely the yields given by a host of buildings, policies, and everything else to accomodate a new yield into the game. That's just too much work. And without this, there is no currently existing way to associate health with something else.

    2) It would be just adding another level of micromanagement that's too much effort for its own good. The new happiness system is already quite daunting by itself.


    Back to square one for me I guess.
     
  3. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    The whole issue is the per population boni. They make big pop cities so important that everything is dependent on that, and so food is the only resource that matters.
    Boni on tiles are also dependent on population, for you need workers for those tiles.

    So first thing is to get rid of any population bonus after classical era.

    We also need a mechanism to push players to work other than food tiles or to work tiles at all, other than the old health system. The CBP happiness system may work, if it punishes enough the excess of food.
     
  4. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    I'm sure everyone would agree that the next full version should be released before going into this totally uncharted territory of decoupling science from population. As for my own opinion: I find the arguments against it more compelling in terms of historicity. In the past, it didn't take dedicated scientists to make breakthroughs in technology. Any nation with sufficiently large population would've discovered these basic technologies anyway. In the modern era however, the complexity and depth of knowledge required to make the next breakthrough is far more than the average Joe can handle. This is already reflected in the fact that in the late game, science from population eventually becomes a very minor percentage of your total science output. 150 science from 150 citizens is nothing when you're producing 3k science at that point. The bulk of your science would come from libraries/universities/research labs/actual scientists, as they should. But seeing that a lot of people like the idea, might as well do some brainstorming.

    Obviously we're going to create new sources of early science to compensate for this change. Early sources of science are going to be very scarce otherwise. As previously mentioned, we don't want everyone just beelining directly into Writing, seeing it as "the gateway to science". So I would suggest giving a national science yield for every tech discovered. Ancient techs would each give +1 science, Classical +1.5, Medieval +2, Renaissance +2.5, and so on. This makes early science not as scarce, and somewhat discourages beelining, since you actually gain science faster by researching the cheaper techs.

    My intuition tells me that the amount of science from techs that an empire gets as a result of this should be similar to the amount of science we get from citizens in the current system. It's a bit lower in the earlier eras, but a bit higher later on. I'm totally okay with slowing slightly slowing down the research rates in the early eras a bit. And at the start of the renaissance era, I expect around 50 total citizens for an average empire. The total science that pre-renaissance techs would provide is 49. Let's say that your empire's population grows by 2.5 for every tech you research from that point onwards. (Or 5 pop every two techs. I find this growth rate quite reasonable.) At that point, it's breakeven with the current system. But the subsequent eras would give more science overall.

    That's all for now.
     
  5. Tomice

    Tomice Passionate Smart-Ass

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,349
    Location:
    Austria, EU, no kangaroos ;)
    I fully agree that fundamental changes shouldn't be done before the next full version.
     
  6. hokath

    hokath King

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    London
    I am not in favor of changing how science works in this radical way.

    If growth is too strong, it makes a city too strong in all ways, not just in science. The way we deal with this is happiness thresholds and growth exponents. We have had an extensive re-balancing of tech yields, % modifiers, etc already. We're now at the stage of a 'tweezers not hammers ' approach. You can't expect G to make wholesale changes to gameplay when we are trying to tighten exact numbers balance and release an end product.
     
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    The best mechanic in place to force you to place your pops one way or another is happiness.

    I think the happiness demand modifier right now is just the opposite as it should be. I explain.
    If I want to increase money from my cities, I build the market. That increases the money output and lowers money desire. People feel content, and is back to bussiness. I think that's the wrong way. When I build the market, people should demand even more money. It will make my workers chose a luxury tile, and possibly move a pop to a merchant slot.

    Then, every building I chose to build will have a serious impact over what the pops are willing to do. Usually work on anything but food. Building every building should be a bad idea, it will make resources desires so high that unhappiness will hurt.
     
  8. Tomice

    Tomice Passionate Smart-Ass

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,349
    Location:
    Austria, EU, no kangaroos ;)
    You are aware it was G who suggested the radical change :lol:

    But I agree, if subtle changes fix a problem, they should be preferred over radical changes.
     
  9. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    I'm unsure, but right now, when I build barracks, does it increase or decrease the hammers happiness demand?
     
  10. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    If I haven't understood it wrong, it's the logic behind happiness what needs a change.

    Food buildings --> ask for great person points
    Money buildings --> ask for more money in this city
    Factory buildings --> ask for more hammers in this city
    Science buildings --> ask for more beakers in this city
    Culture buildings --> ask for more culture in this city
    Military buildings --> ask for more military units
    Walls --> nothing
    Faith buildings --> ask for pops sharing religion worldwide
    Diplo buildings --> ask for more allied CS
    Happy buildings --> ask for golden era points

    Buiding everything will make your city unhappy and to stagnate.
     
  11. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    @Dellandra and Funak

    Research never happens just with a hugh population with access to a library. There is just so many people that get educated. Your pops are working on tiles, so they are workers, they spend 12 hours a day under the sun, plowing and mining. They can go to the library but they don't have the time nor the will. These people are never going to discover anything. Maybe by accident. Maybe an unemployed person with no bussiness could discover something. (Unemployed to give +1 :c5production: +1 :c5culture: +1 :c5science:?)
    High population (the surplus of its work) is needed to support the researchers, people with free time and a love for knowledge, but workers don't give research per se.

    In Medieval times, there were the priests and monks that conducted research (people with free time and access to education). Before that, maybe there were the shamans. So it makes sense to let shrines and temples produce some flat beakers. Even some of the faith produced buildings could bring some research.

    It's after the industrial era when workers are allowed to be educated, only with the right social policies. It makes sense for an ideology tenet to add some beakers to tiles (order, autocracy) or add beakers per pop (democracy), but not both.

    The later research is very dependent on money, so later science buildings could be really expensive to maintain (worth 2-3 military units).

    Actually, this is a game and not a historical simulator, so it's fine if the research isn't historical but manages to be balanced. It would be sad if, trying to be realistic, one victory condition shines over the rest.
     
  12. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    This will discourage all kinds of tall play. Tall cities would ironically be the unhappiest of all under the system you propose, since they're the ones with the most buildings. Everyone will just build units nonstop and send them to conquer all capitals.
     
  13. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,370
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Not necessarily. You can always set production to culture/money/food/beakers and avoid buildings. And cultural and diplomatic victories have something to produce (archaelogists and diplomats). If you focus on science, you will have always desired buildings at your disposal.
     
  14. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    Or only go for wonders. They're powerful enough as they are. No need to make them extra powerful by making other production options, like buildings, much weaker in comparison. Processes might need some tweaking though.

    I disagree with your premise that buildings such as markets will cause your citizens to become unhappier. The presence of a trading center will give rise to more opportunities for money. The city will prosper as more wealth is brought into it. Sure, there will be a few ambitious entrepreneurs whose attempts at becoming rich will end in a disaster, but that shouldn't contribute to a civilizations overall unhappiness. After all, a "citizen" in the game isn't supposed to represent an individual person. More like 100 people per citizen in the ancient era. If "a citizen is unhappy due to poverty", it means 100 of your citizens are very poor, so your city needs more wealth so that these people can get better-paying jobs.
     
  15. Sendaf

    Sendaf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    71
    What if the academy was buffed to improve the primary yields of all adjacent tiles
    Farm=+1 food
    Mine=+1 production
    Town=+1 gold
    etc.

    Or to just provide extra science to adjacent villages/towns. It would make sense that a town with a nearby academy would have more educated citizens.

    It could even only effect adjacent Great Person tile improvements. The academy is used to research and perfect the best manufacturing methods (manufactory) better city layouts (towns) and best pedagogical practices (other academies)

    This would give more competition to bulbing and possibly give a reason to drop an academy mid-late game.
     
  16. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    We're not decoupling science from population. We're shifting the burden of science away from raw growth towards a calculated, player-level decision to invest in science at the expense of other things. This is comparable, in design and practice, to the old 'slider system' from Civ IV - in IV, you had to decide where your limited resources went. In V, this disappeared, as everything was an upward climb. The CBP happiness system curtails this some, but could be tweaked upwards to do it more. The removal of free science per pop helps to finish this out. The other part of this will be the removal, or at least the drastic reduction, of the % penalty to your research for every owned city.

    Think of it this way. Right now, food = science. Period. It can facilitate getting production/gold/faith/etc., but it is roughly equal to science at all times. Removing the 1 new citizen:1 free science element means that science starts to become more like the other yields – you need population to facilitate access, but it's a choice, not unlike the other yields. Science will always be a necessary yield, but if you have to choose between raw science and, say, culture for your next policy, that choice becomes far more important. Food retains its place, but the raw bonus of growth by itself goes down. If a city can't produce what you want from it, extra growth by itself is reduced in value.

    I haven't run the numbers or done any testing yet, but the removal of the free 1 science per pop is far less drastic than it is being made out to be. It will de-inflate early science quite a bit - true - but in a very good way. Early growth will be important only so long as you have the infrastructure to support it, and early policy/building/pantheon/plot science will become a strategic and valuable investment. Right now, those things are 'bonuses' on top of the overwhelmingly useful free population science. With this change, they'll become the decisions that create early tech leaders. Successful warmongers/barb hunters that take authority will be on the cutting edge of technology. Expansive Progress civs with city connections will be on the cutting edge. Religious civs that grab science pantheons or science founder beliefs will be on the cutting edge. You get the idea.

    Free science per citizen is a relic of the now-defunct happiness system of vanilla civ. If you really stop to look at it, you can see that it actually makes little sense in the context of the new happiness system. The system's entire purpose is to self-regulate city happiness based on uneven global/local/city yields. The free science per pop inflates this for illiteracy. You don't get free gold per pop, or culture, or any other yield this way. It's an artificial construct that makes science a less specialized yield, and does not reward players that invest in science itself, but rather it rewards players that invest in growth. As PurpleMentat noted earlier, his classical empire would have had 25% of its current science per turn if the free science-per-pop element was removed. Other users have noted that there's absolutely no reason to ever not grow. If food is so valuable that users would rather work a 5f farm over an 8s academy, there's something wrong with how yields are handled in the CBP. This kind of gameplay was not the intention of the CBP and, as such, it warrants this change.

    The initial point of this discussion - that academies suck - is a symptom of this problem. The academy is not the same as the Great Musician issue (that issue was a legacy of the old tourism system, thus it was changed). We've already fixed the happiness system, thus this change is really the next step. Not sure why it took me this long to see it, truth be told.

    So, that said, I'm considering a few different changes:

    • Building bonuses that convert x city yield to science (i.e. the Forge could produce 1 science for every 5 production in the city)
    • Adding 'finisher wonders' to each policy branch, so that players who focus on culture in lieu of science will have earlier access to some valuable wonders.
    • The reduction of raw scientist from specialists early on, but their rapid increase by the mid-game (to reduce snowball from getting too many early scientist specialists)
    • The reduction in yield-inflation across the board by removing per-population yields from a few buildings in each category (and replacing them with flat bonuses)
    • The removal of the free science per citizen
    • The reduction, or removal, of the research cost penalty from the # of cities

    G
     
  17. BenchBreaker

    BenchBreaker Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    195
    Adding finisher wonders is a great idea, I think culture should be the main yield that unlocks wonders rather than science. The current policy trees can even be made more balanced by adding some wonder unlocks to individual policies from tress that are perceived weaker
     
  18. supracseduch

    supracseduch Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    206
    I have no doubt that "no free science from population" can be made to work. I'd personally prefer slower research rates in the ancient era, as I sometimes see AI's entering the classical era by 2000 BC, and the medieval era by 500 BC.

    Removing the tech cost increase from # of cities is another radical departure from vanilla, but I think I'll like that too. Faith costs for Pantheons and Prophets don't increase with number of cities, so it can't be that bad. Now that new cities will no longer have a base science output due to its starting citizen, it can be justifiable.

    With this, I think we actually have to keep the yields x citizens from the early buildings. If libraries only gave flat science yields instead of science per 4 citizens, wide playstyle might become OP. This is because more cities = more raw science output by virtue of more libraries, without the added tech costs. These yields per x citizens are among the things keeping wide vs tall play balanced. They give civs with fewer, more populous cities a fighting chance.

    Having said that, we can't have everyone just mindlessly rushing libraries. The situation is now different from how new cities also don't start with a culture output, but they have the option to build a monument, or to work resources with a culture yield, or even build wonders, which typically give culture. All three ancient policy openers also provide culture. Science is now a scarcer yield than culture. The change to the forge is nice, but we need even earlier sources of cheap science. How about +1 science from city connections? +1 from resource-less mines? +1 per known tech? +1 from laborers? +1 from herbalist?

    This is a side topic: The forge's effect as you suggested here is like a permanent "research" process, converting 20% of production to science. What do you think of processes in general? I don't find much use for them in any of my games.
     
  19. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,867
    Seems a good idea to me. In fact, this idea could be used for other things that science too. (You just have to avoid loops of bonus)

    Seems great, but either it mean that we remove some wonders from the "common list" (which mean that the total number of wonder for a fixed choice of policies is decreasing), either we have to design new wonders (which is quite complex).

    Yes, because Writing should not be a no-brainer.

    OK

    OK

    Not sure if it's a good idea : tall may became too weak compared to wide. But you probably know better than me how to balance tall vs wide
     
  20. Dallandra

    Dallandra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    96
    As said before multiple times, it very much does make sense to have population give science, regardless of why it was added in vanilla. Scaling it BACK over time instead of having that be the #1 contributor through multiple buildings that add more science per pop would be a much better idea than removing it outright, but if all reasons for that get ignored then I don't care either way. It'll never make sense to have this representation of human progress come mostly from buildings in a time where settlements were only starting to be the big thing.

    I still think you see a problem where there isn't one, but whatever.


    The other ideas do sound good at least, except possibly for the last point. Might shift the balance between tall vs wide gameplay a little too much.
     

Share This Page