Yield value discussion (food vs others)

[Strigvir]

The whole "geniuses" thing is already covered by Great People mechanics.

 

[Funak]

So really, while I think that science from population definitely should stay, it should become less relevant as you move through the eras. We're specializing in this day and age because it is necessary to get anything done. We have experts working on grand problems because you need to be an expert these days to be able to have a chance at solving them. So shifting science slowly from a generic yield to a specialist/improvement-based yield makes much more sense than having it be that way from the very beginning.

I'd just like to point out that it does become less relevant as you move through the eras, you get access to libraries, public-schools universities and research-labs.

Also, research isn't necessarily about experts doing experty things, it's a lot of people all over the place doing a whole lot of things. Also modern day experts would hardly translate into scientist specialists, more like a top X% of the population doing scientist stuff. By that I mean if your education standard goes up as time goes on, naturally the number of people 'experts' goes up as well, as does their level of expertise.

 

[Wodhann]

I think the point is that a large number of people will poll their efforts and experiences and that helps advance technology even if slowly.

But anyway, can we get more opinions on the whole Health thing? I think it's more important for the core issue the thread is about.

 

[Dallandra]

I'd just like to point out that it does become less relevant as you move through the eras, you get access to libraries, public-schools universities and research-labs.

If anything, they put even more focus on that by adding more science from population. Again, this does make sense with the first... I'd say, two or three buildings, as the complexity of the available problems is comparatively low, so simply providing a basic education is enough to have more people being able to solve them. But it definitely does NOT remove the relevance of having a larger population, when said buildings have scaling science with larger populations.

Now to get back to my point, having those scale with population still makes sense IF at the same time we scale back the passive science from populations. From a scientific point, because things become more complex as we advance as a civilization, we have to train people so they know how these things work, how to make them, how to operate them, etc. At this point, having a larger population doesn't really help anymore, since that's just more people you would have to train for them to be able to help with any given problem.

So what I'm trying to say is simply that it makes a lot more sense to have passive science gain stay as a big early game force, then have the focus shift over time towards buildings and specialists, by both buffing them a slight amount (maybe even a larger amount for the specialists, I'm not sure there), especially later buildings, and lowering passive science with era advancement, something like -0.1 per era per pop would make a lot of sense, I think.

Also, research isn't necessarily about experts doing experty things, it's a lot of people all over the place doing a whole lot of things. Also modern day experts would hardly translate into scientist specialists, more like a top X% of the population doing scientist stuff. By that I mean if your education standard goes up as time goes on, naturally the number of people 'experts' goes up as well, as does their level of expertise.

I disagree completely on that point, but that goes more into social commentary than anything.

Either way, that is exactly what specialists are there to represent though. Which is why I'm saying, shift the focus from "general populace doing their things" to "specialists and experts working in their specific environment" over time, instead of removing one part outright in favor of another.

 

[Funak]

But anyway, can we get more opinions on the whole Health thing? I think it's more important for the core issue the thread is about.

If G said no, G said no.

there are clearly some problems with the Health-system, first of all the buildings that would likely boost health are already boosting growth, meaning nothing would really change.
For example, Most likely buildings to boost Health, Granary, Aqueduct, Grocer, Hospital, Researchlab. All those buildings already boost growth by quite a bit.



We could talk about suggestions for the Academies instead.

Going back to the Health-thing, if it isn't added, an academy could boost growth by maybe 5% in the city that works it?

Another suggestion would be adding culture to it, it makes sense from a cultural perspective.

Another idea would be adding Tourism to it.

The Academy could also get a bonus for being build adjacent to something (maybe a lake?) mostly for luls, but such a restriction already exists for the Town, and I think it works pretty well.

 

[Dallandra]

We could talk about suggestions for the Academies instead.

Going back to the Health-thing, if it isn't added, an academy could boost growth by maybe 5% in the city that works it?

Another suggestion would be adding culture to it, it makes sense from a cultural perspective.

Another idea would be adding Tourism to it.

The Academy could also get a bonus for being build adjacent to something (maybe a lake?) mostly for luls, but such a restriction already exists for the Town, and I think it works pretty well.

I could've sworn academies added more food in later eras/from some tech down the line, but I seem to be misremembering there. That would be a good idea though.

Culture is already added if you take the Aesthetics tree, though I get what you mean. Would make sense, I think.

Tourism would be covered with Culture once you get to Hotels and stuff, unless you want it as an additional source for early/mid-game tourism. Wouldn't be a terrible idea, honestly.

I wasn't aware towns are restricted by anything, I've been able to put them down wherever I wanted, just like any other GP improvement. I don't think they gain a bonus from anything either, but then I never really pay much attention to them, their yields are already pretty big.

 

[Wodhann]

there are clearly some problems with the Health-system, first of all the buildings that would likely boost health are already boosting growth, meaning nothing would really change.
For example, Most likely buildings to boost Health, Granary, Aqueduct, Grocer, Hospital, Researchlab. All those buildings already boost growth by quite a bit.

You're talking as if that couldn't be changed. Granary and Grocer can remain food buildings (though Grocer could add both food and health), Aqueduct and Hospital can be health buildings that still have the whole "carry over food" thing.

Besides I don't mind if we shift food production off of buildings a bit. It puts more emphasis on finding "fertile" land and on internal trade routes which is far more realistic.

 

[Funak]

If anything, they put even more focus on that by adding more science from population. Again, this does make sense with the first... I'd say, two or three buildings, as the complexity of the available problems is comparatively low, so simply providing a basic education is enough to have more people being able to solve them. But it definitely does NOT remove the relevance of having a larger population, when said buildings have scaling science with larger populations.

In a 20 pop city without any buildings would provide you with 20 science per turn, 100% of the science would come from basic population.

In a 20 pop city with the whole research-line not working any specialists, would provide you with 52 science per turn, 38% of that science would come from basic population.

I disagree completely on that point, but that goes more into social commentary than anything.

Either way, that is exactly what specialists are there to represent though. Which is why I'm saying, shift the focus from "general populace doing their things" to "specialists and experts working in their specific environment" over time, instead of removing one part outright in favor of another.

A scientist specialist would represent a professor doing research at a unversity/school/lab/whatever. Sure they are researching things, but a strong majority of research and invention comes from educated people working in educated fields. A higher population usually means a bigger number of educated people, and improved public education would result in a better educated population, meaning those extra educated people in educated fields would be even smarter.

I wasn't aware towns are restricted by anything, I've been able to put them down wherever I wanted, just like any other GP improvement. I don't think they gain a bonus from anything either, but then I never really pay much attention to them, their yields are already pretty big.

Restriction, as in you get more yields if you place them on a route (and even more if a trade-route passes over it.

You're talking as if that couldn't be changed. Granary and Grocer can remain food buildings (though Grocer could add both food and health), Aqueduct and Hospital can be health buildings that still have the whole "carry over food" thing.

Besides I don't mind if we shift food production off of buildings a bit. It puts more emphasis on finding "fertile" land and on internal trade routes which is far more realistic.

Well, you can clearly see the overlapping, meaning my work here is done

 

[Wodhann]

Well, you can clearly see the overlapping, meaning my work here is done

You're looking at a very small scope of the scenario.

I'm imagining things like, perhaps a new sanitary building for early game ("sewers"?), plus a host of other health sources like other buildings, policies, pantheons and religious buildings helping.

There are infinite possibilities if we go down this route.

 

[Legen]

An early idea for the "population = science" thing is to adopt a system similar to the Scholarship religious belief: gain passive science from your population up to a cap.

The current image of it is:
- either one of the following:
--- each city as a small cap of how much passive science it generates from population.
--- the empire as a whole has a passive science cap, slightly increased by new cities to compensate for the increased tech cost for each new city.
- the passive science cap is raised by specific buildings and by academies.

This is a way to prevent food accumulation from snowballing science without completely throwing away the current balance around food production.


Another idea (non-excludent with the previous) is to limit the city's science based on its biggest source of unhappiness. Impoverished/scared/illiterate/bored people are unlikely to have conditions for research. This is analogous to how your civ produce less science if you spend more gold than your reserves and increases the importance of generating other yields.

 

[Dallandra]

In a 20 pop city without any buildings would provide you with 20 science per turn, 100% of the science would come from basic population.

In a 20 pop city with the whole research-line not working any specialists, would provide you with 52 science per turn, 38% of that science would come from basic population.

That's just statistics though. It's a lower percentage from the "pure" population, but the actual value provided remains the same, when it honestly kind of shouldn't.

A scientist specialist would represent a professor doing research at a unversity/school/lab/whatever. Sure they are researching things, but a strong majority of research and invention comes from educated people working in educated fields. A higher population usually means a bigger number of educated people, and improved public education would result in a better educated population, meaning those extra educated people in educated fields would be even smarter.

Semantics. Since Civ population already doesn't represent any specific amount of people (a city with 20 population is clearly not just 20, 200 or 200000 guys and girls, since no number would make any sense considering the scale of everything else), a scientist specialist would also not represent a single professor or researcher. At the end it is a game with huge generalizations across the board, some of which do and don't make sense.

Either way, I'm not saying the educated people part is wrong. Quite the opposite, that should be the focus - later in the game, because of the reasons I explained before, while early game the focus being on "pure" population with no modifiers also makes sense instead of shoehorning it into yet another building. Which, again, is why I was against overhauling the science yield in the first place. It's a huge amount of work for something that's only a problem because half of a great person is useless. The last time that happened, which was literally not even a week ago with the Great Musician, we changed the musician and made the part that was useless useful, instead of ripping out the whole tourism generation system.

Restriction, as in you get more yields if you place them on a route (and even more if a trade-route passes over it

That's a bonus though.
And I completely forgot about that in the heat of the moment. Wouldn't be a terrible idea to add something like that to more things. I always thought it was weird how they did away with having to link everything up with roads, when it would make a lot of sense that you have to from both a realism and a gameplay perspective.

 

[tu_79]

On Academies: What if you could improve an existing Academy (Modern Academy?) with another Great Scientist, after Industrial Era? Something like +30 beakers.

I too feel excited about changing the population based science. Following current logic, Brazil should produce 40 times the research of Denmark, when it's precisely the opposite.
To get a top notch science in real life you need: 1) science infrastructure and 2) spend money on education. Social Policies also help. Being a larger country only helps if it really invests in science. Think of the biggest science producers today: USA, Japan, China, UK, Germany, France, Canada. It's all about money. Japan and Germany are way smaller than USA, but they stand as ones of the greatest.

Back to game. Playing wide usually allows for more science buildings, more specialists. But big underdeveloped nations aren't good at science per se. The way vanilla works, forcing you to build the same building in every city before the national wonder, was a good counter for wide civs being more scientifically advanced.

With the CBP system, a way to make it possible would be:
1) Only Academies and Natural wonders are allowed to produce beakers on tiles.
2) Scientists need 2 food AND 4 money (scaling with era)
3) National scientific wonders have multiplying effects (to match tall and wide).
4) More cities increases the cost of techs.
5) Palace gives a flat 5 output (no scaling, just to help first turns) and a science slot.
6) Trade routes bring beakers from more advanced civs, as always.
7) Discovering a City State grants a free tech (scales inversely with map size) (to let you get writing tech, also good if you are late to discoverings).
8) Several policies allows for other sources of beakers, like CS and more science slots (like Palace improvements from Tradition)
9) Buying Great Scientists with faith and religious beliefs that improve beakers output.

Science comes primarily from specialists, so you need to build the buildings and maintain the scientists. Scientists are expensive and could be a burden in underdeveloped cities. Ideally, a science focused civilization may find difficult to support a large army, won't have a good production and won't be able to support many other specialists, like writers and diplomats (who may consume also food and money, albeit a little less). The limiting factor for science would be money. But focus too much in science and you get underdeveloped and easy prey.

Specialists have to change a little (actual numbers may vary).
Merchants: Take 2 1 Give 8 1
Engineers: Take 2 1 Give 4 1
Scientists: Take 2 4 Give 4 1
Artists: Take 1 1 Give 4 1
Diplomats: Take 3 Give 1 1 3
* Gold requiremens scales with era.

 

[tu_79]

I agree with Dallandra. Maybe in ancient times any cultured person could discover something, but nowadays it's impossible without investing money and a high education.

Just keep the flat bonus from Palace, and the population based from the libraries if you wish, good enough for classical era, and it will become irrelevant in future eras, where specialists are far more important. You don't need to remove science from libraries, just don't give more beaker boni based on population after the Library. The flat bonus and the population based one may be relevant until Renaissance period, after that specialists production should be bigger.

 

[BenchBreaker]

Going off on a tangent what if most wonders were unlocked through culture policies and faith? Will reduce the importance of science a bit. Also don't make much sense to tie wonders to science

 

[Funak]

That's just statistics though. It's a lower percentage from the "pure" population, but the actual value provided remains the same, when it honestly kind of shouldn't.

I'm going to drop this now, I'd just like to point out that 'actual value' isn't really a thing. Considering how tech-costs increase 20 pop are going to provide even less percent of a tech per turn in research.

20 science per turn from pop is clearly a lot more in the early-game where you might be at 30 science, while in modern era you're more likely to be around 4k science per turn. Sure that's from expansion and other things as well, but in all ways a way lower percentage of your science is going to be from just base population later one

 

[Legen]

The main problem isn't really how science is generated in terms of population or specialists, it's that " food production above everything else" strategies usually work much better than other approaches. I think we can limit the viability of this approach without major changes to the general mechanics. Since the happiness system is meant to control how fast we expand, we should improve it by making it limit food output directly, instead of limiting indirectly through population.

My new suggestion is to add the " Urbanization" type of need/unhappiness, which increases as more citizens work on food-producing tiles. With that, there's only as much food output you can realistically have without affecting your empire's happiness and its related bonuses.

This can create the following situations:

- a player that prioritizes population growth through food tiles faces reduced productivity in all its cities due to happiness below 10, and inability to provide enough food in a given city without worsening the situation (food insecurity, many examples even today).
- a player deliberatively decides to focus in food-efficiency buildings over allocating more citizens to farms, freeing population for other yields (observed in the later years of the Middle ages).

With that, the " food production above everything else" strategy now depends on your ability to manage your civilization's need for urbanization to work. And, as expected, the player would depend on food-production technologies, specific buildings and certain social policies for that. Food remains the most important yield, but now requires the apropriate effort for its importance.

 

[Gamewizard]

Local unhappiness could be used as a negative growth modifier (aka Health). Larger undeveloped cities would become more inefficient, reducing food's value on a per city basis.

 

[Der_Zorn_gottes]

The main problem isn't really how science is generated in terms of population or specialists, it's that " food production above everything else" strategies usually work much better than other approaches. I think we can limit the viability of this approach without major changes to the general mechanics. Since the happiness system is meant to control how fast we expand, we should improve it by making it limit food output directly, instead of limiting indirectly through population.

My new suggestion is to add the " Urbanization" type of need/unhappiness, which increases as more citizens work on food-producing tiles. With that, there's only as much food output you can realistically have without affecting your empire's happiness and its related bonuses.

This can create the following situations:

- a player that prioritizes population growth through food tiles faces reduced productivity in all its cities due to happiness below 10, and inability to provide enough food in a given city without worsening the situation (food insecurity, many examples even today).
- a player deliberatively decides to focus in food-efficiency buildings over allocating more citizens to farms, freeing population for other yields (observed in the later years of the Middle ages).

With that, the " food production above everything else" strategy now depends on your ability to manage your civilization's need for urbanization to work. And, as expected, the player would depend on food-production technologies, specific buildings and certain social policies for that. Food remains the most important yield, but now requires the apropriate effort for its importance.

Alas, the current happiness system asks for as much of a yield as possible. This asks for the opposite. Let`s not make such an exeption.

Inside the existing mechanics, a "unemployment" unhappiness could be created, for . It would encourage to work high hammer tiles (and make mines more appealing as a byproduct).

 

[Wario Mario]

I believe and have been discussed quite thoroughly. It's quite enough that population basically adds to everything, but to add to science as well, with no buildings, even?

But few talk about those loser yields , , and . Why?


Is it my imagination or does the AI never seen to have as many policies as the player (unless they happen to be Poland)? Mousing over the civ's diplomacy icons mid-game will virtually always reveal the AI as being several techs behind the player. Perhaps this is because of strange way culture yields work - the AI can't understand them.

The first issue arrives with culture buildings. Most culture buildings give lousy amounts of culture. Let's look at the amphitheater for example - 1 culture for every 6 citizens. That means a size 20 city will give 3 culture. Yippie. Also, the scaling formula of culture basically means that building a monument early is essential, while later cultural buildings are basically pretty strands for your great works. Mabye this is all done to keep culture artificially low so that tourism can catch up? Regardless, better courses of culture would be nice, if only for the AI's sake.


While the AI seems to do much better with faith than culture, there seems to be a serious inflation problem later on. Early in the game, it's so valuable that even a handful of faith matters alot - it all seems to be about being first to pantheons or religions. But after that? It... kinda falls off, rapidly. Beating rival civs to converting the unlucky losers in the religion race can be exciting, but not as much so as the religion race itself. Once that round's done with, we move on to the buying buildings and possibly units with faith - okay, but still less fun than converting rival civs. Then finally we reach the industrial era, where we can't buy units anymore, all the buildings have been bought, and religions are so entrenched that only a prophet can budge them (but they're well into 5 figure-faith costs by now). At this point, your faith is a massive number that has no purpose - except to occasionally trade for a great person, which is okay, but just not as exciting as what came before.

In other words, the value of faith yields depreciate faster than the GPU you're using to display them. 100 faith on turn 10? Game Breaking. 10,000 faith on turn 497? Pfft, who cares?


Money. The #1 motivation of all human endeavor since we finished researching "currency" (take that, reproduction!). Civilizations have had their fates decided by not who had the biggest stick, but who had the biggest pile of gold. Diplomacy and world opinion of a nation has been frequently overlooked because they were as rich as they were hated. Read my freaking sig!

...That is, in real life. In CBP, gold is easily the worst yield. The problem is that unless you intentionally sabotage your economy early on, you're never going to struggle financially. When was the last game you were truly "poor"? Once you get your nation started, negative gpt is a non-issue.

But the problem works in reverse as well. The massive rush-buying/investing and upgrading costs will make sure no matter how many stock exchanges/corporate franchises/gold-making wonders you have, you never feel "rich". At no point do you feel like you could buy and sell your rivals, no matter how many times they trigger RESPONSE_GREETING_FRIENDLY_STRONG_ECONOMY. Barring the extreme scenario of someone taking half the map or slammed down to one city, it feels as though everyone's middle class, all the time.

I would gladly trade 1000 gold for 11 culture or 24 science (or 2 food).

 

[jacktannery]

The more I dwell on this (while on a business trip, mind you!) the more I absolutely adore the idea. It makes a lot of sense, and would really open up strategies quite a bit.

Agreed. Let's try this out.

Suddenly the extra science from tile yields, pantheons, early trade routes, and more all become way more valuable. Global literacy rates will stabilize, and the science line of buildings will actually allow for science specialty cities. Science will accrue at rates comparable to the other yields (hundreds, instead of thousands, on average). Academies will be very useful into and past the Renaissance. G

This is the issue. We can't really ever get science specialist cities with the current happiness mechanics.

May I propose a slight tweak to the happiness system? Instead of calculating [Gold/Poverty needs] and [Science/literacy needs] as individual variables per city, combine them and work out [best of (gold/poverty) OR (Science/literacy)] as a single variable. This would allow us to specialise each city to either gold or science.