Yield value discussion (food vs others)

[crdvis16]

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 totally agree that this change will lead to more meaningful choices, and based on your work so far with CBP I'm sure you'll find a way to properly balance it.

 

[BenchBreaker]

per pop yields should only be available on wonders, national wonders, late game builds (the ones with 2 specialist slots) or special location restricted buildings like observatory. you already get extra yields from having the pop working on extra tiles or specialist slots, no need to give each pop additional yields of every kind. that just make food by far the best yield.

To balance tall and wide from removal of pop based yields, it could be made so that national wonders are significantly easier to construct for tall play, which basically means you have less cities land and resources, but more very efficient wonders to compensate

 

[Dallandra]

I disagree completely, science is THE one yield that unlocks actual choice. It's the one thing that will always improve everything else, independently from everything else. Treating it like every other resource, is a disservice to its importance and decoupling it from population, especially in the early game is as unrealistic as it gets.

I stand by it, I am 100% against completely removing the base 1 pop = 1 science system.

 

[Wario Mario]

Building bonuses that convert x city yield to science (i.e. the Forge could produce 1 science for every 5 production in the city)

Interesting concept. We don't want to make *too* many scourses of science, though. Something like this for faith on late game buildings might be cool, as well.

How would this be done, btw? Is there a buildingyeildchangesperyield table somewhere?

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.

MOAR WONDERZ NAOW!!!
More wonders are fun, and yes, making culture more interesting (especially with later branches, when policy costs explode) is a good idea.

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)

I'm in two minds about this. I like the idea of fighting yield inflation (see my previous post on it ) but replacing per-pop bonuses with flat bonuses would mean that more cities are *always* better than large cities. Why have a size 30 city with a library with a flat +4 yield when 15 size 2 cities with libraries will have a +60 yield?

The removal of the free science per citizen

YES! Like you said, we should have civs that actually make an investment in science be rewarded for it. Focus on science at the expense of culture and you'll have computers in 1690 - but then they'll have an ideology tree filled out while you're people can't make it past the free tenants. This is in contrast to now, where focusing fully on science will maybe put you two or three techs ahead, because of the inflated tech costs designed to counter free science.

The reduction, or removal, of the research cost penalty from the # of cities

Well... reducing it a bit, maybe - after all, a little of the penalty was intended to counter free science per citizen. But outright removal? That ignores the main point of the penalty to begin with - balancing tall and wide. More cities doesn't always mean more science, just as more people doesn't always mean more science. This might return us to the dark ages of , when the winner was whoever build the most cities in the ancient age. After all, why would anyone *NOT* build a city (even a totally worthless one) if there's no downside to it?

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.

I believe the forge in this scenario will produce 1 science for every 5 production - as in, you don't actually *SPEND* the 5 production to get the 1 science.

 

[BenchBreaker]

well in civ 3 and 4 science was based on gold, and in civ5 science is based on food

It has never been a yield in its own right

 

[Moi Magnus]

per pop yields should only be available on wonders, national wonders or special location restricted buildings like observatory. you already get extra yields from having the pop working on extra tiles or specialist slots, no need to give each pop additional yields of every kind. that just make food by far the best yield.

To balance tall and wide from removal of pop based yields, it could be made so that national wonders are significantly easier to construct for tall play, which basically means you have less cities land and resources, but more very efficient wonders to compensate

I don't agree : you can construct national wonder only 1 time (not 3 times like guilds), and playing tall should not need world wonders nor special locations (because it is not always possible to have them). So if only national wonders count, that mostly mean that only your capital will have "per pop yields"

 

[grmagne]

well in civ 3 and 4 science was based on gold, and in civ5 science is based on food

It has never been a yield in its own right

Civ 1, 2, 3, 4 all did that. When I started playing Civ 5 I didn't realize how important population was during my first few games.

 

[BenchBreaker]

I don't agree : you can construct national wonder only 1 time (not 3 times like guilds), and playing tall should not need world wonders nor special locations (because it is not always possible to have them). So if only national wonders count, that mostly mean that only your capital will have "per pop yields"

and why wont that be enough? depends on number and balancing that per pop yield from national wonders in capital can be made to be worth more than many flat yields from normal buildings in small cities combined

the balancing is only about numbers, the concept is about making food less important, they are two separate things

 

[grmagne]

Dallandra is right that population and science should be highly correlated very early in the game, and that’s historically accurate. But that effect should wear off around the time you get Writing. After that it should be possible for a small population city to out-produce a much larger city in bulbs if that’s how you choose to focus. I’d prefer it if the player had to choose between science, culture and production rather than just using farms to grow a huge population, which pretty much guarantees you’ll get everything you need.

I really like the earlier proposal to give some science to towns & villages. Having too many towns & villages in your empire instead of farms means that you’ll fall behind in population. In the current system that means you’ll have less science, production and culture in the long run and that’s why so most people focus on farms and growth. The interesting thing is that this could lead to a small-population, high-science city with supporting villages & academies that contributes more bulbs than a much larger city. This rarely happens in the either BNW or CBP as high population is too highly correlated with science, but it would be more realistic and more challenging.

 

[Gazebo]

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.

Trying to incorporate some kind of scaling system based on era is punitive for civs that actually pursue science, and will simply act as a rubber-band mechanic for backwards civs (civs without a strong science infrastructure would be able to, more cheaply, research more advanced techs without as much investment as the advanced civ). It's also a bit convoluted, and would be hard to manage properly in the UI.

Removing that base value entirely, and having it scale off of % population bonuses from buildings (or other bonuses from elsewhere) feels a lot more natural. Retains the 'gradually growing, ever upwards' model of Civ 5, while also making science something you have to work towards.

G

 

[Gazebo]

Interesting concept. We don't want to make *too* many scourses of science, though. Something like this for faith on late game buildings might be cool, as well.

How would this be done, btw? Is there a buildingyeildchangesperyield table somewhere?

MOAR WONDERZ NAOW!!!
More wonders are fun, and yes, making culture more interesting (especially with later branches, when policy costs explode) is a good idea.

I'm in two minds about this. I like the idea of fighting yield inflation (see my previous post on it ) but replacing per-pop bonuses with flat bonuses would mean that more cities are *always* better than large cities. Why have a size 30 city with a library with a flat +4 yield when 15 size 2 cities with libraries will have a +60 yield?

YES! Like you said, we should have civs that actually make an investment in science be rewarded for it. Focus on science at the expense of culture and you'll have computers in 1690 - but then they'll have an ideology tree filled out while you're people can't make it past the free tenants. This is in contrast to now, where focusing fully on science will maybe put you two or three techs ahead, because of the inflated tech costs designed to counter free science.


Well... reducing it a bit, maybe - after all, a little of the penalty was intended to counter free science per citizen. But outright removal? That ignores the main point of the penalty to begin with - balancing tall and wide. More cities doesn't always mean more science, just as more people doesn't always mean more science. This might return us to the dark ages of , when the winner was whoever build the most cities in the ancient age. After all, why would anyone *NOT* build a city (even a totally worthless one) if there's no downside to it?



I believe the forge in this scenario will produce 1 science for every 5 production - as in, you don't actually *SPEND* the 5 production to get the 1 science.

Re: wonders, not talking about adding wonders, but rather locking a few more existing wonders behind finishers. For example, Tradition's opener could unlock the Pyramids, and then Finish with the Hanging Gardens. That kind of thing.

Re: science % increase per city, I'll probably just reduce it a bit, maybe down to 5%. Removal is an extreme possibility.

I disagree completely, science is THE one yield that unlocks actual choice. It's the one thing that will always improve everything else, independently from everything else. Treating it like every other resource, is a disservice to its importance and decoupling it from population, especially in the early game is as unrealistic as it gets.

I don't think its a disservice. And, like I said, population and science aren't being wholly separated. Just the freebie science.

G

 

[merill]

per pop yields should only be available on wonders, national wonders, late game builds (the ones with 2 specialist slots) or special location restricted buildings like observatory. you already get extra yields from having the pop working on extra tiles or specialist slots, no need to give each pop additional yields of every kind. that just make food by far the best yield.

+1

Trades routes, national wonders, guilds, academies are mostly tall/wide independent.
Buildings favoured wide play.
Pop favoured wide play if unhappiness or an other mechanic doesn't reduce growth.

The most obvious choice to make science tall/wide independent is making all science building as guilds (max 3 per player). But then, we have an happiness problem.

 

[supracseduch]

To balance tall and wide from removal of pop based yields, it could be made so that national wonders are significantly easier to construct for tall play, which basically means you have less cities land and resources, but more very efficient wonders to compensate

NW's have a minimum total population requirement. It's already the case that NW's can generally be built earlier by wider civs since in the early game, wider means higher total population. Tall civs aren't that far behind in total pop, but are still behind.

I'm in two minds about this. I like the idea of fighting yield inflation (see my previous post on it ) but replacing per-pop bonuses with flat bonuses would mean that more cities are *always* better than large cities. Why have a size 30 city with a library with a flat +4 yield when 15 size 2 cities with libraries will have a +60 yield?

Well... reducing it a bit, maybe - after all, a little of the penalty was intended to counter free science per citizen. But outright removal? That ignores the main point of the penalty to begin with - balancing tall and wide. More cities doesn't always mean more science, just as more people doesn't always mean more science. This might return us to the dark ages of , when the winner was whoever build the most cities in the ancient age. After all, why would anyone *NOT* build a city (even a totally worthless one) if there's no downside to it?

Like you said, we shouldn't remove the yields per x citizens so as to avoid the ensuing imbalance between wide and tall if we outright remove the tech cost increase from cities. I think we should at least experiment with a beta or two without that penalty. Keep in mind that new cities now will not have any base science output. Moreover, more cities generally means unhappier empires so your national science yields are negatively affected. Maybe it can work, maybe it can't. If successful, maybe we can also remove the policy cost penalties. Since you can't really see anyone complaining that faith costs do not depend on number of cities.

I might need some clarification: Since libraries provide +1 science every 4 citizens, does that mean they actually provide +0.25 per citizen, or do they only provide +1 more science whenever the population reaches a multiple of 4?

I believe the forge in this scenario will produce 1 science for every 5 production - as in, you don't actually *SPEND* the 5 production to get the 1 science.

Yep, I'm aware. It's like a free and permanent "research" process, available much earlier.

 

[Funak]

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.

Yeah, that was pretty much the conclusion I ran into as well. Glad to see we ended up in the same place

Trying to incorporate some kind of scaling system based on era is punitive for civs that actually pursue science, and will simply act as a rubber-band mechanic for backwards civs (civs without a strong science infrastructure would be able to, more cheaply, research more advanced techs without as much investment as the advanced civ). It's also a bit convoluted, and would be hard to manage properly in the UI.

Removing that base value entirely, and having it scale off of % population bonuses from buildings (or other bonuses from elsewhere) feels a lot more natural. Retains the 'gradually growing, ever upwards' model of Civ 5, while also making science something you have to work towards.

Just to be clear, I think this entire idea is crazy and will backfire and end up terrible. I have no idea why you suddenly want to do full reworks over things that aren't even a problem, especially after you've already said the project was getting tuned down. As you usually say, you have a solution looking for a problem and you're trying to reinvent the wheel.

EDIT: If this is simply about out of control growth being too good, just do some changes to the happiness-system again and make big cities the cesspools of unhappiness that they were half a year ago.

Anyways this thread is just way too long and way too all over the place for me to actually care about so I'll just drop it now.

 

[tu_79]

I am fine with removing 1pop=1science.

In the early game, a way to get more science without building anything would be to let idle people to produce a little science. Like Crato. If you chose so, then you can research faster, but grow slower. Not a good option once you get science slots.

Happiness is the key to make tall interesting. Cities without National Wonders may suffer some unhappiness (their resource production will be suboptimal). If National Wonders add a multiplier, production from tall civilizations will be high, so production in later cities will be smaller in comparison, there the increased unhappiness for building wide.

I feel there is a will to make any strategy viable other than grow and get the tech lead. I'd really love to be able to win without building science buildings as soon as possible (but for science victories). Blocking some wonders for social policies is a step. I still think happiness might be another. If you get happiness for focusing, then going always for science could hurt your victory path. Indeed, a civ too focused on science may be very vulnerable, unable to stand grand armies (just some high tech units) and slow to build anything.

That's not to say that if you focus on science (or anything) you will never be able to build a barrack, but you might left it for last, once your happiness is under control. I was wrong thinking that buildings should increase a resource demand per city, it will only make your cities more specialized. It needs to be a national resource demand. It's like your citizens will be happy when they feel they are working in what the player is focused on and unhappy otherwise.

That's the logic behind increase demand for the same resource that building provides. The player is choosing to focus on some resources by choosing what buildings are built first. The more you focus on something the less you will be able to invest early in others (happiness buildings could allow for some late retake). Like I said, it doesn't need to be completely historical, just balanced and fun. The only serious problem I foresee with this is whether the AI is going to handle it correctly.

 

[Gazebo]

Yeah, that was pretty much the conclusion I ran into as well. Glad to see we ended up in the same place



Just to be clear, I think this entire idea is crazy and will backfire and end up terrible. I have no idea why you suddenly want to do full reworks over things that aren't even a problem, especially after you've already said the project was getting tuned down. As you usually say, you have a solution looking for a problem and you're trying to reinvent the wheel.

EDIT: If this is simply about out of control growth being too good, just do some changes to the happiness-system again and make big cities the cesspools of unhappiness that they were half a year ago.

Anyways this thread is just way too long and way too all over the place for me to actually care about so I'll just drop it now.

Nothing crazy or drastic about it. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the happiness system I built from scratch, so I can definitively say that the food/growth 'Meta' appearing cannot be solved by tweaking the academy. It's an oversight on my part, and it greatly limits player choice. I see it now, especially when I started crunching numbers on science value in the mid-game (long story short, population was accounting for the vast majority of science in empires. Not good.).

Besides, there's nothing to overhaul. This is a numbers tweak, pure and simple. The only thing I'll have to do is add in a few new building functions to diversify science gain. Easy. With my building sanity system, teaching the AI will be trivial, as it already 'gets' what I need it to get.

I don't like to employ the 'trust me' argument very often, but this is one of those times. Trust me.

G

 

[Wodhann]

[*]The reduction, or removal, of the research cost penalty from the # of cities
[/LIST]

This, I don't like. Compared to vanilla CBP already makes "grab as many cities as you can" strategies more comfortable, I don't think Wide has to be favored even more.

 

[Gamewizard]

This, I don't like. Compared to vanilla CBP already makes "grab as many cities as you can" strategies more comfortable, I don't think Wide has to be favored even more.

ICS is bad. Having lots of well developed cities, obtained through peaceful means or through conquest, should be encouraged.

 

[tu_79]

. The only thing I'll have to do is add in a few new building functions to diversify science gain. Easy.
G

Sure? It sounds like wide get a boost.

I agree we need other source of science or everybody will rush for science buildings, though. We still have trade routes and tile improvements. As you said, you have the option to work one tile or another, so a big city doesn't always means science. But, won't make it even easier for wide?

My take is to punish civs that focus too much on science so they cannot stand grand armies or build fast, that is, they may have access to a lot of buildings before everybody, but won't be able to build them in time to be relevant for anything but a scientific victory. Meanwhile other civs are befriending CS, exporting their culture or conquering neighbours. They just have to wait a little longer to have their next victory related building. It may work equally well with other types of victory.

Right now being technologically advanced means you are able to build everything before everybody and have the biggest army at the same time. It could be true in real life, but it isn't fun for a strategy game.

 

[Wodhann]

ICS is bad. Having lots of well developed cities, obtained through peaceful means or through conquest, should be encouraged.

ICS?

More cities means more means to get science, removing tech cost increase per city just means "wide" players get to snowball faster.