A list of data

[Caesar the Great]

My findings are from a large world, city with 1 trade, and 7 civs. I did this in the year 4000BC might make a difference. I tried it on a small map and I got the numbers you were coming up with. And I did the discoveries 'till 20th and there was a huge jump between 19 and 20 than 18 to 19 not as big as my previous findings but never the less a much higher increase. I guess this shows what factors change techs. 1 more thing. Ming I will test your theory if I find some time between school and CTP. And Theben I will test your theory about 0 AD again if I find some time.

[geofelt]

I think the ai is programmed to try to match your science rate. If I am in fundamentalism, the rivals don't seem to discover too quickly. Also, if you get too good, they won't trade with you.

[Sten Sture]

Per Mingko's request....

By the way I have been keeping a log of advances available, what I chose, and the beaker cost for smilo's database. If anyone else is doing something similar let me know.

[mingko]

Thanks Sten. I remember that the thread is started by Caesar yet I cannot find the thread using the search function in this forum.
I found that my figure (large world, diety level) is not exactly the same as Caesar's one. The differences are
33: 1650 instead of 1680
35: 1750 instead of 1760
37: 1924 instead of 1942
I am not as patient as Caesar. As a cheater, I enable cheat mode, then Edit King, Set Research Progress.

[Sten Sture]

I am a little bit obsessed with this question in the game...sorry.

I have been checking actual results using the trade advisor to determine how many beakers are required and I haven't yet come up with CtG's numbers. Is is Mac vs PC, or Civ version??? I would rest easier if others would randomly check a game and post (just one data point) their data. It would only take a couple of minutes, please oh please! We know that the map size and level makes a big difference. I'm not sure about # of AI and aggregate techs researched, but I haven't seen differences that lead me to that conclusion. The beaker formula appears to be a derivative of (a+1)*(b+1), but it has some strange steps that a simple financial analyst caint figer out. "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" - Holy Grail

[This message has been edited by Sten Sture (edited May 13, 1999).]

[Xin Yu]

I think I got the answer.

a) beginning techs have no effect on number of beakers needed for each additional tech, they are pure gifts.
b) map size matters.
c) generally, the beakers needed for a tech=A*B, where A is 1 for the first tech, 2 for the second, and increases by 1 for each additional tech (as mentioned before, beginning techs do not count), B is 10 for the first tech, 11 for the second, .... However, B will be justified according to your position in the tech race. If you are far behind another civ, then B will cease to increase; on the other hand, if you are far ahead, B will jump.

[catullus]

Nice observation, Xin.
Cost of tech #A (after initial advances are subtracted) is always an integer value B times A.
We know that map size and level counts. We also know that the science leader(s) get(s) a handicap.
Your suggestion says B=A+10+modifications. I ran some regression analysis, and it looked more like we have something like
B=INT(r*A + C + M),
where r is a real value less than 1 (dependent on map/level), C is the constant for map/level, and M is a modifier for tech lead (and other).

But it's not that simple, either. From advance #21, we have a series like this for beakers needed for next advance:
N=(x*A,x*A,x*A,y*A,y*A,y*A,z*A,...), where x<=y<=z. So for every third advance the number B (x,y and z above) is recalculated. B_new is never more than B_old+3, most often B_old+1, sometimes equal B_old (series of numbers added to B every three turns:221222031221221131131203). Unless the AIs were given free advances too, (better check that) I see no reason for these fluctuations.

And what happened at advance #19 to 20, where B jumps from 31 to 41? Just a way to ensure that early advances come more quickly? And why is B recalculated every turn before that?

Oh, well

C.

[TCO]

Xin Yu, the manual (maybe the srtat guide) states that larger maps require more science. Also states that if you are way ahead, the AI will be given cheats for military techs.

[Sonderermittler]

I´ve just found out that beakers can be wasted. Actually I play some experiment games. If I get some new results I will post them here.

I am playing a one city game. It´s 2400BC. I am detecting science #4(law code) and I have collected 47 beakers. The city produces 5 beakers. The following turn I detected law code. There were no further beakers added to science #5, so it seems that 52 beakers were demanded to get the science.
Reload to 2400BC. I put down the science barometer that way the city produces only 1 beaker. Surprising result: I got the science as well.

What happened to the 4 beakers? If the ´detecting´ city produces more beakers than needed to finish a science, all additional beakers of this city will get lost. All beakers that are produced by cities, which are checked up after detecting (but in the same turn), will be added to the following science.

[Sten Sture]

There have been some questions about this stuff lately and the thread was pretty far back, so... bump

[Campo]

Does the science "penalty" for more discoveries imply that I shouldn't seek out techs from GH's so aggressively? I always create a few early units solely to explore huts, and I've been pleased to get new techs. But since I can't control what I get, is it really detrimental by slowing my own discovery chain?

[Steve Clark]

Campo: I think part of the answer is being addressed in the other topic, 'Old Question, New Answers'.

[Caesar the Great]

I finally came back to this thread. Map size does have an affect. I got different results on a smaller map, I forgot exactly what it was, I did this over a month ago. I haven't tested to see if starting techs affects the research rate. I will also test if you get techs before building a city your research rate is affected. This info might help Paul take a few years off his unofficial OCC record I still can beleive sub 1800 AC landing. I'm gonna download one of those map and cheat a little (without cheat menu) and see if I can get a better time of course I will, cheating is the only way to get a head
[This message has been edited by Caesar the Great (edited November 10, 1999).]

[Sten Sture]

"I didn't get a hurumphf out of that guy" Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles

[SlowThinker]

{advances}
{beakers count}
{}{SlowThinker}{end1}

------------------------------
This is a post with keywords. See The Great Library: a hierarchical structure" thread.
This thread has got to the top of the forum because of this post. It may be a very old thread.