Yet another list of data

[Caesar the Great]

Since there is no one else on this forum willing to do something like this. I will do the same thing I did several months ago, finding the number of beakers needed for each tech. I will compare the two lists here. The first is on a large map the second is on a small map. All of this will be posted on my civ 2 site. Its still being made. (Also includes sections on Age of Empires, Command and Conquer and Rainbow 6) Clearly this will take a while to put together. Well here goes nothing. I should post this under my other thread, but I think it deserves a seperate thread.

1. 12 10
2. 26 18
3. 45 27
4. 60 36
5. 75 45
6. 102 66
7. 126 84
8. 144 96
9. 180 108
10. 210 130
11. 231 143
12. 264 168
13. 299 195
14. 350 224
15. 390 240
16. 432 272
17. 459 289
18. 540 342
19. 589 380
20. 820 520
21. 903 588
22. 946 616
23. 989 644
24. 1080 672
25. 1125 700
26. 1170 728
27. 1242 783
28. 1288 812
29. 1334 841
30. 1440 930
31. 1488 961
32. 1536 992
33. 1680 1056
34. 1700 1088
35. 1760 1120
36. 1872 1188
37. 1942 1221
38. 1976 1254
39. 2028 1287
40. 2080 1320
41. 2132 1353
42. 2310 1470
43. 2365 1505
44. 2420 1540
45. 2520 1620
46. 2576 1656
47. 2632 1692
48. 2784 1776
49. 2842 1813
50. 2900 1850
51. 3060 1938
52. 3120 1976
53. 3180 2014
54. 3294 2106
55. 3355 2145
56. 3416 2184
57. 3591 2280
58. 3654 2320
59. 3717 2360
60. 3900 2460
61. 3965 2501
62. 4030 2542
63. 4158 2646
64. 4224 2688
65. 4290 2730
66. 4422 2838
67. 4489 2881
68. 4556 2924
69. 4830 3036
70. 4900 3080
71. 4970 3124
72. 5112 3240
73. 5183 3285
74. 5254 3330
75. 5400 3450
76. 5472 3496
77. 5544 3542
78. 5850 3744
79. 5925 3792
80. 6000 3840
81. 6156 3888
82. 6232 3936
83. 6308 3984
84. 6552 4200
85. 6630 4250
86. 6708 4300
87. 6786 4350
88. 6864 4400
89. 6942 4450
90. 7290 4680

Well I guess the data speaks for itself. Small maps are a must in OCC. It is the only way. The big jumps seem consistent. Around industrialization techs are 1/2 as expensive. From there on it is about 2/3. And in the beginning they cost 5/6 then go down to 1/2 and then back up. The beakers saved is amazing. Any comments anyone?

___
CtG

[crowatbitemedotcom]

When looking at this what strikes me is how important micromanaging your science is in the early game on OCC. If you are producing 7 or 8 science beakers by the time you're on the 5th tech, and you have 44 beakers saved up you will waste a lot when you discover the 6th tech. Smack me on the forehead but I didn't think of this before... I obviously need to micromanage my city much better if I hope to improve my game, although in my latest game I should be to AC by 1930 or so (with no competition from the AI), thanks to getting 3 early trade routes with Technochitlan, which has been the #2 city throughout the game. Let me repeat what Paul has said and say that if you are not getting the trade routes early, you need to do this. I had all three of my trade routes by 20AD (previously I had them by about 1000AD), and it helped shave about 50 years off my game. Obviously I have a lot of improving to do, but that was a big step in the right direction.

[Smash]

good work.I thought 4000 was the max though.Got a little checking to do

[Caesar the Great]

Yeah it is really important to get routes up early. It is also important to play on a small map when doing OCC. Usually 2.42 will help, unless you are really good with caravans, and some luck. MGE I think gives bigger trade bonuses. I will probably test this too. Since now I've been playing OCC on large maps. This really gave me a kick in the ***. I hope this helps some people and possibly will lead to a way of determining the increase of beakers each time. I'm almost positive there is a pattern. The programmers are too smart to program each, wastes too much space.

___
CtG

[Smash]

This a cumulative isn't it?DUH

[Sten Sture]

CtG - excellent as always! At the end of your first list of data, someone posted a close approximation of the formula, check it out.

Smash - here is the cumulative. Shows how important the early govt improvements are...(totally illegible - sorry)

Tech__Lg___Sum____Small__Sum_____Sm/Lg__Tot/Tot
1____12_____12_____10_____10______83%___83%
2____26_____38_____18_____28______69%___74%
3____45_____83_____27_____55______60%___66%
4____60____143_____36_____91______60%___64%
5____75____218_____45____136______60%___62%
6 102 320 66 202 65% 63%
7 126 446 84 286 67% 64%
8 144 590 96 382 67% 65%
9 180 770 108 490 60% 64%
10 210 980 130 620 62% 63%
11 231 1,211 143 763 62% 63%
12 264 1,475 168 931 64% 63%
13 299 1,774 195 1,126 65% 63%
14 350 2,124 224 1,350 64% 64%
15 390 2,514 240 1,590 62% 63%
16 432 2,946 272 1,862 63% 63%
17 459 3,405 289 2,151 63% 63%
18 540 3,945 342 2,493 63% 63%
19 589 4,534 380 2,873 65% 63%
20 820 5,354 520 3,393 63% 63%
21 903 6,257 588 3,981 65% 64%
22 946 7,203 616 4,597 65% 64%
23 989 8,192 644 5,241 65% 64%
24 1080 9,272 672 5,913 62% 64%
25 1125 10,397 700 6,613 62% 64%
26 1170 11,567 728 7,341 62% 63%
27 1242 12,809 783 8,124 63% 63%
28 1288 14,097 812 8,936 63% 63%
29 1334 15,431 841 9,777 63% 63%
30 1440 16,871 930 10,707 65% 63%
31 1488 18,359 961 11,668 65% 64%
32 1536 19,895 992 12,660 65% 64%
33 1680 21,575 1056 13,716 63% 64%
34 1700 23,275 1088 14,804 64% 64%
35 1760 25,035 1120 15,924 64% 64%
36 1872 26,907 1188 17,112 63% 64%
37 1942 28,849 1221 18,333 63% 64%
38 1976 30,825 1254 19,587 63% 64%
39 2028 32,853 1287 20,874 63% 64%
40 2080 34,933 1320 22,194 63% 64%
41 2132 37,065 1353 23,547 63% 64%
42 2310 39,375 1470 25,017 64% 64%
43 2365 41,740 1505 26,522 64% 64%
44 2420 44,160 1540 28,062 64% 64%
45 2520 46,680 1620 29,682 64% 64%
46 2576 49,256 1656 31,338 64% 64%
47 2632 51,888 1692 33,030 64% 64%
48 2784 54,672 1776 34,806 64% 64%
49 2842 57,514 1813 36,619 64% 64%
50 2900 60,414 1850 38,469 64% 64%
51 3060 63,474 1938 40,407 63% 64%
52 3120 66,594 1976 42,383 63% 64%
53 3180 69,774 2014 44,397 63% 64%
54 3294 73,068 2106 46,503 64% 64%
55 3355 76,423 2145 48,648 64% 64%
56 3416 79,839 2184 50,832 64% 64%
57 3591 83,430 2280 53,112 63% 64%
58 3654 87,084 2320 55,432 63% 64%
59 3717 90,801 2360 57,792 63% 64%
60 3900 94,701 2460 60,252 63% 64%
61 3965 98,666 2501 62,753 63% 64%
62 4030 102,696 2542 65,295 63% 64%
63 4158 106,854 2646 67,941 64% 64%
64 4224 111,078 2688 70,629 64% 64%
65 4290 115,368 2730 73,359 64% 64%
66 4422 119,790 2838 76,197 64% 64%
67 4489 124,279 2881 79,078 64% 64%
68 4556 128,835 2924 82,002 64% 64%
69 4830 133,665 3036 85,038 63% 64%
70 4900 138,565 3080 88,118 63% 64%
71 4970 143,535 3124 91,242 63% 64%
72 5112 148,647 3240 94,482 63% 64%
73 5183 153,830 3285 97,767 63% 64%
74 5254 159,084 3330 101,097 63% 64%
75 5400 164,484 3450 104,547 64% 64%
76 5472 169,956 3496 108,043 64% 64%
77 5544 175,500 3542 111,585 64% 64%
78 5850 181,350 3744 115,329 64% 64%
79 5925 187,275 3792 119,121 64% 64%
80 6000 193,275 3840 122,961 64% 64%
81 6156 199,431 3888 126,849 63% 64%
82 6232 205,663 3936 130,785 63% 64%
83 6308 211,971 3984 134,769 63% 64%
84 6552 218,523 4200 138,969 64% 64%
85 6630 225,153 4250 143,219 64% 64%
86 6708 231,861 4300 147,519 64% 64%
87 6786 238,647 4350 151,869 64% 64%
88 6864 245,511 4400 156,269 64% 64%
89 6942 252,453 4450 160,719 64% 64%
90 7290 259,743 4680 165,399 64% 64%



[This message has been edited by Sten Sture (edited August 15, 2000).]

[KenThur]

Huh?
This seems to some good info & i & other s really appreciate what you're trying to tell/teach us but... U loose many of us with your buzz-wording & initals!

For instance:
"Usually 2.42 will help, unless you are really good with caravans, and some luck. MGE I think gives bigger trade bonuses"

Sounds like REALLY good advice... but what is "2.42" & "MGE" ???

Rather frustrating to say the least... unless U'll don't WANT us to know.

Ple-e-ease, just a few extra keystrokes would add SO MUCH for your readers / fans(?).

[Caesar the Great]

2.42 is the most recent patch for civ 2, not the multiplayer version, but original. MGE is multiplayer gold edition. Hope thats what u wanted.

___
CtG

BIG PROBLEM!

It doesn't depend only on map size! I discovered this when I played Sten's 4 whale map. The map is mostly jungles, hills, "lakes," with very little open grasslands. The beaker totals appeared to be as you've listed.

Then I played another game with a (small) map that had lots of plains and grasslands. I already had 5 (Alp, Bro, Cer, Mas, and Wri) and researching CoL was 84 beakers (same as for the 7th tech on your list). Off the top of my head I can remember I had 837, 925, 1175, 1584 or 1588, etc which don't appear on the list.

Terrain somehow effects research rates!!!

[Caesar the Great]

It might be a medium map... unlike what Xin said on my last post. I think that the starting techs do influence it. But they might not. I'm not sure how it works. These are simply stats and the most obvious inferences that can be made. To conclude something much more drastic without any proof would spark a lot of discussion and a lot of critizem.

If one can't defend something he says with stats then the arguement is worth as little as empty space. Since I'm the only person doing things of this sort I will do one for starting techs and see if they correspond. As well as proximety to AIs. And I might do one for a medium map. Also I will see if different tribes affect things. And I might see if city size affects it. As well as the size of the continent.

Well thats all in the future... 1 per week and I will post results on this board.

___
CtG

The man without a life

[SandMonkey]

don Don -

in you're second game (the one that had the weird beaker amounts), did you start in a bad place? i find it rather odd that you were given 5 techs, and yet the world was grasslands and plains. My understanding was that you were given starting techs to help compensate for your starting position.

------------------
SandMonkey

"Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
-Homer Simpson

No, I didn't mean that was my starting tech. I started with none, but I had those five (from huts and contact with another civ) when I founded my city.

The other numbers weren't sequential, they're just ones that stuck in my mind for some reason. I hadn't read these data threads before, so I wasn't trying to compile a list. I never thought of compiling a list because when I micromg the research I rarely see the same numbers in different games. I assumed it was dependent on numerous factors.

CtG,
If you want, I'll go back thru the saves of my current game and compile a partial list (probably Monday).

[Paul]

The amount of beakers needed depends not only on map size but also on your relative position compared to the AI. That is, if you are ahead you need more beakers for your next science than you would need if you were behind.

That's a definite yes—I just got proof in action. I was researching Astro in a OCC game and got the Zulus made their no-scribes-allowed announcement that they had discovered Seafaring. I had previously made a note that I needed 378 beakers, and after the announcement the requirement dropped to 360 beakers!

OK, CtG, You want stats I have some. I compared my current game to data from saves of a previous game on a map with similar terrain and civs with these results:

Adv #    Game 1    Game 2
  6            84           84
  7              -           99
  8              -             -
  9          144         144
 10         170         170
 11         187         187
 12         216         216
 13             -             -
 14             -         283
 15         315         315
 16             -         351
 17         374         374
 18             -         378 initially
                            360 after Zulu discovery
 19         399         389
 20         600         620
 21         651             -
 22         682 Phil    682 Phil
 23       (free)      (free)
 24         744         768

The data is incomplete, but obviously the incremental increase is no integer multiple of the new advance number. CtG was generating his data by giving the advances in cheat mode while the sizes of the civs stayed constant and the competing civs did not advance. Perhaps that is why his data yielded to superficial regression analysis.

In my current game while I was researching Astro the Zulus made their discovery and my requirement dropped. They at first refused to trade, but after I discovered Astro they decided they wanted Trade from me and I got Seafaring. Doh, I forgot that it makes a huge jump from 19 to 20! Now Literacy increased from needing 389 to 620! I was saved because somehow the French suddenly discovered Republic and so I traded with them and got both Lit and Rep. (That's why I have no data on how much #21 cost for this game.)

As a side note, when the Chinese made a discovery of something I already had my research requirement didn't change. Also, I was researching Lit when the French discovered Rep. My 620 beaker requirement didn't change, perhaps because I wasn't researching an advance that nobody else had (the French had Lit).
[This message has been edited by don Don (edited January 13, 2000).]

[SandMonkey]

I found something of little interest...

I checked the number of beakers needed (so far) on King level (which i play on, so sue me!). I thought they were kind of interesting. I have only gone through 12 turns, but the intervals are kinda strange, or at least they are to me.

Advance# turns needed
1 10
2 18
3 24
4 32
5 40
6 54
7 63
8 80
9 99
10 120
11 132
12 156


they are all nice, round numbers, but the intervals are weird.

Advance Intervals
0-1 --
1-2 8
2-3 6
3-4 8
4-5 8
5-6 14
6-7 9
7-8 17
8-9 19
9-10 21
10-11 12
11-12 24

(Interval being the difference from one turn to the next)

Does this look odd to anyone? or am i just looking at soemthing obvious to all but me?


------------------
SandMonkey

"Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
-Homer Simpson
[This message has been edited by SandMonkey (edited January 10, 2000).]

[Sten Sture]

IIRC in the first list of data thread Catalus or Xin posted the formula as a derivative of (a+1)*(b+1) modified by (c) which depended on how advanced you were relative to the other civs. These numbers do hop all over the place, but one thing I have never seen is the advance calculation changing in the first 10 advances for starting techs. It may kick in later, and the numbers do change based on your position, but not all of the time and not by that much.

This continues to be my favorite topic of dicussion on the Strategy boards, thanks to everyone who has contributed.

[MacUser]

Bump to try and make printable.

------------------
"And now for something completely different..."
- John Cleese

[debeest]

Sandmonkey, your question is one of the few things I've figured out for myself. The number of beakers needed for the next advance is almost always an integer multiple of the tech number. As the number of techs goes up, so does the integer, but not with every advance. So the first tech (in a mid-size world) is 1 x 10, the next one is 2 x 11, the next one is 3 x 11, and the 10th one might be 10 x 12 (as in your post). The "interval" is just a function of that, and that's why it looks random.

As has been so widely noted, the beaker cost of an advance depends partly on your position relative to the AI. That manifests itself as a reduction in the integer multiplier: e.g., the AI gains a tech, and your cost for tech #10 goes from 10 x 12 to 10 x 11. I haven't been able to study the relative-position issue very well yet. The OCC-ers tout the importance of giving away tech in order to keep your own tech cost low, but I rarely find any change in my cost when I give away civs. I'm pretty sure there's no change unless an AI civ gains an advance that none of the other AI civs have. I'd love to be further enlightened.

[debeest]

Forgot to mention: starting techs don't count. If you get three free to start the game, then #4 costs 1 x 10, #5 costs 2 x 11, #6 costs 3 x 11, etc.

Note: these costs for techs 1, 2, 3 are from deity level, while your 10 x 12 is king. At deity, tech #10 is probably more like 10 x 15, I don't remember offhand.

[Caesar]

Someone actually dug this thread up, from january!! Wow, not so old days , well now I've got a new login.

A few things to add, the number of civs doesn't matter within itself.

The number of techs your opponents have does not make a difference.

The number of turns elapsed does not make a difference.

quote: I had previously made a note that I needed 378 beakers, and after the announcement the requirement dropped to 360 beakers!

Possible explanations for that are endless... your cities grew to produce more beakers, their cities grew to provide more you with more science from perviously established trade routes. From what I've seen it doesn't seem to make a difference.

[debeest]

Caesar, the number of civ (advances) certainly does make a difference. If you meant, the number of civilizations doesn't matter, I think you're right.

The AI civilizations' technological level clearly does matter. More AI tech means cheaper tech for you. I just haven't been able to determine exactly how the relationship works.

Your proposed explanations don't account for the change in the number-of-beakers-needed.

Note that the example you just quoted is consistent with my explanation: 378 = 18 x 21, and it dropped to 360 = 18 x 20.

[Caesar]

Note the words From what I've seen

It is very likely that I am wrong, but that was based solely on my observations. I will try to create other controlled expirements to see wether or not this is true, if so then to what extent.

[Sten Sture]

Tom DeMille had an OCC game post that demonstrated the impact of fewer civs on individual research costs. More civs = lower cost. There have been numerous posts that demonstrated that the relative number of AI civ advances impact the research cost. More advanced AI = lower cost.

If you are going to do some additional testing of this stuff some of those posts might give you a couple of ideas to choose from. I'll try to dig up a link or two.

[Tom DeMille]

Maybe someone can ask one of the original programmers of civ2 what the formula is.

The main thing to keep in mind is that the beaker cost of techs increases, and that you pay a premium if you get ahead of the AI.

[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.