Well it whould be if you couldn't chose and switch at will that whould hold true (+ carpenters are nearly as effective in getting FF-Points including non-politics-points as elder statesmen in the council hall. More effective even with a sawmill.). But you can (and you can't just change your investment if you bought an expensive colonist like a statesman in europe) making that point one for me unlike you think (since its just an option. Not mandatory.).
Capping the investment.
And relatively Statesman do poorer as Carpenters then Carpenters do as Statesmen if both follow their proffession (and provided one sees early bells (as opposed to politics-points) as a liability in itself as opposed to an asset. Which i currently do in a neutral case).
At least at the start, before the bonus to productivity really kicks in.
While for all other jobs (save perhaps education naturally. But that just requires them to be present so its only a question if not both are in the colony. And Education comes into play later on anyways.) they are equal i belive (it might be even more painful to lose the statesmen so its true only to a certain extent.)
And since founding fathers are grab first and points from sawmill+council-hall are capped at a certain max, its not clearly mutually exclusive either (but still much easier to max the hammers thing fast then the bells-thing. And much less problematic + much more feasible in the short run which hugely effects the long run. If im not utterly mistaken.)
And because of the current situation i don't consider it as one of the worse jobs actually. But its known to be broken. So it might well be temporary and is to be taken as a pinch of salt. Still makes Carpenters even more valuable for sure then without those serious REF-issues which sounds to throw the balancing off a bit.
I consider flat out buying! statesmen nonworthy until lategame because of it. At least if i have the choice
(as opposed to the 3 immigrants up for grabs cheaply, one of them beeing Statesmen / Carpenter / Lumberjack or even a mix of some / all of them. But thats out of the players base of influence anyways more or less. And a lot of the early game for me just resolves around that variable (that makes for a good part of the replayability of col 1 and in Civ4:Col as well for sure. So thats naturally a big plus for the game. Now i did get 2 sesoned scouts there in my currently running game
. Go figure how i found that one in comparison to a carpenter or statesmen.
)...
If i should get a statesmen there early and nothing else interesting that might radically change my perspective. Will happen one day for sure. And you can bet i use em if they come walking to me cheaply on own "free will"...)
If the thing in the "cheasy but easy-thread" holds true though it might indeed be still feasible to get statesmen / bells early and then just outright stop using them for their master-duty. But thats exploit anyways. Big time. Even if i whouldn't feel bad about it (right now) if the king is such a jerk currently. His fault.
I have to admit that since i haven't (obviously) factored in the productivity-thing because of the drawbacks have been known to me and i didn't want to burn myself in my first few games (so that impression may be way off. I hope my reasons for ignoring that part are somewhat understandable even if it makes me do some faulty comments possibly. Still a "newcommers perspective").
But! the council-hall has 3 Slots and the carpenter (base) has just 2. So relativly specialists pay off there more (until sawmill kicks in at least. Which oddly might in the short term be an even better investment than a carpenter. Especially if one is waiting to immigrate soon anyways instead of the need to buy one.).
And a Statesmen + one nonstatesmen (money issues at the start) does not produce more than 3 'normal' colonists (some small food-issues which exist asside.).
Some things that reduce the lumber-problem a bit:
chopping trees brings lumber which does make sense for other reasons as well at times.
Lumber unlike other needed things actually seems to be cheap as dirt in Europe. (4 per unit is not all "that expensive" as a quick-fix for an up-for grabs FF. As might! be food to compensate for people cutting lumber instead of farming. But i could not really imagine a case were that really kicks in. Save food bought from indians.)
Lumber unlike bells can be pre-produced.
+ all those 3 thigs are cumulative not a substitute.
So the issue is not that bad as it seems in the first place...
Now don't get me wrong: Im not trying to say that devoid of all other factors, for getting FFs (especially of the politica and exploration categories and to a lesser degree trade FFs) and especially politics-points, carpenters are the better choice than elder statesmen.
But, that the overall deal is netting out by far better. Makeing the Carpenter (+ Lumberjack?) the better deal for a given neutral game overall (which includes the very real possibility to throw in some politics-points as needed and then diverting those resources elsewere.).
Thats the reason why i say under current! conditions a qouta of 1:10 or 1:15 per bell whould be better balanced compared to the whole deal a carpenter delivers. Given one very important assumption wich makes the whole thing a bit more situational: Liberty bells having a huge drawback.
So its more diversity vs. specialisation.
And you can be sure at the start i favor diversity of a very desirable commidity instead of specialisation in a very situational and intangiable good that comes with quite a drawback (which besides political FFS might not even accomplish getting the FF you need faster depending on category. Unlike a carpenter.).
(Important additional thing to take into consideration. Im starting to find an early partial buy of a lumbermill incresingly attractive (equaling the insta-buy of 3 master-carpenters more or less even if reducing the cap in the long run.). Something i couldn't imagine doing with a printing-press early under any circumstance right now, let alone a newspaper. For obvious reasons.)
Thats the very reason why i find the overall opportunity cost (including the one base hammer) is a point for my argument of carpenter > statesmen not against it (since hammers are by far more versatile than bells or politcs points and because you can freely chose when and where unlike with bells to such a degree). In spite of what you say.
I hope its still possible to grasp all that long gibberish i write here.
And the statesman agitating himself until he is really convinced beeing right and the king beeing wrong is big fun to picture.
To elaborate my point broader though, picture the following: 2 colonists of whatever profession argue long and broad in the council hall about politics (as opposed to one statesman agitating about politics) while the poor Carpenter (all the while cutting out some wooden tablets about politics for them...
) has to listen to all that pestering arguments and is only slowly convinced. Now one day suddenly, those 2 colonists get fed up with wasting their time agitating that beleagered poor Carpenter and leave the city. Now that they leave him alone for some time to think about it, he suddenly gets convinced by their arguments and works better then never before (100 percent sentiment as well). Whould that work as well? (some minor food-issues aside which are fixable at least according to my experience)
So all i can see as an advantage in the statesman agitating himself right now is some safed food. At the price of half the yield of 2 colonists doing other jobs instead of 1. (So my point beeing that its not a real huge advantage to get an elder one until either you got 2 of those or you got 1 elder and 2 other colonists to spare for producing bells.)
All that said under the current! conditions. If things change, the base of all things i said change as well. So take with caution and a pinch of salt!
Sorry for the time it took. I think the most rought things are put out now. Happy commenting (and im sure i have missed some important things. Thanks for helping me understand the game better.
)
On the AI: i have my doubts about that one (again: Thats another possible glitch which i whould very much see beeing founded in a multiplayer oriented design for civ4:Col).
At least closeby AI can be finished of by either kicking in their door with soldiers or paying a few hundred gold to let the indians do that job.
Which should do more securely (heresay: Even on higher difficulties sadly. And the indians vs. early colonies seems like big REF vs. Mayflower pilgrims...
). So its the player not takeing the backseat here the AI very much seems to be unable to handle the military-part unlike in Col1 (but even there early AI closeby means dead AI closeby...
).
Now that said we are leading sorts of an hearsay-argument here.
Which is fine by me.
Other players though are a much! different matter. (Now there the Europe-starting setup plays a huge! role. And the winning conditions might be different so the REF seems more or less moot there according to some posts in this forums here. Which whould make bells a way more viable thing there.).
But that said i don't care for competative multiplayer. A bit. (coop vs. AI is a different matter alltogether. But only if the AI is capable of anything in revolutionary.) If you do lean to competative multiplayer strongly, we speak of more or less different games anyways. Nothing bad in that. And at rare times i may venture into competative multiplayer as well just to have a peak. Still expecting few from it.