Settling scientist vs free tech.

[Ermak-]

Settling: +6 scince per turn and -1 food or -1 hammer (implied from using unimproved hex to work academy.
Free tech: example- free Astronomy (around 1000 science pts)

Let's assume you already have College and University and 6pts will be multiplied by 100% = 12pts. So 1000/12=83 turns. So after 83 turns both option are equal in scince output, except you just missed out on 83 food or hammers if you picked academy. That is a very long time, alot of the game already have been decided by this time, where is when u pick free tech you get immidiate result which you can use to you advantage further increasing your lead.

In conclusion, it is extreemly dumb idea to ever settle a scientist. The only cases I see which will be logical to do that is very early (like with Babylonians) when you cant pop expensive tech. Even then Sivil Servive tech could be more or less then justified. Also- maybe in a capital with college+university+observatory which yields combined 15 pts from 150% modifier possibly.

I suggest they should increase the academy yield, not even talkign about +4 manifactury/ +4 custom house and +4 culture hub. Those are underpowerd by ALOT and not even worth considering at all.

 

[markulous]

Yeah I've never found the need to settle a scientist. I don't really settle generals either. Engineers I always settle though. For artists I usually only settle if I'm going for a culture win.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree that the Settled Merchant*, Engineer, and Scientist should all be boosted


*part of boosting the Merchant needs to be making AI=/=ATMs (which boosts the other Static uses of the Merchant as well.)


Not sure the Artist needs boosting, as Culture is harder to get.. and their "instant use" doesn't get you any culture.

 

[seasnake]

A small buff wouldn't be bad, but the nice thing about academies is that, in the right city, you'll shave two or three turns off every tech, whereas a tech pop will only get you the one tech. You can quickly change directions and go after militaristic techs if your neighbors start getting twitchy.

In one game I had a National College/University/Observatory/two academies (picked the GS with Meritocracy, and then earned another later). It was producing a heap of science, so much so that I didn't bother to build to many science buildings in other places, just put out units and culture.

 

[chazzycat]

The academy is a substanital boost if placed in the NC city early in the game. Unless you have a specific strategy in mind to leverage the free tech (i.e. steel beeline for LS rush) I feel settling the academy is a stronger play.

 

[qyll]

I like to settle the first GS and bulb the rest.

 

[sir_toast]

i always bulb the GS. if there isn't anything good to pop right away you could always sit on the GS for a few turns. the only great person i ever settle is the GA and that's only if i'm going for a culture victory. The great engineer is the one I am iffy about- I always use him to blast out a wonder, but lately i'm considering sitting him down. if i do, where should i put him? on a mining resource? on a hill? anywhere else?

 

[chazzycat]

The prevailing wisdom is that sheep are the best tile - with a stable it will be 1F7H. Credit to Martin in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=420040

Also I'd consider placing it in a tile that can be worked by multiple cities. That way you can switch cities on & off the super-tile based on their need at the time. (For instance your military city & a science city - switch to the science city when you research education to build the university, then back to the other city after)

 

[Shurdus]

What a poor example and an even more poor conclusion in the op.

You must not compare settling with some generic city that may have infrastructure x and y, but you need to look at potential benefits like beakers in a real focused science city.

Also, I do not see why it would be ' extremely dumb' to settle a GP, especially not if you base this on your little example that makes maybe sense in some cases. This game is way too complex to get strong conclusions like that from mediocre thought out examples like that.

 

[_hero_]

I miss settling scientists in cities and getting a +50% science academy out of it.

 

[Catastrophe90]

It depends on the situation. If I have a Science-focused city, complete with adjacent mountain and National College, I'll settle a few GSs until I have around 4 Academies there. If not, I'll burn them for tech. I usually take an Engineer from Meritocracy, so I usually don't get GSs before Education (unless a CS gifts one to me, I guess).,

As Babylon, however, I always settle the GS I get at Writing. They can make such a difference by shaving off 2-3 turns on pretty much all pre-Renaissance techs.

 

[Randall Turner]

The key for me is always available multipliers vs. flexible goals.

One of the posters mentioned a city with the National College, Observatory, etc - yes, if you have (or plan on building) a city like that, the Academy is attractive.

Likewise, whether I'm going for a culture victory or not, social policies make your civ more powerful - so I've always got one (usually my capitol) with all buildings through Broadcast Tower plus the Hermitage, resulting in a 3.33x "boost" - ie, a landmark will give you 30-some culture points, not just six.

Flexibility, though - if I've absolutely, positively got to get some Uranium and can't afford the Warmonger diplo hit, the Culture Bomb is, well, the bomb. Likewise, I'm Rifleman-based, I'm staring down the barrel of an AI civ steamrolling the world, I have to get involved - burning a Scientist and then an Engineer to get the Pentagon can let me upgrade my army and become a world power overnight.

And, the "multiplier" citys usually aren't set up until mid-late game. Burning Great People early, esp. for Wonders and the like, is common.

It's all situational. Quite fun, actually.

 

[Zechnophobe]

What a poor example and an even more poor conclusion in the op.

You must not compare settling with some generic city that may have infrastructure x and y, but you need to look at potential benefits like beakers in a real focused science city.

Also, I do not see why it would be ' extremely dumb' to settle a GP, especially not if you base this on your little example that makes maybe sense in some cases. This game is way too complex to get strong conclusions like that from mediocre thought out examples like that.

I don't really think you've countered his arguments at all. He gave some pretty good numbers there. Sure the game is sorta complex, but that doesn't mean you can't digest it down into understandable sums. 83 less hammers, having a tech much earlier. That's the opportunity cost of not bulbing. As the 83 turns becomes a greater % of the rest of the game, it becomes even more cost effective to bulb.

 

[Randall Turner]

Shurdus' objection was to the OP's absolute conclusion.

It's accurate to say settling a great person is often not a good strategy. It's too strong a statement to say that it's never a good strategy.

 

[Drawmeus]

The one counterexample that I can think of is if you go early Meritocracy in order to settle a great scientist. That can easily net you a 50% science boost for the next while.

I don't think it's better than late Meritocracy for a Great Engineer for a late-game wonder, and it's debatable whether it's better than early Meritocracy for a GE for Stonehenge or the Great Library, but it certainly can give you a huge science edge starting in the ancient era.

 

[Tabarnak]

If a GS gives a fixed amount of beakers in a future patch, you will probably think that settling a GS can be good(depending of strategy, i.e. short term goals vs long term ones). Otherwise, Ermak is right. It never worth it unless you play Babylon. It comes in a time where you may be already in the Rennaissance era, when techs begin to cost so much that RAs can do a well better job.

 

[glaivemaster]

I settle a Babylonian or Meritocracy GS for the ability to rush through lots of smaller, early techs. Over 83 turns, it is 1000 beakers, but by settling it you can spread those beakers around more efficiently than by just getting a tech now. As someone said, if you suddenly need to switch tech-tree direction, having the extra beakers always to hand is useful.

Of course, later than that first GS, I always bulb him. It often means I'm researching the tech I want least, so that I can get the tech I want sooner without wasting time, which seems really counter-intuitive

 

[Camikaze]

It's probably important to note that a free tech can get you more than just the tech. If you're going for an early wonder, it can greatly boost your chances of getting there. If you are going for conquest, a free tech will boost your chances in that regard too. It's not just about the tech itself, but the benefits you derive, the advantage you gain, from having that tech earlier.

 

[Uniform Sierra]

Don't settle any of the Great People. The only one I occasionally use is the Great General because of the 100% extra combat strength which is useful for narrow passes between mountains or certain map types that connect continents via a small stretch of land.

 

[Hawaiian]

I absolutely agree. It was the same in Civ IV and I can't figure out how people think it would be worth it to settle the scientist.

Bulb = INSTANT TECH, instant tech capabilities, instant advantage, move on

Settle = slow accumulation of science that is contingent on so many factors, including even working the stupid tile. Only viable usage is very early, so for more than half the game it's not even an intelligent choice. What's the point of settling the scientist, really?


Settled scientist needs a major buff in my opinion. I would love it if I actually had an intelligent choice to make with settling vs. bulbing. As it is now, it's just no question to bulb. Even early game, it's still more advantageous to bulb in mostly all situations.