Great Persons Advantages/Disadvantages

[Oggums]

Turning a bunch of archers into infantry can cause a serious increase in your defensive ability. I find that waiting for that much cash to build up means I have to upgrade turn-for-turn, often leaving cities more poorly defended. Any ideas? Is that a sound use for merchants or is it ALWAYS better to install them and wait for the cash to come in?

Well, I'm a huge fan of having a merchant city. To me the trade mission is wasteful and also a bit of a hassle. If you're talking about turning archers into infantry, then I'd say you would be better off having wall street in a holy city that's also full of super-specialist merchants. Once your core cities have banks and towns, it only takes a few turns at 0% science to afford upgrades. But if you need gold to do a quick upgrade on a bunch of axes to macemen, then for sure you're going to be better off with a trade mission.

It's that one extra food you get out of the deal with the super-specialist, that always tips the scale for me. You definitely lose it by doing a trade mission.

 

[GABB]

An Academy multiplies science in a city by 50% and adds no research points in and of itself, unlike a Super Specialist. Say you instead build an Academy with your second Great Scientist in a city that is producing 17 "beakers" per turn (that's not counting other multipliers like libraries; the multipliers don't multiply one another). The Academy would give you a boost of 8.5 research points. That's not even half of what the science super-specialist will give you in your science city on a non-Representation civic.

Absolutely agree, I can add: super-scientist add 1 Hammer/turn. 10 super-scientist add 10 Hammers/turn (2 free mines, ) in that city.

Academies add +4 , but if you are going for culture, building Sistine Chapel, two super-scientist will provide this culture (all this before multipliers).

In my actual game (with Alex - Terra - Large Map - Prince) I'm running in early industrial era at 0% and I discover tech faster than average AI.

Another Note: I don't build a single cottage in my land.

 

[Gumbolt]

Base commerce excluding science and taxes were 114 and 128 and 91 75 in top four cities. with 50% science and buildings in cities this comes in at 128, 146 , 105, 90 same order as above. I had to load a previous save at 1770ad for these figures. I didnt check what civics i had at this date. I didnt check if the figures all included acadenies at 1770ad.

These figures were probably helped by financial trait, rivers and commerce based resources around cities.

I had to go to an earlier load as i finished game with a domination win yesterday.

 

[Spammurabi]

Base commerce excluding science and taxes were 114 and 128 and 91 75 in top four cities. with 50% science and buildings in cities this comes in at 128, 146 , 105, 90 same order as above.

The issue here is that your final numbers of 128, 146, 105, and 90 are not the numbers which are increased by 50%- percentage gains are additive rather than cumulative. The number which is modified by the academy, as said by previous posters, is the *base* science rate. With a 50% science rate and your top four cities, this comes out to be 57, 64, 45, and 37. The amount of science gained by adding an academy for these cities would be 28, 32, 22, and 18, repectively.

So, if you were running Representation, you would only gain science in city #2, as the gain is above 30. If you were not running representation, then it would be better to add an academy to cities 1, 2, and 3 before adding as super specialist to your oxford city, as your beaker gain is above the 20 it would be from settling. It is still better to settle an extra scientist in your Oxford city than in city 4.

I was a former member of the "Academies everywhere" camp- but typically, I only have 2 or 3 cities which break 60 base science, and especially if I'm running a Philo nation and built the pyramids, piling Superspecialists into my Oxford (or future Oxford) city is a no-brainer.

 

[Gumbolt]

Okay a scientist added to a city would add 29.25 beakers with representation assuming representation and you have oxford university in leading city and all other science buildings. At this stage Oxford was not built in my game. On those figures any city making over 29.25 adds value in terms of science if the 50% from academy does not add above that. This is assuming another type of leader does not provide better value in terms of effect beyond 29.5 beakers science. Although I wasnt running Representation and Oxford had not been built so i wouldnt of made even 19.5 beakers.

The 50% science figure allowed for an excess gold per turn of 347 on that saved turn 1770ad. If i stuck on 50% science then perhaps the value would of been to add a scientist to city if you assume anything below 30 beakers is not maximising value as pointed out on this post. I could of upped the science rate to 70% with loss of 7 gold a turn probably made up by micromanagement anyway. I think its worthwhile to factor this in. I had 30+ cities at this stage.

Approx value for top 4 cities at 70%. (Not done 60%)

75x0.7*0.5= 26.25
91*0.7*0.5=31.85
114*0.7*0.5=39.5
128*0.7*0.5=44.58 I have not rounded number up or down.

Based on this strategy the top 3 cities would warrant an academy as a gain over 30 beakers from what has previously been stated on this post. I would also argue for the fourth based on no representation and the aim to max out science.

The crux of this is where do you apply the science rate to work out where the value comes from a Academy or a scientist added to a city. The 29.25 is fixed. The percentage of commerce you give towards science is not so looking just at base rate of commerce is perhaps misleading in my opinion.

On the figures i provided yes the second set of figures included buildings but not all of them had all science buildings available built and some were not at full population either. Oxford was not built at this stage although it is available to build and buy within 5 or 6 turn. so in effect its 125% gain in science from a scientist under representation untill this happens.

In any case i think i only made 4 academies of which 3 meet the criteria as proposed by this post at 70% science. Although all 4 would make over 19 science beakers a turn at 70% science.

A few thoughts.

1. If your going to add a scientist to city anyway you must have decided the other leader types dont add value then you must add any academy that adds over 30 beakers by adding 50% to base rate.

2. There another matter of maximising the science rate over over positive cashflow a turn you require. In my view if you can afford a higher science rate more cities would require academies. On Univ. Suf. question of invest v's science rate.

Also a question of when you can really expect 29.25 beakers a turn. Lot of techs wont arrive to later years anyway.

If you decide to stick on representation theres an arguement for engineers to speed up some key wonders if you dont want to wait x turns to build them if science is a key goal. on a pure commerce city production may not be great.

Anyway i have babbled long enough on this. Sorry if previous post was unclear. I hope my further thoughts have added value to this post.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This might be a good topic for the Strategy Articles section, but as I am asking the question, I will put it here:

Has anyone done an analysis of the relative merits of using each of the great people for each of their purposes? I ask because sometimes it is not clear which use for which person would be better:

It depends on what timescale you play at. I often play at marathon, and techs count for a lot more than at faster timescales, so I will almost always use a great person to lightbulb a new tech. However, I believe this holds even for faster timescales because if you lightbulb a new tech, its discovery pays for itself with new buildings and such, such that it offsets not using the GP as a super specialist. The only time I will not do this is when lightbulbing yields a tech that I have no interest (either at the moment or ever). Believe it or not, there are some techs that can be avoided, especially if you have certain leader traits as opposed to others.

I'll almost never culture bomb (with a great artist) the same city in which he was born, because that city usually has plenty of culture already. Instead, I'll take him somewhere near the border with another civ, where their culture is lower, and culture bomb that. I've gotten neighoring cities to rebel and join me, including barbarian cities!

Also, I have a special interest in the great engineer, as he can rush wonders. If I sprout one, I'll look for a wonder to rush, and if there isn't one, I'll keep him in reserve until one is soon to appear.

 

[Spammurabi]

Well, as a counterpoint to the "when can you really expect 29.25 beakers a turn" argument- when can you really expect to have a base science rate of 60 per turn? After Printing Press and with Free Speech- right around the same time as you can expect your top science city to have a 225% bonus, and thus 29.25 bpt.

Earlier on in the game, you might only have a library and an academy- a 75% bonus, for 10.5 or 15.75 beakers, depending on whether you snagged the pyramids for Representation or not. Having a base science rate of 20 or 30 in the pre-education era is going to be a pretty rare case- cities with gold and cottaged flood plains might be able to get that high, but most of the time early in the game you'll benefit more from settling scientists in a city with an academy.

Later on in the game, with heavily-cottaged cities and an empire capable of supporting a decent tech rate (likely, with all the commerce you have) academies will definitely be able to generate more science than a settled scientist- it all depends on when you're getting these super scientists generated.

 

[Sisiutil]

Interesting debate we've touched off here.

Part of the problem with trying to definitively figure out the exact mathematical value of Academy-multiplied research points versus those from a merged Great Scientist is that the conditions in the game do not remain the same.

Gumbolt makes a good point, you don't get Oxford until at least mid-game even if you bee-line to it, and who does that? So if you have a merged GS early, it's going to take awhile before you get his full benefits--especially if you're not using the Representation civic.

By the same token, though, many players plunge research down to 0% for several turns to raise money when needed, or reallocate citizens working commerce-heavy tiles to ones producing more food or production.

This constant fluctuation in the game, however, is probably one more reason why I'm a fan of merged Great Scientists. Their base rate of 6 research points per turn stays constant, all game long, no matter what else you do, and it's multiplied by whatever science buildings are in their city. An Academy's contributions to research will vary wildly throughout the game.

 

[actionmedia]

AFAIK one GP povides 1000 and so beakers for discovering a new tech. I never use them to discover cheap tech because it is a realy waste of beakers. Only if that would give me an advantage I would consume a GP for a cheap tech.
The shrines I build them later in the game, early I add the GP to the city.

 

[Strobe]

I agree with the good points raised here but would like to add a couple of things I consider early-mid game.

Using a merchant for trade gives you instant cash which can be more useful than long-term gain, or rather it can support a bigger long-term gain. In a recent game I used cash to speed up research and bee-line grenadier and cannon earlier as I was planning a war. This gave me a slightly longer period before the AI caught up and and gave me a longer window of opportunity to carry out my war effectively (this is a regular decision as I often require funding of my war effort ).

If you research techs you have to consider not only the beakers value but also the trade value of the tech. Getting a tech first can be a consideration for me if the AI has something useful I think they will trade and I could make us of (this is still rare for me though).

 

[Fetch]

Great responses everyone. That was what I was looking for...

Another side question: Many people seem to use their Merchants as long-term cash production, but I have always used them as quick-cash sources. While over the course of several hundred turns, the merchant DOES generate more cash, I find that often, I need cash NOW. WHen I get a great Merchant, I often use it to get $2500-$3000 and then use the cash for a quick army-wide upgrade. Turning a bunch of archers into infantry can cause a serious increase in your defensive ability. I find that waiting for that much cash to build up means I have to upgrade turn-for-turn, often leaving cities more poorly defended. Any ideas? Is that a sound use for merchants or is it ALWAYS better to install them and wait for the cash to come in?

In corporate finance, we firmly believe in the mantra "A dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow." I haven't evaluated Civ 4 on this completely, but as a rule in life, it's better to get $1000 when you're 20, than when you're 50, because you have time to invest it and make it be more like $10,000 when you're 50. Loosely applying this to Civ, getting $1000 from a great merchant in 5 BC can be magnified over the years like adding a specialist, for 2 reasons:

* Civ has an inflation cost in it's finance calculations
* Having (for example) longbowmen earlier because you can afford to upgrade your archers means your power leve has gone up significantly. Congratulations, you're now less likely to be invaded. Your cities remain yours, thus producing $. This is just the first example that I thought of. I'm sure more experienced players can see other uses.

 

[GABB]

In corporate finance, we firmly believe in the mantra "A dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow." I haven't evaluated Civ 4 on this completely, but as a rule in life, it's better to get $1000 when you're 20, than when you're 50, because you have time to invest it and make it be more like $10,000 when you're 50. Loosely applying this to Civ, getting $1000 from a great merchant in 5 BC can be magnified over the years like adding a specialist, for 2 reasons:

* Civ has an inflation cost in it's finance calculations
* Having (for example) longbowmen earlier because you can afford to upgrade your archers means your power leve has gone up significantly. Congratulations, you're now less likely to be invaded. Your cities remain yours, thus producing $. This is just the first example that I thought of. I'm sure more experienced players can see other uses.

This is a good point, but most of people subestimate the super-specialist "small boost".

For example, Using 2 Merchants for Trade missions you will get 2 gold burst "Today". Adding 2 super-merchants to Wall Street City will give you money for many turn + 2 EXTRA FOOD (1 more mine "worked for free" for many turns).

Of course, I suppose that you don't have problems "Today" and your longbowmens can wait a bit (without die)

 

[Oggums]

I just don't like the hassle of moving him around, so I drop him off on wall street.

 

[Compromise]

I've often tried halfheartedly to figure out how to best use Great People. I came across this thread once, and it's got me thinking that another factor in the optimal use of Great People is the difficulty you're playing at.

In the thread, Aeson's main point is that at Deity, the tech race is "the" game. It's what you need to master to be competitive. Using Great People to pop techs gives you the chance to have techs before the AI so you can trade them for others.

I don't think this strategy applies at levels lower than immortal or maybe emperor, though, because you can settle or otherwise use the Great People to give you a good enough research rate (either directly or by providing cash that allows higher research percentage) that you can be competitive with the AI without needing to rely so much on tech trading.

Also, the thread discussion was pre-1.61 and Aeson's experience seemed to be primarily pre-1.0! Still, it's food for thought.

 

[Gumbolt]

Its an interesting thought on adding a leader to a city early on. A new tech may cost 79-1700+ beakers to develop. How many turns would it take a specialist to make this up? A gain of 30 beakers a turn would take 60 or so turns to make up 1700 beakers. plus any other bonuses such as hammers, culture, food etc a specialist may add.

At 30 extra beakers assuming 225% after the 60 turns you enter into excess beakers beyond which the free tech provided. In early parts of games 9-12 beakers of science should be possible given pyramids and libraries.

This shouldnt be too hard to work out as the game limits the maximum amount of possible beakers you can be given towards researching an AI selected tech.

Free tech v's turns required to get the equivalent gain. Whats the optimum result? Under 20 turns to make up free tech? 50 turns? 100 turns? Whats a realistic turn scale on the average game. Theres an argument on Merchants too to allow a higher science rate and increase GP farm food surplus.

I did like the argument of using the free tech to trade or sell to an ai. Mind you this kind of logic makes it harder to compare strategies. Also in my experience not all of the AI are willing to trade techs and in some cases trading techs speeds up AI city improvements and normally speeds up better units such as longbowmen, knights making invading other AI more work. Also your not always offered techs you want.

 

[Oggums]

In order to use the GP->tech for trading, you have to be very directed in your research path, as well as carefully planning your great people output, so that you're making sure you have access to the "good" techs when your GP spawns. This takes extreme knowledge of which great people give which techs, and in what order. While learning this, it's not a bad idea to just hold onto one of your great persons, and follow the research they offer.

For example, I now know that getting Theology is a fantastic use of a Prophet (not just for the religion, but because of the guaranteed trading opportunities), because he when wanted to give me Mediation, Polytheism etc., I'd simply research those out of the way until he offered up something good.

For a practical example, if you work specifically toward building the Oracle->Code of Laws in an Emperor game, using a Philosophical leader, then in my experience you will have an almost guaranteed chance at having two superb techs to trade and catch yourself up in the tech race. The AI generally wont have CoL, so with that you catch up on all the lesser techs (Mathematics, worker techs etc.). Next, if you finish research up to Theology before your Oracle's GP points pop a Prophet (doesn't take long with Philo, and you'd also build your confucian temple and put in a priest), using the first prophet for Theology will allow you to catch up on the higher tier techs (currency, construction, etc.). A bonus is that you have now also founded two religions.

 

[a4phantom]

Can culture bombing a border city cause the AI to declare war with you? I culture bombed a city and its expanded borders gave me two Chinese dye plantations. The next turn they declared war on me. The Chinese always declare war on me and in this game our relations were already tense so it could have been a coincidence, but I suspect that the casus belli was cultural encroachment on resources. Does the AI think this way?

 

[Andrei_V]

Academies are good in heavily cottaged cities, even if they do not make 60 beakers right now - they will, eventually.

In a specialist-based economy, you build only one Academy in your Super-Science city, and add all the GSs as Super Specialists.

Sometimes it makes sense to burn a GS towards a tech like Education, although it would bring more beakers as SS in a long run. However, getting Universities and Oxford 10-15 turns earlier can be a lot more benefitical than a single SS.

Other Great People can discover many useful techs as well. Like burning two GAs will give you typically 99% of Democracy.

 

[Daning]

Not sure if this is the right spot for this question, but could anyone give me a link to a chart that shows which techs can be discovered by each type of GP. I've seen people mentioning the chart a few times, but I could not find it myself.

The strategy guide only says that GMs can discover 'commercial techs, for example, banking'.

I believe that the chart should show which techs of the same type will be discovered first, for example, if I have both Paper and Astronomy available for research, which one will be picked by my GS?

Thanks

 

[yavoon]

Interesting debate we've touched off here.

Part of the problem with trying to definitively figure out the exact mathematical value of Academy-multiplied research points versus those from a merged Great Scientist is that the conditions in the game do not remain the same.

Gumbolt makes a good point, you don't get Oxford until at least mid-game even if you bee-line to it, and who does that? So if you have a merged GS early, it's going to take awhile before you get his full benefits--especially if you're not using the Representation civic.

By the same token, though, many players plunge research down to 0% for several turns to raise money when needed, or reallocate citizens working commerce-heavy tiles to ones producing more food or production.

This constant fluctuation in the game, however, is probably one more reason why I'm a fan of merged Great Scientists. Their base rate of 6 research points per turn stays constant, all game long, no matter what else you do, and it's multiplied by whatever science buildings are in their city. An Academy's contributions to research will vary wildly throughout the game.

irrelevant strategic logic. it is likely if ur academy "isnt doing much" its because its damn well necessary for it not to be doing much. the real answer to the question is just which will output more, not anything along the lines of "I like that the scientists research can't be moved to commerce ever"