Highest leader ratings without UU/UBs

Seriously? There is a whole strategy that revolves around settling great people, and it's very powerful at the highest difficulties.

I don't know, but from my Huge / Marathon experience, one gets the 1st GP with a normal, non-philosphic leader at about 1500 BC, maybe a little earlier if one pushes it. At that time, my empire makes makes 100 Beakers without cities building Wealth, with building Wealth it makes twice as much, so a settled GS would only bring 2,5-5% of the Research.
In addition to that, my Capital alone makes 30 :commerce: , so an Academy would give back more :science: then the settled GS would do. And for the people who say "yer, but that's with a 3 Gold start" I say "no, that is with a slow-growing Capital as there was no :food: except FP's and Capital set to Cottages so they and the city can grow and it was with late Cottages as Pottery wasn't self-teched but traded for with Alpha, which should equalize for HC being financial".
And: Even the 2nd and 3rd City do as much as 20 :commerce: only working some financial coast and again some Cottages, so again, even there an Academy would give back more :science: then a settled GS.
On top of that: A possible bulb at that time would be Theology or even Philosphy, on Huge / Marathon those Techs cost 3000 :beakers: and 4500 :beakers: , so the settled GS whom I count for 7,5 :beakers: (6 + Library) would begin to generate profit after 400-600 Turns! Game is over by that point and the an earlier Theology or Philosphy is worth more then a few beakers more for Future Tech XY.

I really don't see, why one should SETTLE a GP and not use their special Abilities.

I thought about it, and I just have to laugh at this. Early Academy is critical - it's often a 30-40% boost to your total bpt. Far more useful than later in the game, where your research is often spread out over a half-dozen cities and will soon get universities.

As for settling GPs on purpose... I've never made it work, but look at basically any of obsolete's SSE games (there's quite a few listed in this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6360663&postcount=3 )

In short, it is quite a viable strategy right up through Deity.

I agree, that an Academy, with an empire which has few cities, may be worthful. Anyhow, a bulb imho gives more before running Buro. And your Numbers must be wrong. If 1 Academy gives back 30-40% :beakers: , you're playing OCC, as the increase of Research with an Academy is about 40% if the city has a Library.
 
Your reasoning in favour of academies assumes that a lot of your commerce goes to science. Not always the case - I often push my economy to a point where I'm losing money at 100% gold for a time. Concentrating your science output in one city with settled Great Scientists makes sense here.

Immediate vs. gradual rewards is a different beast and doesn't always depen on sheer efficiency. Returns on most things other than new cities (which put a lot of strain on your economy in the short term) are quite modest - consider 2 +2 cap raisers plus the food required to grow as the investment, merely to work 2 cottages or 1 mine supported by a farm. And this assumes you have grassland to spare.
Settled specialists and academies can afford to be a little less efficient than the others because 1) you have more control over where you get the bonus, meaning better multipliers 2) It's something you can invest above and beyond what's regularly available. We don't refuse to build universities just because they suck compared to libraries.

Another consideration especially on faster speeds is that I don't want to speed up the global tech pace; absolute progress is less important than the time window for the gamewinning move. Diplomacy is also more awkward if you try to get ahead early, as opposed to optimising for the long run and let a sugar daddy/mommy carry my progress in the meantime.
 
Your reasoning in favour of academies assumes that a lot of your commerce goes to science. Not always the case - I often push my economy to a point where I'm losing money at 100% gold for a time. Concentrating your science output in one city with settled Great Scientists makes sense here.

That is, why I said 1500 BC. i just looked up Mylenes latest normal game. Oracle gets built at 1700 BC, she has Alpha and Math by that time, so an Orracle -> Currency is possible, even on normal. (Btw, :hammers: come cheaper on Huge / Marathon as I heard and techs require more :science: , so one gets Techs later and Wonders are built earlier, so Currency through Oracle should be even more difficult on Marathon / Huge then it is on normal) .
With Currency, one can normally support the growing empire at at least 30% tech-rate (more with building wealth) even AFTER an ultra-expansion-phase of 1000y with science set to 0%. At least one should restart research there imho, to not fall to far backwards, and even with a Science-Slider as low as 30%, 10 :science: (Capital Size 8 working Cottages + some TRs getting an Academy) is more then 7 :science: if settling the GS. Only with a Science-Slider set below 20% for a longer time, settling would make sense, but running below 20% at that time is a big gamble imho. Believe me, I also expand hard, VERY hard, but loosing GPT at 0% Research? That's Overexpanding, and not good for more than 1000y and only if that are early 1000y where the AI also expands, if you do that later, you'll be so backwards that you won't be able to catch up / establish a tech-lead, though games can be won without that. Perhaps you're even more of a Warmonger then me.

Immediate vs. gradual rewards is a different beast and doesn't always depen on sheer efficiency. Returns on most things other than new cities (which put a lot of strain on your economy in the short term) are quite modest - consider 2 +2 cap raisers plus the food required to grow as the investment, merely to work 2 cottages or 1 mine supported by a farm. And this assumes you have grassland to spare.
Settled specialists and academies can afford to be a little less efficient than the others because 1) you have more control over where you get the bonus, meaning better multipliers 2) It's something you can invest above and beyond what's regularly available. We don't refuse to build universities just because they suck compared to libraries.

Where can't you chose to build an Academy and what does this have to do with the possibilty, that one can bulb a tech, worth 400-600 turns (Marathon, translates to 133-200 turns on Normal) in beakers of the settled specialist and have it instant? Bring an example, in which pure settling makes sense, and what does that argument with universities have to do with that? Universities are good, to build Oxford and then only if the game lasts as long as panzers or if they're speeded up by traits. I didn't even talk about the phase of the game, where Universities are available, that's past CS, I was talking about before that. Tell me, why don't you build Universities, besides that they're simply to expansive to build more than the required ones for Oxford.

Another consideration especially on faster speeds is that I don't want to speed up the global tech pace; absolute progress is less important than the time window for the gamewinning move. Diplomacy is also more awkward if you try to get ahead early, as opposed to optimising for the long run and let a sugar daddy/mommy carry my progress in the meantime.

Speeding up the global tech-pace comes through excessive tech-trade, what does that have to do with settling a GP, building an Academy or bulbing? As I hink, on faster speeds the biggest time window is with Cuirrassiers, as AI fails to tech them, bulb Philosophy with the 1st GS, build an Academy with the 2nd GS, run a GA with the GA from Music, get 2-3 more GSs, bulb hard in Education and Liberalism and you're done. Bulbing those, without having to trade for them, hightens the tech-pace for you while not hightening the one of others, so it's exactly what you want.

:confused:
 
I'm going to vote for Genghis.

Not because he's a great leader, but because he seems like the kind of guy you could sit down and have a fermented mare's milk with, unlike the rest of them elitist pointy-headed bureaucrats in Karakorum.

Genghis/Monty in 2012!
 
I'm going to vote for Genghis.

Not because he's a great leader, but because he seems like the kind of guy you could sit down and have a fermented mare's milk with, unlike the rest of them elitist pointy-headed bureaucrats in Karakorum.

Genghis/Monty in 2012!

Pretty sure that, given how turbulent the Republican nomination process has been so far, Genghis and Monty are both about due to lead the field for the Not Romney people sometime in the next month.

[/politics]
 
Back
Top Bottom