Is there any difference between ...

lwchen

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 12, 2001
Messages
20
Assigning Tax Collectors and Scientists in the city view and adjusting the overall tax/science/luxury rate?

I suppose that if you had a city with improvements that supported either tax or science then it would behoove you to assign the appropriate specialist. For example, if you needed more science and had a city with a marketplace and bank then you'd be better off assigning some tax collectors and jacking up the science rate instead of just assigning scientists. Although the city appears to generate less science this way, it contributes more tax revenue, and this revenue ultimately leads to more science.

But after you build all your city improvements, this should even out. Adding to science will take away from tax, which takes away from science albeit indirectly ... and vice versa. Seems as if it should be a wash...

In the case of Wonders that generate specific science research it would make sense to assign more scientists than tax collectors. But heck if I remember to do this. I sure hope the governor does it for me.

Does anyone really bother to micromanage the specialists? I suppose it could provide an edge in the right situation, but I get a headache just thinking about it.

Couldn't Firaxis just eliminate the scientist and keep the tax collector and entertainer? Control over science would then be done solely via the tax/science/luxury rate.
 
Civ III's specialists are worthless. Well, not the entertainers, but the taxmen and scientists are garbage. They produce a flat 1 gold or 1 science per turn. That's it. In Civ II, they were useful, as their effects were modified by the corresponding buildings like libraries and marketplaces. For this reason, I don't use them. I usually plan my cities such that they stop growing right around size 20.

-Arrian
 
Back
Top Bottom