In my most recent game I was on my Archeological Dig spree, and in one case I replaced a Brazilwood Camp in the vicinity of a city I had conquered with an Archaeological Dig. Once I picked the Landmark Improvement, this is really the first time it hit me just how underwhelming the Landmark Improvements actually are - and after some comparing and contrasting, I'm having some difficulty justifying their use at all (and this particular Dig was Classical, and thus one of the larger bonuses).
First off, the Brazilwood Camp itself was providing more culture than the Dig, which already eliminates the purpose of the Dig - and this is not counting the food, gold, research, etc. that the old tile was providing.
When comparing a Dig to a standard Farm, Mine, or otherwise - while none of the latter provide culture, the overall output of other things is undeniably superior to the output of the Landmark itself.
Thirdly, while the Landmark does provide superior culture to an Artifact, the Artifact nonetheless provides enough culture (especially with potential bonuses) that the difference in culture output is trivial, PLUS the Artifact produces Tourism, PLUS this is done without the need to employ a citizen on a tile.
I don't know about you, but Landmarks in CBP at the moment strike me as being one step short of pointless. The fact of the matter is that in their own way, they are a "resource" tile - the sort of tile that ought to be important enough to always be worked by a citizen. But it isn't. So, some thoughts on this...
1. Double the culture output from Landmarks?
2. Add a Tourism benefit to Landmarks? (Realistic, as people even in our day go to Egypt for example to visit the Pyramids and other such digs.)
3. Tourism instead of culture at Landmarks? (I'm not such a fan at this one.)
In any case, my point is that it would be nice to default to a Landmark in my own territory unless I critically need the Artifact in question for a theming bonus of some kind. Culture worked from tiles is unique - it would certainly be neat to have a reason to capitalize on it more often.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
First off, the Brazilwood Camp itself was providing more culture than the Dig, which already eliminates the purpose of the Dig - and this is not counting the food, gold, research, etc. that the old tile was providing.
When comparing a Dig to a standard Farm, Mine, or otherwise - while none of the latter provide culture, the overall output of other things is undeniably superior to the output of the Landmark itself.
Thirdly, while the Landmark does provide superior culture to an Artifact, the Artifact nonetheless provides enough culture (especially with potential bonuses) that the difference in culture output is trivial, PLUS the Artifact produces Tourism, PLUS this is done without the need to employ a citizen on a tile.
I don't know about you, but Landmarks in CBP at the moment strike me as being one step short of pointless. The fact of the matter is that in their own way, they are a "resource" tile - the sort of tile that ought to be important enough to always be worked by a citizen. But it isn't. So, some thoughts on this...
1. Double the culture output from Landmarks?
2. Add a Tourism benefit to Landmarks? (Realistic, as people even in our day go to Egypt for example to visit the Pyramids and other such digs.)
3. Tourism instead of culture at Landmarks? (I'm not such a fan at this one.)
In any case, my point is that it would be nice to default to a Landmark in my own territory unless I critically need the Artifact in question for a theming bonus of some kind. Culture worked from tiles is unique - it would certainly be neat to have a reason to capitalize on it more often.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?