Specialists, a fix for tall?

[Myomoto]

I feel like the lacklustre yields of specialists has been a grievance in the community since the release of civ VI. But, seeing as the devs have promised to observe and accommodate community desires for upcoming balance patches during the year, I feel now is as good a time as any to reopen this discussion.

In previous iterations specialists were some of the main sources of great people points (GPP). This has been changed in VI, and specialists now only offer ~2 resources from working in a district (tier 3 buildings in a district will normally boost this yield by 1). Meanwhile, the districts themselves, as well as the buildings inside them will offer GPP passively.

This means that the superior strategy for generating great people is to have many districts of the appropriate type (i.e. wide), rather than growing a large population in a single/few cities (i.e. tall) to accommodate a large population of specialists.

The overall weakness of specialists is also further weakened by the fact that the yields of tile improvements generally goes up with the acquisition of techs (like how apprenticeship boosts yields from mines), meaning it is usually always a better choice to work surrounding tiles, rather than working your districts. I.e. a mine can easily give +4 production and some additional yields, while a specialist in an industrial zone will give a measly +2 production.

Likewise, there are policy cards for boosting the yields of buildings in districts and the yields from district adjacency bonuses, but no policy cards to boost specialist yields at all.

Would changing GPP yields to be from specialists working in a district, rather than from the building themselves be an adequate fix for specialists to make them attractive, or should policy cards like Rationalism be changed to boost specialist yields rather than building yields?

Or do you think specialists are perfectly fine as is - basically a consolation prize for running out of workable tiles around your city?

Personally, I would like to see specialists become some of the dominant yields in the later game. This is more thematic of how your cities can start to support bigger populations that can get appropriate educations (i.e. specialize), and is precisely how history has played out.

 

[Mahi]

I've been barging up that tree ever since civ 6 came out. It was one of the biggest disappointments for me with civ 6 that the specialist system had been dumbed down to actually being completely neglectable in the game. I still love coming back to civ 5 or 4 just to enjoy the specialist system in those games.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I love putting populations to campuses, 2 science is not bad.

However I agree that the GP point shall move to specialists instead of being in buildings. Maybe 2 per specialist per turn is fine, in order to balance the loss from buildings.

 

[GrumboMumbo]

I think this is probably one of the best changes they could make for the health of the game. I would say adding 1GPP to a specialist would be fine. Maybe for balance just transfer them from the buildings to the specialist slots, so instead of getting 1GPP from library, you have to work the specialist slot. Then perhaps there could be a late game policy card that buffs specialists? 1 food 1 production for specialists in a city with a governor? Or something along those lines...

I think it would be a huge improvement to completely rework the rationalism card to fit around specialists, as you already suggested

 

[Myomoto]

I love putting populations to campuses, 2 science is not bad.

However I agree that the GP point shall move to specialists instead of being in buildings. Maybe 2 per specialist per turn is fine, in order to balance the loss from buildings.

Campuses, and potentially theatre squares, I understand. Their yields are generally very hard to come by outside the districts. But something like the industrial zone giving +2 production per citizen is just pathetic.

 

[KayAU]

I completely agree with @Myomoto, I have also been asking for a boost to specialists for a long time now. These days, I mostly play Vox Populi, and contrast between how developed everything related to specialists in that game is compared to Civ 6 is stark. I wonder how much thought actually went into Civ 6 specialists, it seems to be a very underdeveloped feature.

Boosting specialists a bit is probably the quickest path to making large cities suck less, although I would like a full rethink of how districts work too. Districts in highly developed cities should yield more, and there should be more synergies for having many districts in a city.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

By enhancing the effects of Specialists AND tying them to Buildings instead of Districts, you could make the game and your cities much more specific and individualistic.
For example, instead of dumping a generic 'specialist' into an Industrial Zone, what if each Building in it had a Specialist slot - or more than one?
Workshop = 1 Slot
Factory = 2 Slots
Effect per Specialist = + X Production

AND since the 'specialists' in this case represent Industrial Workers, for every X such specialists you have there would be Civic/Social effects: Social Democracy, Labor Unions, etc. The game could be made much richer in several aspects not directly related to pure 'Production'

Other Buildings could be given Specialists that contribute to more than one effect. For instance, early literacy in Mesopotamia and Egypt was taught in Temple Schools, since the religious hierarchy required record-keepers as much as the 'government' did (and sometimes they were the same people!). So, your Shrine or Temple could have a Specialist Slot that could be filled with either a pure Religious Specialist to provide +1 or 2 Religion (+1 for Shrine, +2 for Temple), or a Scribe that provides, say, +1 Science or +1 Science, +1 Religion. Possibly with a Bonus if you have a Theocratic Government.

Buildings could be Upgraded by simply providing more Specialist Slots, possibly through Civics: a Factory getting Multiple Shifts (+1 Specialist slot) or a Library adding Internet Access (+1 'Scientific' Specialist Slot) in the Information Era.
Adding Specialists to Barracks, Stables, Armories, could add to the Experience they give to units built there, representing, among other things, increased emphasis on the Training Establishment that eats up so much modern military manpower.

The Specialist concept has so much potential for adding variety and texture to the other game components that it makes the whole game less than it should be.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Do Specialists - and buildings for that matter, not any effect the yield for running projects?

 

[Sostratus]

As far as GPP - there's an unused table in the files that allows you to attach GPP to specialists. The fact that it's there probably tells you they considered it at some point.

I think they have acknowledge a few times that making a bunch of +2 yield objects doesn't work well - see the changes to various buildings.
Why this wasn't carried over to specialists i don't know. They did change some specialist yields at some point (but never increased the base yield.) The way it is now, with specialists getting boosts from t3 buildings - basically just misses the entire portion of the game where having a "specialist economy" could be an interesting decision.

 

[Myomoto]

Do Specialists - and buildings for that matter, not any effect the yield for running projects?

I don't believe so.

As far as GPP - there's an unused table in the files that allows you to attach GPP to specialists. The fact that it's there probably tells you they considered it at some point.

I think they have acknowledge a few times that making a bunch of +2 yield objects doesn't work well - see the changes to various buildings.
Why this wasn't carried over to specialists i don't know. They did change some specialist yields at some point (but never increased the base yield.) The way it is now, with specialists getting boosts from t3 buildings - basically just misses the entire portion of the game where having a "specialist economy" could be an interesting decision.

I guess they basically ported the specialist mechanic whole cloth from V, and then for some reason decided to change their mind on where the player should get GPP.

I think my biggest problem conceptually, is that there is literally no bonuses for specialists from any governors, policy cards, or governments. It really seems like a totally abandoned mechanic, and I'm sure a lot of players don't even realise you can assign citizens to work in your district buildings.

Edit: oh, and no pantheon or beliefs gives specialist bonuses either. I also have zero hope the new beliefs of the upcoming patch would address this.

Edit2: oh, and no golden age bonuses for specialists in any of the eras.

 

[Amrunril]

I think my biggest problem conceptually, is that there is literally no bonuses for specialists from any governors, policy cards, or governments. It really seems like a totally abandoned mechanic, and I'm sure a lot of players don't even realise you can assign citizens to work in your district buildings.

Yes, to me, specialists in Civ VI seem like city projects in Civ V: something to do when you run out of good options for pop assignment or production, or the last option you use when trying to focus on a specific yield, but otherwise a forgettable mechanic, and never something you're actually excited about using. Then the developers realized city projects could actually be an interesting mechanic. They developed a faction entirely focused on them for BE, and then they made them part of great person competition in Civ VI. Along the way, though, they somehow abandoned the interesting mechanics that had previously existed for specialists.

This frustrating because of the loss of interesting mechanics, but equally so because it makes no sense thematically. Universities don't generate scientific progress in the real world merely because they've been constructed. They generate scientific progress because they support specialists focused on education and research. And in a game titled Civilization, its worth noting that the development of a specialist-based economy might be as good a point as any to define the beginning of civilization. In Civ VI, I'd be thrilled to see specialists returned to the functionality they had in V. In any future installments, I'd actually argue the role of specialists should be emphasized even further.

 

[Sostratus]

Yes, to me, specialists in Civ VI seem like city projects in Civ V: something to do when you run out of good options for pop assignment or production, or the last option you use when trying to focus on a specific yield, but otherwise a forgettable mechanic, and never something you're actually excited about using. Then the developers realized city projects could actually be an interesting mechanic. They developed a faction entirely focused on them for BE, and then they made them part of great person competition in Civ VI. Along the way, though, they somehow abandoned the interesting mechanics that had previously existed for specialists.

This frustrating because of the loss of interesting mechanics, but equally so because it makes no sense thematically. Universities don't generate scientific progress in the real world merely because they've been constructed. They generate scientific progress because they support specialists focused on education and research. And in a game titled Civilization, its worth noting that the development of a specialist-based economy might be as good a point as any to define the beginning of civilization. In Civ VI, I'd be thrilled to see specialists returned to the functionality they had in V. In any future installments, I'd actually argue the role of specialists should be emphasized even further.

The one roadblock is I think there are some restrictions with specialists and modding. Like I’m not sure if you can just add more specialists to a city, mix types within districts, etc.

I think Civ6 has enough flexibility in its mechanics that we could mod a specialist economy on par with Civ4, but that assumes we can actually mod it. But there’s nothing conceptually off limits of adding some policy card support, maybe making a government focus on them, giving players a choice to make farms and specialists instead of mines and chop. ETC.

 

[criZp]

Great people are a lot more fun in civ 6 than in civ 5, and for that reason I feel 100% sure that Firaxis won't move GPP from buildings to specialists, because they won't lock a fun part of the game to one specific playstyle. But adding something like +0.5 GPP to each specialist could work.

 

[Myomoto]

Great people are a lot more fun in civ 6 than in civ 5, and for that reason I feel 100% sure that Firaxis won't move GPP from buildings to specialists, because they won't lock a fun part of the game to one specific playstyle. But adding something like +0.5 GPP to each specialist could work.

By far the best way to get great people is to run city projects though

 

[criZp]

If you are not going to build anything, sure.

 

[civfan_999]

Boosting specialists a bit is probably the quickest path to making large cities suck less, although I would like a full rethink of how districts work too. Districts in highly developed cities should yield more, and there should be more synergies for having many districts in a city.

This is an interesting idea.

 

[Amrunril]

Great people are a lot more fun in civ 6 than in civ 5, and for that reason I feel 100% sure that Firaxis won't move GPP from buildings to specialists, because they won't lock a fun part of the game to one specific playstyle. But adding something like +0.5 GPP to each specialist could work.

While certain specialist strategies in past editions could definitely be described as "one specific strategy", specialist play doesn't inherently need to be that constrained. I wouldn't call putting a few citizens to work in pastures a specific playstyle, and I'd argue putting a few citizens to work in a campus shouldn't be seen any differently. That said, I wouldn't want the developers to simply remove GPP from buildings, add them to specialists, and leave it at that. I think city projects, wonders and policy cards should have expanded roles as well, alongside specialists and a more limited selection of buildings.

The one downside I do see to moving GPP to specialists is that it would create a lot of micromanagement in order to fully leverage their flexibility with regard to GPP generation. But I think there's an easy solution to that: add city governor options to emphasize or de-emphasize each type of GPP, like the options that already exist for food, culture etc. These options could even be toggle-able empire-wide from the great person menu, so you wouldn't even have to manage them city by city. This would be a great way to make great person races a more active choice, while allowing players to engage with micromanaging citizens as little or as much as they like!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I feel like the lacklustre yields of specialists has been a grievance in the community since the release of civ VI. But, seeing as the devs have promised to observe and accommodate community desires for upcoming balance patches during the year, I feel now is as good a time as any to reopen this discussion.

In previous iterations specialists were some of the main sources of great people points (GPP). This has been changed in VI, and specialists now only offer ~2 resources from working in a district (tier 3 buildings in a district will normally boost this yield by 1). Meanwhile, the districts themselves, as well as the buildings inside them will offer GPP passively.

This means that the superior strategy for generating great people is to have many districts of the appropriate type (i.e. wide), rather than growing a large population in a single/few cities (i.e. tall) to accommodate a large population of specialists.

The overall weakness of specialists is also further weakened by the fact that the yields of tile improvements generally goes up with the acquisition of techs (like how apprenticeship boosts yields from mines), meaning it is usually always a better choice to work surrounding tiles, rather than working your districts. I.e. a mine can easily give +4 production and some additional yields, while a specialist in an industrial zone will give a measly +2 production.

Likewise, there are policy cards for boosting the yields of buildings in districts and the yields from district adjacency bonuses, but no policy cards to boost specialist yields at all.

Would changing GPP yields to be from specialists working in a district, rather than from the building themselves be an adequate fix for specialists to make them attractive, or should policy cards like Rationalism be changed to boost specialist yields rather than building yields?

Or do you think specialists are perfectly fine as is - basically a consolation prize for running out of workable tiles around your city?

Personally, I would like to see specialists become some of the dominant yields in the later game. This is more thematic of how your cities can start to support bigger populations that can get appropriate educations (i.e. specialize), and is precisely how history has played out.

I agree 100%. Specialists do need a buff.

 

[shauntu]

This is an interesting idea.

How about, Each Specialist provides 1 of the resource the District specializes in -- per District existing in the city. So, a small city with 1 District (a Holy Site) only provides 1 Faith. A large city with 5 districts, each specialist in the Industrial Zone provides 5 Production, each in the Campus 5 Science, etc.

Basically, as a city grows, the population can start being actually useful as Specialists. The Tier 3 building adding +1 can still be in place too, so a fully developed district with 3 specialists in a city with 5 districts, would generate 18 of that district's resource.

They would only get that resource, not the mix from worked tiles that have also been getting tile improvements and technology boosts, so before over-population hits it will still be an interesting choice to make. It will also encourage choosing to over-populate (which means having to get Food, Housing, and Amenities to have mega cities sustainable).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Okay, let's get Radical (just call me Ionizing Boris).
Here are a bunch of Specialist-related ideas that I've been kicking around in my head for a while.

1. Let's divorce General Population from many of the things it is used for now in Civ and replace it with Specialists.
For example. You have a city with no Districts yet - say, Population 3 and 6 tiles around the City Center that can potentially be worked. Right now, you could work three of them with your General Population. What if, instead, it required Specialists to work Improvements as well as the Structures in the city itself?
Same Example. City Pop 3 means, everything else being equal, you get, say, 2 Specialists for each general Population Point, BUT one Specialist is always needed just to keep the city running. Your city has 5 Specialists available then. Theoretically, you could work 5 Improvements (Mines, Farms, Plantations) on the surrounding tiles. Districts have to be adjacent to an existing City Tile, but they add more workable tiles.
In addition, Specialists are required to get the most out of your Structures. If you have a Monument and Granary in that Pop 3 city, that's 2 Specialists in Building Slots. Units require Specialists (based on the assumption that military units take the most potentially productive, the young healthy men, out of the work force). Specialists marched off as Archers or Warriors are replaced every X turns, with X being a product of the total general population ('birth rate') of the city. This will, however, reduce general Population growth, which could be serious - it's general population, after all, that is the surest way to get more Specialists for your Improvements, Buildings, and Units.
2. Let's divorce Specialist production as the game goes on more and more from General Population. People who are literate, trained, healthy make better workers: they are more Productive and, especially with advances in Literacy and Education, can master specialized skills faster and more completely.
So, in addition to requiring Specialists to run them, Libraries and Universities will also increase the percentage of Specialists you get out of your general Population. Many Civics and Technologies will also increase 'Specialization': Guilds, Apprenticeships, Workshops and Factories - Trade Routes require people skilled at recording goods moved and sold and organizing caravans and markets - they will require and also generate Specialists. Structures that increase health also increase the number of Specialists: Hospitals, Sewers, Aqueducts, etc.
3. The requirements for Specialists should also go up as the game progresses, with the resulting increases in output from given Buildings or Improvements also increasing. A Factory with 2 - 3 Specialist slots, for instance, representing a second or third shift of workers, or increased automation and mechanization that makes each worker more productive. A Plantation or Farm with 2 or more Specialist Slots, representing the concentration of labor and agricultural production in Industrial Agriculture.

The result could be a vastly increased potential to specialize your cities and your Civ. It also makes the Powerhouse City of high general Population and Specialists more common and more necessary in game terms - an In-Game Pittsburgh or Industrial Essen churning out Production, a Tula or New Haven specialized to produce Unit weapons or a Glasgow or Newport News cranking out Battleships with a Specialist-manned set of Industrial Zones, Factories, and Shipyards.

It would also, IMHO, give you a real choice between Tall and Wide: between a few massive cities teeming with highly-trained Specialists and a Civ full of smaller cities and fewer Specialists per population, but higher overall population