oh I thought the second one was 4.3a or 3b?
3a is the good one
oh I thought the second one was 4.3a or 3b?
Beyond GPP, specialists sever as a yield converter/magnifier. They turn food and population into alternate yields, either more yields than what the terrain could create, or a different yield than the terrain can create.I'm less concerned about whether or not people use specialist slots and more concerned about what it is that they do.
this is a fallacy. For hammers and gold I would agree, but science and culture on tiles is rare and limited. GWAMs and GSs provide FAR more science and culture than the equivalent terrain that is given up.There are lots of resources, improvements, and boosters for terrain that give , all the same yields that specialists give. Some tiles give to boot! My question is what do specialists do as a game concept if they aren't making Great People? Why do they exist outside that context?
non-specialists also convert into other yields. Sometimes that other yield actually just ends up being more , but they still consume and then generate something else.Beyond GPP, specialists sever as a yield converter/magnifier. They turn food and population into alternate yields, either more yields than what the terrain could create, or a different yield than the terrain can create.
No it's not. There are a multitude of ways you can get from tiles. Is less common, hence your defenseof Scientists. They're more reliable and common than tiles (unless you're Maya), but in the end a scientist isn'tdoing anything different than slapping some on a tile. Just eating slightly more , and creating a different number of .this is a fallacy. For hammers and gold I would agree, but science and culture on tiles is rare and limited. GWAMs and GSs provide FAR more science and culture than the equivalent terrain that is given up.
Which is a niche that does not exist elsewhere in the game..... hence why they are good and useful.but in the end a scientist isn'tdoing anything different than slapping some on a tile. Just eating slightly more , and creating a different number of .
Which is just what the Maya do already, yeah. I understand that on tiles isn't common, but it's not rare either, and there's a civ that can mass-produce them.Now you could create a generic terrain improvement that just gives science, the issue with that is its "unlimited", I can blanket the board with them and just generate more science than god in my satelite cities. The niche of specialists is that they are powerful but also limited, you are capped on how many you can leverage to get their benefit. You could create a terrain improvement with some restrictions on placement to mitigate it, but then we blurring the lines between regular and UI improvements.
Why do they need to be special beside generating GPPs, consuming food and causing urbanization? GPPs alone is a reason to work them.The fact that scientists generate a relatively uncommon tile yield doesn't really make them special though.
Well, I guess that's the point of this thread. Should specialists do something different?Why do they need to be special beside generating GPPs, consuming food and causing urbanization? GPPs alone is a reason to work them.
The engineer question is fundamentally this: "Is it ok to have a situationally useful specialist?"Are we just not getting these yields exactly right at the exact right timing, or is there an underlying deficiency with what specialists do?
The rationale behind the engineer buff proposals had to do with how they were generating as much production as a resource-less mine in Ancient and Classical Era. Which was bad, given the extra food they consumed.It seems like a lot of the proposals we've been seeing in the congress are rooting around for an intractable problem with Engineers in particular: They just don't do anything particularly good if they aren't making Great Engineers. And when I look at the other specialist types I don't see them being any less guilty of the same sin as Engineers; other specialists just benefit from not having a basic improvement doing the exact same thing as them.
That’s one of the things that attracts me to the % modifier idea. With that, we could remove specialist boosts from the tech tree. Since specialists would grow in power with the city they wouldn’t need to be kept relevant by tech boosts. Each of the 7 specialist types has 3-4 tech boosts and they often get buried in the tech screen. It would slim down a lot of techs and clean up the tree, removing dozens of low-impact boosts sprinkled all over that only make things more complicated to read.Personally, I prefer specialists to start as being reasonable and simple (just one yield type plus GPP), but being enhanced by specific social trees. You then get to choose whether they remain as they start, or whether they become powerful enough that they are a major part of your economy. That adds variety between games (assuming you're not on a very focused civ) and decisions you make throughout each game.