Specialists

[Ahriman]

I think we're just going for different goals.

Yes, that is my whole point, I think you have the wrong design goal. I do not think that letting specialists replace tile working is a good goal to have, and in particular I don't think that unmodified specialists should have superior yields to tiles (ignoring GPPs).
Specialists should be about great people; that is what they are for.
If specialists aren't about great people, then they're just like tile yields that don't depend on terrain.

In Civ4, a specialist economy would still tend to work a lot of tiles, and a specialist economy provided worse base tile yields than working tiles, and much of the benefit of the specialist economy was from the great people.

Compare in Civ4; grassland with town, 2 food 4 commerce, vs merchant, 3 gold.
Grassland hill with mine, 1 food 3 hammers. Engineer, 2 hammers.

Latest TBC: grassland with trading post, 2 food 3 gold, vs merchant 4 gold.
Hill with mine, 3 hammers, engineer, 3 hammers.

You are making specialists far stronger than they were in Civ4.
And you are making an Ottoman specialist economy absolutely insane. 4 hammer engineers??

 

[Txurce]

I think we're just going for different goals. I liked the dichotomy in Civ 4 where there were two types of viable economies. I know there's a desire to branch out into new things, but in this case it's something I feel Civ 4 got right.

This is basically what I was driving at. It's not a right-wrong thing... at least not until I start building farms on hills.

 

[Thalassicus]

Hill with mine, 3 hammers, engineer, 3 hammers.

It's important to change 1 variable at a time when making comparisons. As I pointed out earlier, the only engineer available early in the game for every city is from the Watermill. The comparison is:

Early game:
3 - River Engineer
3 - No-River Mine

Since we changed two variables, another conclusion that could be drawn from this data is cities with rivers are better than cities without rivers. How do we know if this hypothesis is more or less applicable to the situation than the specialist/tile dilemma? This ambiguity is why it's important to alter a single variable at a time in experiments, when possible.

=====================

In every equivalent comparison the yield of mines is better than the yield of engineers...


Early game, rivers:
3 - Engineer
3 1 - Mine

Early game, dry:
Engineers are not available for most dry cities. The exception is the Heroic Epic, which can only be used in one city, and is better for conquest games. I've pointed out the reasons earlier why specialist economies are not viable for conquest games.

Late game:
2 2 2 1 - v.15 Engineer
3 1 1 1 - v.16 Engineer (+1 -1 -1)

Late game, rivers:
3 1 1 1 - Engineer
4 1 - Mine

Late game, dry:
3 1 1 1 - Engineer
4 - Mine


=====================

There's also another possibility to consider. A core dilemma I've had for a while is yields are so low it's difficult to adjust them. When something is +1 and you need to lower it, how can it be done? I've tried exploring options like pushing back bonuses until particular conditions are met... like how rivers don't give their +1 until improved.

A more direct option is to inflate all yields. Say we normally have 200 income with 100 expenses. If we increase all sources of gold income and expense in the game so we have 300 and 150, it gives more room to adjust things.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well.

I've been thinking about doing this for almost a year now. I cannot overstate how much this would help fine-tuning the game, but I've held back from implementing it because I've been concerned people might think it's too much of a departure from vanilla. I'll put up a poll about it to discuss the subject.

Edit: here's the link

 

[Ahriman]

As I pointed out earlier, the only engineer available early in the game for every city is from the Watermill.

So? Why is the early game the only relevant point?

You are making the engineer strictly superior to the mine, whereas in reality the engineer should be superior to the mine if and only if the GPs are going to get you a great engineer at some point.

The player should want to use the engineer in a city that will produce a great person, in general they should rarely want to use the engineer in a city that will not produce a great person.

Even a city that is adjacent to a river has a limited number of river tiles. Very often there are tiny little rivers near the coast, so if I settle next to it, there are only 3-tiles adjacent to the river to be worked.
It is not reasonable to compare only river-adjacent tiles to specialists. We already know that river-tiles are superior. But most tiles aren't river-adjacent!
But I don't want us to be in a situation where non-river tiles are never worth working, because specialists are always better. That is where your design leads us.

And again, you're solving a problem that wasn't there. People used specialists in previous versions of TBC; they were useful because they gave great people, and great people were powerful, particularly because of the great improvement boosts.
Now, you are making the specialists overpowered.

The game is not divided into "early game = pre-smithy" and "late-game - once you have all possible specialist-boosting policies".
Most of the game happens in between those points. You need to make sure that specialists vs tiles are balanced in the mid-game, when specialist slots are available but when a player isn't picking up lots of pro-specialist policies. You seem dead-set on avoiding the non-river tile vs unmodified specialist comparison, but that is the most relevant comparison of all.

My complaint is not about what the cumulative yield is after all the policies, my complaint is about what the base-yield is.

I think we are better off when specialists have weak yields (and are useful only rarely for GPs) without policies, but that the policies are really worth getting. +1 gold from specialists is a pretty weak policy. Hence, I would revert the design, because it makes the specialists weaker on their own but it increases the marginal value of the policies, and so drives you towards those policies if you want to follow a specialist-heavy strategy.

A core dilemma I've had for a while is yields are so low it's difficult to adjust them.

We fixed this quite well in the past for say the Harbor; we had it boost the yields of coast tiles by +1 gold, but then we boosted the maintenance cost of the harbor building to offset this.
If you really wanted to boost specialists and a specialist-economy, then rather than increasing the resource yields, you could have increased their GPP production from 3-4 (a GPP is worth less than a yield, so this is a smaller change). This would make them more powerful, but would retain their distinctiveness, in that they are value because they are an investment in creating powerful great people.

 

[Gamewizard]

Don't late game specialists also use half the food and cost half the unhappiness? And what about Statue of Liberty and Cristo? Taking those into consideration, I think Ahriman is correct in that specon (Engineers in particular, to get those 2 wonders especially) will be overpowered. The only thing going for a tile working economy is Golden Ages, which don't come frequent enough for that type of economy, IMO.

I think Ahriman is onto something about specon being able to pump out considerably more Great People than a tile working economy rather than compete directly with base yields. An increase to GPPs makes those GPP %modifiers stronger, which is good.

I do look foward to getting a chance to test this out.

 

[Ahriman]

Don't late game specialists also use half the food and cost half the unhappiness? And what about Statue of Liberty and Cristo?

Right; there are way more boosters for specialists than there are for tiles.
Mines and farms and lumbermills get at most a boost of 1, from techs. Specialists can get boosts from 5+ different policies, plus wonders.

If specialists start out better than a tile from resource yield alone, then they're going to end up way better once you add in all the bonuses.

Another thought:
The policies could maybe be re-tooled to benefit only a particular type of specialist?
So, Rationalism could boost scientists, Commerce could boost merchants, etc.
I'm not sure if that would be a good way to go, but it would mean that these trees and policies remained more specialized.

 

[Thalassicus]

There's two reasons why a specialist economy was not feasible:

• Civ 4 used combined random generation for great people, while Civ 5 uses an individual, deterministic method.
• Specialists are unavailable in the early game of Civ 5.
• Specialists improve significantly over time, unlike Civ 4.

#1 raises the threshold of viability for specialists. Beneath that threshold a specialist's points equal zero.

Regarding #3, specialists used to gain +2 +2 +1. I reduced these yields to 1/1/1. The late game potential is unchanged. The purpose of this is to make an early-game specon feasible.

 

[Ahriman]

1. Civ 4 used combined random generation for great people, while Civ 5 uses an individual, deterministic method.
2. Specialists are weaker in the early game than late game.

I agree that 1. is a big deal - though to be fair you should also compare the number of GPPs needed to generate new great people, and the rate at which that increases. I don't know what that comparison is like, offhand.
But this is an argument for increasing the GPP yield of specialists (eg from 3 to 4) or reducing the GPP cost of great people, or reducing the extent to which each great person you generate increases the cost of subsequent great people.
It is not an argument for increasing the resource yields of specialists.

I do not believe that 2 is the case. A great person early on is vastly more valuable than a great person later on, because (for example) it means you get many more turns of superior yield. This is part of why Babylon is nice; an early game Academy can give you a very large tech-lead. An early game great general makes a huge difference in early wars (where units are inexperienced so the proportional boost is larger). A free instant-wonder early game can be very valuable (in part because it provides gpps for more great people).

 

[Txurce]

I do not believe that (specialists are weaker in the early game than in the late game) is the case. A great person early on is vastly more valuable than a great person later on, because (for example) it means you get many more turns of superior yield. This is part of why Babylon is nice; an early game Academy can give you a very large tech-lead. An early game great general makes a huge difference in early wars (where units are inexperienced so the proportional boost is larger). A free instant-wonder early game can be very valuable (in part because it provides gpps for more great people).

GG's shouldn't be part of the conversation, but GP's are definitely nice in the early game. However, a specialist is not the same as a GP. It takes a while to build a GP.

Regardless, I'm not following how this pertains to your issue with slots vs yields.

 

[Ahriman]

However, a specialist is not the same as a GP. It takes a while to build a GP.

Sure, but it doesn't take more GPPs to build a GP in the early game than it does in the late game.
So this still doesn't seem like an argument to me that specialists are weak in the early game.

And if it was, it would seem like an argument for increasing GPP rather than resource yields, or reducing the GPP cost of great people. [I think I would favor the former; the different of the latter is that the latter also boosts wonders].

Regardless, I'm not following how this pertains to your issue with slots vs yields.

It is relevant because Thal is claiming that there is a need to boost raw specialist yields because he is arguing that specialists are too weak in the early game.
I am arguing that specialists are not too weak in the early game, but that they are an investment; give up a bit of yield in exchange for a great person a bit later on, which is very powerful.

Thal's edit:

The purpose of this is to make an early-game specon feasible.

Why is that a desirable goal?
Specialists should not be a close substitute for working tiles in the early game. In the early game, you should get only a few specialists to get some early great people.

3. Specialists improve significantly over time, unlike Civ 4.

Representation civic?
And specialists in Civ5 don't improve "over time" (eg as a passive effect from techs, with no opportunity cost), they increase from investing in particular social policies (which have an opportunity cost of not getting other social policies).

I am worried that with the latest TBC design, I will tend to farm most river tiles, get civil service, and then use specialists instead of most non-bonus non-river tiles, even when I am not favoring a specialist-oriented social policy strategy.

Whereas under the pre-latest version TBC, I find myself using specialists in what I perceive to be the right amount; I use them to specialize cities and generate great people, I don't use them 1 at a time to get more gold or production in a city that isn't going to generate great people.

 

[Thalassicus]

But this is an argument for increasing the gpp yield of specialists
It is not an argument for increasing the yields of specialists.

Due to individualized thresholds:

• In a Civ 4 specon the effective gpp is usually non-zero.
• Effective gpp is usually 0 in a Civ 5 specon.
• Yields are non-zero, avoiding the problem.

Consider a situation where we have 4 Scientists in the Capital. What is the effective gpp of a lone Artist in any city? We'll consider the suggested 4 per specialist:

The effective gpp of all lone artists are still 0 after a hundred turns. It takes nearly twice that duration for any lone artist's gpp to be nonzero in this situation. In a Civ 5 specon, the effective gpp of a lone specialist is usually zero.

Specialists should not be a close substitute for working tiles in the early game. In the early game, you should get only a few specialists to get some early great people.

What reasons do you have for this?

 

[Txurce]

Sure, but it doesn't take more GPPs to build a GP in the early game than it does in the late game.
So this still doesn't seem like an argument to me that specialists are weak in the early game.

It is relevant because Thal is claiming that there is a need to boost raw specialist yields because he is arguing that specialists are too weak in the early game. I am arguing that specialists are not too weak in the early game, but that they are an investment; give up a bit of yield in exchange for a great person a bit later on.

It seems to me that there are fewer GPP in the early game, and consequently fewer GPs, or specialist slots... so therefore, specialists are weaker in the early game. To put it simply, they need more fellow slot jockeys to help them deliver more quickly (as they do in the late game).

Along the same lines, when you say that specialists are an early-game investment (presumably for the later game) then you seem to be acknowledging Thal's point that they are weaker in the early game.

This may not be what you mean, but it is why I disagree with your perspective about relative value.

 

[Ahriman]

The artist's effective GPP is zero after a hundred turns. It actually takes nearly twice that duration of time for the artist's gpp to be nonzero in this situation with a Civ 5 specon.

I don't understand why we would want to be encouraging mixed specialists like that (4 scientists:1 artist). Specialists are for specializing. They let you boost gold income in your gold city where you build your bank, they let you boost science income in your science city where your national academy and university are. I don't see a need to make it worth adding an artist to a science city.

In a Civ 4 specon the artist's gpp is always useful.

No they aren't. In Civ4, in many cities you will never generate a single great person if they only have 1-2 specialists, so it isn't really worth getting specialists in that city.

What reasons do you have for this?

Because the whole point of specialists is that they are different from tiles. It is very boring if we have two mechanics that are basically the same. There is no interesting tradeoff. Specialists are interesting because they have a tradeoff; slightly lower yields now in exchange for generating great people later on.
Thus, they are strategically different from tile working, which is fun. More options. I have a meaningful tradeoff between specialists vs tile working; less now, more later.

In your conception, you are making these strategically the same. You are cutting down on great people (which are an interesting and fun mechanic) and instead basically making specialists just into a direct substitute for tiles that just need buildings instead of land and improvements. More now or more now.
And in fact, you're coming dangerously close to creating no-brainer decisions where specialists are strictly superior.
2 hammers 3 GPPs vs 3 hammers is an interesting tradeoff; sometimes one is better, sometimes the other.
3 hammers 2 GPPs vs 3 hammers has no tradeoff.

[The land part is also really worth highlighting; with your super-specialists, we risk going back to spam situtations where we pack in cities really tightly because they don't need many tiles each, because they work just a few for food and get the rest from specialists, which don't need tiles to work.]

And it is worth mentioning once again that your current design makes Ottomans the most powerful faction in the game by far.

 

[Ahriman]

It seems to me that there are fewer GPP in the early game, and consequently fewer GPs, or specialist slots... so therefore, specialists are weaker in the early game. To put it simply, they need more fellow slot jockeys to help them deliver more quickly (as they do in the late game).

This doesn't make sense to me. The game is in general slower in the early game, so it isn't fair to say effectively "it takes more turns to generate a single great person in the early game, therefore specialists are weaker in the early game".
By the same token, a single great person is more powerful in the early game. An early Academy might boost your total science income by 25-50%. It isn't going to do that in the late game.
+6 gold per turn from a customhouse is much more meaningful in the early game than it is later on.

Along the same lines, when you say that specialists are an early-game investment (presumably for the later game) then you seem to be acknowledging Thal's point that they are weaker in the early game.

Wha?
No. Specialists are an investment; if I give up working mines and get an engineer instead, will get a great person later on. But if I do this in the early game, I'll get the engineer in the early game.

"Now" and "later" are not the same as "early game" and "late game". It doesn't take hundreds of turns for specialists to generate a great person.

Just because a specialist gives a lower payoff in the short-term and a larger payoff in the long-term doesn't mean that they are weak in the early game.
Those are not the same thing at all.

Are you really trying to say you never find it worthwhile to get a scientist as soon as you get a library up, so that you can generate an early great scientist for an academy? Or that you never find it worthwhile to get an engineer as soon as you get a watermill, so as to get an early great engineer to snag one of the medieval era wonders?
I find that this is often worth doing.

 

[Txurce]

And it is worth mentioning once again that your current design makes Ottomans the most powerful faction in the game by far.

This is the part of your perspective that most interests me: whether the current balance is game-breaking. (Otherwise it's a matter of personal preference, and Thal prefers having a specon in his mod.) I'm jammed right now, but will play the Ottomans once or twice (including a game with farms on hills), and see if the results are out of whack with my normal performance.

 

[Txurce]

1. By the same token, a single great person is more powerful in the early game.

Are you really trying to say you never find it worthwhile to get a scientist as soon as you get a library up, so that you can generate an early great scientist for an academy? Or that you never find it worthwhile to get an engineer as soon as you get a watermill, so as to get an early great engineer to snag one of the medieval era wonders?

2. "Now" and "later" are not the same as "early game" and "late game". It doesn't take hundreds of turns for specialists to generate a great person.

3. Just because a specialist gives a lower payoff in the short-term and a larger payoff in the long-term doesn't mean that they are weak in the early game.
Those are not the same thing at all.

1. I have already agreed that a GP is more powerful in the early game, and use them much as you describe. Again, my point is that I don't see how this particularly pertains to the specon/slots vs yields argument.

2. You said "early game," not "now". That's what I responded to.

3. You're right that they aren't the same thing - it would be more accurate to say that they are weaker in the early game than in the late game. But in terms of whether to work a tile or a slot in the early game - the core of this particular discussion - it's a no-brainer for me in most cases to work the tile until a city hits 8 or 9 pop. And then I'll add slots selectively, as they become available, for a GP.

 

[Thalassicus]

You are cutting down on great people (which are an interesting and fun mechanic)

I always try to figure out how you're arriving at conclusions, but sometimes it does get a bit confusing.


Capital with Library and National College:

• Vanilla: 0 Scientist points
• TBM: 6 Scientist points

Capital with Market and National Treasury:

• Vanilla: 3 Merchant points
• TBM: 6 Merchant points

Trade mission:

• Vanilla: 350 - 650
• TBM: 600 - 2100

Customs House

• Vanilla: 4 - 5
• TBM: 6 - 18

...etc...

I don't see how looking at the numbers can result in a conclusion TBM cuts down great people, unless you mean something different by "cutting down"...?


I once tried to encourage city specialization in Civ 5, but something Txurce said half a year ago or so has gradually sunk in. He pointed out it does not seem to be a design goal of Civ 5. Instead, we have a strong capital with numerous satellite cities. Many things are built around this concept:

• The Palace cannot be moved.
• Palace gives boosters like +3 +3 +1.
• Policies give boosters to the capital.
• An unlimited number of national wonders can be constructed in the capital.

It seems the developers want this capital/satellites approach for Civ 5. The only time I specialize cities anymore is a unique military-production city for conquest games, or possibly a world-wonder city if marble is not next to the capital. How closely TBM follows the developer's own goals is always a subjective thing, but in this case I feel comfortable with the capital/satellites method.

 

[Ahriman]

I always try to figure out how you're arriving at conclusions, but sometimes it does get a bit confusing.

TBC Before: 3 GPP per specialist. A significant part of value from specialists comes from producing great people.
TBC After: 2 GPP per specialist, and higher base yields. A small part of the value from specialists comes from producing great people.

Hence, the latest changes have shifted specialists away from being about great people (which are interesting fun and different) towards providing resource yields (which makes them basically the same as working tiles).

I once tried to encourage city specialization in Civ 5, but something Txurce said half a year ago or so has gradually sunk in. He pointed out that does not seem to be a design goal of Civ 5. Instead, we have a strong capital with numerous satellite cities. Many things are built around this concept:

I fail to see how a few capital boosters mean that there is no scope for city specialization. You have listed a

I still find large scope for city specialization, in either a tall or wide empire strategy.

Buildings are expensive and take a long time to construct.
So I will build markets and banks in cities that use lots of trading posts, plantation luxuries, coast tiles (before the harbor nerf) and merchant specialists. I will put trading posts within these cities.
I will build libraries and universities in cities with large populations. I will cluster my academies in a mega-science city with the national college (and I will rush a university there as soon as I reach education tech). I will cluster up hammer boosters and military XP boosters in a military city, which then won't bother spending time building happiness, culture, gold, etc boosting buildings.
I won't get scientist specialists in cities that are focusing on gold. I won't get artist specialists in a military center (and if I get culture or happiness buildings there they will be gold-purchased). etc.

In a tall empire strategy, my other core cities will be just as large and important as the capital by the late game. I do not find that capital/satellite is necessarily accurate. +3 gold/hammers is pretty trivial by the late-game.

In a wide strategy, where each city is producing hammers, then specialization is even more important, because I do not have the hammers to construct every building everywhere. Many cities will never build a military unit, and will build happiness/culture/gold buildings while working lots of gold tiles. Many cities will never working a trading post tile, and so won't bother constructing gold boosters, which might only give +2-3 gold each. Small cities won't bother building universities.

Arguably specialization is more important in Civ5 than in Civ4, because buildings take regularly longer to construct, and because of the separation of commerce into gold and science means that your science cities and your gold cities are no longer the same.
Also, the expansion of what you can buy with gold means that small gold-producing cities are more valuable than they used to be.

 

[Thalassicus]

TBC Before: 3 GPP per specialist. A significant part of value from specialists comes from producing great people.
TBC After: 2 GPP per specialist, and higher base yields. A small part of the value from specialists comes from producing great people.

Hence, the latest changes have shifted specialists away from being about great people (which are interesting fun and different) towards providing resource yields (which makes them basically the same as working tiles).

This is why I'm confused... I already addressed this on page 1. Did I not explain this well?

Spoiler Quote :

@Ahriman
I think I understand where the confusion is - there were two changes in this patch which might appear related, but are independent of one another.


1) Policy reliance

Here's the potential yield of a Merchant between .15 and .16:

.15 Merchant
5 2 1

.16 Merchant
5 1 1

(Not counting world wonders, which aren't always accessible.)

I did not increase the total potential yield of specialists. I reduced it and made it less reliant on policies, by moving +1 yield from policies to the specialist. In the defensive buildings conversation you said things should be useful on their own and not require a specific policy - that's what I did here.


2) Great person availability

There are more specialist slots available in TBC than vanilla, which increases the availability of great people. I reduced this great person availability back closer to vanilla levels.

These are two separate tasks:

1. things shouldn't require a specific policy to be useful
2. bringing great person availability closer to vanilla

#1 is directly because of the goals you set out in the defensive building conversation. I agree with you about this, and have used your standpoint as a guide for many recent changes:

• Defensive building boosts regardless of playstyle.
  (all three early trees improve them)
• Coastal city production less dependent on the Commerce tree.
  (moved some yield from Merchant Navy to the buildings themselves)
• Specialist usefulness less dependent on policies
  (moved some yield from Commerce/Rationalism trees to the specialists themselves)
• ...etc...

#2 Even if specialist yields returned to vanilla values I'd still want to keep TBM great person generation closer to vanilla. At the current settings, as I showed our GP availability is still 200% or more than vanilla potential... with the old values it was triple or higher.

Capital with Library and National College:

• Vanilla: 0 Scientist points
• TBM: 6 Scientist points

Capital with Market and National Treasury:

• Vanilla: 3 Merchant points
• TBM: 6 Merchant points

 

[Txurce]

a few capital boosters mean that there is no scope for city specialization.

I still find large scope for city specialization, in either a tall or wide empire strategy.

Buildings are expensive and take a long time to construct.
So I will build markets and banks in cities that use lots of trading posts, plantation luxuries, coast tiles (before the harbor nerf) and merchant specialists. I will put trading posts within these cities.
I will build libraries and universities in cities with large populations. I will cluster my academies in a mega-science city with the national college (and I will rush a university there as soon as I reach education tech). I will cluster up hammer boosters and military XP boosters in a military city, which then won't bother spending time building happiness, culture, gold, etc boosting buildings.
I won't get scientist specialists in cities that are focusing on gold. I won't get artist specialists in a military center (and if I get culture or happiness buildings there they will be gold-purchased). etc.

In a tall empire strategy, my other core cities will be just as large and important as the capital by the late game. I do not find that capital/satellite is necessarily accurate. +3 gold/hammers is pretty trivial by the late-game.

In a wide strategy, where each city is producing hammers, then specialization is even more important, because I do not have the hammers to construct every building everywhere. Many cities will never build a military unit, and will build happiness/culture/gold buildings while working lots of gold tiles. Many cities will never working a trading post tile, and so won't bother constructing gold boosters, which might only give +2-3 gold each. Small cities won't bother building universities.

I never played Civ 4, and this is probably why I didn't automatically consider city specialization. However, Thal and others mentioned it so frequently that I went against my instincts and tried that approach. And it made no more sense to me after having done so.

To me, the capital is the best place to build just about everything, with very few exceptions. If I hit a wall there, it's very late in the game, where I can't both max hammers and fill all the slots I want. (I try to address this with a 2-+ pop, but don't always make it.)

When playing a tall game - going for anything but conquest - every city is doing all it can to achieve that goal. There is no differentiation, other than that some may not have the hammers to construct as many buildings. By this I mean that, say in a science effort, I focus on science buildings, but add gold and production buildings as needed to balance the effort.

When playing a wide game - usually for conquest - I don't bother building military buildings everywhere. I wouldn't call this specialization, though... and it's the only differentiation I make.

In short, I build everything I can everywhere, if it's feasible. And 90% of the time, the capital winds up being the focus, due to the combination of generally higher pop and early accumulation of Wonders. I just don't see any downside to this simple approach.