Ahriman
Tyrant
I am confused as to why you are confused.This is why I'm confused... I already addressed this on page 1. Did I not explain this well?
You didn't address it. You compared only the total yields with all the possible boosting factors, which is irrelevant for most of the game for most strategies.
Once again:
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 (eg: engineer went 2 hammers to 3 hammers). A small part of the value from specialists comes from producing great people, most of it comes directly from the yields.
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).
Unmodified yields are far more important than theoretical-maximal-possible-yields-in-the-very-late-game-if-you-happen-to-have-played-the-game-in-a-very-particular-way.
You reduced specialists from 3 GPPs to 2 GPPs.
This clearly reduces the extent to which specialists are about great people.
How is this confusing??!?
This is why I suggested reverting the 8.6.16 changes and instead increase GPP yields from 3 to 4 if you think specialists are underpowered.
I'm not talking about "closer to vanilla" at all. You are the only one who brought that up. I'm talking about the incremenental changes from 8.6.16.Reducing policy reliance, and bringing great person availability closer to vanilla, are two separate things.
Prior to this, specialists worked pretty well in TBC. Then, you boosted them by increasing their base yields, while you nerfed many of the specialist boosting policies, and you reduced their GPP income. I oppose all three of these changes.
I don't understand what you're saying here. How are specialists at 2 GPPs per turn giving double the great person potential as vanilla specialists at 3 gpp per turn?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 it's double or more the vanilla potential.
* * *
Not trying to be offensive here at all but.... that is a big blow in terms of understanding how civ games tend to work. We learned a lot from Civ4 and modding Civ4, and it is very important to understand how Civ4 worked in order to see which things they changed for Civ5 and how and why.I never played Civ 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageTo me, the capital is the best place to build just about everything, with very few exceptions.
The capital doesn't have enough production to build everything. Even if the capital had an absolute advantage in building everything, it would not have a comparitive advantage, because to a significant degree (especially for Wonders which cannot be gold-purchased) building thing X means that you can't also build thing Y. You can only work on one thing at once.
And for non-wonders, the fact that you might buy everything in the capital still doesn't mean that there is no scope for for specialization in your other cities. You certainly can't/won't build everything everywhere (and it is not optimal to do so).
Then I think you are not playing Civ5 optimally.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.
If you are building gold-boost buildings in a city that produces very little gold (eg your military production powerhouse), then you are wasting your hammers. If you are working lots of trading post tiles in a science city (rather than farms) then you aren't maximizing the effect of your science boosters.
If you're building gardens in cities that aren't GPP farms or wonder cities, you're probably wasting them.
But in general it isn't feasible. And if you are working so many hammer tiles that you make it feasible, then there is a big economic cost to you in terms of gold and food tiles that you are not working.In short, I build everything I can everywhere, if it's feasible