I want to know at what rates I can give up and , for (or ) and
I feel I'm relying too much in hammers and food, and don't build many cottages or great people. Especially early in the game, when my cities are not yet specialized towards a specific role.
I often manage to build the pyramids and take the representation civic for +3 , but I'm still not assigning permanent specialists. Only when the happiness cap is reached, do I stop growth by assigning the required number of specialists (that is if I don't whip). So generally I maximize growth and production, and neglect commerce and specialists. But I think that for certain tiles, it might be better not to work them, but to assign a specialist, or work a cottage.
I find myself mainly working the grassland and plains forests when all the high yield tiles are covered. I tend to preserve those forests for lumber mills.
What I'd like to discuss in this thread is the exchange rate of food/production vs. commerce and GPPs.
This rate is by no means fixed throughout the game. At the start, 3 + the specialist production/commerce are better than 2 + 1 from a grassland forest, however as the number of cities increases, and in the meantime the number of GPs born, the value of declines.
The same for . I find tiles that have 1, 2, or 3 and 2 . Is it worth it to lose the 1 to take 3 extra , or 2 , or 1 ? Assume the condition of sustained working of the selected tile (I know I can change all my tiles and specialists to maximize commerce, GPPs, food, or production for one or few turns, would I be in desperate need, this is not the focus here).
Later on, I have the same when I decide if I want a RR mine/lumber mill/workshop or a cottage/windmill. This is however more dependent on the situation, as civics have major impact.
I feel I'm relying too much in hammers and food, and don't build many cottages or great people. Especially early in the game, when my cities are not yet specialized towards a specific role.
I often manage to build the pyramids and take the representation civic for +3 , but I'm still not assigning permanent specialists. Only when the happiness cap is reached, do I stop growth by assigning the required number of specialists (that is if I don't whip). So generally I maximize growth and production, and neglect commerce and specialists. But I think that for certain tiles, it might be better not to work them, but to assign a specialist, or work a cottage.
I find myself mainly working the grassland and plains forests when all the high yield tiles are covered. I tend to preserve those forests for lumber mills.
What I'd like to discuss in this thread is the exchange rate of food/production vs. commerce and GPPs.
This rate is by no means fixed throughout the game. At the start, 3 + the specialist production/commerce are better than 2 + 1 from a grassland forest, however as the number of cities increases, and in the meantime the number of GPs born, the value of declines.
The same for . I find tiles that have 1, 2, or 3 and 2 . Is it worth it to lose the 1 to take 3 extra , or 2 , or 1 ? Assume the condition of sustained working of the selected tile (I know I can change all my tiles and specialists to maximize commerce, GPPs, food, or production for one or few turns, would I be in desperate need, this is not the focus here).
Later on, I have the same when I decide if I want a RR mine/lumber mill/workshop or a cottage/windmill. This is however more dependent on the situation, as civics have major impact.