Who's not playing until a patch comes out?

[Dale]

The thing is Dale, that you contradict yourself. You tell us that we shouldn't use the exploits, but guess what? You exploit the game yourself! You don't generate liberty bells from the beginning. Why? To keep the REF from growing. Please tell why this is a good strategy while declaring independence early is exploiting the game.

If you cared to read what I said you would notice I offered a suggested method on how to keep REF's down. I did not say I play that way. So I'll take it kindly you don't put words in my mouth thankyou.

 

[Dale]

The problem is, that the game punishes having fun and rewards exploiting. Stop telling people to have fun, if they are clearly not able to. Not everyone is masochistic enough to endure the pain the game is throwing at you if you play it properly.

If you can win on the hardest difficulty on turn 30 the game is broken. Full stop. No excuses. Sure, you can play with one or both hands tied behind your back. But this kills any semi-competitive play and any strategy discussion, because the player base is too fragmented. There will be no great discussion what kind economy is better, because this depends on the long list of things you refrain from doing.

Fortunately the game is very modable and it is possible to modify it in a way that makes it impossible to win on turn 30 (on a difficulty higher than pilgrim) and makes it rewarding to build a thriving colony. And once you do that the game can actually be fun without restricting yourself. Sure the AI is still pathetic, but before a competitive AI can be made the game has to be roughly balanced first (At the moment, the "best" AI would be one, that knows how to win on turn 40).

However, mods that address the flaws of the original game are no substitute for a real patch. There won't be much of strategy discussion until there is a standard non-broken set of rules out there. And I really hope that Firaxis does the effort to make a patch that rebalances the parts that are broken.

Until then I don't even have to read the strategy forum, because the way I think the game should be played and the way I play my own mod would end in total disaster for anyone paying with the standard rules.

I am not denying any of that, all I'm saying is that the game can be fun by choosing another way to play. If you don't choose that way to play, don't . .. .. .. .. . and moan to me and then expect me to join in, because I choose to play in a way that is fun.

It's your $40 wasted by not exploring the game not mine.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I have been playing the game, very little, and only a bit now and then, but only thanks to Dale/Snoopy and all their hard work on the mod-patch (thanks guys). I'm waiting for some kind of official patch, or even ONE post from ONE dev about what's going on with the game. But seriously, the very fact that we need to play using a "jury rigged" mod to make up for the terrible state the game was released in, is proof in of itself that there are large holes in this game.

There won't be any official patch until after the end of that competition for the best mods which Firaxis has promised such opulent rewards for. You know the reason for this as well as I do.

 

[Refar]

Somehow i fail to see why winning in 30 turns - where most of the argument here seems to boil down - is a problem. Sure you can. Do it if you like. And then start again and try another method to win or loose. Loosing can be fun too.

You can beat Fallout 2 in 25 minutes. Did it a few times. It was fun. Played the game for years after - without and later with patches. Winning, loosing - sometimes due to bugs. It was allways fun.

The game has a lot of flaws - and i myself ranted quite a lot.
But people refusing to try something new and just sticking to the one - coincidentally the exploit'y - way to play it, which they caught up on the forums...
This is not the games fault.

 

[Blackmantle]

@ Dale: While i agree on some of the points about choice and exploits, what really is problematic, is that if you follow that course (which also the advisors and tool-tips suggest) the game very fastly becomes frustrating to many players which actually don't know how to exploit the game.
To find the spot which you describe about as "the way its ment to be played" can be really, really hard here (a fact that is nearly impossible to grasp to experienced players and thus playtesters.)
+ you still really have to like huge military slugfests to even enjoy that spot if you do. (which makes the audience quite narrow.)

And if you have to walk a very very fine line to make a game enjoyable either way its just bad game design, plain and simple.
Doesn't mean it results in a bad game outright but its still sad and unnessesary (by the devs, again, no accusations hurled in your direction. No matter if you have been a playtester or not)

It can be fun but you actually have to do some effort to get the game to be fun (if your good and you know the system you have to play subpar. If you play the game for fun on the fly without paying much attention the game punishes you by either beeing unwinable or beeing a huge slugfest.)

And even the way your patch is designed i see some base premises which obviously have influenced the development of the game and which i find actually directly detract from the fun of playing the game.
(To make the REF exploding at all,
to have rebel sentiment in a settlement decay over time at all (this seems the most nonsensical of the lot, the gain from this really is minimal (could have been completely neglected, even "exessive" use of that feature whould have endangered the game not the tiniest! bit. Overall sentiment-decay might make some sense, but only if you base it on the flawed way bells directly translate into REF. And i doubt that the way it is, is not flawed) while stripping it out whould just plainly make the game more fun),
to make education exploding at all (or at least on colony-basis as opposed to settlement-basis),
to not implement any kind of serious market fluctuation besides those generated by trade,
to implement a decent system for diplomacy but don't use it in a significant! way (those tribes and colonies should interact in a more vibrant way without you prompting them to do so. Not that hard to do and it whould add a lot! of fun),
to utterly focus the game on the WoI and reduce the importance of the other parts.
As you may have noted none of these is a bug and all of these might make sense in some way. The obvious bugs i won't list.
Sure other ways to balance the thing are harder to design / implement and have some flaws. But the result actually seems more fun. To me at least.)

I for one think that the game has suffered a lot from to much focus on the multiplayer crowd (competitive that is) and thus far to much on balance. I can understand that decision and it is a gamble every dev has to make (so i don't say its wrong by default. Just that the result turned out poorly from a single-player point of view.)


It feels far to much: You have to do xyz.
But if you do xyz to good we have to punish you because you evil exploiter are trying to destroy the game / your fun and we know best what is fun to you. (Which plainly put is just a flawed way of thinking because games are a pasttime, not a job you do because you have to earn a living.)
And i can spot some of those tendencies in your patch as well like cutting natives training natives (don't see this as a critics on your work just an analysis because you have been a playtester and that seems to have been a thing playtesters and devs have agreed upon somewhat. Also because such kinds of decisions make sense from a competative multiplayer design-perspective so they can be reasoned for.)

There are other possible approaches to game-design (and even other more mild ways to do if you chose this one.)


That said i have bought the game for mods and multiplayer (mostly coop only, didn't got to test that so far because a good mod for that needs to be made first and i for one don't like your approach to balancing, its just not what i like to play.) anyways so the vanilla version wasn't that important to me.
(but im appaled by the subpar game-design for a game of the civ-series + an obviously rushed release due to setting an EtoA and sticking to it. Still not unplayable or utterly unfun but flawed by a really broken design-philosophy were the player is seen as a problem + any feature is seen as a possible exteme exploit first and simply put fun seems not the main focus. And mildly! (and i really mean very mildly) exploiting features can be fun.)
And i have played, sold and tested quite some games, computer and otherwise. So its not just purely subjective but from a more general approach with enough comparison for at least some valid judgement imo.)


And games do give goals (some have very loose ones but that is not for anyone.). But if you have to work (and hard) for the intangiable meta-concept of fun itself in the way the developers have imposed on you (and choice in that matter is somewhat limited here, i hope we can agree on that.) it becomes very hard to spot.


And then comes things like the competition. Like say FFH 2 (a free mod so good that i actually just got to play bts to get the updated version for it. And that's sorts of an in-house competition so Firaxis doesn't even get hurt by this really.). Sure you are right with your comment of:
Don't like it, don't play it and wait for decent mods.

I still hope you can at least understand that those 28€ paid do hurt a bit if not much fun has been gained out of it (and thus i do feel compelled to comment on this here. Whats wrong with that? Shouldn't the devs actually appreciate such behavior?
Heck, whats wrong even with the bragging of the "pros" how cool they are ? At least they have fun as long as they do... Not that it whould be much my game. Thats more what i call playing the system and using the features in a creative way. Or what you whould call vilely exploiting features. Evil me
Whats good about you mocking them for it? (besides you having fun while doing so which is a very solid reason, of course , if a bit controversial. ) )

And it has been having the premise of being the remake of a classic. (and I'm not even so much focused on the flashy things like graphics but just want good gameplay and i do expect to have Civ:Col at least somewhat feel like some of the good things about Col 1.)
Its not the worst of investments lately (spore has been much, much, much.... worse... ) but that's not a description the devs should be proud of.
(Again, i don't hold playtesters responsible for how a game turns out. Thats the devs job. And i really appreciate your efforts, even if they don't help me much directly. But even if just in an indirect way i will profit from the modding community sooner or later. Something which actually makes this game be not a letdown because i know it will be fun one day. Just not yet. And im even fine if the modders make the game good for me, not mainly the devs. Because i also credit firaxis / take 2 for making modding as viable as it is here thanks to their policies in that regard...)

So i will wait till i get bored with FFH 2 again and until some patch for less competitive (balance and exploit-prevention everywhere) play with more focus on fun is released. (So i checked the wait until patch option.)

 

[Bad Brett]

If you cared to read what I said you would notice I offered a suggested method on how to keep REF's down. I did not say I play that way. So I'll take it kindly you don't put words in my mouth thankyou.

Here's from the thread "Col2 is a sloppy product":

I'll generate bells from turn 100 to 200 (sometimes earlier depending on my mood) before DoI.

By the way, BlackMantle sums it all up very well. Actually, I can't understand what the devs were thinking. Fountain of Youth was removed since it was overpowered. On the other hand, having a big population doesn't help you win this game. Education times increase, but there is an early FF that let's you buy units 25% cheaper in Europe. It has become harder to breed horses, but you can easily buy all the horses you need. Sell some early muskets to the indians and they can easily wipe out an entire nation.

Do you see the irony? The devs removed a lot of fun element because they were unbalanced, but the end result is a far more unbalanced game than the original. Less fun, easier to exploit.

 

[Blackmantle]

@ Bad Brett: As i have outlined one possible explanation is to target the multiplayer-crowd (ill elaborate here a bit to perhaps help some frustrated players to get one possible take on it) and it is a sensible one (or can be if done right and it plays out well. And a gamble / choice every developer of games for a mass-market has to do these days. To either focus on singleplayer or multiplayer. With the multiplayer-crowd actually beeing quite the more interesting one nowadays)
I can imagine a few ways how a game can turn out as such.

If you want to have a game play well in competitive multiplayer it has to be as balanced as possible (and Col goes a long way here with quite a good number of players per match, size and pace of the game for that aspect even if its still flawed for some glaring reasons which may very well be down to the way their rushed release.)
Most of those crowds have quite a sportsmanship spirit and are willing to overlook a lot of the fluff to have a good and fair playing field.
(That' why some very simple games are a lot of fun to them. Now if some of those teens with a shooter-fanaticism whould look at some of the older games, boy they whould be hooked. They may cry for graphics.
But have them try such a game once with someone of their skill and you don't need a word of explanation anymore... Heck even pong has quite an appeal only visible to those who have played it vs another human player. Laugh at it (and tetris + the other great classics) at your own peril. Some games just never grow old. Civnet is another huge example of this. As surely is civ 2 which i havent played.)
Its just soo not to my tastes... (even in multiplayer i rather like coop but with that I'm in a clear minority)

And the easier to exploit-part is only stemming from 2 glaring oversights (direct connection of Bells-Ref and neglecting anything else while starkly overestimating the value of founding-fathers and overlooking Cannons / several constitutional picks in relation to the first point.
The rest is not soo big or no real problem in itself. And fighting / rewarding a geruillia war is really no oversight or flaw but a clear design choice in my book. And hence I'm fine with that. Or whould be if not for the first 2 points which make this pick in development a bit problematic as the game is now) which very well might have stemmed from a tight schedule (i take this for the very reason those 2 things have still been in).

I whould judge the game rather as near-impossible to exploit (and the devs seem to have gone a looooong way to make it such).

But! near-impossible to exploit with 2 oversights in a mass-market as gaming directly translates into a game with 2 glaring exploits... (rest assured being a dev isn't easy. Still doesn't make the whole thing better though. Just an explanation how things come to pass.)
Not least thanks to vile vile exploiters like me who like taking things to the limit and 'conspiring' around with others to take it farther to the limit even more.
So be a bit cautious with that correlation (you might get a game completely impossible to exploit ... Getting more than you bargained for can be quite less than fun...)


So i view us as paying beta-testers. No thing i have a huge problem with. Part of the bit of fun i had with the game as is was finding those glitches...

But only because of the decent policy of the devs towards mods + overall support and feedback + the decent modding-community out here. Kudos to them .

If they didn't have those policies and whould treat their customers like, say, EA i whould verbaly tear them apart like i do with spore (which nearly cost twice as much as Civ4:Col)
(complete malign customer ripoff. That's the kind of games i pity not being a pirate and likeing to actually pay for the games i play, or play freeware.
DON'T EVER WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS MONEY ON THAT STINKING PILE OF ROTTING GARBAGE OF A "GAME" (a.k.a MALWARE). THEY SHOULD HAVE ADVERTISED THAT NON-GAME AS AN ART-TOOL (which actually might be designed in a good way. But paying to work for them is paying to work for them. And by that i don't mean testing.) NOT SOMETHING WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE E N T E R T A I N E M E N T... AND I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICED THE HYPE BEFORE BUYING / Spore rant off).


Still i can understand anyone who thinks otherwise about the payed beta-tester part. And the devs should as well would do good and in listening to them first...

 

[Dale]

Here's from the thread "Col2 is a sloppy product":

Uh.... you realise that quote doesn't prove the statement I play the late game bell-blitz strategy right? I said I produce bells for at least a third of the game which proves without a shadow of a doubt I DONT pursue a late game bell-blitz.

 

[Viperace]

Edited.

Good edit, Dale

I admit, yes...Once I know the exploit, I can't play without using it.
I have taken Red pill, there's no going back.

So... it is up to Firaxis to fix the game, I am waiting for that. While there are, supposedly, good mods out there such as the one that Dale/Snoopy made, I ain't using them because this should be fixed the Developer NOT the Fans.

Bottomline, I ain't playing, till the REF part is sorted out officially.

...that I'm THAT good and then spend the next two weeks on the forums bragging about how fast I broke the game to try and look cool!.

Nah, I ain't those bragging a$$ like some in the forum. I only give valid reasons

 

[jenie]

bought it 2 days ago and haven't quit yet.....i see nothing yet that screams "need patch now"...make of fact i have no game on my computer patched which includes Civ 4, Sims 2, Age of Empires 3....

i really like it so far....course kissing the kings hand or whatever makes my SICK...lol

 

[player1 fanatic]

Problems I see with this game:

First, making big prosperous colony, which is fun, leads to no fun in late game due to getting big REF (bigger colony more bells needed).

So no sense of accomplishment if everything you did to make big rich big colony, instead of helping you, made your WoI more difficult.

^ This is the biggest issue in Civ4Col, in my opinion. But game is really fun until you get aware of this problem after 150-200 turns.


Next, rewarding exploitable strategies as way to remedy issue above, like not using statesmen in early game (and building PP with carpenter). That is not fun. If you get Elder Statesmen early it is supposed to be fun to use him, not otherwise.

Currently, statesmen benefits in early game (town sentiment bonus, FF generation) probably do not outweighing penalties, due the way how REF (LB accumulation) and rebel sentiment (LB used as maintenance cost) are calculated.

Next, the King interaction. There are no clear benefits for being on good side with him. Especially, since main reason to keep good relations, which is 50% discount on units, carries with itself very big penalty (REF increase equal to unit price converted to LB). This pretty much broke my last game (due to me buying around 12 units from king, and gaining vitrual 9000LB of king forces).


P.S.
As you see, all these issues are directly related to the way how REF grows.
If you just ignore WoI elements completly, this game is pretty great.

 

[player1 fanatic]

to have rebel sentiment in a settlement decay over time at all (this seems the most nonsensical of the lot, the gain from this really is minimal (could have been completely neglected, even "exessive" use of that feature whould have endangered the game not the tiniest! bit. Overall sentiment-decay might make some sense, but only if you base it on the flawed way bells directly translate into REF. And i doubt that the way it is, is not flawed) while stripping it out whould just plainly make the game more fun),

Concerning sentiment decay, personally, I have no issues with it. Like needing to have 200 bell production to keep 100 people count as rebel colonists.

Effectively, rebel sentiment has LB used as maintenance cost. Nothing wrong with that, if you consider that rebel sentiment increase also increases productivity of colonists.

What I do have issues is that REF increases are based on LB generated over time. While it works well for FF, it really is not appropriate for REF increases, since it penalizes player a lot for using sentiment as way to boost production (the boost is less then penalty you gain from increased REF size).

 

[wurrble182]

@ Bad Brett: As i have outlined one possible explanation is to target the multiplayer-crowd (ill elaborate here a bit to perhaps help some frustrated players to get one possible take on it) and it is a sensible one (or can be if done right and it plays out well. And a gamble / choice every developer of games for a mass-market has to do these days. To either focus on singleplayer or multiplayer. With the multiplayer-crowd actually beeing quite the more interesting one nowadays)
I can imagine a few ways how a game can turn out as such.

If you want to have a game play well in competitive multiplayer it has to be as balanced as possible (and Col goes a long way here with quite a good number of players per match, size and pace of the game for that aspect even if its still flawed for some glaring reasons which may very well be down to the way their rushed release.)
Most of those crowds have quite a sportsmanship spirit and are willing to overlook a lot of the fluff to have a good and fair playing field.
(That' why some very simple games are a lot of fun to them. Now if some of those teens with a shooter-fanaticism whould look at some of the older games, boy they whould be hooked. They may cry for graphics.
But have them try such a game once with someone of their skill and you don't need a word of explanation anymore... Heck even pong has quite an appeal only visible to those who have played it vs another human player. Laugh at it (and tetris + the other great classics) at your own peril. Some games just never grow old. Civnet is another huge example of this. As surely is civ 2 which i havent played.)
Its just soo not to my tastes... (even in multiplayer i rather like coop but with that I'm in a clear minority)

And the easier to exploit-part is only stemming from 2 glaring oversights (direct connection of Bells-Ref and neglecting anything else while starkly overestimating the value of founding-fathers and overlooking Cannons / several constitutional picks in relation to the first point.
The rest is not soo big or no real problem in itself. And fighting / rewarding a geruillia war is really no oversight or flaw but a clear design choice in my book. And hence I'm fine with that. Or whould be if not for the first 2 points which make this pick in development a bit problematic as the game is now) which very well might have stemmed from a tight schedule (i take this for the very reason those 2 things have still been in).

I whould judge the game rather as near-impossible to exploit (and the devs seem to have gone a looooong way to make it such).

But! near-impossible to exploit with 2 oversights in a mass-market as gaming directly translates into a game with 2 glaring exploits... (rest assured being a dev isn't easy. Still doesn't make the whole thing better though. Just an explanation how things come to pass.)
Not least thanks to vile vile exploiters like me who like taking things to the limit and 'conspiring' around with others to take it farther to the limit even more.
So be a bit cautious with that correlation (you might get a game completely impossible to exploit ... Getting more than you bargained for can be quite less than fun...)


So i view us as paying beta-testers. No thing i have a huge problem with. Part of the bit of fun i had with the game as is was finding those glitches...

But only because of the decent policy of the devs towards mods + overall support and feedback + the decent modding-community out here. Kudos to them .

If they didn't have those policies and whould treat their customers like, say, EA i whould verbaly tear them apart like i do with spore (which nearly cost twice as much as Civ4:Col)
(complete malign customer ripoff. That's the kind of games i pity not being a pirate and likeing to actually pay for the games i play, or play freeware.
DON'T EVER WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS MONEY ON THAT STINKING PILE OF ROTTING GARBAGE OF A "GAME" (a.k.a MALWARE). THEY SHOULD HAVE ADVERTISED THAT NON-GAME AS AN ART-TOOL (which actually might be designed in a good way. But paying to work for them is paying to work for them. And by that i don't mean testing.) NOT SOMETHING WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE E N T E R T A I N E M E N T... AND I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICED THE HYPE BEFORE BUYING / Spore rant off).


Still i can understand anyone who thinks otherwise about the payed beta-tester part. And the devs should as well would do good and in listening to them first...

i havent read this collosal post .... i think anybody who has the time to rant and rave so rampantly on a video game forum needs to step outside and smell the cold morning air once in a while... and just accept the fact that eventually when a 1.3 or 4 patch is out and the game is another awesome addition to sid meier's catalouge this whole pointless debate will be a thing of the past and for the hours you spent ranting people like me shall of spent gaming........

 

[MaxellSnow]

So the main answer to my original question now seems to be how the king's forces are grown overtime in response to your game play, ie- using statesmen and such throughout versus a bell blitz later on.

I disagree that this is unbalanced. The added bonus of production increases your cash flow which in turn allows you to purchase more goods over seas (goods being food, horses, weapons, cannons, etc) in direct anticipation for a large invading force. Seems most of the king's forces get thrown towards mow's anyway which are made irrelevant by having an inland capitol. Just my two cents though.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I disagree that this is unbalanced. The added bonus of production increases your cash flow which in turn allows you to purchase more goods over seas (goods being food, horses, weapons, cannons, etc) in direct anticipation for a large invading force. Seems most of the king's forces get thrown towards mow's anyway which are made irrelevant by having an inland capitol. Just my two cents though.

The thing, is that such bonus doesn't really help enough to gain edge over higher REF that you would get by generating LB early.

.

Let's take size 8 town (should work for other towns too). Having statesmen that generates 8 bells will produce same amount of goods, on average, compared to using that citizen for some other use.

8LB give 2 rebel colonists (when stabilized). In size 8 town that's 25% rebel sentiment. Or 12.5% bonus overall. Just like having, on average, one extra colonists that produces something.

In short, you need more then 8 bells per city to actually gain any real production bonus that makes money when using statesmen (if we ignore FF you gain from LB generation, since we are talking about economic benefits).

 

[Blackmantle]

@ wurrble182:

Unless

a) you have worked in explaining + selling, evaluating, regulating and giving tutorials for games (including video-games but not exclusively).

b) you actually like writing long posts and hanging around in a video-game forum.

c) like testing games and giving feedback + interacting with the modders of a game.

(all 3 true for me)


Also if you might have taken the time to read my post (even just the very start) you might have realized i haven't even ranted (exept a tiny bit (extent is subjective ) about another game which is spore) but instead:

a) explained things which need change in a rather settled manner in my first post in this thread.
and
b) tried to help someone understand how a game can be released with such problems (game with problems is not = bad game) in the second post in this thread.


So i have to conclude about your post:

You are right. So what?

+ your critics don't really target me in large parts at least unless i wrote my post in a very bad to understand way (and unless i badly misunderstand your post, which i doubt.), part of my post was even defending the game / devs to a certain extent.


Mainly because i didn't rant and am not really a complaining about the game again and again here in these forums.

I would fully agree with your bottom line about Civ4:Col / Sid Meier's games and it very likely being good game one day soon (not least due to paying beta testers ), and said so quite explicitly at least in the post before my last one likely in the one you posted as well. Should be just on that same page so no long searching needed on your part.

On spore which was a short rant: I think some bit of outrage for a 50-buck ripoff is justified.
I would be more agitated in a verbal conversation if presented with such a situation at a retailer + it was a good example to the one poster my post was referring to why wholesale rants about Civ4:Col aren't justified to such an extent.
Also i don't exactely consider a 2-line-rant an extensive one.
But attention-spans for different people sure are different.

But again, that's no wonder if you don't take the time to actually read a post but still comment on it.


And i can only suggest you to not comment on things you don't read let alone understand (and quite obviously show any reader actually caring to read my (admittedly) long post quite clearly you got it badly wrong by giving proof counter to your post in quoting me)
unless you want to have similar critics aimed against yourselves (and more fittingly than in the way you tried to aim them on me.), if for different reasons.




Also i can't really understand why you consider yourselves being Bad Brett (the one poster my second post was mainly aimed at) unless you are actually a multi-account of him or suffer from multiple personalities and Bad Brett is the account of another personality of yours. Which i slightly doubt on both counts.
(Unless i misread something about the part of me ranting you. Another hint that you didn't even start to uderstand what my post was about.)



@ player1 fanatic:
That doesn't change that sentiment decay on settlement level could just be cut out and it would be no problem at all + might in fact improve the game a little.
A useless counterbalance is a useless counterbalance. It whould actually help with what you outlined as having fun with getting a statesmen early...
At least it whould make the game running a bit smoother due to less lines of code / checks needed.

Better question / line of defense would be if that feature actually made the game better from your point of view, wouldn't it?
Do you see anything valuable in it (sorry, doesn't hurt just doesn't cut it for me for something penalizing the player.)?

All that under the premise that some sort of connection between Bells and Ref is justified. Which i think it is. (I just think that the extent is way off the mark.)

 

[MaxellSnow]

The thing, is that such bonus doesn't really help enough to gain edge over higher REF that you would get by generating LB early.

.

Let's take size 8 town (should work for other towns too). Having statesmen that generates 8 bells will produce same amount of goods, on average, compared to using that citizen for some other use.

8LB give 2 rebel colonists (when stabilized). In size 8 town that's 25% rebel sentiment. Or 12.5% bonus overall. Just like having, on average, one extra colonists that produces something.

In short, you need more then 8 bells per city to actually gain any real production bonus that makes money when using statesmen (if we ignore FF you gain from LB generation, since we are talking about economic benefits).

If your one extra colonist is a tobaccoist in an advanced building, that is very very significant even if you just buy food in Europe to convert to people with the cash made. Personally, I do not start lb production until my industry infrastructure is in place and i have enough statesmen to put at least 1 in every city.

Which logically and historically would not be an exploit. Why would a colony with a few farmers in it not producing anything of great value be all up in arms for independence? Why would a statesman in a small economically irrelevant colony be spouting about breaking from big brother?

 

[player1 fanatic]

Thing is, those early statesmen don't really pay off for themself, if we just look for maximized profit. They are mostly for FF generation. With all that, it's still not enough compared to higher REF gain you'll face.

 

[Blackmantle]

Well, needn't be for FF-generation only.
Just cut out settlement-sentiment decay over time and they offer a real added benefit (real improvement of productivity).
That was part of what i meant with cutting it would give some benefit to the game as a whole...

 

[Zhahz]

I enjoy the game as is but I think it could be better, via an official patch. I'm not big on mods (except for FFH) and think it's pathetic that modders should need to FIX a game that many feel is broken at release.

I also find Firaxis' communication to be amongst the worst in the entire PC gaming community. They simply don't communicated, period. The really need to get with the times where even 3rd rate game devs and indie game devs have vibrant community sites and usually have direct interaction with fans (via forums).