Posts: 2,868
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2010
T-hawk Wrote:I agree with the consensus, Exp over Ind. For a city with a granary and 1.5 workers, Expansive already saved 52.5 hammers, and produced some additional production on the turn economy advantage from growing sooner. Six cities in the early game means well over 300 hammers saved and another couple hundred from turn economy. Ind doesn't get there until you've built 600-900 hammers worth of wonders or forges, which takes quite some time. In a game this large, civs will compete only for wonders for which they have the resource doubler, halving the Industrious advantage. And finally the +2 health will help into the industrial era.
(I know this is late, and the issue is settled already, but I'm bored so I'll go ahead and reply to this anyway)
I think this is being really unfair to industrious and exaggerates expansive. First, the arithmetic seems slightly off- a 25% bonus let's you save 12 hammers on a 60 hammer worker, so 1.5 workers plus a granary would save 48 hammers. And you won't get the full worker bonus unless you can build them all with hammers- you might not get any bonus at all on the first two.
If you build the great wall in the capital, industrious would save 50 hammers. Or building the great lighthouse in a second city, industrious would save 67 hammers, which is way more than expansive would save by that point even with a 4 hammer start. Expansive only looks better if you wait until fairly late to build any wonders (or don't build any at all).
.