When people stop making false claims about mechanics, I'll stop correcting them.
From what I can tell, you are fundamentally not seeing what I've written, whether it is because you are too stuck during in you own frame of reference or just not paying attention.
Please actually READ what I'm saying, instead of attaching claims I didn't make.
I never claimed Ironworks wouldn't start being useful in the future as or Support Artisans couldn't be made to work eventually. I never even claimed Ironworks are bad. I've said:
I would have thought the claim was practically obvious, but you keep disagreeing. So until you actually start addressing my points instead of whatever made-up straw-men you imagination has conjured, I'm done with this discussion.
No one is saying that considering the narrative shouldn't be an important part of planning. But thinking that something that badly screw up our stat economy is NOT bad for us mechanically is either delusional or misreading the question, absolutely regardless of What we think SHOULD be happening based on words of AN or historic precedent.
You didn't explicitly say ironworks 1 until your very last post, and my posts were clearly about the effects of ironworks as a whole. As a reminder:
Basically, the general trend is that, due to Ironworks providing more econ per tech for passives than it does Expand Econ, as we get more, we're incentivized to transition away from manually performing farming actions to doing it passively. This makes sense narratively, since we've kind of teched past farming being a conscious effort at that point. Expand Econ becomes an emergency farm ALL the things button. Not needing to Double Main Expand Econ every turn would save us a lot of actions.
I repeatedly made points about the need to build tall for ironworks and how that will effect our actions, which you responded to a fair bit. If your entire point was that IW1 are bad, then we were talking about different things. Seeing as you were responding to my points about passives and IW2+, I assumed you understood the main thrust of my posts. Your response wasn't immediately, "But IW1 are bad."
You talk about being stuck in my own frame of reference, but what am
I supposed to think in that situation? I was very clearly talking about IW2+ and passives, so I would assume your responses are pertaining to that. Narrowing it down to IW1 at the very end ignores the majority of what was discussed, so I think it's pretty understandable that I didn't think you were simply talking about that. I was
always talking about ironworks as a whole, and therefor took your comments about ironworks to mean the same. If there was miscommunication, then I was not the only one party to it.
Should I have paid more specific attention to your emphasis on IW1 in your last post? Yes. My apologies for that. That's a two way street though, and if that's all you were saying, then you weren't seeing my points either. If you had, you would see that I
don't fundamentally disagree with the fact that IW1 effects are inefficient, since I said this trends us away from Expand Econ in my very first post. But as I said repeatedly, I think this is working as intended. I don't see us phasing out an action as inherently broken or problematic, which you seem to.
