Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Where most of the vagueness is present is agricultural production. I always struggle to know whether I'm really getting any benefit from having 9 workers on a field versus 5 workers on that same field. Same with pastures, is there really any benefit from going from 7 to 8 workers on my pasture or is it just overkill? But, I don't see how the game could really give you an estimate because there's so many different things that come into play that affect the production efficiency with agriculture. For example, if all your workers live far from the field, you'll need more people working the field because they'll be spending so much time going back and forth to their homes. The speed of your workers, the tools they use, the buffs in place, how hungry they are, how happy they are, etc. etc. all factor in to the equation.
The main advantage if this logic stays accurate is extra workers means anyone who gets delayed coming to the field (such as from injury or a long trek), the extra workers compensate for complications. They might also contribute to fertilizing faster which would have a result as well.
If you want to really test if there's a serious difference, an easy way to check is to make 2-3 fields right near houses with minimal walk time distance and check the yearly production at each and put a set number of people on them. If workers gives more food, you'll see it scale accordingly at the higher numbers, and if all they do is harvest faster, then the final yields should be relatively the same.
What about pastures? more workers means faster animal reproduction?
Another indirect value to having extra people on these is they contribute to proficiency scores.
It depends on how your city is organized. Extra workers in fields and pastures don't produce extra resources, they just make sure that you actually get the work done. If your workers live farther away then you need more workers. If they live close you need less.
This game is about optimization.
If your city layout is badly designed and people have to travel all over the place then you need more workers to accomplish the same task as a well organized city will accomplish with less workers.
So the optimal number really depends on your city.
I did some tests.
From the same save spot I ran 3 scenarios in a pasture.
1 worker
2 workers
4 workers
6 workers
No matter how many workers I had the animals reproduced at the exact same speed. No difference.
I was using alpacas.
2 workers produced about 1/2 the amount of 4 workers for fur and animal dung. 1 worker produced about 2/3 as much as 2 workers.
Oddly, 6 workers produced less than 4 workers for fur an animal dung.
I then went back and re-ran the workers and this time 4 workers produced roughly the same fur and animal dung as 6 workers.
So I suspect there is some random component going on. But who knows. It could be anything.
What I can say is that the animals always reproduced at the same speed.
I believe their is a hard limit on how often animals take to give birth and the number of workers will never change that.
I believe their is a cap to how much meat a pasture can produce and this cap is maintained by how long it takes animals to give birth and mature.
So at some point adding more workers to a pasture (just like a farm) is not going to achieve any extra output.
You can run your own tests obviously. Workers probably do different stuff every time, so there always going to be some randomness to it I suppose.