I have mixed feelings about this. My positive feeling is that a unit should
improve its skill by actively using the methods taught it. My negative feeling
is, just how much can actually be gained? Without new ideas or methods,
advancement should be limited.
> So if you caught horses for 10 days, this would be equivalent
> to studying horse catching for 5 days.
I feel this may be too much of a benefit (my negative attitude coming into
play). For instance, let's say that Catching Horses 101 involves lassoing the
horses as they ride by. By using this skill, you will be come proficient in
lassoing horses (less would get by each time you try). Catching Horses 201
involves setting up a corral and forcing the horses into it. Or something
similiar to that. As far as I feel, I can lasso horses all I want, I will
probably never try the advanced method unless someone has taught it to me.
> If both a parent and subskill were involved, the parent would
> gain a bit too, but in the same proportion that it helps worker
> output (parent: 1/3 subskill: 2/3).
> This bonus would occur for ASSISTing units as well.
Same negative thoughts.
To stop from feeling negative, I will throw in this additional idea:
Advancement from "using" skills is restricted to 1/2 the number of days
necessary to go up a level. In other words, I must study (be trained) at least
for 1/2 the days. In this case, "using" the skill would be like attempting to
use the new ideas that I am learning from my mentor. Whether the unit must
study before, after or during "using" the skill is left open for judgement.
John Carr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
PS. Flames are appreciated, but go gentle this is my first post. ;-)