I can see using it a spiritual quick switch for a few turns to pump out a GP, but anyone have a long term strat for peace on prince or above?

It's great for cultural victories. Getting a lot of great artists is important.

I've used it a lot. If you don't focus that much on millitary and use a philosophical civ, it's very useful.

I've had fun using pacifism and then getting all the cool civs to adopt it. I had Julius Caesar pacified.

anyone have a long term strat for peace on prince or above?I do :). I like Pacifism very much, because it's simply the best for fast research (Great Scientists). If I have a lot of religions I revolt to Free Rel later, but sometimes I just stick with Pacifism.

I've used it a lot. If you don't focus that much on millitary and use a philosophical civ, it's very useful.

This is a train of thought that I see a lot that isn't right. Philosophical civs actually get less benefit from pacificism or the parthenon than non-philosophical civs do. Therefore I'd be more likely to run pacifism as a non-philosophical civ than as a philosophical one.

It can be very useful in the cultural border wars, especially if you put some of your commerce into Culture.

It also seemed that the AI was less likely to attack me when I had a small military. Might have been coincidence though.

I also find that it is typically the cheapest in turns of upkeep for my games. Financially it is a better choice than the others.

Stuck on an island as a philosophical civ, having already built the Parthenon and national epic, why would you not want to spam great leaders?

This is a train of thought that I see a lot that isn't right. Philosophical civs actually get less benefit from pacificism or the parthenon than non-philosophical civs do. Therefore I'd be more likely to run pacifism as a non-philosophical civ than as a philosophical one.

But if you're running a GP strategy, then all the extra bonuses help - with any strategy, the more multipliers you can get, the better. Your logic is like saying that Aggressive civs shouldn't build barracks, since many of their units get promotions anyways.

It's great for cultural victories. Getting a lot of great artists is important.
That may be true but I got a cultural victory on monarch last night without producing a single great artist. It was my first ever cultural victory and very clumsy at that but I didn't feel that great artists were a missing piece of the puzzle. Of course if you have the 100%GP trait you would be foolish not to take advantage of it.

I think running Free Religion gunning for a cultural victory is important because you avoid any negative religious modifiers in diplomacy.

But if you're running a GP strategy, then all the extra bonuses help - with any strategy, the more multipliers you can get, the better. Your logic is like saying that Aggressive civs shouldn't build barracks, since many of their units get promotions anyways.It's different. Units from barracks will get +4 exp anyway. Phi civ with Pacifism will get 3 time the GPP it normally would, while it'll get 2 times without it. So it's only a 50% bonus. It's even less if you have more multiplayers (NE, Parthenon)

so how many units do you have? I use a garrison of 2 inner cities 3 outer and a roaming army of 4 plus a defender and a few cats for each section of my empire (usually 2 stacks). pacifism would break me. I feel I need to war a little in prince and I understand its mandatory above. do you all just have tiny empires?

Originally posted by jerry247
do you all just have tiny empires?

For me, it depends if I'm going for a cultural victory. I won on Prince the other night. I only built seven cities, and had two more enemy cities flipped over to me through my culture. :king:

It seems like for other victory types, you would need good sized empires though. I am curious how many cities other people normally build on their own, versus how many they take over. :confused:

It's different. Units from barracks will get +4 exp anyway. Phi civ with Pacifism will get 3 time the GPP it normally would, while it'll get 2 times ***without it. So it's only a 50% bonus. It's even less if you have more multiplayers (NE, Parthenon)

*** = "it normally would", as implied

Are you sure you worded that correctly? Because I am genuinely confused.

I would think that the bonus from Pacifism would be tacked on after the PHI bonus, making it effectively 100% + 100% . Then again, that sounds like alot. So what are we saying they do to nerf this?

Oh, I think Jerry is chompin at the bit for your long term strat, Pent.

Oh, I think Jerry is chompin at the bit for your long term strat, Pent.

no, i use it I win seems like a strat :mischief:

This is a train of thought that I see a lot that isn't right. Philosophical civs actually get less benefit from pacificism or the parthenon than non-philosophical civs do. Therefore I'd be more likely to run pacifism as a non-philosophical civ than as a philosophical one.

That's true only if you look at two identical civs where one has philosophical and the other doesn't.

But if you're running philosophical, you should probably be aggressively pursuing GPs (or you're wasting a trait). Since there's more emphasis on GPs, that extra 100% will most likely be worth more.

It's different. Units from barracks will get +4 exp anyway. Phi civ with Pacifism will get 3 time the GPP it normally would, while it'll get 2 times without it. So it's only a 50% bonus. It's even less if you have more multiplayers (NE, Parthenon)

OK, change my example to saying that it's the equivalent of saying it's a waste to build a university in a city where you've already got a library. It doesn't add another full 25% to the research in the city, so it's a useless addition, right? Of course it isn't - more multipliers are always good.

Sure, the Parthenon only gives a 25% bonus in GPP to a Philosophical civ instead of the 50% it gives to other civs. But that 25% bonus can shave lots of turns off of of getting the Prophet for the Shrine or the Academy for the science city or an Engineer to beat the AI to a Wonder. It's as good as an Industrious civ building a forge in the city where they want to build a Wonder - it doesn't help out as much as it would a non-Industrious civ, but it still shaves time off. Similarily, Pacifism only gives a 50% bonus to a Phi civ, or 40% to one that already has the Parthenon, but that's still a huge bonus. For a GP strategy, it's as significant as putting the Academy in your science city is for research.

so how many units do you have? I use a garrison of 2 inner cities 3 outer and a roaming army of 4 plus a defender and a few cats for each section of my empire (usually 2 stacks). pacifism would break me. I feel I need to war a little in prince and I understand its mandatory above. do you all just have tiny empires?

Even your description here suggests that you have a standard operating procedure everytime you play, which is always going to limit your ability to take advantage of whatever situation you're given.

It's true that using Pacifism and maintaining a large standing army can be hard if you don't have the finances to back it up. There are some games where it will really trip you up even to try.

Whether or not I use pacifism is going to have a lot to do with which Civ I get assigned and what the map looks like. Spiritual civs that go hard on religions typically have no trouble with money; if I have 5 or 6 of the shrines and have spread those religions diligently, I'll have a positive cashflow even with 0% set to income and a large standing army. But, on maps where I have an island to myself, I'll go extremely light on garrisons, and focus on a powerful navy, which can equate to a lot fewer units, especially pre-Astronomy, where just a few stacks of Caravels can often block all incoming lanes for Galleys (and thus incoming troops).

In situtations where I don't need more luxuries or food resources in trade, I'll often trade my extra resources to other Civs for nice gold/turn amounts, which again gives me a large positive cashflow.

So, there's a lot of ways to be able to afford the upkeep for Pacifism. Most games it doesn't come down to merely the cost, though; it has a lot to do with whether or not twice as many Great People is really going to do a lot for you.

This is a train of thought that I see a lot that isn't right. Philosophical civs actually get less benefit from pacificism or the parthenon than non-philosophical civs do. Therefore I'd be more likely to run pacifism as a non-philosophical civ than as a philosophical one.

But if you're running philosophical, you should probably be aggressively pursuing GPs (or you're wasting a trait). Since there's more emphasis on GPs, that extra 100% will most likely be worth more.

Both of you are too vehement, and the truth is that the benefit of Pacifism is most typically about the same for the two cases.

The important fact is that, because each GP costs more than the last one, the number of GP that you generate grows only as the square root of the number of GPP that you generate. So, the Philosophical civ with Pacifism generates 22% more GP than without: the increase from +100% GPP to +200% GPP is a factor of 1.5, and sqrt(1.5) = 1.22. While, the non-Philosophical civ with Pacifism generates 41% more GP than without: the increase from +0% GPP to +100% GPP is a factor of 2.0, and sqrt(2.0) = 1.41.

If the Philosophical civ generates X times as many GPP as the non-Philosophical civ, before any bonuses, then it's generating sqrt(2.0*X) times as many GP as the non-Philosophical civ, including its Philosophical bonus. Thus the Philosophical civ adds 0.22/0.41 * sqrt(2.0*X) times as many "extra" GP as the non-Philosophical civ, with Pacifism, or sqrt(0.58*X).

Thus, the point where the two get an equal benefit is when the Philosophical civ is investing about twice as heavily in generating GPP as the non-Philosophical civ. And I think this is pretty close to the "usual" ratio, so, usually the benefits for the two civs are roughly the same.

Since I generally have a fairly low number of military units Pacifism often has almost zero cost as a civic. A boost to great people production is always handy, and it's a lot cheaper the organized religion which ceases to be useful when I've built most of the cities' buildings. I've never been very fond of Theocracy, as it hinders the spread of other religions into my empire, and as I've said I don't build much military. Free Religion is the only other option I'll run in the late game, for the research bonus. However it is often preferable for diplomatic and spying reasons that I maintain a state religion, in which case Pacifism is my best option

Since I generally have a fairly low number of military units Pacifism often has almost zero cost as a civic.

Absolutely everytime I am lower than 4th out of 7 armies in military strength, I'm getting declared on left and right. And after a while, it becomes a matter of (1) building up the army, or (2) letting go of major cities. No idea how I can use Pacifism given this.

Most of the time I stay on good enough terms to avoid wars, but I can generally defend myself on the few occasions diplomacy fails. Just because my military is small in terms of number of units doesn't make it necessarily weak. A few advanced units are generally more effective than several older ones. I usually have enough free units to have 3 or 4 units per city without significant cost even under pacifism.

so I go with the flow when I play, I try to have a garrison for defense and a standing army for defense. are you saying you don't? I don't usually get an island to myself, so i usually don't go lite on the military. when my military is small i get trampled.

so does anyone have a strategy involving pacifism, or does everyone play random and just use it when its necessary????? :confused:

I'm stating the obvious to the point of uselessness here... so allow me to explain further

You use it if you have a good reason to want many GP.

The real question is why would you want many GP as your main strategy?

You can trade them in for tech's to get ahead in the tech race - allowing a smaller defensive army of higher quality units.

OR

You can buld up super specialists in key cities. Picture your super commerce city (many cottages) with high % science, library, university, observatory, academy, oxford university and 5 super scientists. Now imagine it's yor capital and you're running bureacray and representation as well.
EG
Assume 12 population, average of 4 commerce per tile = 50 commerce + 50% for bureacracy = 75 commerce
90% science gives 67 beakers
Add 9 beakers for each super scientist (extra 3 beakers from representaion)
gives 113 beakers. Now add building bonuses - 25%+25%+25%+50%+100%=225%, so total beakers = 367 beakers
... and thats only from a population 12 city.

You sometimes don't need any science buildings in the rest of your empire with this going on.

OR

you're aiming to make as many Great Artists as possible to balance your 3 culture cities for a cultural win.

OR

You're stacking as many Great Merchants into a GP factory city to further boost it's food to make more GP's..... enjoy the positive feedback loop.

Think of it this way : Pacifism vs. Parthanon


Pacifism can be adopted when YOU need it, and dropped when you don't. Once you've invested 100's of hammers in the Parthanon you can never get them back.

Noone can take pacifism away from you. There is no race.

Pacifism doesn't have a huge up front cost in the early classical period when you really need the shields for something else.

Pacifism gives a bigger bonus than the Parthanon.


Parthanon is loved by many players and I think Pacifism is better

The really interesting question is: "How can I apease, beat off, scheme with other civs to keep an agressive neigbour contained while I progress my GP plan."
The Answer - it depends. Treat every war as unwanted. Plan for it and make it as short as possible. Plan for it even if you didn't start it. Have friends... goos friends and many of them. Make your military high quality (many promotions). Defend well. Make them pay the full attrition bill for starting a war. have commece cities near the core, so the sow growing cottages / villages / towns don't get pillaged. GP factories on the outside are easy to rebuild (farms are quick to make with workers - towns take forever). The benefit to an empire of a GP factory gets exported to core cities, whereas the benefit of a commerce city (the cottages) and a production city (many infrastructure buildings) are not portable - so temporarily giving ground and loosing a GP factory is not the end of the world. Use choke points. Use yor navy if it's a watery world. Use pairs of combined arms fortified woodsman 2 or guerilla 2 defenders on border forest hilltops - the AI will go crazy trying to keep its rear safe as it storms deeper into your empire, and the attrition killing these disposable foxhole strongpoints will really hurt the enemy. If you plan never to need to assault an enemy city tem a smaller military can be used much more effectively.

The ultimate GP focussed strategy looks like this:

Philosophical leader
Parthanon if you're lucky
Representaion
Caste system (if you want to make artists, merchats or engineers)
mercantilism
a reasonable sized empire - lets say 10 cities on a normal map.

2 production cites to make enough military to survive
2-4 commerce cities to keep the economy and Science rolling
4-6 GP factory maximum food cities

A focus for your GP's. Which ones do you want, why, and how will they give you a route to victory?

Lets say you want a spaceship victory

Early on you make super scientists in one of the commerce cities and make it a super science city with Oxford Uni. Mid game you drop great engineers in your best production city, and put the iron works in it.

Let game you use Great Scientists to rush techs. You aim for a tech lead through the modern age, with enough production cities to build the SS. If you need more productrion use your redundant workers to change all the farms to workshops / watermills in some GP cities and build the cheaper SS parts. If it's still a close race then spam a Great Engineer and use it to rush the Space Elevator.

I'm not saying this is the best GP strategy - just the one that uses as many game mechanics that focus on GP's as possible. It may be TOO focuses for some situations

now thats what I was looking for. I was thinking of trying it w/ a small set of cities (like 6 or 7) and using a philo leader. thanks for the info!

FYI, caste system doesn't work for engenieers :( i wish it did

Nice post Robinm. States very well several different options for implementing a GP strategy. I personally tend to use Great Merchant as a super specialist. In a recent game on Emperor i joined 11 Great Merchants to my main commerce city with market, bank, Wall Street. This city alone generated nearly enough "fixed" commerce to pay for an empire of 19 cities and the 3rd largest standing army (out of 6 remaining civs) while running between 80% and 90% research.

Alas, I came in 2nd place on points when the French won on space race. My army was farily decent in size and the units were modern, Louis had a strong enough army to prevent me from disrupting his space parts build. He also had lot's of culture so most other civ's liked him well and would not war with him.

Back to the main point, a good GP strategy is absolutely essential to win on Emperor and above IMHO:). Using GP to pay for empire, keep up on tech's or improve cities among other things is essential.

Question: what does the AI do with GP's? I have never captured a AI city that had a super specialist in it so I'm not sure if the AI joins the GP to a city. I'm guessing they mainly use for tech promotion, wonders or????? I know in some games it seems a GP is born every 5 truns somewhere in the game.

But if you're running a GP strategy, then all the extra bonuses help - with any strategy, the more multipliers you can get, the better.
It's a technicality, but good to keep in mind they're additions, not multipliers. The difference between 100% and 200% is 2x, 200% and 300% is 1.5x. There's few bonuses in CIV that are multipliers...Bureaucracy being one.

When choosing civics I compare my net tax and research before switching to one with after switching to it. Sometimes you gain, sometimes you lose with the same tech: it just depends on the situation of your empire.

OK, change my example to saying that it's the equivalent of saying it's a waste to build a university in a city where you've already got a library. It doesn't add another full 25% to the research in the city, so it's a useless addition, right? Of course it isn't - more multipliers are always good.


You misunderstood the point, he said "less useful".
And you're example is correct, if there is already a library in a city, it is more likely, that the cost of the university are not worth the extra science gained compared to the same city with the decision to build a library or not.

As someone above said for a philosophical civ to get the same benefit from pacifism as a non-philosophical, it needs to produce already more base great leader point, though this is often true.

Carn

If looking at it as Parthenon VS Pacifism, one thing to keep in mind is that you are less likely to achieve the Parthenon, but you are less likely to be able to retain Pacifism. For example, if you build the Parthenon in your capital, you won't lose it; or if you do, you will likely lose the game anyway. This means your Parthenon bonus is very stable. However, I've noticed that I've never been able to retain Pacifism during war time. If playing versus the AI, this may not be a trouble, but when playing versus other players, I think the wise players will declare war on you simply because you are in pacifism. It's like a little white flag that says, "Come kick my ass and force me from pacifism, because I obviously need the GP!". If you aren't religious, this is going to really bring on "the suck". So, be careful how you use it. Don't become too confident and think that you can switch to pacifism and actually not have a military. Also don't ever bank on the pacifism bonus, because a smart Agg player will not allow you to keep it.

There are my 2 cents.

=$= Big J Money =$=

Philosophical civs actually get less benefit from pacificism or the parthenon than non-philosophical civs do. .

If a Philosophical civ has one specialist (using one to make the math easier) and it runs pacificism it receives an extra 3 GPP's from the civic

If a non-philosophiocal civ one specialist (using one to make the math easier) and it runs pacificism it receives an extra 3 GPP's from the civic

thus both receive an extra 3 GPP's, at what point did 3 become less than 3?
I recommend researching mathematics.

And by the time you get pacificism with a philosophical civ you have probably already popped out a few more GP's than your non-philosophical counterparts, thus you need the extra GPP's even more than they do because of the increased cost of GP's

If a Philosophical civ has one specialist (using one to make the math easier) and it runs pacificism it receives an extra 3 GPP's from the civic
If a non-philosophiocal civ one specialist (using one to make the math easier) and it runs pacificism it receives an extra 3 GPP's from the civic.

thus both receive an extra 3 GPP's, at what point did 3 become less than 3?
I recommend researching mathematics.


Each Great Person costs more GPP than the one before, so additional GPP are worth less, the more you have. Thus, an additional 3 GPP is worth less to the Philosophical civ than to a non-Philosophical civ, because the former will have accumulated more GPP.

P.S. I have a PhD in mathematics.

Each Great Person costs more GPP than the one before, so additional GPP are worth less, the more you have. Thus, an additional 3 GPP is worth less to the Philosophical civ than to a non-Philosophical civ, because the former will have accumulated more GPP.

P.S. I have a PhD in mathematics.

It can't really be worth less, you're still making 3 GPP more thus getting your GP out faster. Yeah in % it's worth less, but in absolutes (3 GPP) it's worth the same.

It can't really be worth less, you're still making 3 GPP more thus getting your GP out faster. Yeah in % it's worth less, but in absolutes (3 GPP) it's worth the same.

If you otherwise would generate 300 GPP, then an increase of +300 GPP gets you an extra Great Person (1st=100 GPP, 2nd=200 GPP, 3rd=300 GPP). But, if you otherwise have 600 GPP, then an increase of +300 GPP isn't enough to get an extra Great Person (4th=400 GPP). In the former case, +1 GPP is worth 1/300 of a Great Person, but in the latter case +1 GPP is only 1/400 of a Great Person. The value is not always the same.

Caste system (if you want to make artists, merchats or engineers)
Scientists, not engineers. Anyway, whether or not I'm Philo &/or use Pac, I seldom have any incentive to use Caste because:
1. It doesn't allow me to hurry production by whipping (Slavery does that).
2. Merchants, artists & scientists don't provide hammers, & by hiring them in an already low-hammer city, I only slow production further (even if research, commerce or culture goes up).

But back to the topic, I usually play as Saladin, so I almost always adopt Pac ASAP, that way I can make the most of my Philo trait. I may not necessarily be able to get very many more GPs than I would get as a non-Philo civ w/o Pac, but the sooner I can get 'em, the better.

Scientists, not engineers. Anyway, whether or not I'm Philo &/or use Pac, I seldom have any incentive to use Caste because:
1. It doesn't allow me to hurry production by whipping (Slavery does that).
2. Merchants, artists & scientists don't provide hammers, & by hiring them in an already low-hammer city, I only slow production further (even if research, commerce or culture goes up).


Caste System is powerful because it lets you make a superpowerful focused GP factory. Ie: you can hire 10 scientists and be sure the next gp will be a scientist, or 10 merchants etc. The alternative is hiring however many of each specialist you are allowed by the buildings the city has, which makes your GP generation fairly random.

I don't see the point in using specialists in every city in your empire, except in very marginal cities such as tundra coast with a fish.

If you otherwise would generate 300 GPP, then an increase of +300 GPP gets you an extra Great Person (1st=100 GPP, 2nd=200 GPP, 3rd=300 GPP). But, if you otherwise have 600 GPP, then an increase of +300 GPP isn't enough to get an extra Great Person (4th=400 GPP). In the former case, +1 GPP is worth 1/300 of a Great Person, but in the latter case +1 GPP is only 1/400 of a Great Person. The value is not always the same.

So let me get this straight

yuou make 10 GPP/turn

with pacifism you make 20. That's an increase of 10

If you're philosophical you'd make 30. That's another increase of 10.

I see an increase of 10 for both. Same value. Just because you're pumping out GP quicker and need more and more GPP to get new ones, doesn't mean the gain is lower for a philosophical civ than another one. Just because the % gain is lower doesn't mean the philosophical civ gains less than a non-phi civ. You still get GP faster than a non-phi civ, or than a civ without pacifism, etc.

I mean.. With your logic you'd rather get 100% of 100$ than 10% of 1 000 000$ ????

So let me get this straight

yuou make 10 GPP/turn

with pacifism you make 20. That's an increase of 10

If you're philosophical you'd make 30. That's another increase of 10.

I see an increase of 10 for both. Same value. Just because you're pumping out GP quicker and need more and more GPP to get new ones, doesn't mean the gain is lower for a philosophical civ than another one. Just because the % gain is lower doesn't mean the philosophical civ gains less than a non-phi civ. You still get GP faster than a non-phi civ, or than a civ without pacifism, etc.

I mean.. With your logic you'd rather get 100% of 100$ than 10% of 1 000 000$ ????

i think you havent quite understood the ponit davidessJ is making:

The absolute number of GPP points is not relevent - the number of new GP is. As an example:

You are a philosophical civ, generating 10 base GPP in your (only) city and not having pacifism. You create 20 GP points a turn and in 50 turn you will have generated 1000 GPP - giving you 4 Great People.
Now compare the same civ but with pacifism: You now create 30 GPP/turn - giving you 1500 GPP after 50 turns = 5 Great People

You increased the production of Great People by 1

Now consider playing a non- philosophical civ and also generating 10 base GPP in your city.
Without pacifism you are stuck on your 10 GPP/turn and will produce a total of 500 GPP in 50 turns, giving you 2 Great People
Now if you had pacifism though, you would have generated a total of 1000 GPP, giving you 4 Great people

You have increased the production of Great People by 2.

Looking at the figures relatively makes the difference even greater. While your incresed your GP production by 25 % with a philosophical civ, you doubled it with a non-philosophical civ. (in that period)



This was a bit of a hypothetical situation of course, but you can clearly see the differences in effectiveness that appear.

In my current game I'm running pacifism with not-so-big-but-modern army (I'm at riflemen/grenadiers/cavalry age) with 90% science and positive cash flow.
The reason for this is I own 2 holy shrines (both cities captured, one shrine own-built, another captured as well:)) generating tons of money for me.
And I'm speding production cycles in some of my cities to produce even more missionaries for both religions I posess;).

Paci + Representation + Caste System = Science Machine!!

I can often double or even triple my science rate through the combination of +6 beaker scientist (and masses of them) + the techs the great scientists give me.

I play Frederick (cre/phi) and I ALWAYS use pacifism, even when I'm at war. I think it's too costly for a city to use a lot of specialists without the bonuses to GP points. My strategy is to build a few early wonders (oracle, parthenon and great library) and then generate great people. But most of all, I use it because I think great people and specialists are what makes Civ4 fun :)

Oh, and I'm talking multiplayer here. I don't play single player anymore cause civ4 has no AI. :scan:

Scientists, not engineers.

Ooopss.. you're right.

If I'm playing a GP strategy then I normally get my first engineer from the GPP from the pyramids, and use it to build the Parthanon or the Great Library. After that I'm Great Scientists all the way... so I've never actaully gone for a Caste system Great ENgineer - and realiased that I can't do it :blush:

Robin

Pacificism is a great civic for both Cultural games and especially OCC games. In all my OCC games I always choose Pacificism.

The benefits of super specialist make going for great people almost a necessity.

I mean.. With your logic you'd rather get 100% of 100$ than 10% of 1 000 000$ ????

GPP are not like $$$, because, if you go to the store and spend your dollars on boxes of cereal, each box of cereal costs the same amount. In Civ4, when you spend GPP to earn Great People, each Great Person costs more GPP than the previous one. That's what makes additional GPP less valuable, the more that you have.

GPP are not like $$$, because, if you go to the store and spend your dollars on boxes of cereal, each box of cereal costs the same amount. In Civ4, when you spend GPP to earn Great People, each Great Person costs more GPP than the previous one. That's what makes additional GPP less valuable, the more that you have.

How can they be less valuable, since having more GPP will get you GP faster??

How can they be less valuable, since having more GPP will get you GP faster??

I don't see how having more GPP will get you GP faster.
(I think you might have meant to say having more "GP", not "GPP".)

Having more GP might get you GP faster, if you use your GP to join cities or to build wonders. If you use your GP for tech, golden ages, or other, then they won't increase the speed at which you get GPP, IMO.

Wodan

I don't see how having more GPP will get you GP faster.
(I think you might have meant to say having more "GP", not "GPP".)

Having more GP might get you GP faster, if you use your GP to join cities or to build wonders. If you use your GP for tech, golden ages, or other, then they won't increase the speed at which you get GPP, IMO.

Wodan

More GPP (Great People Point, which you get more by being philosophical and pacifist as opposed to just pacifist or just philosophical or neither) will get you GP (Great People) faster, no?

That's my whole point here, and even if the % increase from pacifism is smaller when you're a philosophical civ than when you're not, in the absolute you still get more GP Points per turn therefore you can crank out your Great People faster than otherwise.

GPP are not like $$$, because, if you go to the store and spend your dollars on boxes of cereal, each box of cereal costs the same amount. In Civ4, when you spend GPP to earn Great People, each Great Person costs more GPP than the previous one. That's what makes additional GPP less valuable, the more that you have.

Assuming that your goal is generating more great people, partly true.

However, if that isn't the goal, and instead the goal is generating a fixed number of great people in less time, your diminishing return doesn't apply. A great person isn't a fixed benefit; the earlier you get it, the larger a benefit it is. If your Civ and my Civ both generate 10 great people in a game, but I generate mine on average in 2/3 of the time, that is a lot of extra turns of increased Science, Culture, Production, or Hammers coming to me. Further, some advantages of GP, like that of Engineers, are mutually exclusive, because the wonders are: your Engineer is worth a fraction of what mine is, because I got it earlier, and built a key wonder that you did not.

A further weakness of your argument is that buying a box of cereal doesn't accelerate the rate at which you can buy more boxes of cereal, and yet judicious use of great people accelerates the rate at which you gain access to more great people, directly through the building of wonders and shrines, and indirectly through faster access to great people-increasing technologies through academies and direct purchase of techs, etc.

Your assessment uses a ceterus paribus that doesn't exist.

I agree with Yzen Danek. In terms of an ultimate goal, especially in terms of researching a technology first or finishing a wonder first, generating Great People is a race. The nature of a race is that if you're not first then you lose. Thus every additional benefit, despite dimishing returns, becomes even more valuable.

Taking the "limit" so to say, of this scenario, let's say that one of the victory conditions is to generate a certain number of Great People. For example, in addition to space race, culture, etc.., the first person to generate 101 Great People wins the game. In this case, even if the "relative" benefit of [Philosophical + Pacifism] over just [Pacifism] were so tiny that only 1 extra Great Person would be generated for every 100 Great People normally generated, the "ultimate" benefit is worth inifinitely more because that extra Great Person wins you the game. Everyone else's efforts towards generating Great People are reduced to worthless. In other words, taking this limit, worth of [Philosophical + Pacifism] goes to infinity and worth of [Pacifism] goes to zero.

Similarly, every Combat promotion increases a unit's strength by 10%. With Combat1, the promotion confers 10% more strength. Combat2, though, will confer less relative strength. Convoluted combat math aside, is it not true that in the big picture, the average Combat2 unit stands to defeat the average Combat1 unit? IE, the Combat1 unit stands to die completely and the Combat2 unit stands to live and fight another day (while getting more experience).

In race situations, the relative benefit tends not to mean anything, so long as its positive.

Also, please explain something to me. Does the required number of GPP increase for everybody once *anybody* has made a Great Person, or is it based only on the number of Great People you *yourself* have generated? In other words, if by the time I generate 1 Great Person, 3 others have been born elsewhere as well, will my next Great Person cost 200 or 500 GPP? I never paid attention to this before.

Assuming that your goal is generating more great people, partly true.

However, if that isn't the goal, and instead the goal is generating a fixed number of great people in less time, your diminishing return doesn't apply.

Sure, there are any number of reasons that any particular civic might be more or less valuable in any particular game. Getting GP quickly is one of those.

Conversely, if you already have a lot of Great People, then an additional one might be less valuable because you've already filled the greatest needs.

All I attempted to do was post a simple explanation of why Pacifism earns fewer Great People for philosophical civs than for non-philosophical ones. It's not meant to be a universal argument that philosophical civs should never use Pacifism. It's only gotten so drawn out because some people don't understand the basic argument and need it re-explained. If you understand the argument and also understand the ways in which it is not universal or absolute, then we don't have any disagreement.

Does the required number of GPP increase for everybody once *anybody* has made a Great Person, or is it based only on the number of Great People you *yourself* have generated?

It's the number that you generate. The 1st one you make costs 100 GPP, the 2nd one you make costs 200 GPP, etc.

After trying out Pacifism as Saladin (Phi/Spi), I must say that Pacifism is a very good civic, even if you have a large standing army.

What I did was combine Pacifism with Vassalage. That way, the free units offset the maintenance penalty, while I still got the GPP bonus. It worked out quite nicely, at least until until I declared war on Egypt and switched to Theocracy. :evil: