I was wonder which of these would be better to shoot for. I just won a cultural victory and I stuck with Merchantilism the whole time for the extra specialist, however, can you make more money with free market? If your trying to win the space race, which of these is better for research?

Generally, mercantalism is going to be better if you're specialist focused and running representation and generally boosting specialists, and it's very nice on a terra map for giving your new colonies almost a full extra person. It's really nice combined with things like Sistine Chapel and Angkor Wat. If you're not running a specialist economy, free market is usually way ahead since you'll bring in a ton more commerce. If you're going for a space race, you should definately be going for cottages and/or sea cities for commerce, so free market is almost always going to come out ahead.

BTW, unless your empire is very small, state property will result in more money than either of them.

State property is where it's at.

I agree with Ronin, that is, until everyone else is dead(on my continent). Then I switch to free market, I never remember to use my specialists...

If you are significantly larger than any other AI, then the foreign trade routes are going to help out your opponents more than you (every one of your cities can provide a profitable trade-route to each of your opponents). Mercantilism in that case is a good way to close off trade with other nations without losing out on the open-borders agreements. Plus you get a free specialist in every city!

Otherwise, I'd go for the Extra trade-route.

Basicly it boils down to just a consideration of what % of the world's big-cities do you control? Control more than a certain amount and you're better off cutting off the AIs from your lucre. Control less than a certain amount and you want to be getting out as many trade-routes as you can. The more trade-routes you have than your opponents, the more incentive you have for open trade. If you don't have a lot of trading to be had, and are just planning to kill the bastards anyways, go for Mercantilism.

The other benefit of Mercantilism is its synergy with Representation.

Mercantalism cuts off your cities from foreign trade, it doesn't cut off other civs from trading with you.

I haven't really tested this, but, if only 80% of my current trade routes are foreign trade routes, if I switch to Free Market, what will the make-up of the added trade routes be. Should I expect them to be similar to my current makeup? Or, can I assume I've exhausted all available foreign trade routes and all the new ones will be domestic?

As well as I know the game, I just never play around much with the economy civic options. I choose mercantilism when I need the free specialists and state property when I'm close to winning and the game happened to go that long. I've never run across a situation where Free Market would be all that useful. I could possibly see it earlier in the game, when trade income makes up a decent percentage of your income. But when it does come, I don't find trade to be all that important (possibly why I've never really noticed the downside to mercantilism).

markantenilism cut your trade routes and trade routes to you.

Try it if you do not believe.
Just look on Demographic screen, you will be at 0/0.

The latest patch fixed Mercantilism so it cuts off trade both ways.

I always go for merchantilism.

Unless you're unable to get open borders with any other civ, mercantilism is a feeble civic that does more harm than good. Unless I'm completely isolated, switching to Mercantilism from Decentralization significantly reduces my income, due to the drop in profitability from switching from foreign to domestic trade routes, and the reduction in number of said trade routes. Yes, it might very slightly reduce the income of a foreign civ, but unless you were the only civ they could trade with the effect is minimal. There are almost invariably alternative foreign cities they can switch to that will give almost as much income.

Free Market is slightly better than Decentralization due to the income from the extra trade routes. Decentralization is usualy much better than Mercantilism. Nothing pleases me more than too see an AI cripple its own economy by switching to Mercantilism.

what hans and mutineer said. Take a look at your export/import information. If ai gets more from trade than you, than you close markets with mercantilism. It's not about how much you make from free trade its about how much others make. With mercan. you effectively slow down global research speed.
This is from 1.6, and was fixed from 1.5.

I use Mercantilism in conjunction with Representation for the specialist then switch to universal sufferage and free market later in the game for more money (I usually play fractual games so until optics you are not trading with anyone much 50% of the time anyway)

I haven't really tested this, but, if only 80% of my current trade routes are foreign trade routes, if I switch to Free Market, what will the make-up of the added trade routes be. Should I expect them to be similar to my current makeup? Or, can I assume I've exhausted all available foreign trade routes and all the new ones will be domestic?


well, it's not that simple
your best cities will have more foreign trade routes, and your lesser cities will have only domestic trade routes : you already use up all foreign trade routes without free market, but it's completely recalculated.

If you only have a few big cities, with all bonus buildings built, it's highly profitable. (most likely)
If you have "middle" cities everywhere, it's like every new trade route was domestic. (have yet to see such a thing)


As well as I know the game, I just never play around much with the economy civic options. I choose mercantilism when I need the free specialists and state property when I'm close to winning and the game happened to go that long. I've never run across a situation where Free Market would be all that useful. I could possibly see it earlier in the game, when trade income makes up a decent percentage of your income. But when it does come, I don't find trade to be all that important (possibly why I've never really noticed the downside to mercantilism).

meaning you play exactly right ;)

If you plan to go for domination, you're well ahead of others when FM comes up. So it's going nowhere to open your markets:mischief: .

If you plan for conquest, you should have killed (almost ?) everyone before FM is possible. If you didn't, FM is beneficial, but won't help you very long(you're going to war soon= closed borders). If you're spiritual you may switch. If you're not, stick with mercantilism.:ar15:

If you plan for diplomacy, through real diplomatic skills, FM is very good. All open borders, you're not overwhelming in city numbers, but have high population = big trade routes everywhere:goodjob: .

Going for cultural, all the commerce will be converted to culture.
It may be good (faster legendary) to be under FM, for the 3 big ones. But i prefer to use all my other cities to build a specialist economy, and for this i favor mercantilism+representation+caste system (not so fast legendary but research isn't stopped, gold still flows, and i get a little bit more GA:cool: ).

Going for space race, you can benefit from FM most of the time.
You may be overwhelming but not to the point of domination, so there may be room for good trade routes. However, a free engineer in your big production cities (you have forges+factories, don't you?) can be good too, while your commerce cities can have a good use for a free scientist.
It depends on your need for research/need for production. Knowing that big research for you through free market allows big research for all the others too, while big (well, +2 hammers * bonus/turn) production through mercantilism is only good for you.

Going for time is lame. FM can be beneficial there, but do you really aim for time victory?:eek:

did i forget something?

Free Market is so much more powerfull if you have built couthouses and opther palaces in right places. Extra trade routes always bring much more commerce than S.P.'s maintance reduction.
Even if i control 20 - 30 cities in all my games i still get more wioth Free market instead of State P. (IF all my cities are on the same continenet). S.P. is great once you actually start conquering other continents.
Free markets cost was upped in new patch since its so powefull.

Also, again, Space Race doesn't mean you need free market at all. IF we assume that you are relatively biggest empire when going for space race, than it is safe to assume that you are much better off with mercantilism at this point.
It all depends

Current game, 6 civs my continent, 5 civs other, noone has astronomy yet..I'm running about 50% science breaking even with large empire..then my 2 trading partners (Hatty and Lizzy) both adopt Merc in same turn...killed my science, I had to drop to 30% with a defecit in gpt...

As others have said with current patch, Merc works both ways..if any civ is using Merc, then that civ has no trade routes with anyone else, and no other civ has trade routes with one running merc...

Needless to say, I'm in a micromanagered rush to banking asap...

Well if you have Large cities, and a decent sized empire then a Domestic Trade route gives you 3 commerce. Which means Free Market can Match Mercantilism in a totally isolated situation

Again if you have Big cities and then Every Big and reasonably distant Foreign City can get you about 4 Commerce (7-3 for Domestic Commerce)

So Mercantilism gives 6 commerce Per city (assuming Caste System or some buildings everywher and Representation)

Free Market gives 3 Commerce per city you have (dependent on Size of that city and of your biggest cities.. so actually 2 for most of the game) and
~4 for each Trading Pertner you have (also dependent on size)

So if all your cities are Large, the difference is basically
3-4 per city under Mercantilism
4-5 per Trading partner city under Free Market

So Free Market is Best if
1. There are more Large Foreign Trading Cities then there are Cities of Yours
2. Most of your cities are Big
3. You Don't want to run Representation for some reason
4. Your Cities are undeveloped, AND you don't want to run Caste System.
5. Lots of coastal Cities


So When Mercantilism First Appears, it is best, once your cities begin getting larger (or you want Police State or Universal Suffrage), then Free Market is best... Once you get close to the Domination limit or highly hated then it becomes Either Mercantilism or State Property... but that mostly depends on how developed you are...undeveloped favors State Property in all butr the smallest empires.

If you are significantly larger than any other AI, then the foreign trade routes are going to help out your opponents more than you (every one of your cities can provide a profitable trade-route to each of your opponents). Mercantilism in that case is a good way to close off trade with other nations without losing out on the open-borders agreements. Plus you get a free specialist in every city!


This is incorrect; trade is NOT bi-directional. A route from Athens to Rome is NOT a route from Rome to Athens. If you run Free Market, only you benefit from the extra trade routes; your opponents do not.

If you want to outperform your opponents in raw commerce, Mercantilism is the worst possible civic of the group.

No. You are incorrect and quote from Hans is correct.
If you only run free market you benefit, but if you run mercant. you close trading routes to other civs.

I think free trade is only for those who open borders with everyone. I refuse to open borders because I have playe this game enough to know that only results in more AI's declaring war on you.. not only that, but now they know exactly where to hit you.