Ok, well, there are a lot of critics of the specialist analysis #s I'm posting. I'm confident that specialists are superior, but there are many doubters. To settle the matter, I'd like to do a comparative analysis of cottages vs. specialists.

However, I wanted to do this pre-analysis discussion thread to discuss some of the difficulties, as I see it, in doing this comparative analysis.

1) The science slider and maintenance costs.

In a specialist econ, you set your science slider to 0% and use your commerce to pay your maintenance (especially commerce acquired through conquest). In a cottage econ, you have to divide your commerce between science and maintenance. Some ways people have for coping with this is to use binary science (switching between 100% and 0% science) or setting the science slider to a certain rate (e.g., 70%). The specialist way is easy to calculate, the cottage way seems more variable and difficult to accurately calculate, especially when coupled with some of the other difficulties...

2) Slavery and worked tiles.

In a specialist econ, you can use slavery to your heart's content, as long as you aren't slaving down to a population that sacrifices a scientist (i.e., past size 4 early on). In a cottage econ, when you use slavery, you are losing the working of some cottages until you grow back the population. Furthermore, during these, or other, growth periods, are you always working cottages? Or are you working food tiles? This leads to worked tiles. How many cottages can we assume you are working in a city? Are you working any food or production tiles at any point? All of these factors combined seems to lead to a variable amount of commerce being produced. *Unless* you are totally designating the city to commerce, not using slavery, and finding the required happiness to just consistently grow to add cottage after cottage, which seems contrary to how a game would actually play out.

3) Cottage growth.

Here's a difficult one. Cottages take time to grow and they are growing to different sizes based on when they are built, and how often they are able to be worked. How do I account for this variability? Like I said, if you're using slavery, this will also impact the growth of certain cottages.

These are the immediate difficulties I can see. I may think of others, and if anyone else can think of any, please feel free to post them. Also, if anyone can think of good solutions, please post them.

The goal is to get some stable numbers for the cottage econ to compare to the specialist econ, but I feel at this point that the cottage econ is quite variable based on the above-mentioned difficulties.

In a specialist econ, you can use slavery to your heart's content, as long as you aren't slaving down to a population that sacrifices a scientist (i.e., past size 4 early on). In a cottage econ, when you use slavery, you are losing the working of some cottages until you grow back the population. Furthermore, during these, or other, growth periods, are you always working cottages? Or are you working food tiles?
That just means, in a specialist based economy you HAVE TO work some farms all the time. In a cottage based economy, you don't have to, since unlike specialists, the cottages are typically self-supporting foodwise.

Assume you have a city of size 3 with one 4F tile and 2 specialists. The city is stagnant.

Now in the same city you work 3 cottages for 6F - the city is growing at +2.

Now let's suppose, you have city size 4 with 2 specialists and two 4F tiles. You grow at the rate 4. In a cottage-based city, you have a flexibility either to work 4 cottages and grow at 2, or work 3 cottages and a 4F tile for +6 growth.

So, with certain micromanagement, you actually work more cottages*turn in the same city.

Well the only flaw I am seeing so far is that even a cottage strat will make use of specialists so they can get the best of both while the specialist requires intensive farming with an occasional cottage. It would however be a nice challenge to start a map and get several players to play different scenario's.
1. The first one only uses specialists and sets the science slider to 0%.
2. The second one only uses cottages
3. The third one uses everything to its own liking.
Play 3 different games like space race, domination and the first to reach future tech (tech trading off and no tech winning at peace conferences) for example and see who wins.

It would however be a nice challenge to start a map and get several players to play different scenario's.
1. The first one only uses specialists and sets the science slider to 0%.
2. The second one only uses cottages
3. The third one uses everything to its own liking.
Play 3 different games like space race, domination and the first to reach future tech (tech trading off and no tech winning at peace conferences) for example and see who wins.
That contest would be of limited value. There are too many variables, randomness, and other decisions that impact when you finish the tech tree. Nothing statistically signifigant could be concluded.

I do agree that futurehermit's idea that you should have 0% science to run a specialist economy is somewhat confusing. Why shouldn't you run whatever science percentage keeps you in the black? Just more beakers for your empire.

BTW, I can buy the point where you set your science to 0% to pay income. However, if you do not work any commerce tiles, you get 0 commerce converted to gold. Where do you get that commerce, besides the 8 coins from the Palace and a few coins from farms on rivers, especially pre-Currency?

if you want to test, you must play the different scenarios yourself

if different people play, it's a contest between players, not a contest between strategies.

IMHO there is no "best overall strategy". You need cottages at some point, unless you dominate/conquer the world before emancipation. Also, you need specialists at some point (unless you stick with slavery and whip away population > workable tiles).
The biggest issue with specialists vs cottage isn't the commerce you can get. I'm pretty sure you do better with a cottage economy. The biggest issue is what is game winning?
You need troops.
Cottages give you no hammer up to US. So if a cottager needs troops, he'll have a production city (or a few of those). He may even have an engineer at work there :eek:. Or he will whip away pop. Slow to grow back without farms! So he will have farms/food ressources.
Then again, he will need libraries/markets/banks/universities... whip? chop? yes, ok. This jungle city won't get any chopped library. You need to work some food tiles to grow and whip or to get an engineer/priest/citizen specialist at work to get those hammers.

What i try to say is that there is no pure cottage vs pure specialist economy.
I tried a pure cottage city once. I never could build the bonus buildings!

BTW, I can buy the point where you set your science to 0% to pay income. However, if you do not work any commerce tiles, you get 0 commerce converted to gold. Where do you get that commerce, besides the 8 coins from the Palace and a few coins from farms on rivers, especially pre-Currency?

farms are next to rivers, remember!

You're wrong about production being a factor in favor of specialists. Pure commerce cities rely on slavery for production when needed. Meanwhile futurehermit style stagnated size 4/5 science cities only have 5 hammers or so and also use the whip when its called for. Whenever you specialize a city for commerce its likely going to lack in production, no matter you method of aquiring it.

Andrei_V: He's pretty much set on a continuous war strategy IIRC. That way conquering cities will take care of the money problem.

Andrei_V: He's pretty much set on a continuous war strategy IIRC. That way conquering cities will take care of the money problem.
Well, I can do the same thing in a cottage-based economy. :) I'll just set science to 100% and pay maintenance from looting and pillaging.

And don't forget> Financial trait + Universal Suffrage = superior cottages.

Well, I can do the same thing in a cottage-based economy. :) I'll just set science to 100% and pay maintenance from looting and pillaging.

Seems about right. ;)

So, it looks like even in a specialist-based economy it's good to have a few cottaged cities (especially if they do not have any special food resources, but plenty of grassland.)

At 0% science they'd convert all that commerce to gold, which would help to pay maintenance.

In a cottage-based economy, you set your slider below 100% for the same thing.

The advantage of the specialist-based approach could be in city specialisation: In such commerce cities, you don't need any Libraries-Universities, etc, only Markets-Banks. The science cities don't need Banks and such.

I do agree that futurehermit's idea that you should have 0% science to run a specialist economy is somewhat confusing. Why shouldn't you run whatever science percentage keeps you in the black? Just more beakers for your empire.

BTW, I can buy the point where you set your science to 0% to pay income. However, if you do not work any commerce tiles, you get 0 commerce converted to gold. Where do you get that commerce, besides the 8 coins from the Palace and a few coins from farms on rivers, especially pre-Currency?

Are you not conquering in a specialist-based econ game? The reason you want science at 0% is so you can pay the maintenance of all of the extra cities you'er conquering. I keep trying to explain to people that the specialist econ allows you to conquer more cities than the cottage econ because you set the science slider to 0% to have a larger empire!!! You CANNOT, i repeat, you CANNOT, do this in a cottage-based econ. I have tried and tried and just can't get the same sized empire + tech rate with a cottage-based econ as I can in a specialist econ. Period.

Edit: This is because cottages take time to mature in your newly captured cities while specialists only require some quick food tiles and a library. You eventually run out of steam in the cottage-based approach.

Furthermore, you don't NEED to work commerce tiles to get your money, this is what I keep trying to say! You get your commerce from CONQUEST.

If anyone can speak to my 3 concerns mentioned above, I'd be appreciative. Thx :)

So, it looks like even in a specialist-based economy it's good to have a few cottaged cities (especially if they do not have any special food resources, but plenty of grassland.)

At 0% science they'd convert all that commerce to gold, which would help to pay maintenance.

In a cottage-based economy, you set your slider below 100% for the same thing.

The advantage of the specialist-based approach could be in city specialisation: In such commerce cities, you don't need any Libraries-Universities, etc, only Markets-Banks. The science cities don't need Banks and such.Thats definitely one of the advantages to it. I still feel that the wonders that futurehermit advocates using everytime though would cancel that out. Pyramids are expensive.

And don't forget> Financial trait + Universal Suffrage = superior cottages.

The specialist econ isn't for financial civs. I've never claimed it was. If you're financial, you should be using cottages. However, financial is getting lost in the xpac people...

Pyramids are expensive.

The pay-off is worth it. If you don't believe me, try it out. :)

I still don't buy it. Even in a cottage-based case I can run specialists in the newly conquered cities (why I should not?)

Also, I definitely prefer to capture the Pyramids, rather than build them. :)

Financial is getting lost? What are you talking about?

Yes I have tried specialists before and I found it very lacking. Using caste system and the GL to great the super science city captures most of the power of your strategy. Beyond that I cottage things up even if I'm not financial. The primary exception being fishing villages with food resource that allows you to run a couple scientists. If you set them up early they'll often give you an extra GP or two over the game in addition to a tidy sum of beakers.

Knock it off with the specialist economy threads already! The first one was a pretty good discussion, the rest have been lame.

Another thing is when I get a starting location which is good for specialists, but not for cottages (plenty of food, too few grassland.)

I feel almost lost in this case, since I'm obliged to convert it to a GP farm, rather than growing cottages in anticipation of Bureaucracy.

I can move the capital to another city, all right, but I don't have enough time to grow the cottages.

However, if the capital is suited for cottages, I would not even think about anything else. +50% to commerce from Bureaucracy, MULTIPLIED by Library+Academy+such modifier...

ultimately hermit it is up to each player to decide what suits their playstyle best. a lot of players fluxuate between warmongering and building.. so a cottage based empire tends to serve them better. the specialist econ is an "all or nothing" strat because if you find cities that are unable to be farmed.. they are USELESS to a specialist econ until you unlock biology. a city on a hill surrounded by grasslands is fine for the cottage based econ because the tiles support themselves.
mind you this changes after civil service.. but you are in a way limiting yourself to settling near fresh water in the meantime.

also without caste system you cant maximize specialist use, limiting your ability to use slavery unless you are spiritual.

also not having a commerce based empire hurts your ability to trade gpt for happiness and health resources, which builds up diplomacy with your peaceful neighbors.

also your ability to upgrade troops can only be done if you shut off your science for a few turns and convert to merchants.. which while doable is much more tedious than just resetting the slider for a couple of turns.

I need to see you do a thread like sisuitil or aelf, and while not taking too much input from everyone document your strategy with pictures like aelf does, and SHOW US THE STRAT IN ACTION

all of the times I have used it myself I have had to fall back on a hybrid strat or I end up with cities out there that have no science production. also when you look at power graphs its rough to see yourself at little to no commerce production while the ai is racing ahead.

NaZ

Same with me. I usually end up with a mixed economy. The cottages take time to grow, all right. If you capture some new cities, especially in the mid-late game, you don't have time to grow them up, so specialists.

On the other hand, you capture quite a few cottaged cities with cottages grown up to towns already, so you don't need to do anything else. Just start working them.

Well, I've always done a mixed economy, and recently i've tried a cottage based economy, and i prefer mixed ( few small GP farming fishing villages w/ a GL super science specialist city, but rest cottages). Now i wanna try a specialist. However, i'm at a loss as to how to go about startnig the game. It seems to me you need multiple cities, fast, in order to make the transition to specialist economy. What would be the opening moves of a person in specialist econ?

ultimately hermit it is up to each player to decide what suits their playstyle best. a lot of players fluxuate between warmongering and building.. so a cottage based empire tends to serve them better. the specialist econ is an "all or nothing" strat because if you find cities that are unable to be farmed.. they are USELESS to a specialist econ until you unlock biology. a city on a hill surrounded by grasslands is fine for the cottage based econ because the tiles support themselves.
mind you this changes after civil service.. but you are in a way limiting yourself to settling near fresh water in the meantime.


NaZ

it is most certainly not up to what "suits" each player.

it is most certainly not up to what "suits" each player.
Since we are talking about single player, why not? You can play the game however you want. I do think a primarily cottage based economy with specialists run for GPs and in the case of food resources works the best.

There's no point writing these threads if we're going to drop back to "well, whatever suits you." A lot of people are interested in the methods that do the objectively best job, and that's what we'd like to discover, through experimentation and play.

I would be primarily interested in defining the scope within which the described strat works best. No doubt with certain map settings etc it can be superior.

Besides, there can be some tricks and gambits applicable to any other strats, but discovered while working on this one.

I need to see you do a thread like sisuitil or aelf, and while not taking too much input from everyone document your strategy with pictures like aelf does, and SHOW US THE STRAT IN ACTION

I'm going to second this request. I've done my fair share of experimenting with a specialist based economy, even pulling out some decent performances in GOTM's. However, I've always concluded that it was strictly inferior to a cottage based approach, and subject to far more variablity based upon the terrain you're given. There's a chance I'm missing something, though. If you could walk through a game using this specialist based approach, I think it would be a very beneficial learning experience for us all. I know it's not a simple task, but it is one very good way of proving to most of the skeptics that you know what you're talking about.

Since we are talking about single player, why not? You can play the game however you want. I do think a primarily cottage based economy with specialists run for GPs and in the case of food resources works the best.

sure u can, but not all ways are equally effective.

I agree with NaZdGrEd. You should do the (3?) strat(s) in a thread.

I never said they were, nor did anyone else in the thread. If you've actually followed futurehermits many threads on the topic I'm firmly in the camp that holds cottages to be superior at generating commerce. Especially since he refuses to use any cottages at all for some reason.

Ok, well, there are a lot of critics of the specialist analysis #s I'm posting. I'm confident that specialists are superior, but there are many doubters. To settle the matter, I'd like to do a comparative analysis of cottages vs. specialists.

However, I wanted to do this pre-analysis discussion thread to discuss some of the difficulties, as I see it, in doing this comparative analysis.

1) The science slider and maintenance costs.

In a specialist econ, you set your science slider to 0% and use your commerce to pay your maintenance (especially commerce acquired through conquest). In a cottage econ, you have to divide your commerce between science and maintenance. Some ways people have for coping with this is to use binary science (switching between 100% and 0% science) or setting the science slider to a certain rate (e.g., 70%). The specialist way is easy to calculate, the cottage way seems more variable and difficult to accurately calculate, especially when coupled with some of the other difficulties...

2) Slavery and worked tiles.

In a specialist econ, you can use slavery to your heart's content, as long as you aren't slaving down to a population that sacrifices a scientist (i.e., past size 4 early on). In a cottage econ, when you use slavery, you are losing the working of some cottages until you grow back the population. Furthermore, during these, or other, growth periods, are you always working cottages? Or are you working food tiles? This leads to worked tiles. How many cottages can we assume you are working in a city? Are you working any food or production tiles at any point? All of these factors combined seems to lead to a variable amount of commerce being produced. *Unless* you are totally designating the city to commerce, not using slavery, and finding the required happiness to just consistently grow to add cottage after cottage, which seems contrary to how a game would actually play out.

3) Cottage growth.

Here's a difficult one. Cottages take time to grow and they are growing to different sizes based on when they are built, and how often they are able to be worked. How do I account for this variability? Like I said, if you're using slavery, this will also impact the growth of certain cottages.

These are the immediate difficulties I can see. I may think of others, and if anyone else can think of any, please feel free to post them. Also, if anyone can think of good solutions, please post them.

The goal is to get some stable numbers for the cottage econ to compare to the specialist econ, but I feel at this point that the cottage econ is quite variable based on the above-mentioned difficulties.



I use all 3 techniques in the same game on Monarch level depending on the situation. Sometimes you even have to go 0% at slider but use Specialists/Research to remain in tech race. But it's rather difficult to be 100% in slider if I have around 5 or more cities (depend on the map). Regularly it's just better to keep the slider on the position to don't go negative (unless you have enough gold to sacrifice if you are trying to research a science before everyone else). But the research shouldn't halt. If the slider is less than 50% than I always use some other ways (Specialists/Research).

Wow, this is one angry thread.

That being said I think much of this discussion is entirely missing the mark. The meta-question here is "Which is better cottage or specialist economy?" As the first part of answering this question futurehermit provided an analysis of exactly how many cities a specialist economy needed focused on science to produce tech at the rate of 1 per 5 turns regardless of era. The second part of answering the meta-question is to understand how fast a cottage economy can do the same.

To answer the second question we must first understand the limits of futurehermit's analysis. He Did not determine exactly how much tech a specialist economy could possibly provide. Instead he determined how well it could reach an artificial goal that he determined to be a good tech rate. This does not tell us how to grow our cities, or what the upper limit of a specialist economy is. All the analysis told us was that a specialist economy required X number of heavily science cites per era to achieve a fast tech rate.

Given the nature of futurehermit's previous analysis it makes sense to me to continue in a similar vain. A cottage economy shares some similar traits with a specialist economy, namely that both have a supper science city that does a lions share of the research, and other cities that pick up what is left. Therefore an analysis of the same type as futurehermit's first one should work well. We can start again with looking at what it takes for a specialist economy to get techs at the rate of 1 per 5 turns. We can assume that they have financial and that they have any other necessary wonder to make there strategy more efficient since the same was assumed for the specialist economy. We can then start with one city that is the "super science city" where all the scientists GP are put, and where all the special science buildings are. This city would also be assumed to have as many cottages as possible. Ex. one in basically every space by the second or third era. We then find out how much science is left for the remaining cities to pick up. Instead of looking at how many more specialists are needed here we look at how many more cottages are needed, with appropriate buildings, to generate 1 tech in 5 turns. We then guess at how many more cities this would take to achieve. Ex. if 25 more cottages are need we say this requires 5 cities at 5 per city or 2.5 at 10.

The cottage economy does still end up being more variable then the specialist economy, but we can control for much of this regardless. Starting with the easiest problem first, the one futurehermit labeled #2 in his initial post, we see that with this analysis any considerations of slavery are only tangential to the main question since we are only trying to answer how many cottages, all cottages are assumed to be worked, are needed. The next easiest question is the one futurehermit labeled #1. The science slider is indeed variable during a cottage economy, but it is still relatively easy to provide for all possibilities. All we have to do is provide the necessary cottages at multiple science levels. Ex. At %60 science it may take a "super science city" and 30 cottages, while at %80 it may only take 10. We simply provide the data for several % tech rates, say between 60 and 100. The final question, the one futurehermit labeled #3, is the most difficult. Cottages grow during the game as they are worked so the amount of commerce they generate changes. What we have to do is to come up with an approximation based on the idea that the cottages are being worked most, if not all, of the time. Therefore in the ancient era the cottages will only grow later so the average cottage production for that era will be low. But in the modern era all the cottages will already be fully developed.

These steps will give us the ability to generate a study of the cottage economy similar to the one done for the specialist economy. It is important now to point out several flaws in this method of analysis. First, the cottage growth rate will be somewhat inaccurate. I'm not sure how this can be avoided so it simply seems best to go for an average. Second, since there are multiple science rates provided it will be less definitive. I would be shocked to discover that at %100 science the cottage economy wasn't better then the specialist economy, but what we are really endeavoring to find is at what rate the cottage economy overtakes the specialist economy. As has been pointed out several times in this thread no person plays one strategy exclusively, so the point is to find which economy tends to be better so we may adjust are strategies accordingly. If the cottage economy beats the specialist economy at %60 rate then we should use almost entirely cottages, but if the specialist economy beats the cottage economy at %90 tech rate we should use mostly specialists. Third, this analysis doesn't take into consideration other possible advantages like who produces more hammers or grow faster. This, I think, is simply a limit of a science analysis. It would be nearly impossible to find in one study a complete picture of specialists vs. cottages.

Well I think I've pointed out a consistent and effective way to proceeded. I think what we all have to remember is to be less aggressive towards one another. Forums are a great source of information but the anonymity provides a cloak to let are worst impulses out.:hatsoff:

The next easiest question is the one futurehermit labeled #1. The science slider is indeed variable during a cottage economy, but it is still relatively easy to provide for all possibilities. All we have to do is provide the necessary cottages at multiple science levels. Ex. At %60 science it may take a "super science city" and 30 cottages, while at %80 it may only take 10. We simply provide the data for several % tech rates, say between 60 and 100.

I believe you're using the slider incorrectly in your analysis. You're looking at it from the approach of "I need X beakers at Y%, so how many cottages does that equate to?" Instead, the reality is, when you increase the number of cottages, you can actually run at a higher science %.

Any economic analysis that centers on the science slider is fundamentally flawed. It is not something for which you need to adjust your economy. It is quite the opposite. You adjust it to ensure the bills are payed. All that matter are your total commerce value and your empire maintenance cost. The difference between these two numbers is your potential scientific output in a pure cottage economy. For specialists, the two numbers will be nearly equal and specialists will add on extra beakers seperately.

When equating a cottage economy with a specialist one, you have to look at the commerce that is going to exist in each equally. This is your commerce from trade routes, rivers, bonus resources, pillaging and razing, etc. You have to make the assumption that these figures will be approximately equal in the two scenarios. In both cases, for the sake of simplicity, we'll imagine that this base commerce is exactly enough to pay the cost of the empire. As such, in a cottage economy, every point of commerce from cottages can be converted directly into beakers. Similarly, for specialists, every beaker is a beaker. The science slider never enters into the equation. Essentially, if the specialist empire can pay all its bills while running 100% wealth, then there's no reason to think that any cottages added would not be purely to increase science. A pure cottage economy is a specialist econ that is running 0 specialists, so it has to get beakers by producing extra commerce, hence the cottages.

The two economies are equal when the total amount of commerce produced by cottages is equal to the raw beakers being produced by scientists. To compare these, you need to know the average growth level of your cottages at any given time. If you know this average level, you can determine the number of cottages per specialist needed for the two economies to be equal. Finding this average value over time is difficult; it is dependent on two variables: the growth rate of the empire and the percentage of the empire working cottages. It doesn't help much that both of these numbers are quite fluid over the course of a game.

What futurehermit has done is target a particular science rate and determine the number of specialists needed for that rate. He targetted, in the classical age, about 63 beakers per turn. So, how many cottages do we need to work to achieve this rate? Factoring in libraries (dividing by 1.25), we need about 50 commerce out of our cottages. If we assume that the average cottage by the mid-classical will be a hamlet, that means 25 cottages would be neccessary. Even factoring in an academy, the number doesn't become terribly managable in the classical era; you'd need around 6 in your academy city and an addional 5 or so in three additional cities.

I may start endorsing a quick rule of thumb I've been working on to compare the two economies. It goes something like this. In different ages, cottages are at differing levels of growth. In the classical, you're looking at around 2 commerce per cottage. In medieval, 2.5. Rennaissance 3.5. Industrial, 5. Modern 6.5. Your cottages actually grow faster than this, but this subsumes the cost of bringing new cottages online from scratch. So, what this allows you to do is determine the number of cottages you'd need to get the same science output as a scientist. In the classical age, it's about 3. Somewhere between the medieval and rennaissance, it falls to 2. And then, by the time you're getting close to the modern age, you only need a single cottage per scientist. In my opinion, this nicely encapsulates the increased effectiveness of cottages over time in the average game. Of course, if you stop expanding and growing new cottages at some point, then your average rate of cottage growth will increase, but that also means your economy is close to being stagnant.

The problem with the early-game cottage strategy compared to this specialist strat is that the specialists have two early wonders that help them immensely. The aids to the cottage econ don't come until later in the game. Without those early wonders the specialist start would not be anything special. I'm left to conclude that the power of a specialist econ lies almost entirely in the Pyramids and Great Library. Until the cottage econ starts to discover the techs and civics it needs to prosper, the specialist econ is going to be superior, riding on the strength of its wonders.

in some ways, a SE can be better than a cottage economy early (no growing time necessary) AND late (biology!) .
mid game, the SE will have a harder time (no benefit from printing press, ...)

malekithe I don't believe you are correct, but first I just want to make sure I have the implication of your analysis understood correctly. If you are right then all that would need to change about my strategy for comparison is that we would assume 100% science slider. Correct?

That being said, when you say:

"You're looking at it from the approach of "I need X beakers at Y%, so how many cottages does that equate to?" Instead, the reality is, when you increase the number of cottages, you can actually run at a higher science %."

I both think you’re right and wrong. Your right that when you increase cottages you can increase your science %, but wrong that this suggests that I should change my analysis. Even if you can increase your science % when you increase your cottages the number of cottages required at different science %'s still change. For example if we require 100 beakers and cottages produce beakers at the rate of 5 per cottage then at 90% science we would need 22 cottages, while at 50% science we would need 40.

Now I understand your point that it is easier to have 90% science with 40 cottages then it is with 22, but this analysis is not necessarily meant to have a person look at the 90% column and say "oh, so that's how many cottages I need in every era" rather it is so that they can say that "hmmm, during my games I usually end up with a 80% science rate how does the 80% science rate cottage economy compare with the specialist economy.


On another point futurehermit's analysis already neutralized residual commerce from trade routes etc. by not taking it into account in either test.


Now this thread is getting good.:)

I'm left to conclude that the power of a specialist econ lies almost entirely in the Pyramids and Great Library. Until the cottage econ starts to discover the techs and civics it needs to prosper, the specialist econ is going to be superior, riding on the strength of its wonders.
The counterpoint here should be made explicitly - the specialist econ will be grossly inferior if you don't have the Pyramids.

I both think you’re right and wrong. Your right that when you increase cottages you can increase your science %, but wrong that this suggests that I should change my analysis. Even if you can increase your science % when you increase your cottages the number of cottages required at different science %'s still change. For example if we require 100 beakers and cottages produce beakers at the rate of 5 per cottage then at 90% science we would need 22 cottages, while at 50% science we would need 40.

Now I understand your point that it is easier to have 90% science with 40 cottages then it is with 22, but this analysis is not necessarily meant to have a person look at the 90% column and say "oh, so that's how many cottages I need in every era" rather it is so that they can say that "hmmm, during my games I usually end up with a 80% science rate how does the 80% science rate cottage economy compare with the specialist economy.
The first point is that, if you're on an 80% science rate, then the specialist economy analysis is wrong, because it will have to be running merchants instead of scientists to make ends meet. So any such comparison becomes meaningless.

The second point is that the science slider really is completely irrelevant to such an analysis. You, and many others, seem to view it as a constant that will be the same however you manage your economy. This is simply completely wrong. If you build more cottages, your science rate will naturally be higher. If you use more specialists, your science rate will naturally be lower. Since it can always be adjusted to pay your bills, with everything else going to science, assuming a given science rate is wrong, meaningless, and invalidates the analysis completely. The correct approach is precisely to factor it out by considering base commerce, as Malekithe has done.

Fixing the science rate for any comparison artifically penalizes the cottage economy, because the cottage economy can and will adjust that rate up if it has extra cash! (Note that if you'd be adjusting the rate down, then the specialist economy is getting an artifical bonus, because it can't actually run pure scientists in that case.)

Great discussion malekithe and iamdanthemansta, we now seem to be getting to the meat of the argument :)



The problem with the early-game cottage strategy compared to this specialist strat is that the specialists have two early wonders that help them immensely. The aids to the cottage econ don't come until later in the game. Without those early wonders the specialist start would not be anything special. I'm left to conclude that the power of a specialist econ lies almost entirely in the Pyramids and Great Library. Until the cottage econ starts to discover the techs and civics it needs to prosper, the specialist econ is going to be superior, riding on the strength of its wonders.

Why would the cottage economy not build the Great Library? In many ways it is more valuable to it than for the specialist economy since its GPPs can generate a couple of GS that are particularly valuable in a low food economy. The Pyramids based specialist economy has already used up several of its valuable cheap GP slots (one or two depending on which variation). The ability to make a GP with only 100 GPP and then the next at 200 GPP is just as much a valuable resource that the Pyramids gambit squanders as the forests that it mows down ;)

OK now I think I see Beamup and malekithe's point. To make sure were all on the same page I will try to restate it here:

Counting the science % as lower then 100 incorrectly penalizes the cottage economy because in a situation where that was necessary, i.e. where more money was needed, the specialist economy would also need additional specialists to be running as Merchants. In effect the since slider for a specialist economy is what % of the total specialists are scientists. IE if there are 10 specialists and 9 are scientists and 1 is a merchant the specialist economy since % is 90.

Now that I understand that seems like a good point. In that case all we have to do is use my analysis but assume 100% science as 100% science = commerce from cottages. Well that actually made the analysis easier to do.

As for UncleJJ's point that the Statue of Liberty should be counted for the cottage economy as well, I agree completely. The only way to even out giving the specialist economy the Pyramids and anything else it wants is to do the same for the specialist economy.

Now we're rocking!:rockon:

Running Merchants 1) very unefficient, since they generate only 3 Gold or something each. 2) under Representation, they generate 3 beakers each as well, so you'd need scientific buildings to get most of the science, which means, no more strict specialization.

Like I suggested, if you run at 0% science, just cottage a city or two for gold income. Oh, that means, mixed economy, all right. :) You won't be able to use culture slider to the full extent anymore.

mid game, the SE will have a harder time (no benefit from printing press, ...)


mid-game the SE has SoL and mercantilism, as well as caste system and irrigation.

Since you're looking for testing parameters, here you go:

Map: Pangea
Victory: Solo Diplomatic (vote yourself in with 60% of the world's population)
Everyone plays the same start.

Specialist Variant:
One cottage city allowed - Wall Street and/or Oxford University
No building cottages anywhere else
All captured cottages must be pillaged

Cottage Variant:
One specialist city allowed - National Epic
No hiring specialists anywhere else
Statue of Liberty and Mercantilism are not allowed

Does everyone agree that is a fair test?

I don't see what this proves or how it sheds much light rather than make more heat :p

However, it is unfair to exclude a major tile improvement from one side and not the other... so cottages should not make farms outside the GP farm and are forced to pillage any farms they capture. That should slow them down a bit ;)

Oh, and no Great Library for the cottagers either

Dave - need to fix some more variables - Civiliation? leader? traits? kinda hard for everyone to play a posted savegame if the cottages start w/ financial and so do specialist - though it may be good to have Elizabeth (Phi/Fin) if we need to have the same leader, both varients get bonus trait

Banning GL in the cottage variant sounds fine.


For those who like specialists AND cottages, I give you the...

Zero Science Variant
Unlimited cottages and specialists are allowed
Science must be set to 0% after discovering Code of Laws


I guess to make it really fair, we should avoid financial, industrious, and philosophical. Does Caesar sound like a fun leader?

And since this is a test of commerce, not trading, should tech trading be disabled?

If wanting to do an experiment comparing Specialist Economy against a cottage economy I would think eliminating all variables including opponents would be the thing to do. Just go into world builder and save that file, run a 10 city empire through 2050 taking notes where you stand every 50 or 100 turns or so. Set up 9 cities around your capital from the start.

Then again cottages aren't around from the very beginning, so whoever was doing this experiement would need to find some approval from all parties to how many cottages on average a person may have running at any point in time. Maybe start laying them down after 30 turns or so and say 70-80% of grassland and floodplains will be cottaged. It would take an honest person however to do this! Report would need to be posted! Also should mention that an average date that representation would come into effect would need to be implemented.

This isn't nearly as fun as an actual game, but I would think it would be the best way to do it with a non biased person running the test.

~edit: Also so mention that variables will never be taken out of the game so things may be slightly inaccurate and unfair, but any glaring or even strong advantages of using a specialist econ would be evident using this method!

Do you think that running a game will get a more accurate result then some of the other methods described here?

Why would the cottage economy not build the Great Library? In many ways it is more valuable to it than for the specialist economy since its GPPs can generate a couple of GS that are particularly valuable in a low food economy. The Pyramids based specialist economy has already used up several of its valuable cheap GP slots (one or two depending on which variation). The ability to make a GP with only 100 GPP and then the next at 200 GPP is just as much a valuable resource that the Pyramids gambit squanders as the forests that it mows down ;)

Oh, it can, but, from the perspective of per turn income, it's only half as effective. For most of this analysis, we're discounting Great People. That's not completely accurate, but, the truth is, a cottage economy can achieve almost the exact same number of great people over the course of a game by running a single great person farm.

I'm unsure if, in a cottage economy, it's worth building the Great Library as early as you would in a specialist one. If you're looking to get a great scientist or two, it's probably more cost-effective to just run a couple of scientists in one of your high food cities. Really, the cottage econ won't benefit greatly from the Great Library until after a great person farm has been established to contain it. The two econs are building the great library for two expressly different purposes. The specialist econ wants a source of more beakers and the GL is cheaper than getting a new city set up with a library and enough population to run some scientists. The cottage econ wants a source of GPP. I'd argue there are better ways of attaining this goal in the short term.

The cottage econ wants a source of GPP. I'd argue there are better ways of attaining this goal in the short term.You neglect to mention the fact that the GL allows you to have four scientists in a single city, without abandoning slavery. That gives it quite a lot of utility depending on your leader. You need quite a lot of academies to get the most out of all of your towns.

I guess to make it really fair, we should avoid financial, industrious, and philosophical. Does Caesar sound like a fun leader?


I could be mistaken but I think Philosophical is expected to be required for the specialist economy since you're relying a lot on the science from settled GSs, plus an Academy or two.

You neglect to mention the fact that the GL allows you to have four scientists in a single city, without abandoning slavery. That gives it quite a lot of utility depending on your leader.

True, but then you're getting into great person farm territory. I specifically said that, once you've got your great person farm, you would benefit by putting the great library there. If you have marble or are industrious, it may be worth it to build in just any old city. But, if you're not, it may be better to wait till you know where your great person farm is.

Couldn't you just play a hotseat game vs. yourself? Play one civ as a cottage based economy and the other as a specialist based and see who wins. Just use a balanced duel map to simplify things.

Here's what I suggest: One-player game, maybe Duel or Tiny Pangaea map (enough for you to get 20 cities or so I'm thinking), (almost) no restrictions on civ traits or leaders (why wouldn't you pick whatever complemented your strategy the best?) and no weird restrictions except in the "cottage" game you're not allowed to get Pyramids, and in the "specialist" game you're not allowed to use a Financial leader. I think those simple restrictions make it clear which "sort" of economy would do better on either given game. Earliest game date to research every tech on the tree wins.

I'll be happy to play the cottage side.

True, but then you're getting into great person farm territory. I specifically said that, once you've got your great person farm, you would benefit by putting the great library there. If you have marble or are industrious, it may be worth it to build in just any old city. But, if you're not, it may be better to wait till you know where your great person farm is.By the time you have literature discovered why in the world wouldn't you have already selected the site for your GPF?

A city with great library + national epic IS a GP farm in itself - and you don't need caste system to run it.

By the time you have literature discovered why in the world wouldn't you have already selected the site for your GPF?

I often dont. u can make atleast 2 GP's just by running library+2 scientists somewhere in ur empire(or at 2 separate places if u want). so u dont need a more concerted effort until u want the 300 guy IMO. and if ur philo u can wait till the 400 guy.

I just wanted to let people know that I've toned down my feelings toward the spec econ. I still think it's powerful, and I think pyramids and early representation is great, but based on what people have been saying, I've changed my mind on the following things:

1) Unless industrious, don't go for pyramids unless there is stone.

2) Don't stagnate at low pop to run 2 scientists. Only run scientists off 4+ food sources. If this means less than 2 scientists in a city, that is ok.

3) Don't avoid cottages. Cottage grasslands and work them while growing your city.

4) Transition to a full-fledged cottage econ in renaissance--too many cottage-benefitting things here to ignore. Still consider using mercantilism and statue of liberty to run 2 scientists per city with representation (or, possibly, other specialists).

The result is more of a mixed econ, true, but the scientists with representation will still be better than cottages early in the game, so getting as many of them as you can early on is important, if possible. However, I've come to believe that it's also necessary to grow your cities to the happiness limit--where you can work scientists to stagnate if you want or else use slavery.

I've got a game going right now with Napoleon (I love char + org, and his starting techs rock). I wasn't planning on going spec econ, but I had stone in my second city, so I built the pyramids. I'm only running specialists off of 4+ food tiles and am using cottages as well. It's going well so far. I'm making save games and taking screen shots. I'm thinking of posting the game in a thread to add to our discussion of cottages and specialists.

I don't think I'll run a cottage vs. specialist comparison myself (I put a lot of work into the other threads and feel a bit worn out tbh). But I hope you guys follow through doing a comparison, I'd be interested to see it.

One note: Don't compare two different players running the two different econs, cuz they might be different quality players. Also, you'll have to be honest with yourself if you're comparing them both yourself, since you might be better suited to running one of the econs and not the other.

Oh, it can, but, from the perspective of per turn income, it's only half as effective. For most of this analysis, we're discounting Great People. That's not completely accurate, but, the truth is, a cottage economy can achieve almost the exact same number of great people over the course of a game by running a single great person farm.

I'm unsure if, in a cottage economy, it's worth building the Great Library as early as you would in a specialist one. If you're looking to get a great scientist or two, it's probably more cost-effective to just run a couple of scientists in one of your high food cities. Really, the cottage econ won't benefit greatly from the Great Library until after a great person farm has been established to contain it. The two econs are building the great library for two expressly different purposes. The specialist econ wants a source of more beakers and the GL is cheaper than getting a new city set up with a library and enough population to run some scientists. The cottage econ wants a source of GPP. I'd argue there are better ways of attaining this goal in the short term.

Discounting the high value of great people is one of the major reason this analysis is going astray :( For the cottage economy, an early academy in the embryonic Science city can go a long way to offsetting any advantage from Representation. If that Science city is the capital the concentration of commerce from maturing cottages and palace working through higher building multipliers (library and academy plus monasties) will get an appreciable boost from Bureaucracy. Compare that with Representation and specialists that are distributed over many cities which have lower multipliers. Obviously a lot of cities with library + 2 scientist + Representation (= 15 beakers) are required to match the cottage's Science city ;)

I'd say the cottage economy wants the Great Library just as fast as the SE if not sooner. The cottage economy gets high leverage from having academies in its best high commerce cities (i.e. in addition to the Science city) so all methods of generating GPP are valuable and particularly those that don't cost food. If you can get those GS for academies early and without running the caste system so much the better.

The cottage economy has two good candidate sites for the Great Library. It will do well in the capital as it gets the benefit of better science multipliers there which will eventually include Oxford University. It would also do well in the GP farm which will run the NE to boost GPP production. Two different uses, one for higher beakers and lower GPP and the other vice versa. It would depend on Leaders traits, but with philosophical I'd put the GL in the capital. Also the capital, if running Bureaucracy at that stage, could probably build the GL a lot earlier thereby increasing the benefit and decreasing the chance of being beaten to it.

Cottages vs. specialists has already been debated on numerous occasions, and the same conclusion is always reached. The specialist economy is a decent alternative until around the invention of Liberalism, as long as you manage to build the Pyramids. After that the specialist economy falls behind very rapidly, and is very inferior.

Specialist Economy Pros:

1)Gets up and running more rapidly than cottages. Certainly for the first age or two you may get some research boost compared to a cottage economy.

2)More great people, though not as many as you might think. Up until Liberalism you might get about 4 extra great people over a cottage economy.

3)Less vulnerable to pillaging.

4)Easier use of slavery? I'm unsure about this one and would need to do some number crunching. In any case slavery is less attractive now Warlords has fixed some of the exploits.

5)Easier to run a higher culture rate.

6)Slightly more trade from trades routes due to larger cities? This advantage however tends to be destroyed be the use of high culture rates and Mercantilism in the specialist economy.


Specialist economy cons:

1)You MUST have the Pyramids. You're falling behind from virtually the start of the game otherwise. As a result this strategy is unlikely to be viable at all at high difficulty level since you simply cannot rely on getting the Pyramids.

2)After Liberalism (by which stage cottages should be reaching fully mature towns) specialists simply don't generate as much research. Even with biology you're only getting 6 beakers per grassland instead of 7 or 8 for a cottage economy. Also Biology appears after the cottages have reached maturity, and up till then it's nearer two cottages to one specialist.

3)The speciaist approach requires higher populations than the cottage economy. This creates some happiness isses, though these can be compensated by it being easier to run the higher culture rate. You will however be running a substantially higher maintenance cost due to the larger cities.

4)The finanicial trait is almost completely wasted in a specialist economy and hence civs with this trait should not use it.

5)Stuck with Representation even when Universal Sufferage is available, so buying units is problematic.

6)Similarly no hammers from farms whereas towns would give one.

As always it comes down to the same conclusion. The specialist economy is good for games where you aim to have either won, or are close to winning, a military victory by around the Renaissance (Liberalism). If there is a cottage economy of even close to your size by then though you will rapidly fall behind in the tech race. Specialists are also not viable at high difficulty level due to the unreliability of getting the Pyramids.

What level do you consider to be "high" difficulty level? Besides that, I'd say you summed it up nicely.

Do you feel that someone who has gone specialists pre-liberalism, can use emancipation to transition to a cottage econ fast enough to match civs that started with a cottage econ later in the game?

What level do you consider to be "high" difficulty level? Besides that, I'd say you summed it up nicely.

Deity and Immortal I consider too high to have any real shot at building the Pyramids (though I guess capturing them may be an option depending where they are). Emperor you might be able to build them, but I don't think you could rely on doing so.

Do you feel that someone who has gone specialists pre-liberalism, can use emancipation to transition to a cottage econ fast enough to match civs that started with a cottage econ later in the game?

I've had a look at this, but I couldn't get it to work that well. Since the Free Speech bonus only applies to towns then until they actually reach town size you're a very long way behind on commerce output. Also emancipation isn't available till the invention of the Constitution, when the specialist economy is already looking strained. It might be doable, but it does make a rather bumpy ride for your economy. You'd have a nice boost through the Classical and Middle Ages, a bad downer through the Renaissance, and then pick up to comparable levels for the late industrial/modern age.

What level do you consider to be "high" difficulty level? Besides that, I'd say you summed it up nicely.

same feeling for me.

Do you feel that someone who has gone specialists pre-liberalism, can use emancipation to transition to a cottage econ fast enough to match civs that started with a cottage econ later in the game?

yes! emancipation is the key for the transition!
if you get first to liberalism with your SE, you may manage a transition through emancipation. The key being (IMHO) a "per city" transition, starting with smaller cities first :
giving those low bonus cities a few cottages to work early helps a lot, your SE still on the way let's you tech fast enough, then when you have all smaller cities ready, it's great work time for your workers = science city.
You need to switch to emancipation as soon as your science city is cottaged up. If you're not spiritual, you'll need to change loads of other civics too, giving you some time to cottage up other core cities.
You'll have a few turns of low teching speed (anarchy, then +1 cottages:sad: ), but after that you've got a good hand on hamlets (you had more pop than a middle cottage economy anyway, so you can work and grow all those cottages fast.
Zombie69 did some calculation about cottages/emancipation (a thread about growing cities first then cottaging or just cottaging that i cannot find right now, sorry) that led to the key point : using emancipation, you get just as much grown cottages by growing cities first than by cottaging first.

I'm also in favor of mixed econ..

Anyway : in most real game, no full cottage city will exist until very late game (some lucky starters may have it earlier), and no full 100% specialist eco will work 100% of the times. A full 100% specialist eco is as academic for me as the early full cottage city or the early ultra specialised cities, or the existence of sentient life on other star systems.

Futurehermit : saying "I think mixed eco works better than specialist eco" is IMO not an option for a thread like that. All gameplays will be adaptations to the situation and a mix of every technics. Almost no strat works all the time.

For me the interest of the threads is to show the power of scientist based economy. At first I thought to specialist were only for GP or when no interesting tile is present. I was wrong. I learn a lot, and when applying this startegyn I know I will never have a full scientist eco, only a mixed one, but the interest is that it changed me from running a full cottage + ressource oriented eco, with very few specialist out of my GP farm(s).

I learned that specialists can be used efficiently to boost and orient your economy, and that in some (not so few) cases, you can even play with very few (if any) cottages and still be in a very good position (save the towns you conquered).

So this thread rocks !!!

A strategy like this is not a 100% win startegy and (I think) never aimed to be one. It is only one more tools to play, enjoy and win at cIV. One more tool to take the full advantage of some more situations... One more tool to use the full potential of this great game.

It is so little... but at the same time so much...

Thx for your math and experiments Futurehermit

1) pillaging towns
I think that pillaging towns of newly conquered cities is a wast especially to specialist econ: you have a +4c at min to a +8c +1h at max that is given as a present, pillaging all this hard work is a wast, putting one citizen on the tile will make you lose 0.5 to 1 specialist, but as the town is grown, it is almost worth it, at least in gold production +8c*1.5 (+25%+25% of market+grocer) gives you: 12gpt ==> hop you can transforme 2-3 former merchant + priests into scientist.

2) toward a mixed economy
I think that from the time of printing press: (and latter when Universal suffrage & free speech & emancipation arrives) you should begin slowly the transition from specialist to mixed econ:
-begin to keep the villages and towns of conquered cities
-begin to replace some non efficient tiles/ non worked tiles into cottages in order to start to grow them in non science cities.
-creating some crap cities just to grow the cottages tiles for the big science cities. (not sure if it is anti-gameplay or not, see with your ethic and/or with "anti-exploit hunters", furthermore you can't always afford the rise in city number maintenance.)
-stop working cottages tiles until you have free speech civic.

then it should be nice. (or not)

3) Cabret : study on a full cottage city : farming or cottage-work first?:
I also did some computation following the thread on cottage vs farms, :
my preliminary results are here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4330043&postcount=112) in the 1st "Detailed analysis: # of specialist cities needed per era" thread

the conclusion of my little study was that effectively until reaching a certain (unknown, experiment with 2-7-12-max extra food) extra food per turn, it was more interesting to farm and put work on cottages only for extra workers until reaching pop limit.

so even if you have not free speech, you loose less by growing first and cottaging second. with free speech, it might even be as interesting to start as a specialist city running a maximum of cities to max pop, then when free speech convert most of them on cottage workers (on unworked tiles + some on former farm tiles), you are loosing 5 turns per cottage 10 per hamlet: then you have fast growing villages +4c, then 20 turns only until +7 towns

For every town thus obtained you saved 5+10+20=35 turn of cottage-work on the cottage-guy. Furthermore when full grown towns are worst than specialists (equilibrium at printing press) you were working the more efficient specialists. (on the other hand, during 35 turns all your cottages are poorly efficient at a time when you have most improvements so you are loosing much more than the raw commerce... maybe it balances s/o has to try it. :))

4)to another guy: As a specialist economy works with focusing on ... specialists, scientifics even more, even without philo you can easily have obtained the 5 Great scientists requested by the strategy by the renaissance age.

@ mr cynical: you keep saying that specialist econ sux in the renaissance, but that's simply not true. the cottage econ is certainly on par with the specialist econ, but the spec econ can hold its ground in the renaissance, largely because of the super science city with oxford and settled great scientists + mercantilism and SoL.

so, i think that one could definitely speed toward the renaissance via specialist econ, then at democracy, transition to cottage econ w/emancipation. keep representation until a lot of towns have grown.

i would only do this, however, if going for a science victory. if going domination/conquest, i would use a GA from music on nationalism and use liberalism for military tradition. then, after researching astronomy, shut down research, increase production, and use cavalry to finish out the game.

thus, for domination/conquest i would say that spec econ (mixed with cottages on some grassland tiles) is superior, as long as you can pull of the pyramids (if you see stone, go for it!). it's also a good mix because pyramids also gives you access to police state, which you can use to start your military production post-pyramids and also whenever you have a tech lead over your immediate rivals (switching back when they start to catch up).

for science victory (e.g., peter, or if on small continent), i would consider transitioning to cottages post-democracy.

Ok, here's another comparison game proposal:

Civ: Arabs
Goal: Discover Liberalism and Democracy as quickly as possible
Everyone plays the same start

Specialist Variant
No cottages can be built.

Cottage Variant
You may run specialists to get your first 100:gp:.
No specialists allowed after the first great person.

I don't see why the restrictions have to be so strong. Nobody actually plays that way; why not get a picture of the sort of mixed economy that can actually do the best job?

Well the title of the thread is cottages vs. specialists. If you don't have strong restrictions there's nothing to analyze.

I think that avoiding cottages at any point in the game is foolish, which is why I keep making challenges. ;)

@ mr cynical: you keep saying that specialist econ sux in the renaissance,

No, I'm saying that it's the crossover point where it becomes worse than the cottage economy. It may have enough of a boost from earlier on to carry it through the Renaissance, but it's all downhill from there.

so, i think that one could definitely speed toward the renaissance via specialist econ, then at democracy, transition to cottage econ w/emancipation. keep representation until a lot of towns have grown.

I've tried in a couple of times, but I haven't got it to quite work. By the time I get to Democracy I tend to be losing what tech lead I've gained in the earlier phases. Then there's the horrible transition phase where you're waiting for the cottages to grow. Even with Emancipation I find the downturn is too long, and going into the industrial age is really not a good time to be behind on tech. On the plus side it wouldn't matter if you didn't get the Pyramids, so it might not suffer the same difficultly level problems that the pure specialist economy does, that is if it could be got to work.

well, if you didn't get the pyramids, you wouldn't be running a spec econ. in my experience with the spec econ, i am not behind on tech at all at democracy, and the math i've ran in other threads verifies that you shouldn't be behind. in renaissance you can tech better than 1/5 turns. the transition should be eased by continuing to run representation with emancipation--thus a mixed econ until the cottages are up to towns...

Well the title of the thread is cottages vs. specialists. If you don't have strong restrictions there's nothing to analyze.

I think that avoiding cottages at any point in the game is foolish, which is why I keep making challenges. ;)

But what you suggest is advantageous to the CE and severly restricts the SE and anyone who has built one would know this. If you are so sure the CE would win you should put more severe restrictions on it than the SE :p

The equivalent restriction to no-cottages-for-the-SE would be no use of farms on floodplains, grassland or plains for the CE thereby hampering it's ability to grow and be productive.

Also your challenge merely matches the SE against the CE where the CE is strongest, that is in straight research. It is sort of a mini space race. A SE would do better in a domination type challenge where it can use its inherent ability to produce units and buildings faster than a pure CE.

As it stands the challenge is very unfair.

i was thinking of a challenge:

ce: ragnar (agg, fin), can only use specialists in gpfarm.

se: alex (agg, phil), can only use cottages in capital.

2 goals: first to reach liberalism; and largest empire once liberalism is achieved.

thus teching and conquering simultaneously is important.

a lot of the ce supporters seem to feel that cottages are superior. however, i suspect that a se can support a domination victory while still teching at a rate better than the ce until renaissance.

this challenge would put that theory to the test. ragnar and alex are pretty equal, aside from phil and fin benefitting the respective econs...phalanxs are improved now that spears need to accompany axes early on, and berserkers are a very respectable medieval unit, although they come later.

Liberalism and largest empire are rather arbitrary goals. How about Astronomy and ownership of your starting continent?

Would you allow Vanilla players to use Huanya Capac instead of Ragnar?

Other than that I think it's a fair challenge. :)

well, if you didn't get the pyramids, you wouldn't be running a spec econ. in my experience with the spec econ, i am not behind on tech at all at democracy, and the math i've ran in other threads verifies that you shouldn't be behind. in renaissance you can tech better than 1/5 turns. the transition should be eased by continuing to run representation with emancipation--thus a mixed econ until the cottages are up to towns...

Here you and I part company.:rolleyes: What you are saying is that a SE has to have the Pyramids and that is absolutely not true. It is perfectly possible to do well with specialists in the early game without building the Pyramids although you'd obviously need something else to leverage the SE such as Philosophical otherwise why go that way? A great deal of the early power of the SE comes from the GPPs and not the extra beakers Representation gives.

Obviously if I can capture the Pyramids I'll change to Representation and that will boost research but I sure don't have to build them.;) Building the Pyramids is a gambit.