Poor economy with plantation-civs or 3000BC civs?

I've never fully understood why Maya, India, Khmer, China and even Japan have poor economies. Is it because their plantations are not cottages or farms? Then I can't explain it even after I've colonized half of America with plenty of farms and cottages. China does better because it's got some plains and grasslands, but then the advantage should disappear once I've chopped my Indian or SE Asian jungles, and I can state for a fact it didn't.

Suggestion 1: maybe plantations should have a mitigating factor in how economy is calculated.

Or is it because the "small" 3000 BC civs (including Egypt, Babylon, India) have more time to have to "grow" their economies, and we know that there's only so much economies can grow (I had towns in 1200 AD after building Stonehenge and running emancipation for a while).

Suggestion 2: So should there be a correcting factor depending on the year you spawn (maybe a little less for Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians and Persians, because I've never had an economy problem with them, with plenty of land to expand) OR the starting techs that you have (Mayans are at distinct disadvantage here)?

Another idea: settlers for 3000 BC civs have nothing at all, so whenever a city gets founded, the negativity to the economy is too much to handle for a long time, and this accumulates with every city founded. By the time you have improved the city enough with infrastructure, you have just gotten your economy back to where it was relatively neutral (even though in absolute terms your economy has grown), and it's time to found another city again. You see this almost immediately after you found your 2nd Egyptian city, and may explain the collapse of Ethiopia and Maya later in the game.

Suggestion 3: 3000 BC civs need a little less penalty in economy when a city gets founded.

I'm not entirely sure how it works, but supposedly agriculture is taken into account in the economy category.

Maybe its because its food, gold and production relative to population. So when you have a lot of plantations, you have a lot of food generation, but after your cities grow, then your ratio is worse since you are relying on plantations to grow.

I know exactly what you mean. I play Carthage and I struggle to bring the Maghreb into Modern Times as well.

Most of the game my stability is somewhere between unstable and collapsing. Only thanks to lots of mercenaries I can keep my cities from declaring independence.

Currently (1700) I control Modern Day Morrocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt, Sudan and Eritrea + Israel/Palestine,South Italy including Rome, Balkans and Sardinia/Corsica [but especially my European holdings are historical coincidence as the Roman Empire collapsed despite being Tech Leader after a devastating 2-Fronts-War against an alliance of Russia/Germany/Netherlands and Turkey/Arabia/Portugal - As this collapse coincidenced with a plague I was able to overthrow the remaining independent Machine Guns Defenders with my Mercenary Macemen and Curassiers... ]

The most of the game I had no more than 7 cities and most of them between 10 and 16 city size (which is not too bad). I am having Open Door Policies with almost all my neighbours (except the Muslim ones and Mongolia) and therefore my economy relies on a very strong trade (even my smallest cities like Lybia still get 12 commerce out of trade thanks to 4 trade routes all rated with 3).
I am now ranked No. 5-7 in power ratings and during the early Mid Age when the European Powers were young I was consistently on 2nd place ahead of most of the other old powers.

However I constantly get poor ratings for economy, cities and foreign ..

This is quite a mystery for me.

I understand that Carthage is not supposed to be around in 1700 (and especially not in this size) but a little more balance in the economy ratings could be more fun.

However I wonder what is better for my longterm stability- should I go for Commonwealth or should I stay in Viceroyalty (I have two Vassals - Mali and Inca (Ethopia, my third vassal collapsed) )

I also suggest that the rebirth mechanism could be reworked. I do not know exactly how it works but it is often the case that India and Egypt respawn first. This is despite Modern Powers like France or Germany are collapsed. I would suggest that countries like France or Germany should respawn earlier than Egypt or India.

Rod said:

However I constantly get poor ratings for economy, cities and foreign ..

This is quite a mystery for me.

Click to expand...

Try the Egyptian longevity challenge. Goal: to take Egypt (with only the egyptian lands, and maybe Jerusalem) to modern times. Pretty much impossible. Best I've got to was ~1550. Economy and most of all Foreign are the main problems for Egypt, and since you owned it in your game it could be that to cause your instability. I've played Carthage to modern times without much stability problems before when I owned only the Maghreb, and collapsed when I took Egypt.

I tried that particular challenge before. Talk about an exercise in frustration.

The first time I tried it, I foolishly built the great wall thinking it will solve the barbarian problem, but that's when I learned about natives and barbarian, the hard way.

It's not totally useless though since the camel archers ARE barbarians.

So basically you tell me that Egypt in a sense of the territory of Egypt is causing me instability ?? Egypt the cradle of civilization is spawning civil unrest in my lands ??

Btw. doesnt Egypt belong to the Maghreb as well ?(because you mentioned that you played Carthage restricting yourself to the Maghreb)

There is still the question of civics. What is better :Viceroyalty with +8 or Commonwealth ??

Besides I have to rework my civics in general. Currently I am running:

Hereditary Rule, Bureaucracy, Slavery, Free Market, Organized Religion and Viceroyalty (so basically I am Saudi Arabia )

This combination is .. bad for stability.

(i had three revolutions : 1st to Hereditary Rule/Slavery, 2nd to Bureaucracy/Organized Religion and the last one to Free Market/Viceroyalty)

What should be the next change to improve my stability ?

Representation/Emancipation ? What is the most stable combination ?

Of course this also means that you get no plague which kills off your cottages.

Rod said:

What should be the next change to improve my stability ?

Click to expand...

There is a civics stability bonus for Representation/Bureaucracy (until you discover Democracy).

I recommend you try using this addition to the mod:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6959458&postcount=32

It will show you whether your stability is on the rise or fall numerically rather than just with stars and arrows. Probably the best way to assess whether Commonwealth or Viceroyalty is more stable.

Rod said:

So basically you tell me that Egypt in a sense of the territory of Egypt is causing me instability ?? Egypt the cradle of civilization is spawning civil unrest in my lands ??

Click to expand...

Well, the land itself is not very good. Lots of flood plains means lots of unhealth. So your cities don't grow too big and your economy struggles.

Further, if you're not playing as Egypt, occupying any other civilizations core area hurts your stability.

I recommend looking a the wiki guide to stability:
http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/stability

It's also frustrating that when the AI Egypt, India or Carthage respawn, they start with a clean slate, and get lots of good techs, and they are almost never unstable due to no negativity from previous years of "bad" economy!

Rod said:

So basically you tell me that Egypt in a sense of the territory of Egypt is causing me instability ?? Egypt the cradle of civilization is spawning civil unrest in my lands ??

Click to expand...

No, it causes your overall economy to struggle. In RFC, economy isn't just commerce (plenty in Egypt). But also production (scarse) and food (scarse) and more. Also, in Egypt plagues are absolutely devasting. I noticed the last longer and of course the effects are very bad since Egypt is a civ that relies on whipping and cottages, both of which get a serious hit with plagues. Not to mention your units die or get injured and you can't afford this throughout the whole Middle Ages when barbarians are constantly at your borders.

Btw. doesnt Egypt belong to the Maghreb as well ?(because you mentioned that you played Carthage restricting yourself to the Maghreb)

Click to expand...

No, Maghreb doesn't include Egypt.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Maghreb2.PNG

I meant the african territory that was historically under control of the Carthaginian Empire at its highest extent.

There is still the question of civics. What is better :Viceroyalty with +8 or Commonwealth ??

Click to expand...

Depends. Viceroyality needs 2 vassals to get that bonus. Not an easy task especially as Egypt, actually I would say not an option at all. Commonwealth is very late in the game. If you get to be able to use it as Egypt, then you've already achieved a big goal
But like I said Carthage has less stability problems than Egypt. It doesn't have the Arab "plague" nearby, and good strategical position. Also, it's the nearest to Mansa Musa.

Besides I have to rework my civics in general. [...] What is the most stable combination ?

Click to expand...

As someone mentioned you should look at the guide. There isn't an absolute best combination because it depends on the age and on other factors. Anyways Bureaucracy should be avoided with big (6+ cities) empires.

I have gone through very interesting hundred years. At least from 1700 to 1800 I had a kind of an Golden Age (but not in Gameplay terms).

Since I acquired Rome, Pompeii, Caralis (Sardinia/Corsica), Appolonia (Balkans) and finally Mediolanum (thanks to a Congress) my stability is rising like hell. I had been in collapsing stage in 1700 (and certainly was only saved by Hereditary Rule - I already had pop-ups like:"Your empire is declining into Civil War" but nothing happened) but now in 1800 I am stable ! I mean stable like not unstable , shaky etc. That means 3 stages higher than collapsing !

When I reached the shaky stage I risked a revolution to Universal Suffrage (which I wanted to avoid before because of the transitory period) and Emancipation.
I had to decide which civisc to change (because I wanted only 2 civics to change but there were 4 outdated ones, Hereditary Rule, Slavery, Bureaucracy and Organized Religion) and finally I settled for replacing Hereditary Rule and Slavery. I went for Universal Suffrage, because Representation is not fitting for my large empire (in the same way like Bureaucracy is not fitting)
In anyway this boosted my stability even further.
I am currently running : Universal Suffrage, Bureaucracy, Emancipation, Free Market, Organized Religion and Viceroyalty with 2 vassals. (so basically now I am the Modern Russian Federation - not bad for the moment)

Now I am planning for my Golden Age (with Olympic Park) to make then the final shift to Free Speech and Free Religion. [Can you imaging the American way of life in the crowded streets of Egypt? What am I doing ? Will Al-Quaeda now knock at my door ??]

In any way thanks for the links that was definitively veeery helpful !

Especially since I came to know that Organized Religion is certainly the reason for my bad ratings in cities - In Egypt, North Africa and Yerusalem I was running up to 3 religions (Christianity - my hammer providing state religion, Judaism - my money religion and Islam) in order to protect my territory from Turkish, Arabian, Spanish and Roman Culture.

Now I came to know that Organized Religion is giving instability when there are several religions in your cities ..

In anyway I am now waiting for the rebirth of Egypt. As I am quite happy with my Western Mediterrean Territory I am planning to vassalize Egypt and to give them at least half of Egypt.

I am not sure though where to draw the line and whether to keep Yerusalem.

On the one hand, Yerusalem is under heavy cultural pressure from Turkey, which controls the whole area north and north east of Yerusalem, and Arabia, which controls the whole area south and south east of Yerusalem.
Therefore Yerusalem will always be an island city, but on the other hand I have invested heavily in this eastern border of my civilization. One Great Prophet, one Great Artist (who got kind of ridiculed because soon later the Turks conquered Athene which somehow even converted the just built-up culture in Yerusalem as well), lots of money on Mosques, Synagoges, Cathedrals and numerous Jewish Missionaries.

So I have two scenarios. Currently there are 4 cities that would flip:

Cyrenaica, Port Said (that located east of the Nile on the Mediterrean Shore), Niwt-Rst and East Chad (that is located between the Chad Lake and the Nile)

The cities that won't be affected would be the whole area west of Cyrenaica + Eritrea (that is located on the Red Sea just northeast of the northern Nile Lake and northwest of the cows) and Yerusalem.

Now I could conquer Cyrenaica, Port Said and Niwt-Rst in order to vassalize Egypt but then gift back Niwt-Rst and Eritrea. In this case I would keep the whole Mediterrean Shore but get rid of 3 cities from my slightly over-expanded empire.

Or I just conquer Cyrenaica and stay west of the Nile and gift the Egypts Yerusalem and Eritrea, so then I would get rid of 5 cities but also lose my precious gem Yerusalem ..

What would you do ? I do not want to keep an isolated Yerusalem, because even despite that I am having open borders with the Turks now doesnt mean I will have them for long ..

I'm trying to parse your post, but its difficult. I think this will help answer your question though:

If you have more than 15 cities, liberating one city will give you something like a 2 category stability boost for about 10 turns, after that it will drop again depending on whether you've improved you situation or not.

If you have less than 15 cities, losing a city in any way will hurt your stability. However, if that city was producing a lot of instability, the stability loss for losing a city may be better than keeping the city.

Rod said:

I had been in collapsing stage in 1700 (and certainly was only saved by Hereditary Rule - I already had pop-ups like:"Your empire is declining into Civil War" but nothing happened)

Click to expand...

Are you sure you are playing with the latest version ? This was a bug in 1.180.

I am using 1.180 as it is written in the RFC file. But I also believe that I have downloaded my current version after August last year (August 2007 is mentioned as uploading date of the current version in the download section),

Where can I check whether I run 1.180 or 1.181 and btw are there any differences ?

Rod said:

I am using 1.180 as it is written in the RFC file. But I also believe that I have downloaded my current version after August last year (August 2007 is mentioned as uploading date of the current version in the download section),

Where can I check whether I run 1.180 or 1.181 and btw are there any differences ?

Click to expand...

I believe the easiest way to check is to go into the civelopedia in RFC and look at the about section for RFC.

Further, The last version for BTS is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6639

Despite the upload date on that link, there was an update sometime a couple months ago (much more recent than Aug 2007). That link will still take you to the latest version, despite what the upload date says.

Rod said:

I am using 1.180 as it is written in the RFC file. But I also believe that I have downloaded my current version after August last year (August 2007 is mentioned as uploading date of the current version in the download section),

Where can I check whether I run 1.180 or 1.181 and btw are there any differences ?

Click to expand...

The uploading date refers to your version of BTS rather than your version of RFC. Updates of RFC cannot be automatically downloaded from with the game, you need to use the download links in the specific thread within this forum (it is stickied).

kbk is correct, the location of information about your RFC version is in the 'about' section of the civilopedia.

Oh, how I miss the days of a phony civil war...could have been great if I were to try an Ethiopian or Egyptian domination game.
Am I correct in saying that after a civil war when the empire breaks up, your stability takes a reset?

I think so. It seemed to in my Greek game. Of course, it's the only game I've had a civil war in (keeping fingers crossed here, )