merchants or scientists?

which is better to pump in your cities for the purpose of better technology/economy?

I previously thought it was scietists, but recently i saw people post that they pump merchants. Which is better?
come to think of it, are the merchants better due to the national wonder of 100% commerce and because if you have alot of commerce in one city (say, london) then you can run a high tech slider(90%+) and avoid building commerce buildings in other cities and just go for science buildings?

I always prefer mechants to get the nation to a 90 percent tech slider, then use scientists.
But yes, a lot of people use merchants to avoid having to build all the commerce buildings and for having a higher tech slider.

Another interesting thing to note is that maps can make you rich. Constantly trade buy and sell maps to every civilization and explore, and you will get about 6000 gold from it in just a hundred years. That will allow you to spend money on technology and your empire at a deficit, and still be wealthy.

Running Scientists instead of Merchants has the advantage of generating more Great Scientists. Popping a single high-value tech ahead of the pack — Education is a notorious choice — allows you to trade it around for five or six others, which I'd often prefer to dialing up your research rate by 10%. And of course, you want at least one Academy for your capital when you switch to Absolutism.

On the other hand, Great Merchants are amazing people (plus one food yes please), and they pop some nice techs as well. As the game goes on, I mostly swap out Scientists for Merchants in my cities, provided that I can't have both.

Early game: Scientists. You want Great Scientists to bulb techs, and for Academies. You want 1~3 Academies ideally for your top supercities.

Late game: Merchants, Engineers, and Spies, because tech bulbing will no longer be feasible - around 10 Great Scientists are needed to bulb a late game tech due to tech cost scaling. However Great Merchants, Great Engineers and Great Spies are just as efficient in their functions, whether settled or used to conduct special missions.

You can keep running pure Scientists in your CERN + Academy city but it won't make much of a difference, especially with Representation. But if you get a Great Scientist as a result and don't know how to use it, it'd be a great loss.

Settling all your Great Merchants (Engineers, Spies) in your Wall Street (Ironworks, Scotland Yard) city will help your economy immensely. And they are far more flexible and versatile than settled Great Scientists. There is some debate but the general consensus of the SE experts is that Great Scientists should not be settled, period. If you find that you don't need Academies or Great Scientist bulbs (and you will, as time goes on) it's time to switch to different types of Specialists.

Great Engineers are not so valuable in the late game because a decent city with Ironworks, Factory and access to Power can build most wonders in just a few turns.

Scientists can always build Academies, which keep on giving their research bonus.

blizzrd said:

Great Engineers are not so valuable in the late game because a decent city with Ironworks, Factory and access to Power can build most wonders in just a few turns.

Click to expand...

(1) I play late game civs (meaning: England and every civ later) on Epic.

(2) If my Ironworks city cannot build a Marine/Tank in 1 turn, it needs more .

(3) I like to get all the Wonders, even if I don't really need them (Mt. Rushmore for example).

(4) Unlike Academies/Great Scientist bulbing/Settled Great Scientists whose effectiveness drop as time goes on due to tech cost scaling, the effectiveness of Great Engineer hurrying actually increases as time goes on because it depends on the population size of your cities.

Incidentally, I think this is another reason why the Russian UB should be changed back to 2 Free Scientists (and +15% instead of +25%). It's not OP at all, and a remote Siberian city having either 1 or 2 Free Scientists makes little difference except making the city slightly less worthless.

I get all the wonders I can myself, but would you really waste a Great Engineer on Mt Rushmore? It is one of the cheapest wonders to build in terms of hammers.

I suspect that you are in the minority of players who only play on Epic, by the way.

blizzrd said:

would you really waste a Great Engineer on Mt Rushmore?

Click to expand...

No. I've never spawned more Great Engineers than I can efficiently use. As I said, it's a mix of Merchants, Engineers, and Spies for me in late game. Engineers in Ironworks city, Spies in Scotland Yard city, and Merchants everywhere else. It usually works out great.

blizzrd said:

I suspect that you are in the minority of players who only play on Epic, by the way.

Click to expand...

The rule of thumb is that if a civ can win UHV on or before 1200 AD I play it on Normal. Otherwise I play on Epic. I find that to be the best balance between fun and time consumption.

Though some exceptions might be made for 1700AD England, France, and Netherlands, which I think will be very difficult to win at any speed faster than Marathon. I haven't tried, but I suspect that.