A Detailed Analysis of the Specialist Economy in Three Parts

[Beamup]

Except it isn't an advantage. It is, in fact, a (minor) disadvantage, since you can't actually choose to go 100% cash if you want to.

 

[Elledge]

Well, let's say half your beakers are coming from specialists and half from economics. The advantage of having those specialists is that you're free to adjust the tech slider without totally crashing your research. You can also use merchant specialists to get reliable income, even if that tech slider is high. Specialists even out the economy, and that's the advantage of "divorcing beakers from your economy". Taking SE to an extreme, the tech slider becomes meaningless.

That's my impression after one marathon game trying out the SE approach. I do prefer that flexibility to a straight "cottages->cash->beakers" economy.

Heck, using specialists was the key to CivIII, I'm surprised how lazy I've gotten using cottages. I was swayed by the pretty, pretty towns.

I don't understand why that is an advantage. It sounds to me like a disadvantage.

EDIT: Uh, what he said!

 

[Betafor]

I don't understand why that is an advantage. It sounds to me like a disadvantage.

EDIT: Uh, what he said!

The poster said to run half cottage science and half specialist- I disagree. If you are going to seperate beakers from cash, do it. If you are going to adjust the slider to toggle what the cash-beaker ratio will be, then do it. If you mix them, what you end up with is, not half beakers, half gold, but 50 percent beaker from specialists, 25 percent(50% of 50%) beaker from gold, and 25 percent gold. thats 75 percent beaker and 25 percent gold- assuming you have exactly the same coins as you do beaker from specialists- Even if city specializtion infastructure extra downsides werent a problem, suddenly your economy is impossible to control! a slight shift in the slider, or the specialist-cottage ratio can imbalance your economy, without the player having clear control.

 

[Elledge]

The poster said to run half cottage science and half specialist- I disagree. If you are going to seperate beakers from cash, do it. If you are going to adjust the slider to toggle what the cash-beaker ratio will be, then do it. If you mix them, what you end up with is, not half beakers, half gold, but 50 percent beaker from specialists, 25 percent(50% of 50%) beaker from gold, and 25 percent gold. thats 75 percent beaker and 25 percent gold- assuming you have exactly the same coins as you do beaker from specialists- Even if city specializtion infastructure extra downsides werent a problem...

I understand everything in this post up to here:

...suddenly your economy is impossible to control! a slight shift in the slider, or the specialist-cottage ratio can imbalance your economy, without the player having clear control.

I don't understand this.

Suppose you have specialist economy A and cottage economy B. For the sake of this argument, let's say that both economies produce the same gross economic income in beakers + gold; surely they aren't that far apart, at least, or this thread wouldn't exist.

In economy A, you are using specialists with representation. For an example figure that seems reasonable, let's say you get 400 beakers from specialists and then you get 100 commerce that you can distribute as you wish. Let's also say that if you change your specialists to merchants, you can go as far as getting 250 beakers and 150 gold from them (some of your beakers are from representation, which can't be changed to gold; and some are from great scientists merged into your science city, which can't be changed to gold either.)

In economy B, you are creating nearly full commerce; 500 commerce and let's say no beakers from specialists.

What control do we have over the wealth distribution?

In the case of A, at 100% tech rate, we get 500 beakers and 0 gold. At 0% tech rate, we get 400 beakers and 100 gold. At 0% tech rate with all merchant specialists, we get 250 beakers and 250 gold. That means that of our total economic income, we can move anywhere from a 50/50 beaker/gold ratio to full beakers, depending on the situation.

In the case of B, at 100% tech rate, we get 500 beakers and 0 gold. At 0% tech rate, we get 0 beakers and 500 gold. So of our total economic income, we can move from full beakers to full gold, depending on the situation.

I don't know how you can interpret that besides saying that the cottage economy, not the specialist economy, has more control over where its income is going.

There are several instances where being able to ignore tech and go full gold come in handy. Rush buying is the biggest one and comes up almost every game. It's very useful to be able to rush buy an army (often) or improvements (often) or a wonder (rarely). In singleplayer, being able to use gold in diplomacy might be a factor. Upgrading old units in preparation for a war is a huge reason. So this level of control is a useful thing to have.

 

[MrCynical]

Well, let's say half your beakers are coming from specialists and half from economics. The advantage of having those specialists is that you're free to adjust the tech slider without totally crashing your research. You can also use merchant specialists to get reliable income, even if that tech slider is high. Specialists even out the economy, and that's the advantage of "divorcing beakers from your economy". Taking SE to an extreme, the tech slider becomes meaningless.

Again, this strange idea that where the science slider is actually matters in its own right. As has been stated on numerous occasions, it's final output that matters, not where any slider is set. Running 50/50 cottages/specialists all the time is definitely not a good idea, since 50% of your economy will by definition be running under suboptimal conditions (the civics have the greatest impact). It's less flexible than a pure cottage economy, since your science slider is still stuck at about 25% science (this is not an advantage), and is producing less overall output than the cottage economy (and probably than a pure specialist economy).

 

[Beamup]

Even if city specializtion infastructure extra downsides werent a problem, suddenly your economy is impossible to control! a slight shift in the slider, or the specialist-cottage ratio can imbalance your economy, without the player having clear control.

Since when does the player not have clear and absolute control over the slider? This claim of "imbalance" is very strange, especially since the player with an SE has much LESS control than the player with a CE. The latter can adjust his beaker/gold breakdown freely with a couple clicks, to whatever he wants. The former has to go into all his cities and reassign specialists to make any large difference.

 

[Wodan]

All of which is ever more contradictory to

Points being seemingly contradictory does not mean they are invalid.

How about adding something? Why do you think they are contradictory?

Take more part in the discussion than just sitting on your hill taking pot shots, please. You've made 3 posts, each a 1 sentence negative remark, and none adding a single original thought or contribution to the thread.

Sorry, I don't mean to be inflammatory... just asking that you try to be more constructive. Unless you think there's NO value in a SE and your entire point is to be destructive to the discussion? (Seriously, just wondering!)

To me, it's a definite benefit to be able to run more cities and still have as much if not more research. I don't see a contradiction there.

Wodan

 

[Beamup]

To me, it's a definite benefit to be able to run more cities and still have as much if not more research. I don't see a contradiction there.

The contradiction is that you claim being able to produce beakers at 0% science is THE major advantage of an SE. Then you admit that slider settings are irrelevant. As I have REPEATEDLY and EXPLICITLY explained, the latter is correct, which makes the former completely false. But, I'll go over it yet again.

Simply put, the fact that you can produce beakers at 0% science means NOTHING other than that you have less control over where your commerce and commerce equivalents are distributed. If an SE is producing 450 beakers and 50 gold at 0% science, while a CE is producing 450 beakers and 50 gold at 90% science, those are completely equivalent. But the CE has the option to produce 500 gold. The SE does not.

The only attempt you have ever made to justify your claim was "if I can still research at 0%, instead of needing to stay at 60%, that must mean I can have a lot more cities." This is completely and utterly false. It in fact means the exact opposite, because you don't have the option of going full gold.

In terms of the rest of your post, I won't even bother to respond since you make it completely obvious that you haven't actually read any of my posts, or indeed many of the others. In short, your description bears absolutely no resemblance to anything remotely similar to reality, and a cursory scan of the thread demonstrates that beyond any possible doubt.

 

[Wodan]

Beamup, thank you for replying in more than 1 sentence, with some thoughtful content.

I don't and haven't disagreed that a SE has less control over allocating commerce through the slider. Thanks for stating it again in a pretty good summary, though.

Back to the other point, being able to produce beakers regardless of your cash flow is an advantage because, no matter how much money you make (or don't, as the case may be), your research is still coming in at a constant amount. Regardless of how much commerce is coming in, and regardless if a CE is producing more commerce than the same SE on the same map, it is an advantage to be able to generate substantial research regardless of commerce.

How is this an advantage to the player who wants to change 450 beakers to max gold? According to you, he CAN'T. Well, the way he would do it on a SE is to change scientists to merchants. Yes, it takes more time.

Back to my point. To illustrate:

CE has research = commerce - cash
(that's not quite accurate as I'm sure you know, but go with it for a moment please)
SE removes research from the equation, so that research = research and cash = commerce.

This allows the player to have any degree of research he wants, and to have any cash flow he wants. One is not dependent up on the other. This gives the player flexibility.

Yes, I agree, a CE has flexibility by having more control via the slider. The simple slider mechanic has more control over research coming in. However, a SE, by removing research from the slider mechanic, reduces the impact of the slider on research level. Does this mean a SE is less flexible? No, because you control your research by assigning scientist specialists and other game mechanics.

The advantage to a SE is that you can crank up your research, or not, as you choose, and you can crank up your cash, or not, as you choose. You aren't FORCED to suffer penalties to research when you max your cash, or penalties to cash when you max your research.

Wodan

ps each of your 3 posts in this thread were all of 1 sentence each. Yes, I read them.

 

[MrCynical]

This allows the player to have any degree of research he wants, and to have any cash flow he wants. One is not dependent up on the other. This gives the player flexibility.

But he doesn't have the ability to have any cash flow he wants. He only has the (relatively feeble compared to a cottage economy) amount of commerce available to convert into cash. Beyond that he can only push it higher by exchanging scientists for merchants, which is detrimental to research rate.

The advantage to a SE is that you can crank up your research, or not, as you choose, and you can crank up your cash, or not, as you choose. You aren't FORCED to suffer penalties to research when you max your cash, or penalties to cash when you max your research.

You seem to be using two different definitions of "max your cash", which are mutually exclusive. To avoid harming your research you can't convert specialists to merchants, so you're stuck with your minimal commerce from the specialist economy, which would be going to gold, not research anyway. This isn't maximising your cash, it's running as normal.

The other definition you seem to have been using is; generating the maximum amount of gold possible (which I regard as the correct definition), but is incompatible with your arguments. A specialist economy, due to the use of representation, cannot convert 100% of its research (or even close to that) to gold. If it is necessary (for example for a quick upgrade or buying stuff) to get as much gold as possible, a specialist economy simply cannot generate as much gold, as some always goes to research.

Consider. You regard it as an advantage that even at your maximum cash situation you still have some research coming in, but this is fallacious. You're forgetting that your maximum cash output is lower by the amount that you're getting as research than a cottage economy would be. I'll try and get this simple concept across with a modification of the example Beamup used.

Consider an SE and a CE. Both generate 450 research and 50 gold under normal circumstances, with the cottage economy running at 90%, and the specialist at 100% gold. To maximise gold the CE simply pushes the slider to 0%, giving 500 gold. The SE switches the scientists to merchants, but due to representation this can only give 275 gold and 225 research. No matter what it cannot get more gpt. The cottage economy however can get exactly the same output as the SE, with this supposedly advantageous remaining research, by running between 50% and 60% science. It can also choose to run for maximum gold.

I cannot simplify this explanation any further. The CE can produce any combination of research and gold output the SE can, and also outcomes further biased towards gold that the SE can't. Hence the CE is more flexible than the SE. This isn't a debatable issue, it's just maths and logic.

 

[iamdanthemansta]

Jane, you ignorant slut!
(an old bit but still funny)

Anyways, after reading MrCynical, Woodan, and Beamup's posts on flexibility in the CE and SE, I noticed that you might all be talking cross points. That is to say you may all be right.

MrCynical is of course correct the the CE is more flexable at any given point in time as you can easily convert some or all of your science to gold, while a SE can't go as far.

That being said Woodan may also be right. Over time a SE may be able choose more easily in what dirrect to grow. If for example the situation comes up where your wealth is more the enough for the foreseable future then in a SE you can start building cities that only focus on science. In a CE on the other hand you just have to focus on commerce more generally and thus any additional gold growth will be unnessicary but unavoidable, you can only raise tech% so much at 0% you stop getting anything. Therfore a SE can choose to add wealth without affecting science, or add science without affecting wealth, but the SE can not do that at any given point of time.

 

[Betafor]

SNIP

What i mean by less control is that it requires some excess math that could go wrong in order to actually see how your econ is doing. Theoretically, it would be OK... But i would almost rather not take the chance? Plus, the way the math works (percentages of percentages), you can get random decimal beakers and golds, which i don't know how the game deals with....

 

[MrCynical]

you can get random decimal beakers and golds, which i don't know how the game deals with....

In vanilla Civ 4 it always rounds down, but I think that affects both SE and CE equally. In Warlords the calculations are doen to 1 or 2 decimal places, so the effects of rounding are neglible.

That being said Woodan may also be right. Over time a SE may be able choose more easily in what dirrect to grow. If for example the situation comes up where your wealth is more the enough for the foreseable future then in a SE you can start building cities that only focus on science. In a CE on the other hand you just have to focus on commerce more generally and thus any additional gold growth will be unnessicary but unavoidable, you can only raise tech% so much at 0% you stop getting anything. Therfore a SE can choose to add wealth without affecting science, or add science without affecting wealth, but the SE can not do that at any given point of time.

So you're suggesting that the SE has an edge in that it can choose to add a wealth specialised city or a research specialised city? Wealth specialised cities beyond the Wall Street city are either inherently inefficient cottage cities, or produce a fairly even mix of research and science, and hence are not really specialised. I still see nothing here a cottage economy cannot do. Beyond a slight time factor on building gold and research boosting buildings (which is still a problem for a specialist economy), a commerce city can still work to give gold or research as you choose.

You still seem to be placing value on being able to choose to add either science or gold independently. However you're still neglecting the fact that the cottage economy just adds an equivalent amount of commerce, which can then be used as either gold or research as required by tweaking the slider to the desired output. This is still more flexible than the SE. (Indeed basic logic would seem to suggest that an economy more flexible on each individual turn will be more flexible over the course of the game).

You seem to spend too much time focusing on what one individual city is doing, and neglecting the effect on others. Overall empire output is what counts, not how that output was reached.

 

[Wodan]

But he doesn't have the ability to have any cash flow he wants. He only has the (relatively feeble compared to a cottage economy) amount of commerce available to convert into cash. Beyond that he can only push it higher by exchanging scientists for merchants, which is detrimental to research rate.

Depends on how you're running your SE. Unless using caste system, then you're limited to 2-3 scientists per city anyway. Yet, your cities are going to be able to support 4-5 specialists. So, the extra specialists are probably merchants.

I guess I'm disagreeing with the statement "the only way you can push it higher is by exchanging scientists for merchants." It's not a zero sum. If running caste system, sure. However, maybe you want slavery or serfdom (both of which have pretty strong advantages).

To avoid harming your research you can't convert specialists to merchants, so you're stuck with your minimal commerce from the specialist economy, which would be going to gold, not research anyway.

Agreed, and it's a good point.

Nevertheless, I think that's only valid if you aren't running the "great library" model (which has probably 90% of your research coming from that one city). With Univ of Sankore and other benefits, it is VERY viable to not run caste system.

The other definition you seem to have been using is...

Wasn't aware I was mixing definitions; if so, thanks for pointing it out. I sometimes ramble and thus I can easily see how I might do this.

I guess I just try to point out things that I see... not to set up any kind of straw man, but instead because I think there's something there, and hopefully others can see it too and/or provide their own insights. Anyway....

A specialist economy, due to the use of representation, cannot convert 100% of its research (or even close to that) to gold. If it is necessary (for example for a quick upgrade or buying stuff) to get as much gold as possible, a specialist economy simply cannot generate as much gold, as some always goes to research.

Hmm. Assuming that the +3 beaker Representation bonus is equivalent to the cottage economy, then yes I agree.

However, to some extent, the Representation bonus (and other advantages of a SE) have to be considered just that: bonuses. Personally, my gut feeling (which admittedly may be wrong) is that even w/o Pyramids & Representation, a SE is competitive with a CE.

If true, then the +3 bonus should not be considered a negative because it cannot be converted to gold. Any more than the Univ of Sankore or other bonuses.

does that make sense? I'm not sure I explained it that well.

Consider. You regard it as an advantage that even at your maximum cash situation you still have some research coming in, but this is fallacious. You're forgetting that your maximum cash output is lower by the amount that you're getting as research than a cottage economy would be.

This is apples and oranges, I agree.

Consider an SE and a CE. Both generate 450 research and 50 gold under normal circumstances, with the cottage economy running at 90%, and the specialist at 100% gold.

Stop there... first off, they're not going to be generating the same. One is going to be better than the other, depending on what bonuses they get and how developed the cottages are.

Regardless, for point of illustration, let's go on.

To maximise gold the CE simply pushes the slider to 0%, giving 500 gold. The SE switches the scientists to merchants, but due to representation this can only give 275 gold and 225 research. No matter what it cannot get more gpt. The cottage economy however can get exactly the same output as the SE, with this supposedly advantageous remaining research, by running between 50% and 60% science. It can also choose to run for maximum gold.

I agree with all this.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

So you're suggesting that the SE has an edge in that it can choose to add a wealth specialised city or a research specialised city? Wealth specialised cities beyond the Wall Street city are either inherently inefficient cottage cities, or produce a fairly even mix of research and science, and hence are not really specialised. I still see nothing here a cottage economy cannot do.

Well, a city can make only certain buildings under either economy, agreed.

What is different is that a CE moves the slider for the entire civ.

Meanwhile, under a SE your slider stays in the same place, and you simply go into the city and click on merchants or scientists. You can't do that on a CE.

Wodan

 

[iamdanthemansta]

Wealth specialised cities beyond the Wall Street city are either inherently inefficient cottage cities, or produce a fairly even mix of research and science, and hence are not really specialised.

Yout don't have to run Bureaucracy, and in fact I don't usually run it with a large empire, so the additional cottage cities are still effecient.

However you're still neglecting the fact that the cottage economy just adds an equivalent amount of commerce, which can then be used as either gold or research as required by tweaking the slider to the desired output. This is still more flexible than the SE.

The problem is that the slider is not an exact tool. To use your example from earlier lets say a SE produces 450 beakers and 50 gold while a CE produces 500 commerce and has a 90% tech rate so it also produces 450 beakers and 50 gold. If 50 gold was enough and both economies added 100(commerce or beakers) then the results would look like 550 beakers 50 gold for SE and 540 beakers 60 gold i.e. 10 more gold then you wanted and 10 less beakers. I admit that the numbers here aren't staggering and do agree that in most ways the CE is more flexable.

One intesting strength of the CE I have found recently is in the leader traits.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=180951 Here I did an alanysis of the leader traits and found that the most powerfull trait pairing all involved financial.

 

[UncleJJ]

Back to the other point, being able to produce beakers regardless of your cash flow is an advantage because, no matter how much money you make (or don't, as the case may be), your research is still coming in at a constant amount. Regardless of how much commerce is coming in, and regardless if a CE is producing more commerce than the same SE on the same map, it is an advantage to be able to generate substantial research regardless of commerce.

This is not true. The research beakers from Representation are always research. The commerce sliders allows for 100% to 0% research or 100% to 0% culture or by default 100% to 0% gold. So in that way the commerce sliders are more flexible than re-arranging the specialists in a SE. The point that you are missing is that the commerce sliders affect all cities at once and that can be very inefficient while you can pick and choose which cities to change specialists in... I'll return to this point later.

The advantage to a SE is that you can crank up your research, or not, as you choose, and you can crank up your cash, or not, as you choose. You aren't FORCED to suffer penalties to research when you max your cash, or penalties to cash when you max your research.

This is gibberish A SE has some increased flexibility and efficencies at the level of individual cities. But getting some research beakers when what you really want is gold is in no way an advantage, it is a disadvantage,

ps each of your 3 posts in this thread were all of 1 sentence each. Yes, I read them.

Very unfair to beamup. All his responses except one were full paragraphs and he asked you pertinent questions and exposed some of the the contradictions in your arguments. You need to take criticism with good grace.

 

[Wodan]

However you're still neglecting the fact that the cottage economy just adds an equivalent amount of commerce...

I think this is where the fundamental difference of opinions might be coming in.

A CE and a SE do not add an equivalent amount of commerce, research, and/or cash. Period. On a given game or map setup, one is going to be better than the other.

Probably the only way to tell, is for someone to load a game that is optimized for one or the other. Then, spend an hour in world builder and completely switch. You'll have to carefully document the terrain, era, and other "assumptions," but when done we might have something interesting to talk about.

Wodan

 

[Landmonitor]

I'm posting to keep this in my User CP. I've recenlty been using specialists more (especially if I start near stone and hence can build pyramids - haven't gone past prince yet).

 

[Wodan]

This is gibberish A SE has some increased flexibility and efficencies at the level of individual cities. But getting some research beakers when what you really want is gold is in no way an advantage, it is a disadvantage

That's only if the "some research beakers" aren't pure gravy in the first place. (A point which admittedly has not been proved.)

Very unfair to beamup. All his responses except one were full paragraphs and he asked you pertinent questions and exposed some of the the contradictions in your arguments. You need to take criticism with good grace.

If so, I apologize. It just seemed to me that his comments didn't do anything except knock down without adding constructive thoughts to point the discussion in what he might think was a better direction. That's my impression, is all.

Wodan