CE vs SE Head-to-Head Experiment Part II

[mutax2003]

Maybe Dave could have moved capital to a high commerce city to take advantage of the bureaucracy civic, and just let Moscow be the GP farm.

 

[aelf]

After looking at Daves save games I would have to disagree with you guys. He is running a CE with an awesome GP Farm, not a SE.

Granted most CE players cottage the capital, but Moscow was an awesome GP Farm. And it would only be a so-so cottage city. I think he could only place 8 cottages in the city. Compare that to the food resources - 5 Flood Plains, 2 Pigs, 1 Rice. Plus the commerce bonus specials - 1 gem & 1 silver.

At the 25 AD save he was running 2 Merchants in his entire Civ. Plus he was getting 2 Scientists from the Great Library. Even counting the 2 Scientists from the GL, only 18 base science was coming from specialists. Counting the library he was getting 22.5 from specialists out of his total science of 124. That is only 18% of his science rate. That does not seem like a SE economy.

Even at the 1000 AD save, specialists only count for 65 Science out of a empire total of 352.

I think you guys are getting distracted about civics & lightbulbing. To say a CE can not run pacifism or lightbulb is like saying a SE must set the research rate at 0% and can not tech trade.

The civics do not matter. In the early game the best builder civics are rep and pacifism. Plus, Peter is a Philo civ. Why would you not play to his strength and build an awsome GP farm? The question is Farm/Specialists in every city vs Cottage/and a single GP Farm. Daves game, in my opinion is clearly a CE. Forget civics and lightbulbing because either economy can and should do both.

Welcome to Civfanatics!

Of course the civics matter. In practice, it's quite pointless to try and define rules for SE and CE, but for the sake of argument we have to differentiate between the two here. To me, having a capital that is a GP farm and running Pacifism counts as an SE. At most, it's a hybrid economy. It can't be a CE.

 

[Zombie69]

I've got to agree that where the research is coming from is the only thing that defines whether you're running CE or SE, and in Dave's case, this was CE, not SE.

 

[acidsatyr]

But only after 1st 4000 years.
And civics do matter ofcourse they do. To run ealry representatino is to admit the power of ealry scientists. So what if theres nothing lese better at the time thats not the point. He run representation and pacifism way before cottages had a chance to develop. His capital was bringing in as much research (and more) than his other cities with undeveloped cottages + the fact that he was getting out great people like crazy.
A trademark of early CE is buearocracy which Moscow didn't need.
Therefore his BC economy was leaning toward SE but was in no way CE. =

 

[Zombie69]

I run early representation with CE everytime i can, not because of scientists, but to get the +2 happiness. Representation is great no matter which way you're going.

I often run pacifism with CE just so that my GPF can produce GP quicker, which means Great Scientists sooner, which means having academies sooner in my cottage cities. Again, this means nothing.

"At the 25 AD save he was running 2 Merchants in his entire Civ. Plus he was getting 2 Scientists from the Great Library. Even counting the 2 Scientists from the GL, only 18 base science was coming from specialists. Counting the library he was getting 22.5 from specialists out of his total science of 124. That is only 18% of his science rate. That does not seem like a SE economy.

Even at the 1000 AD save, specialists only count for 65 Science out of a empire total of 352."

How do you see that as "the capital produces more science than the lowly cottages".

I sometimes run CE without Bureaucracy because my capital is a GPF and/or i having more urgent needs and/or ma capital isn't producing a great proportion of my commerce anyway. Again, this doesn't mean it's not CE.

 

[acidsatyr]

Please. If the only reason why you are running ealry representation is for +2 then you should realize that running HR is in fact cheaper and step up level or two.
So, for the sake of this conversation, lets assume that the reason why you waste ealry expansion to build pyramids is to run maximum number of scientists you can to benefit from raw +6 beakers. Assuming you know what you are doing of course.
Following up on that, any civ that is using ealry representation for research cannot be CE, and only in few cases can be hybrid (like having financial trait, so the research your getting from cottages is considerably larger that amount of research you could get from any other non financial civ), because your ealry cottages are no mach for raw + from single scientist. If you are "running CE" as you say, with financial civ, yet your capital is incredible GP farm AND you run representation/pacifism i would be very careful defining that as CE. Even if your capital GPF is responsible for say 1/3 of total research, and cottages for 2/3, how can you call this pure CE?

btw please read carefuly what i say before commenting. Your talking about 1000AD, when I said that Dave's economy from 4000BC - 0AD (or 4000 years) was SE. That changed but it was NEVER pure CE.

 

[BCLG100]

Scores so far:

CE
1730 AD
1760 AD

Hybrid
1750 AD

SE
1929 AD

I'm still hoping for a better showing for SE.

I can download and play it, whether you choose to accept it is upto you.

Got to admit these days i normally only play MP but anything to prove that an SE is better than a CE

 

[beancounter]

Welcome to Civfanatics!

Of course the civics matter. In practice, it's quite pointless to try and define rules for SE and CE, but for the sake of argument we have to differentiate between the two here. To me, having a capital that is a GP farm and running Pacifism counts as an SE. At most, it's a hybrid economy. It can't be a CE.

Thanks for the welcome!

The problem with excluding certain civics to the CE is you nerf the GP Farm. If the CE can not use either pacifism or caste system then it will be very difficult to set up a good GP Farm early. Representation is still useful to the CE economy to help boost the research form the GP Farm, or if you have the GL and for the happiness boost. Just like Buracracy is useful to the SE.

Besides lets focus on what we are trying to test. Which is better: farm every city and using specialists or running cottages in every city with a single GP Farm. Which civics you use, how you use a great person or which city you made the GP Farm are really irrevlant to that question. I am not interested in knowing that the SE is better then a CE as long as the CE does not run certain civics. I am interested in which strategy can out research the other.

 

[beancounter]

Please. If the only reason why you are running ealry representation is for +2 then you should realize that running HR is in fact cheaper and step up level or two.
So, for the sake of this conversation, lets assume that the reason why you waste ealry expansion to build pyramids is to run maximum number of scientists you can to benefit from raw +6 beakers. Assuming you know what you are doing of course.
Following up on that, any civ that is using ealry representation for research cannot be CE, and only in few cases can be hybrid (like having financial trait, so the research your getting from cottages is considerably larger that amount of research you could get from any other non financial civ), because your ealry cottages are no mach for raw + from single scientist. If you are "running CE" as you say, with financial civ, yet your capital is incredible GP farm AND you run representation/pacifism i would be very careful defining that as CE. Even if your capital GPF is responsible for say 1/3 of total research, and cottages for 2/3, how can you call this pure CE?

btw please read carefuly what i say before commenting. Your talking about 1000AD, when I said that Dave's economy from 4000BC - 0AD (or 4000 years) was SE. That changed but it was NEVER pure CE.

The problem with that argument is at 25 AD he is only running 2 merchants. Those two merchants are only providing 6 science a turn. His total science rate is 124 at 25 AD. The GL is providing another 12 science a turn. It is a nice chunk, but certainitly not the majority.

To be honest, in the 4000BC to 0 AD time frame the majority of your research for both economies is coming from the terrain(rivers - gems - gold), your palace and any trade routes you set up.

 

[Zombie69]

Please. If the only reason why you are running ealry representation is for +2 then you should realize that running HR is in fact cheaper and step up level or two.

It's not cheaper. First, you need to make those units, which costs you hammers. Then you need to pay for their maintenance, which costs you gold. Finally, even a CE usually has one GPF, and the extra science provided by the specialists there (who don't have to be scientists) is some kind of a negative cost of representation that HR doesn't have. All in all, i'll always go for representation over HR if given the chance.

Even if your capital GPF is responsible for say 1/3 of total research, and cottages for 2/3, how can you call this pure CE?

If more than 50% of your commerce is comming from outside of specialists, you're running CE. Otherwise, it's SE. If you want to be technical, you could say that between 33% and 67%, it's hybrid. Anyway, in the case above, it was well above 50% and clearly above 67% as well. There's no way this even comes close to being SE.

btw please read carefuly what i say before commenting. Your talking about 1000AD, when I said that Dave's economy from 4000BC - 0AD (or 4000 years) was SE. That changed but it was NEVER pure CE.

Please carefully read what i say before commenting. "At 25 AD (i.e. at the end of the first 4000 years), the science provided by specialists was only 18% of the total science." At that point, it was already nowhere near a SE.

 

[lilnev]

Well my game, only a few turns slower, was definitely a CE. I didn't run a single specialist in the BC years, only used one GS towards Liberalism (though I put a second into PP, which I got before Lib), never used Caste System or Pacifism, didn't build Pyramids. I don't remember if I spent a few turns in Representation or not (the event log from my save would tell) on the way to the Democracy civics, but if so it wasn't many. Heck, I've got cottages around my GP farm (Thebes), and only a few farms by other cities that otherwise would have had their growth stalled. I'm not claiming that keeping a CE this pure is the best strategy (my hunch is that a hybrid or mid-game conversion is probably best, especially with this much food), but I did it deliberately for the test, and it does seem to be competitive.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Gogf]

Welcome to Civfanatics!

Of course the civics matter. In practice, it's quite pointless to try and define rules for SE and CE, but for the sake of argument we have to differentiate between the two here. To me, having a capital that is a GP farm and running Pacifism counts as an SE. At most, it's a hybrid economy. It can't be a CE.

Okay, then let me impose a few rules. People wishing to run specialist economies cannot:

- Build any cottages.
- Trade techs.
- Run bureaucracy.
- Run a science rate above 0% at any point in the game.

Now, obviously these are cripling, unreasonable restrictions that make any serious attempt at winning a came impossible. But they do demonstrate that arbitrarily disallowing entire portions of the game is ridiculous.

A cottage economy is one where the brunt of research comes from cottages. A specialist economy is where it comes from specialists. I don't see why using great people to lightbuild techs should be the exclusive domain of specialist economies.

Specialist economies advocates can win every contest if they disallow certain neutral facets of the game, particularly if they disallow the use of one of the leader's traits. Of course, if you're going to use great people, you have to first generate them, which is exactly what Dave was doing.

 

[aelf]

Okay, then let me impose a few rules. People wishing to run specialist economies cannot:

- Build any cottages.
- Trade techs.
- Run bureaucracy.
- Run a science rate above 0% at any point in the game.

Now, obviously these are cripling, unreasonable restrictions that make any serious attempt at winning a came impossible. But they do demonstrate that arbitrarily disallowing entire portions of the game is ridiculous.

That is taking things way out of context. Mere rhetoric.

What I'm saying is I suspect a lot of the research in the early part of that game came from specialists and lightbulbing, since the capital was a GP farm and Pacifism was run, hence involving the use of specialists early (when their bpt output is most significant) and generating a lot of great people. I did say we should try and differentiate between the two methods (SE and CE), but on how to do so I had suggested earlier that we should look at how much research is done by either specialists or cottages.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that the majority of the early game research was done by specialists/lightbulbing, but that's because I'm unfamiliar with the exact numbers. Still, I maintain that a GP farm capital and running Pacifism will most probably result in a hybrid economy in the early part of the game, not a pure CE. While that is perfectly alright in a normal game, for the sake of this test, we should avoid that. Sure, you can have a GP farm and maybe even run Pacifism. Just don't do that in the capital.

 

[Gogf]

That is taking things way out of context. Mere rhetoric.

What I'm saying is I suspect a lot of the research in the early part of that game came from specialists and lightbulbing, since the capital was a GP farm and Pacifism was run, hence involving the use of specialists early (when their bpt output is most significant) and generating a lot of great people. I did say we should try and differentiate between the two methods (SE and CE), but on how to do so I had suggested earlier that we should look at how much research is done by either specialists or cottages.

The question is whether primarily specialist- or cottage-based research is more powerful. Either take great people out of it or let both contestants use them.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that the majority of the early game research was done by specialists/lightbulbing, but that's because I'm unfamiliar with the exact numbers. Still, I maintain that a GP farm capital and running Pacifism will most probably result in a hybrid economy in the early part of the game, not a pure CE. While that is perfectly alright in a normal game, for the sake of this test, we should avoid that. Sure, you can have a GP farm and maybe even run Pacifism. Just don't do that in the capital.

Why does running your great person farm in your capital make it any less valid?

 

[Zombie69]

If my capital's surroundings make for a superb GFP but only a so-so science city, i'll make it a GPF. This doesn't mean i'm not playing CE. I'll just build a palace elsewhere to move my capital as soon as convenient (which in some cases is never).

 

[futurehermit]

^^^The point is that when COMPARING the two economies there is a BLURRING when SE civics are used and a lot of GP lightbulbing is done.

I think part of the problem was the map. It's true that Moscow made a great gpfarm. Plus with the stone there it catered to building the pyramids even for the CE player.

I don't think that makes a "normal" CE game. A normal CE game would cottage the capital and run bureaucracy.

So, at the end of the day, I just think it is hard to definitively say: "Look everybody, CE > SE"

 

[DaveMcW]

I can definitely say, 1700's CE beats 1929 SE.

More SE games please.

 

[malekithe]

^^^The point is that when COMPARING the two economies there is a BLURRING when SE civics are used and a lot of GP lightbulbing is done.

You seem to be suggesting that a CE shouldn't be relying upon lightbulbs through the inital stages of the game. I'm curious why. If you have a strong great person farm, there's going to be virtually no difference in number of great people produced by either style of economy. If the whole of the value of an SE is in its GP, then it doesn't actually have much of an advantage over a CE. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that this map was not a good one to accentuate the differences between the two economies, well... I think we all know who is at fault there.

I just think it is hard to definitively say: "Look everybody, CE > SE"

No, but, based on the data collected so far, we can probably say, "When you start near stone with an excellent great person farm, CE > SE."

 

[futurehermit]

You seem to be suggesting that a CE shouldn't be relying upon lightbulbs through the inital stages of the game. I'm curious why. If you have a strong great person farm, there's going to be virtually no difference in number of great people produced by either style of economy. If the whole of the value of an SE is in its GP, then it doesn't actually have much of an advantage over a CE. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that this map was not a good one to accentuate the differences between the two economies, well... I think we all know who is at fault there.


No, but, based on the data collected so far, we can probably say, "When you start near stone with an excellent great person farm, CE > SE."

yes, i probably didn't pick the best map, fair enough. i just assumed the CE player wouldn't go for pyramids and wouldn't pick their capital to be their gpfarm since I assumed they would want to run early representation. that was a faulty assumption I suppose...

you can't make the conclusion you are making because 1) not enough SE games played yet; and 2) there is too much conflation between the two economies.

as acidsatyr is saying, at least in Dave's game, it was SE pretty much until 1AD. sure he switched after that, but it is this early period where the SE really shows its strength. I'M NOT SAYING A CE CAN'T HAVE A GOOD GP FARM AND LIGHTBULB TECHS. what i'm saying is that it blurs the lines between the two when trying to compare them when the capital is used as a gpfarm and a lot of lightbulbing is done early on. of course a CE can do this, but it just blurs the lines too much imo, especially when we start adding in representation, pacificism, maybe caste system.

just because a CE player switchs to CE at some point in the game doesn't make it a pure CE. just because a CE player runs essentially a SE early in the game doesn't make it a pure SE. i would say dave's game was a hybrid economy (which i would say is most powerful anyways). hybrid doesn't have to mean both at the same time imo it can also mean switching from one to another over the course of a game.

 

[frob2900]

Got space launch at 1888 AD with SE, no cottages... Could probably shave 20-30 turns off this by micromanagement but with the general strategy I pursued that would be as good as it gets..

I'm guessing that with no cottages a pre 1800 launch is diffucult.. 1730 almost impossible (super-skillful trading might make it possible but this would also work for CE, giving an earlier date than 1730..)

Ramesses dead ca 400 AD
Liberalism 1100 AD
Biology ca 1400 AD
Thats when it starts to stagnate.. Maybe it would be an idea to conquer the entire roosevelt/wang kon continent, however Roosevelt was a useful trading partner.. got industrialism, assembly line and some other nice stuff from him..

I'm beginning to think that for space launches CE >> SE at least on lower levels, however in the early game (pre 1000 AD) I still think SE >> CE. It still doesnt give the mega research necessary towards the end though..