Commercial Delusians and CSA's

[neotemujin]

It seems to me that people are really over-rating the commercial ability. I have not played the game yet, but from all I have read (including the firaxis-posted civ-specific ability effects in developer update), Commercial civs get NO TRADING BONUS! They get:
Lower corruption
Extra Commerce in city center.

The only possible way I could see people interpreting this to mean that they can build a "far-flung empire" with better resources and more money is that Corruption for non-commercial civs is enormous. However, there are certainly ways for non-Commercial civs to lower corruption. SO, I maintain my view that Commercial civs are bettered by Scientific, Militaristic, and Industrious civs.

Also, let's not forget that Sid surely balanced ALL abilities. I mean i doubt that he would make the playbalancing so unbalanced that certain civs never have a chance. Therefore, it is only possible for us to debate which abilities best suit our abilities.

Bu anyways, since the only advantage a commercial civ will have over a non-commercial civ in trading is increased revenue (a result of lower corruption and increased commerce in the capital city), all civilizations will have equal trading opportunities.

Now, I'm not saying that Commercial attribute is worthless. However, I simply believe that it is not necessary to expand your civ accross the globe simply to get resources which could just as easily be a) acquired through trading b) be taken from a neigbor.
Of course those means work less consistently than the Commercial Solution of building your won colonies as you find the resources.

Now, unless there are some gameplay elements that I am not familiar with (as I stress again that there may be because I have not played the game and do not intend to appear as one who blindly states his views with no respect to the fact he may actually be wrong), there is no reason that a non-Commercial civ can not establish far-flung empires with military might, cultural superiority, diplomatic finese, or some other method. While corruption may be higher, is it really necessary to generate mountains of commerce from your farest (and most liekly weakest) outposts? On the other hand, if corruption affects production, food, etc, then the above conclusions are worng as it IS necessary to feed and produce at any city regardless of strength or location.

Now as the main point of this post, I state again that the Commercial CSA, while not BAD, is not the best ability (as stated by others in this forum). It seems to me that people have mis-interpreted the CSA and somehow believe that Commercial Civs will be economically superrior to other civs in any way other than corruption. (The one-city commerce boost is easly countered by "extra priduction in one city" ability of Industrious nations.

So, now for more stuff:
Although it may be harder to win with military strength now, it should not be assumed that militaristic civs are able only to conquer. Carrying a big stick never hurt in the economic or diplomatic realms, unless of course your proverbial stick becomes too heavy for your economy, or draws enough attention that your nation is targeted by everyone else w/ less-potent armies.

As for CSA's, here is how I rank them:
1. Scientific
2. Militaristic/Industrious, w/ militaristic having a VERY slight edge
3. Commercial
4. Expansionist (this actually depends on how good expansionist is...who knows, maybe the startiung scout and better early stuff will give a nation an nubeatable leg-up from the start on)
5. Religious (no anarchy... woo! i avoid at least five turns of disorder during the four times i change governments during the entire game!)
actually i don't know how good religious civs will be, because maybe there are a LOT of religious buildings, and anarchy is a serious, long-term thing. But personally i think that it sounds useless, so far as i can tell.

feel free to disagree, but no hate please. ive tried to validate my opinions as best i can, and have tried not to attempt to impose my beliefs upon anyone forcefully.

Germans-Chinese-Persians

 

[CurtSibling]

Whadda long Post!

Your opinion seems fairly well-thought ot to me!
Once we all get playing we'll see what combo is best...

Wouldn't say anything here is cause for an argument,
You are in no way "delusianal"!

 

[D_L_26]

Oh, I thought CSA was the Confederacy! You really have to change the abbreviation there

 

[zandar]

The extra revenue from Commercial may become a very nice bonus later on when the cost of improvements begins to ramp up quickly in the Industrial/Modern Ages, we don't know the per city cost of all the improvements in the game yet, but I tend to agree with the fact that out of the gate, Scientific and Industrious/Militaristic seem to be more constant and useful bonuses.

 

[malphigian]

Interesting post. Of course (as you mention) its largely conjecture at this point.

One thing that's worth mentioning:
you shouldn't underestimate the effects of corruption, check out these screens. (yes, yes, I realize I have no clue what the empire size here is):
Iroquis Despots(non-comm): 47% lost to corruption
Roman Despots(comm): 27% lost to corruption

Chinese Democracy(non-comm) 51% lost to corruption!

That last one is a doozy, the very fact that you can be losing half your income to corruption in a democracy means reduced corruption is nothing to sneeze at.

Doesnt necessary mean I think Commerical is great, but its something to think about.

EDIT: I'm guessing the civs here, but even if I'm wrong I think the point stands about how high corruption can get in a democracy.

 

[Knigget]

Good post neotemujin

I agree with you about the commercial ability. However I don't agree about scientific being the best CSA.

Industrious is the best IMHO. The reason for this is that better production means faster building of new cities which again means more trade (commerce in civ3) and even more production. As an additional bonus industrious civs have faster workers which means they will be able to build roads and irrigation quickly.

I have'nt played the game either, but I think industrious civs will be able to grow faster and produce more trade, food and production than other civs. And when it comes to war, militaristic or not, the one with the most production will probably win.

 

[Invader]

industrious ----> *workers can enhance tiles faster
*1 additional shield in city center

 

[Mozenwrath]

I think everyone here is far underestimating the benefits of the Religious attribute. In my view, culture is going to be enourmously important for grabbing resources and limiting your neighbours' room for growth. I think that most of the culture buildings will be the religious type therefore if you can build more of these in less time you gain a big advantage over your opponents.

 

[LKendter]

Well if Democracy really suffers Corruption

This would be a RADICAL change from the previous version. The whole reason I go to Democracy is to get ALL of my income from a far flung empire.

If Democracy allows Corruption, what good is it?????????

 

[pansophy]

Yeah, I was really surprised to see 50% corruption from a democracy too. It makes me want to know more about the governments.

The reason I like commerical and industrial (French) is because it is so flexible _ essentially creating a better version of a Civ2 Civ, having more of the basic building blocks of any civ, money and production.

The question about what is the best ability is not about what strategy is important, but what does the benefit give you that you couldn't do without it. The French can still be militaristic and will have more production to create units and more money to support them. If I go to war enough, I will get a great leader too, it just won't be as often as militaristic civs. The French can be religious and scientific, again being able to support more buildings then other Civs.

In my opinion, scientific is nearly worthless. I can build all the same buildings they can, it will just take a little longer. And the 3 extra techs they get I can steal or build scientific wonders so that I'm not behind. I can build all the same buildings the religious civs can build too. Depending on how often I want to switch governments, no anarchy might be a real gem and advantage since no other civ (minus the Status of Liberty) can do that.

Expansionist is only a benefit as long as there is new territory to explore and huts to grab. This is a bigger advantage as the map gets bigger, but it all depends on what "better goodies" means. But, I can be expansionistic too, I just won't get quite the benefit from the huts.

Industrious is going to be key since workers will work faster. This will be important if you can't use other civ's roads and such against them. Plus you will want to connect your civ to other civs early for trade.

That's my take anyway.

 

[LKendter]

I still wonder with "Expansionist"

Of course, if "better goodies from huts" results in an early bonus city ...

An early jump in the game can steamroll. My CivII hof game I just sent in did just that. I had more the double the # of cities of any other player. Now if my scout finds a few extra techs, etc. I may get a hugh early jump.

I plan to try several different counties

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Let's do some math.

The Chinese and the English each have 20 cities. They each have -30 per turn in city expenses, and -10 in military support. So -40 overall.

They are each bringing in 80 per turn...without the commerce being factored in. At 25 percent corruption for the Chinese, they lose 20 per turn and hence only make 60 gold, a net gain of 20.

The English on the other hand have a reduced rate of corruption of 15%, and are losing 12 gold per turn. On top of that, those ten cities each give one more gold per turn, therefore the corruption rate is almost neglected by +20 gold. The English make a profit of 88 gold, 28 more then there opponents. And this is on a small scale.

EDIT: Sorry. I had some creative math in there

 

[CrazyScientist]

More production in "city center"?
More commerce in "city center"?

How is city center defined? All cities? Just your capital? Just your biggest few cities? Just the center tile of all cities?
What exactly city center means has a lot to do with which I'd choose.

That aside though, if corruption does the same thing it did in Civ 2, (reduce trade) then reducing it will big a big benefit that will help with science, money, and hapiness (luxuries). This will be doubly important if there is corruption in democracies
I have to say I think commercial might rule after all. Just speculation of course.

I also really like industrious. Building irrigation and roads sooner and faster means bigger cities, and more trade. As far as increasing production....well, how good that is depends on what the heck "city center" means.

I think underestimating scientific might be a mistake, especially if there is some combat bonus for units of different eras (which I hope there is since they've eliminated firepower, and all units have the same HP (except vet & elite)). You can crank out the science buildings in all your cities really cheaply, and get to the next era before everyone else, and then you get a free tech for it. Not bad at all IMHO.

 

[Knigget]

DamnCommie the city center is only the city tile, so it's +1 production/commerce per city.

English make a profit of 78 gold, 18 more then there opponents. And this is on a small scale

And if the civ had been industrious they would have made 20 shields more per turn, wich is far superior to commerce. And this example is with big cities producing 80 commerce per turn, industrious is even better with small cities.