Cottages!!

[noto2]

I don't see a cottage economy as a small empire strategy, but rather a medium or large empire strategy. We should define these sizes. A small empire, to me, would be one with 6 or less cities. In such a situation, I think having tons of settled specialists would outproduce cottages, and thus I would have been running a specialist economy all game long. As Iranon stated, in this situation, I'd likely be running environmentalism and have size 30-40 cities. I'd also be running representation. In a large empire, like 20 or more cities on a standard B&S map, anything goes really. You can have cottages, be running any number of civics, etc, you're using sheer size to win. With a medium empire, I can see the efficiency of a CE matching or beating a larger empire. Anyway, I don't mind the AI blocking me into 6 cities or less when I'm wonderspamming and GP spamming, because my super science city will be producing as many beakers as 5 good cottage cities. However, if I'm going for universal suffrage, free speech, and a cottage spammed economy, I'm going to want more than 5-6 cities, and that means I need to expand quickly in the beginning and probably go to war once or twice. That means I can't just sit there working cottage grasslands tiles. I'm not sure what difficulty you play on. I'm only on monarch, but even on monarch you need more cities than the AI to match their economy. Example, I just played a game with Hannibal and had all of my cities covered in towns, running US and FS, and of course Hannibal is financial. My strongest opponent was Justinian and he had a cottage economy too, and the same number of cities. Even though he's not financial he was still matching me in tech.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Specialists will not outperform cottages for any empire size without pyramids beyond the GPP they generate (which is really crucial actually).

You will not likely win emperor or immortal+ games on a standard map with 4 cities if all you have are those 4 the entire game, no matter what you do. You won't have oxford or wall street, among other things.

With 6 you have access to oxford. Take a typical 70-100 commerce capitol, add bureaucracy, and see what you get from lib/university/observatory/academy/oxford. Sprinkle in some scientist farming and bulbs and it seems pretty competitive with rep, especially if pyramids cost you 2 or more city spots (quite possible).

Other than such a city you'd just need a GP farm and MAYBE one more commerce city (if you have a good spot for it). Otherwise you can just leverage that into more cities...or on monarch just beat the AIs up in tech with that alone...

Assuming rep is assuming a lot, like that you'll be able to build mids, they won't cost you too much expansion, and that you won't be shackled at 8-10 cap too long. None of these are limitations if you mix cottage cities with specialists optimally.

 

[noto2]

^^ you know that you can get rep without the mids right?? LOL Anyway that strategy is only something I do occasionally, when the map and leader traits call for it. Last time I did it I only built 6 cities myself, but 12 converted by culture, so I wasn't small in the end. I won by cultural victory. BTW - really fun strategy - use a pure specialist economy. On your border cities, hire nothing but artists, and flip the enemy cities. In your core cities, run merchants and scientists for economy. As you get more cities, more will become core cities. It's a really fun way of conquering more and more land without ever firing a shot. I did that with Peter in a game. If anyone wants to see how it worked I could post a save.

 

[tycoonist]

i do love this article. its like the communist manifesto... (in a good way, of course)

 

[noto2]

Back on topic - Dave, what's your style: do you build highly specialized cities or less specialized ones? For instance, if you had 10 cities and wanted 100 cottaged tiles in your empire, would you cram those cottages into 6 cities (at approx 16 each, the other tiles being food and hammers), leaving the other 4 cities to specialize in other things like hammers, or would you spread those cottages out among 9 or all 10 of those cities? I find making that decision keeps me staring at my screen sometimes. It's difficult to choose. Specializing cities means that you can do things like put GGs into the hammer cities to build troops with more promotions more quickly, and you can skip some of the buildings, saving hammers... but then hybrid cities can build their own infrastructure, produce commerce, and produce units when needed. I think I might overspecialize sometimes. The problem with specialization is that often I'll be teching to a new unit, and the only units I can build would be obsolete ones, and thus I don't want units from any cities (so they could all be building infrastructure), which works great if they're hybrid. And then when I get to the tech I wanted (like rifling) I want to pump units out of all my cities ASAP...which again works good for hybrid cities. With very specialized cities it seems you need to be producing units all the time, which doesn't always make sense. Thoughts?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^^ you know that you can get rep without the mids right?? LOL Anyway that strategy is only something I do occasionally, when the map and leader traits call for it. Last time I did it I only built 6 cities myself, but 12 converted by culture, so I wasn't small in the end. I won by cultural victory. BTW - really fun strategy - use a pure specialist economy. On your border cities, hire nothing but artists, and flip the enemy cities. In your core cities, run merchants and scientists for economy. As you get more cities, more will become core cities. It's a really fun way of conquering more and more land without ever firing a shot. I did that with Peter in a game. If anyone wants to see how it worked I could post a save.

Rep off constitution comes a bit later than the pyramids. By then, the specialists are competing with potentially mature towns. You can go either way then but up until that point the cottages were probably winning without rep outside the GPP pool, and easily...especially with bureaucracy since that adds to commerce/hammers (which makes it useless outside of priests/engineers in terms of specs).

The cultural conquest games have shown that artist specs are the way to go with mass flipping. This is because running the slider high on culture with cottages can build up massive culture - but only in the core cities with enough commerce and multipliers. Specialists can put a lot of pressure on the borders - where you need it - quickly. You can also bomb them for added pressure. If you're doing this nonsense it's artists all the way...!

 

[Wodan]

Rep off constitution comes a bit later than the pyramids. By then, the specialists are competing with potentially mature towns. You can go either way then but up until that point the cottages were probably winning without rep outside the GPP pool, and easily...

Methinks you're assuming that the CE and SE get Constitution at the same time. When clearly this is not the case. Either the SE will get it faster because of lightbulbing + scientist research, or the CE will get it faster because the SE is not lightbulbing (or is lightbulbing other things) and perhaps specialist research can't keep up with the comparative CE income (which is not proven and actually is probably likely the other way around).

Bottom line the two will NOT get Consitution at the same time. We must take this into account before any conclusions are formed.

Heck, it's not even a reasonable situation anyway because the CE will prioritize Liberalism, Economics, etc. While the SE has no such restriction. If the SE misses or chooses not to go for the Pyramids, clearly Constitution will be a priority research. And with lightbulbing it can be had VERY early.

especially with bureaucracy since that adds to commerce/hammers (which makes it useless outside of priests/engineers in terms of specs).

A common tactic in a SE is to cottage your capitol OR to use it as a production city for precisely this reason.

Actually, a good tactic in a *CE* is to use your capitol for a production city for this reason as well.

 

[DaveMcW]

Please stop using the term CE in this thread, I consider it an insult.

 

[noto2]

To get the most out of towns, you must run free speech. Usually spamming towns all over your empire, and running free speech and universal suffrage will give you the most economic output, that's true. What's difficult, however, is making most of your cities work cottages in the early game, because they don't give much commerce at first and then you'll have no hammers until democracy (well, few hammers). Obviously the financial trait helps out here. Instead of spamming towns everywhere, you might still build cottages, but also build mines/watermills/workshops and run some specialists, and then settle the super specialists. The extra hammer buildings will give you as many hammers as you would have under US and then the settled specialists can add to your beakers. By the time you get to biology and run representation with constitution, a grassland farm feeding a scientist gives 6 beakers before multipliers, almost as much as a town giving 7 (commerce). With rep you can actually research faster than with US, what you lose is hammers. If your empire is small, however, free speech won't provide much a difference from bureaucracy.
What also matters is getting there. Like I said, it's difficult to just work mostly cottages and grow them for the first half of the game, as you have very few hammers. You'll have a stronger early game if you work a mix of tiles, hammers, cottages, and run specialists. Then, by the time you get to mid-late game, you might decide to run representation. I know, I didn't use rep outside of the pyramids strategy for a long time, I considered it to be stupidly placed on the tech tree, but now I can see the value of rep even without the pyramids. It works for leaders like Alexander or Suleimon, leaders who will war but are also philosophical. For those guys, I need hammer tiles to war, and I'll often settle specialists for beakers, which allows me to keep up in tech in the early game and outproduce with war units. By the mid-late game, running rep will allow me to compete with the more commerce heavy rivals. The way I see it, a town spammed city can often produce close to 200 beakers per turn with the right civics and infrastructure, whereas a mixed city with rep, some towns and specialists won't produce as much...but the super science city you have from all the settled specialists and Oxford, etc, will be pumping out 700-1000 bpt. I've had games where I was getting 500 beakers, 300 gold, and 90 hammers all from one super city. I must admit, though, I probably use US more often than Rep, it is usually more helpful. That said, I often use Police State

 

[morchuflex]

The trouble with cottages is that they give their best under Free speech; but I have made numerous comparisons, and my empire is almost never big enough so that FS beats Bureaucracy.

Even when switching to FS yields a net gain, it is a marginal one, and of course it doesn't compensate for the turn spent in anarchy. So unless I am spiritual or can trigger a timely golden age, I stick to Bureau to the very end.

Cottages love US too, but there again, in most of my games, Rep beats US hands down, even more so since Corporations were introduced: with Sid's Sushis, I can add several specialists in all my cities, making Rep invaluable for the late game.

Don't get me wrong: I still think CE (sorry Dave) is the way to go in most situations, but it can be hard to make the best of it.

---

EDIT: post somewhat redundant with Noto2's.

 

[Wodan]

Please stop using the term CE in this thread, I consider it an insult.

May I ask why?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Methinks you're assuming that the CE and SE get Constitution at the same time.

I'm not. But you're not going to get it faster with constitution than mids no matter what you do, unless you don't have the mids .

Either the SE will get it faster because of lightbulbing + scientist research, or the CE will get it faster because the SE is not lightbulbing (or is lightbulbing other things) and perhaps specialist research can't keep up with the comparative CE income (which is not proven and actually is probably likely the other way around).

I don't know what kind of improvement/city combos you're using, but...what? Why is it that an empire with 1-3 solid cottage cities can't match (or come very close) the bulbing of an empire that runs scientists everywhere? It's going to be hard to get more than 1-2 EXTRA scientists by running multiple sources of GPP vs just one.

Bottom line the two will NOT get Consitution at the same time. We must take this into account before any conclusions are formed.

A balance of commerce and specialists will blow out either 0 bulbing OR just running scientists exclusively, unless you have pyramids, but then why are you prioritizing constitution over something like biology?!

Heck, it's not even a reasonable situation anyway because the CE will prioritize Liberalism, Economics, etc. While the SE has no such restriction. If the SE misses or chooses not to go for the Pyramids, clearly Constitution will be a priority research. And with lightbulbing it can be had VERY early.

What qualifies as very early? You can get it in the early AD's anyway. Even if you have 2 cottage cities. However, it should be noted that democracy is a very powerful cottage tech, and that constitution just happens to be a pre-req. Going biology or steel and trading back might be a better option though, since the AI seems to like this line.

-Please stop using the term CE in this thread, I consider it an insult.

-May I ask why?

Probably because:

A common tactic in a SE is to cottage your capitol OR to use it as a production city for precisely this reason.

Actually, a good tactic in a *CE* is to use your capitol for a production city for this reason as well.

We're playing fast and loose in terms of what the hell CE and SE are in the first place if we're going with this type of discussion. This article mostly highlights how to use cities set up for commerce via cottages. The terms CE and SE are detrimental, especially to players trying to learn how to play the game, because they suggest excluding specialists or the use of commerce. Clearly, you're not doing this if you are running a suped up commerce bureaucracy capitol in your "SE", you're taking advantage of all the improvements, which is optimal. CE and SE are misleading then though. Where exactly would you draw the line between "CE with a GP farm" and a non-rep "SE with cottages"?! It's preposterous - better to look at the yields cottages and specialists give us and how to balance them optimally without using "CE" or "SE", which would save a lot of grief and newbies figuring out what the hell people are actually saying.

As for the use of a bureaucracy capitol in general (aka a side note):

In the time frame where bureaucracy is most effective, it is ~usually~ best to emphasize commerce. Between trade routes, yields from riverside/cottages, and MUCH more abundant multipliers, +50% commerce has a lot more leverage than +50% hammers. You're going to put those 50% extra base hammers through a forge at best. However, the commerce goes through a library, academy, and possibly monasteries, universities, and oxford before you get meaningful hammer multipliers past the forge. The exception would possibly a very war-oriented heroic epic capitol. However, that doesn't usually feel right, often because vassalage then becomes more attractive and often because war in that era isn't particularly feasible. Still, I guess there ARE situations you could HE/bureaucracy spam units. I've done it on some excessively hammer poor archipelagos, for example. Most of the time, however, the commerce is flat out more attractive for bureaucracy.

 

[Iranon]

Also, +50% commerce is multiplicative with other modifiers while +50% hammers is additive.

Example: If all gold comes from commerce, and both gold and hammers get +100% modifiers the effective modfiers after Bureaucracy will be

+150% hammers
+200% gold

 

[Wodan]

I'm not. But you're not going to get it faster with constitution than mids no matter what you do, unless you don't have the mids .

I have no idea what you just said.

I don't know what kind of improvement/city combos you're using, but...what? Why is it that an empire with 1-3 solid cottage cities can't match (or come very close) the bulbing of an empire that runs scientists everywhere?

I'm sorry I don't answer why questions.

Anyway this is a fact that's pretty well documented elsewhere.

It's going to be hard to get more than 1-2 EXTRA scientists by running multiple sources of GPP vs just one.

It's not hard at all, I do it most every game. Either

• you're not trying,
• you're doing it wrong (for example, building too many wonders), or
• when you run a CE you really run what I would call a "SE with a few cottages" (Dave's thread here (Dave correct me if I misrepresent you) is to suggest how to maximize your cottages -- which you aren't doing if you're running a ton of specialists).

A balance of commerce and specialists will blow out either 0 bulbing OR just running scientists exclusively, unless you have pyramids, but then why are you prioritizing constitution over something like biology?!

Please explain how you would balance the two and how that results in a "blow out".

What qualifies as very early?

A lot earlier than it can be had while working mostly cottages.

You can get it in the early AD's anyway.

That statement is relevant only in the context of a specific game.

We're playing fast and loose in terms of what the hell CE and SE are in the first place if we're going with this type of discussion. This article mostly highlights how to use cities set up for commerce via cottages. The terms CE and SE are detrimental, especially to players trying to learn how to play the game, because they suggest excluding specialists or the use of commerce. Clearly, you're not doing this if you are running a suped up commerce bureaucracy capitol in your "SE", you're taking advantage of all the improvements, which is optimal. CE and SE are misleading then though. Where exactly would you draw the line between "CE with a GP farm" and a non-rep "SE with cottages"?! It's preposterous - better to look at the yields cottages and specialists give us and how to balance them optimally without using "CE" or "SE", which would save a lot of grief and newbies figuring out what the hell people are actually saying.

Ok, where to start.

"SE" and "CE" are labels for strategies. And those strategies are not "specialists to the exclusion of all else" or "cottages to the exclusion of all else", although as I read Daves guide I believe he encourages the latter somewhat more than most people would. Which may be why he mislikes the "CE" label -- because his "cottage economy" is more CE than most CEs.

In any event, your "clearly" statement, as most such, is anything but. A SE as I mentioned does not mandate specialists to the exclusion of all else.

What you advocate is that all games are hybrids. Which, to anyone but a purist, all games ARE. So, of what use the labels? They're shortcuts to allow us to have intelligent discussions without having to go all the way back to 2+2=4. To me, SE means I get most of my research+maintenance from specialists. CE means I get most of my research+maintenance from cottages. EE means I get most of my research+maintenance from espionage. Etc.

Research+maintenance is the thing upon which the game revolves. They are the things every player wants, whether they realize it or not.

As for the use of a bureaucracy capitol in general (aka a side note):

In the time frame where bureaucracy is most effective, it is ~usually~ best to emphasize commerce.

That's arguable. For example, if you have a lot of research+maintenance through other means, then you may value hammers quite a bit. Having a wonder- or unit-producing capitol can be huge.

Most any player will admit that a 1 hammer is valued much more than 1 commerce. Just go read some of the threads about the 1:1 ratio debate, productive/stone/chop -> gold exploits, etc.

Most of the time, however, the commerce is flat out more attractive for bureaucracy.

In the context of this thread, I totally and 100% disagree. Dave (as I read him) advocates mass advancement of cottages across multiple cities. This means a hammer capitol w/Bureaucracy would be a very strong tactic... if not essential. Basically, you would probably have to devote 3 production cities to make up for your 1 capitol to be a cottage city instead.

I'm not saying it's a definite thing. But it's a powerful tactic and fully an attractive option. Certainly not "flat out more attractive" as a cottage capitol as you say.

If, however, we ignore Dave's advice and run the "same old" CE as most people run, where we do not maximize our cottages, then maybe so.

 

[Wodan]

Also, +50% commerce is multiplicative with other modifiers while +50% hammers is additive.

Example: If all gold comes from commerce, and both gold and hammers get +100% modifiers the effective modfiers after Bureaucracy will be

+150% hammers
+200% gold

Good point but that doesn't make it automatically better.

Each game is different, and the capitol needs to be taken in context of the player's overall strategy as well as the terrain dictation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have no idea what you just said.

Just that for the time where rep people are going to dominate cottages, that pyramids are the only way you're going to have it. Or at least the vast majority of that time.

I'm sorry I don't answer why questions.

Anyway this is a fact that's pretty well documented elsewhere.

Or not. I see some people using cottage cities and getting liberalism and other renaissance techs around 100-500 AD.

It's not hard at all, I do it most every game. Either

• you're not trying,
• you're doing it wrong (for example, building too many wonders), or
• when you run a CE you really run what I would call a "SE with a few cottages" (Dave's thread here (Dave correct me if I misrepresent you) is to suggest how to maximize your cottages -- which you aren't doing if you're running a ton of specialists).

Doing this SERIOUSLY gets you AT LEAST THREE EXTRA great people ON TOP of what you'd get from one dedicated city farming specialists? In the relevant timeframe? The math doesn't seem to add up to me.

Please explain how you would balance the two and how that results in a "blow out".

Pretty easily, actually. Because what I was saying was that running a suboptimal exclusive cottage or exclusive spec empire would lose to intelligent use of both. We agree on this point, though, so I probably just stated it in a way that lead you to believe I meant something else.

A lot earlier than it can be had while working mostly cottages.

Even Dave isn't advocating working "mostly cottages".

That statement is relevant only in the context of a specific game.

Usually not. I'm not good enough to do it consistently. The deity players certainly are. Oyzar gets liberalism in the BCs in MP while still expanding normally, although in SP the tech penalties would slow him down somewhat.

"SE" and "CE" are labels for strategies. And those strategies are not "specialists to the exclusion of all else" or "cottages to the exclusion of all else", although as I read Daves guide I believe he encourages the latter somewhat more than most people would. Which may be why he mislikes the "CE" label -- because his "cottage economy" is more CE than most CEs.

Straight from his guide:

A 6-city empire might look like this:

* 1 military city (hammers)
* 2 general production cities (hammers)
* 1 GP farm (commerce)
* 2 cottage cities (commerce)

Exactly 1/3 of his empire would be working cottages. That doesn't even qualify as "mostly cottages" as you previously asserted he advocates. Four out of the six cities in his example don't! His guide is merely focused on those that do.

What you advocate is that all games are hybrids. Which, to anyone but a purist, all games ARE. So, of what use the labels? They're shortcuts to allow us to have intelligent discussions without having to go all the way back to 2+2=4. To me, SE means I get most of my research+maintenance from specialists. CE means I get most of my research+maintenance from cottages. EE means I get most of my research+maintenance from espionage. Etc.

Research+maintenance is the thing upon which the game revolves. They are the things every player wants, whether they realize it or not.

The labels are misleading, because so much of output comes from other sources. Like bulbs (which both have). Or MFG (same idea). If you're going to define it as "which yields more - direct specialist output or research from commerce", that's pretty obscure. Putting that aside, how do CE and SE allow for intelligent discussion? The represent too small an output relative to the empire's total output, and what's the need to name your economy anyway? Why stop at CE/SE? What about HE (hammers)? BE (bulbs)? WE (war and/or wonder)? What's the point? It doesn't seem to truncate discussion much.

That's arguable. For example, if you have a lot of research+maintenance through other means, then you may value hammers quite a bit. Having a wonder- or unit-producing capitol can be huge.

It's true that sometimes you'll value the hammers more. It's just not as frequent from my experience. It depends on the capitol too.

Most any player will admit that a 1 hammer is valued much more than 1 commerce. Just go read some of the threads about the 1:1 ratio debate, productive/stone/chop -> gold exploits, etc.

While true, the fact remains that you probably want commerce. This is among the most efficient sources. Hammers have whipping, drafting, sometimes upgrades, and even cash rush alternatives.

In the context of this thread, I totally and 100% disagree. Dave (as I read him) advocates mass advancement of cottages across multiple cities. This means a hammer capitol w/Bureaucracy would be a very strong tactic... if not essential. Basically, you would probably have to devote 3 production cities to make up for your 1 capitol to be a cottage city instead.

He seems to advocate something along those lines right in this guide, actually!

I'm not saying it's a definite thing. But it's a powerful tactic and fully an attractive option. Certainly not "flat out more attractive" as a cottage capitol as you say.

Maybe I was strong with my wording. I find it "flat out more attractive" in most of my games, but I'll admit not always. Sometimes those hammers really are at a premium.

 

[Wodan]

Just that for the time where rep people are going to dominate cottages, that pyramids are the only way you're going to have it. Or at least the vast majority of that time.

I'm still not sure what you're saying. Unless you're saying that if you don't get the Pyramids then you can't have Representation until you get it. Well, yeah.

I see some people using cottage cities and getting liberalism and other renaissance techs around 100-500 AD.

Again, such statements are irrelevant out of context and are non sequitur arguments.

Doing this SERIOUSLY gets you AT LEAST THREE EXTRA great people ON TOP of what you'd get from one dedicated city farming specialists? In the relevant timeframe?

Yep.

Pretty easily, actually. Because what I was saying was that running a suboptimal exclusive cottage or exclusive spec empire would lose to intelligent use of both. We agree on this point, though, so I probably just stated it in a way that lead you to believe I meant something else.

Unh, sure.

I've never been a purist. Such people are idiots IMO. Dave makes a pretty good argument for it here, though, but he does point out the need for production and a few other specialty cities.

Even Dave isn't advocating working "mostly cottages".

I think it's the logical extension of his arguments. For example, he says, "growing cottages is more importnt than building gold and science improvements." How are we to take such statements?

Usually not. I'm not good enough to do it consistently. The deity players certainly are. Oyzar gets liberalism in the BCs in MP while still expanding normally, although in SP the tech penalties would slow him down somewhat.

And, if they are also diety SE players, how fast can they get Constitution?

Straight from his guide:

A 6-city empire might look like this:

* 1 military city (hammers)
* 2 general production cities (hammers)
* 1 GP farm (commerce)
* 2 cottage cities (commerce)

Exactly 1/3 of his empire would be working cottages. That doesn't even qualify as "mostly cottages" as you previously asserted he advocates. Four out of the six cities in his example don't! His guide is merely focused on those that do.

He contradicts himself. Unless he means to run cottages in his GP Farm. But that does not match something else he says, straight from his guide:

A general rule is to have 50% hammer cities and 50% commerce cities.

He should probably clarify that.

The labels are misleading, because so much of output comes from other sources.

Not to me, it doesn't. If it does, then the labels don't apply. If I'm running a lot of specialists but getting most of my research from trade routes, then a SE isn't a good term, is it.

Like bulbs (which both have). Or MFG (same idea). If you're going to define it as "which yields more - direct specialist output or research from commerce", that's pretty obscure.

That's not how I would define it (see above). But regardless I don't see how that's obscure. The game puts those numbers right in the screen for you, or in F2.

Putting that aside, how do CE and SE allow for intelligent discussion? The represent too small an output relative to the empire's total output

Not to me, they don't. If they do, then you have a hybrid, and the terms don't apply.

and what's the need to name your economy anyway? Why stop at CE/SE? What about HE (hammers)? BE (bulbs)? WE (war and/or wonder)? What's the point? It doesn't seem to truncate discussion much.
Why stop, indeed? If you truly are getting most of your research+maintenance from hammer production, then HE is an apropo label, and certainly simply saying "HE" tells a reader what your main strategy is. And, what tactics you're using. Otherwise you would have to regurgitate a screenful (or more). Ludicrous.

Your argument is akin to saying let's limit the English language to only 1000 words. Sure, we could get by, but we'd have to have a HECK of a lot more discussion to get intricate points across. The alternative is what we have now... several hundred thousand words (and more). Yes, many words have multiple definitions, and some are unclear until explained more fully. Nevertheless, it is far superior than the alternative.

 

[Wodan]

While true, the fact remains that you probably want commerce. This is among the most efficient sources. Hammers have whipping, drafting, sometimes upgrades, and even cash rush alternatives.

I view slavery in a CE as suboptimal use of your population.

Drafting is not usable at the same time as Bureaucracy. You're just making up stuff, now. A sign you're losing the argument.

Upgrades are suboptimal use of gold.

Cash rush is extremely useful to a CE, but available only after the period of the game under discussion.

He seems to advocate something along those lines right in this guide, actually!

Which seems it could be a poor choice. Maybe one of us should do the maths to compare a typical game situation.

 

[noto2]

I view slavery in a CE as suboptimal use of your population.

Drafting is not usable at the same time as Bureaucracy. You're just making up stuff, now. A sign you're losing the argument.

Upgrades are suboptimal use of gold.

Cash rush is extremely useful to a CE, but available only after the period of the game under discussion.


Which seems it could be a poor choice. Maybe one of us should do the maths to compare a typical game situation.

Is there a thread anywhere about conversion rates? I want to have a look at those rates. What I mean is, for example, when rush buying under US, how much gold is needed per hammer? Also, same for upgrading, how much gold is required to upgrade troops? Thx in advance.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think it's the logical extension of his arguments. For example, he says, "growing cottages is more importnt than building gold and science improvements." How are we to take such statements?

It means that you don't whip away or take pop off cottages in cottage cities to build multipliers since doing so actually slows you down...nothing more or less.

He contradicts himself. Unless he means to run cottages in his GP Farm. But that does not match something else he says, straight from his guide:

I don't understand how a GP farm is commerce either, actually.

Not to me, they don't. If they do, then you have a hybrid, and the terms don't apply.

I'd contend a hybrid being most effective relatively frequently, but I don't think this point need be fleshed out further. The reason I dislike CE/SE is that when I was learning as a player (mind you, I've only been on here a year or so), minding these terms, and trying to learn based on how they were described, SLOWED my development down, because they aren't a 100% clear depiction of what actually occurs, ever. For those that understand the implications associated with the term, I guess it does allow for better discussion. Technically, CE should stand for "commerce" rather than "cottage" anyway, but that aside this isn't a guide for high level players IMO so much as it is for people who are at the point I used to be when these terms made my civ life harder.

Drafting is not usable at the same time as Bureaucracy. You're just making up stuff, now. A sign you're losing the argument.

I'm not really trying to win one per se'. That said, flipping civics after using your commerce to attain relevant techs isn't out of the question. Drafting allows for very, very fast accumulation of units. Its food to hammer conversion is among the best in the game (or for rifles on some speeds, it is the best!), limited mostly by happiness. You'll get to both nationhood and rifling faster in a typical game if the B capitol is used for commerce rather than hammers, all other things being equal (which is a hefty assumption granted, but the point holds). Nationhood doesn't have to be a permanent civic, even if you aren't SPI - its returns are plenty good enough to merit leaving bureaucracy or even free speech.

Upgrades are suboptimal use of gold.

Upgrades are not necessarily a suboptimal use of gold. That statement is, frankly, baseless. Saying it is inefficient WOULD be true. But, that inefficiency can be worth it. Slapping 20 CR II maces into rifles instantly certainly strikes me as a viable option. Actually, burning a merchant or selling tech to rapidly exploit ANY type of tech lead via mass upgrades of potentially better-promoted troops to maximize your attack window is a well documented and effective strategy.

Cash rush is extremely useful to a CE, but available only after the period of the game under discussion.

We're talking a time period of a reasonably short number of turns. More importantly, it's relevant because it is an option that you can use if you can afford to delay the massed usage of hammers, which is frequently the case.