Decentralization or Mercantilism?

[civaddict098]

Not sure if I should be running the Decentralization or Mercantilism civic. Mercantilism costs about 10 more when I'm running it. I'm pretty sure the specialists are worth it though. I don't know what no foreign trade routes means though. any insight would be good, heres a save if it helps.

 

[WuphonsReach]

"No foreign trade routes"... look at your city screens. See whether they are trading with cities in your empire or cities in another empire. Beyond that I don't understand trade routes completely.

(I've been playing for a year and I'm *just* starting to understand some of the things in the city screen. Heck, my last game was the first time that I paid close attention to health/happiness values instead of just letting it fall willy-nilly where it would.)

 

[zooropa86]

i havent looked at the file save, nor do i completely remember all the advantages of decentralization, but if u can run representation with mercantilism i would do that. on the other hand, if u have the great lighthouse, and many coastal cities with many harbors i would lean towards the former.

 

[acidsatyr]

all you trade routes are internal so you need to switch to merc.
You have closed borders with anyone except egypt and you share trade routes in capital. Mercantilism will give you one extra specialist in each and every one of your cities provided you have building that supports it . Each and every one of the scientists will give you +3 beakers w/o representation and +6 with representation (so for 10 cities that’s 60 raw beakers)
Mercantilism is not only run when all your trade routes are internal, it is used strategically against your opponents. Mercantilism means that other AIs can't benefint from your trade routes.

 

[civaddict098]

Actually in the save I'm already running Mercantilism and Representation but its a good point that I only have open boarders with Egypt

 

[acidsatyr]

your running HR

 

[zooropa86]

oh wow, no wonder i was so confused. here i was, thinking decentralization was freemarket. umm yeah, no question, mercantilism baby!!

 

[OceansEleven]

I don't like Mercantilism. Usually I got trade routes that add up to atelast +6 in each city. That helps.

Can you direct what your trade routes will be? Or is it random?

 

[civaddict098]

whats HR mean?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

whats HR mean?

Heridatery Rule.

 

[obsolete]

Usually I got trade routes that add up to at least +6 in each city.

You can set up specialists to bring in money as well. Not only does this prevent the AI from benefiting $$ too, but you get GP pts, in EVERY city.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Decentralization or Mercantilism? Depends on the situation. If acidsatyr is right and you have no foreign trade anyways, then its a no-brainer - go Merc.

However, contrary to what some people seem to think, it isn't always necessarily the right choice to switch to Merc as soon as it becomes available. For example, if you've got several good trading partners as well as the Great Lighthouse, the Temple of Artemis, and/or a shed load of costal cities with harbours, then switching from Dec. to Merc. could cost you a huge amount of money per turn.

Although the extra specialists will give a decent economic boost if you use representation-powered merchants or scientists and have a lot of cities (or few/no decent trading partners), the bonus to GP generation isn't all that great, unless for some reason you haven't set up a proper GP farm by that point in the game.

Also, it should be remembered that if you don't have any spare specialist positions, then you'll only get a free citizen specialist giving a measly 1 hammer (without Representation) and no boost to GP generation.

ps. If you've got temples in your crappy low-growth low-production peripheral/strategic cities (eg. one- or two-tile islands), and you've built the Angkor Wat, then Merc. allows you to give those cities a 2 hammer, 1 gold priest without stagnating growth. It's not often a major consideration, I know, but it can help to get those cities up to scratch much more quickly than otherwise.

Edit: I forgot to add: the advantage from cutting off your opponents' trade routes can be significant, but remember it's your friends (and hence tech-trading/war-making partners) who will be affected. If you want to cut off a powerful rival, then you can achieve the same effect by closing your borders to them. Also, make sure you check the demographics screen to find out your trade balance before cutting off trade; if you're running a major surplus (ie. the left-hand number is much higher then the right-hand one) then ending foreign trade is going to hit you more than your partners (although the Merc. bonus may make the change worthwhile anyway).

 

[obsolete]

When you have a trade route to another nation, you sometimes double shoot yourself in the foot. This is because often you come to a case where you get a little bit of extra income, but they in turn are getting a lot more income from thier routes to you. It's not a 50/50 thing.

 

[Winston Hughes]

When you have a trade route to another nation, you sometimes double shoot yourself in the foot. This is because often you come to a case where you get a little bit of extra income, but they in turn are getting a lot more income from thier routes to you. It's not a 50/50 thing.

That's why it's worth checking the demographics screen. You can't be sure exactly how much trade income each civ is getting from you (unless you've only got Open Borders with one civ), but you can find out whether you're getting more than you're giving away and estimate how much each of your partners is making.

Also, as I mentioned above, you will usually want to cut off trade with your biggest rivals if they've got the better end of the deal. But this *can* be done with closed borders.

The advantage of Merc. in this case is that it allows you to deny them the trade income without losing dip. bonuses. (You should, however, pay attention to their friends too; if they've got Open Borders with some high-pop civs, then you might be doing very little harm to their income by cutting off trade).

The advantage of closed borders is that it means you can keep trading with other friendly civs (ideally a whole load of weak ones each with a few high-pop cities).

I'm not saying that Decentralisation is a better civic than Mercantilism (that would be extremely dumb). I'm just saying that in some cases it's a bad move to make the switch.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

I think you should switch in almost all cases. You should be able to make up the difference is money by dropping your slider and using setting great scientists to compensate your research. Or run great merchants for money and keep your slider up (or move it higher if you have grocers and/or caste system). Either case you're getting gpp's. And remember if youre running two gs specialists in a city, or a ge from your forge...now you have an extra tile to work and it feels free. Use that extra tile to work a cottage or some other commerce improvement.

I think some cases REALLY call for it, though

1. Philosophical leaders.
2. If you are running some combination of Representation...
...and/or Caste System
...and/or Pacifism
3. If you go for Banking and liberalism hasnt been founded yet, that extra gs can lightbulb paper, philosophy, or take a huge chunk out of education.
4. If you have the Parthenon.

I'll run mercantilism for a good while in my games until Im not popping great people at a steady rate, or Im in a long war and need free market.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I think you should switch in almost all cases.

I would estimate that I make the switch straight away in about 60% of games, later on (often when everyone adopts Merc.) in another 30%, but miss it out and wait for FM in the remaining 10%.

If you've got a strong trade economy (esp. with the Great Lighthouse), a relatively small empire but with large well-developed cities, and lots of good trade partners, Merc. can cost you a huge amount. (I'm talking about a loss of at least 15-20 raw commerce per turn in each city, in exchange for 3-6 cpt from the specialist and a small increase in GPP down at the GP farm).

I often play with lots of civs, and I suspect those represent most of the games where I've bypassed Merc altogether. With 14+ civs, diplomacy becomes that much more complicated, and it's easy to end up with very few friends. But, if you play the diplomacy game carefully, you can stay friendly enough with four-fifths of the other civs to keep the trading up. The key point is that they're not all trading with each other, and so are getting much less out of trade than you. With lots of civs you almost always get some who race ahead in tech and others who get left behind, so the problem of everyone else switching to Merc. is less of an issue.

There's also the turn(s) of anarchy to consider. If you're going to be switching to FM soon anyway, the benefit of a few turns of Merc. has to be weighed against the loss of production, growth and research during the revolution. If you're racing to Economics for FM and the free GM, then you might have only 4 or 5 turns of Merc. Unless you're spritual, making the switch to Merc. is far too costly in that case.

Merc. is a powerful civic, and early Merc. can be awesome in some cases (like the superpowered GP generator you describe), but, I repeat, there are strategies for which the immediate switch is counterproductive.