How good is Aristocracy really?

You're only at a disadvantage for founding the 3 early religions

Here's the quote, disregarding half the religions. Add in a couple of the civs like Illians/Sidar which should also go that path but aren't centered on one of the 7 religions, and it's at least half the civs that both rp-wise and strategy wise should get mysticism early. And I'll gladly do a demo-game, don't have infinite time today but sometime this week. Name your fair settings and we'll discuss. Anyone else who wants input/watch is welcome of course.

Edit: My early GP either settle, for huge yeilds, or build a shrine (only one needed for that also). Usually wouldn't have a bulb beeline but I'm sure there are some out there. If you're trying for the Altar victory it's also obvious.
 
I think there are two specific leaders for which aristograrian is ABSOLUTELY the way to go.

1) Varn in desert (every floodplain is 5 food 5 commerce!)
2) Flauros (farm everything for large feeding cities with good commerce and decent production)

I think there are several civs for which aristograrian is NEVER the right decision

1) Cardith (God-King is almost necessary; enclaves are better than aristo-farms)
2) Lanun (the land is for production; commerce comes from the sea)
3) Elves (ancient forest cottages are the way to go)

Other than that, I think it really depend on the situation. For instance, using Aristofarms with financial leaders is tempting. Buuuut the other financial leaders are Hannah (see Lanun above), and Rhoanna+Kandros, who tend to start in plains/hills on typical Erebus maps, where aristofarms lose you hammers, fail to give you really big food yields, and are thus less attractive. It also depends on your personal playstyle. Do you want to have a tech advantage in the early-mid game, or in the late-game? You have to make this decision early, because once you go aristograrian, you can't ever switch back...
 
I can see Illians getting Mysticism early but they have three early heroes attached to the cheap tech of Philosophy. So for them Mysticism is acting as a gateway military tech, just like it does for everyone else wanting Adepts and Priests.

I don't understand why the Sidar would get Mysticism early, but then I don't play them.

In case you haven't noticed this isn't an rp-wise thread.

Whats so good about founding a religion that you should set back your economy by 40 turns for? Just because you don't get the religion first doesn't mean you can't use it, especially as the religion specific wonders and heroes are attached to expensive techs.

Demonstration game settings: Anything within reason really. My suggestion would be Standard Pangaea, Normal, Monarch/Emp, as few CPUs as possible, No Barbarians (but build military as if there are), No lairs, No huts and click the skip option where possible in Events.

Edit: Wow, this threads moving fast.
It also depends on your personal playstyle. Do you want to have a tech advantage in the early-mid game, or in the late-game? You have to make this decision early, because once you go aristograrian, you can't ever switch back...
This isn't a decision. The early-mid tech advantage conquers the late-game tech advantage and wins.
 
Hidden Paths, Priesthood..?
Actually I do that with the Svartalfar, but only because they have a non-standard economy.

Anyone getting CoL before Mysticism can still generate their 1st GP to lgihtbulb Priesthood in reasonable time. Its not like you don't have KotE/Order/AV to give your science something to do.
 
So here's a list of my thoughts, just to give an idea again:

Civs very good with God-King:
-Both Dwarves + Kilmorph
-Elves, especially Ljosalfar-since you get Mysticism early for FOL
-Kuriotates
-Lanun (insofar as Aristo isn't really better, they could go something like city-states or late-game civics)
-Sidar- settled superspecialists
-Illians - warfare + unique Winter stuff

Civs strongly inclined to Aristo - Basically anyone financial imo:
-Flauros
-Varn Gossam
-Rhoanna (I guess, don't have much Hippus Experience)

Cottages vs. Farms: Like I said I'm not disagreeing Agrarianism and Farms are good for the vast majority of civs. So just a list of those I can think of that use cottages:
-Bannor due to their worldspell, if they make it work right
-Elves (both)
-Kurio

So for the purposes of a demogame we probably should choose a civ not in the list above. Unfortunately a lot of the remaining civs are military civs, whose "economy" really depends on killing other people (Clan, Doviello, Hippus, Sheiam). I'd be willing to try any of these anyway though - again, I still think GK production is a solid boost to them.

So the civs which seem to make for a very fair comparison as things are turning out though are maybe Elohim, Grigori, or Balseraphs - if anybody out there who plays these have recommendations I'd listen, but any of these seems like a fair start to compare GK vs. Aristo. I don't have much experience with Balseraphs/Grigori myself but that's ok, as we'll probably welcome other players too.

As far as settings go yours don't seem to match what I play at all Senethro, but I can compromise. I'm thinking: Emperor/Pangea/no huts/Standard AI opponents is fine. But Barbs are a must, events really are an important part of the game also imo, though if we really want we can turn em off and just have less effect on AC and avoid more "luck."
 
So for the purposes of a demogame we probably should choose a civ not in the list above. Unfortunately a lot of the remaining civs are military civs, whose "economy" really depends on killing other people (Clan, Doviello, Hippus, Sheiam). I'd be willing to try any of these anyway though - again, I still think GK production is a solid boost to them.
Valledia, Mahala, Decius of the Malakim. Most of their traits/civ features won't have an impact on that stage of the game.
Military civs also use Aristo because it supports REXing which is the best way to get hammers. In fact, the number of axemen you manage to build is a pretty good way of measuring produciton.
As far as settings go yours don't seem to match what I play at all Senethro, but I can compromise. I'm thinking: Emperor/Pangea/no huts/Standard AI opponents is fine. But Barbs are a must, events really are an important part of the game also imo, though if we really want we can turn em off and just have less effect on AC and avoid more "luck."
I don't play using those settings, I just think they're the best for a comparison game. Without barbarians, AI aggression, Engineer on turn 11 from events comparing the state of play at turn 150 will be easier. Any of those things can make the comparison invalid and any results it offers difficult to interpret.
 
Founding religions is overrated anyway. The heroes are the important part and most of them are tied up in later techs. If someone cripples their economy by founding a religion too early then someone else will beat them to their hero.

Whats so good about founding a religion that you should set back your economy by 40 turns for? Just because you don't get the religion first doesn't mean you can't use it, especially as the religion specific wonders and heroes are attached to expensive techs.

Founding religions is an economy in itself, if you put in the effort to spread them and to build the associated wonders. Religious heroes are nice, but it is the gold income provided by the holy city that has the real potential to make your civ (economically) powerful. Achieving that potential requires the research of non-military techs and the construction of buildings, though, so if you don't do those things then founding a religion might not seem very important.
 
Amurites do sound nice. Having less "luck" with barbs/AI opponents really detracts from a war game like Doviello imo, though I agree they are a fair leader. Lack of early prophet events would also hurt certain playstyles (going for a religion) but Amurites probably won't have that problem, so they work for me. Anyone else (retro) interested in this comparison?
 
If we go with Amurites it shouldn't be with Valledia, an organised trait could mitigate the differences in maintenance costs. We should also turn off events just to be safe.


Also I reckon good comparison notes should include saving and summarising state of play every 25 turns with regards to beaker and hammer output etc., logging key events like founding religions, changing civics, discovering technologies cruical to strategy such as education, mysticism, code of laws etc., declarations of war (not so important), rate of expansion. Did I miss anything?
 
I thought of that, but I felt Phi trait had a bigger impact than Org. Tasunke then, but played as if he wasn't rushing horsemen? Or Mahala still works and is even somewhat relevent as she is surprisingly dependent on having a good early economy to turn Warriors into Axemen.
 
A treatise on improving the lands of Erebus.

Firstly, I want to preface this with the caveat that all elves have a natural synergy with the forest, and are somewhat foolish to not exploit this synergy via the Fellowship of Leaves religion. For most other races, while FoL may be useful in appeasing the masses for a time before something better comes around, almost any other religion will serve them better. This is due to the fact that forests (and therefor Ancient forests as well) are simply over rated. I will elaborate later.

First of all, to establish a standard for comparison, we must look at two things. The first being the base values of your common terrain:
Flat grass produces 2 food, Grass hill = 1 food, 1 hammer
Flat plain = 1 food, 1 hammer, Plain hill = 2 hammers
Ignoring forests, which are effectively a terrain bonus (for the most part) we can see that 1 food is roughly equivalent to to 1 hammer or:
1.) 2 food ~ 2 hammers
Now, this tells us nothing of commerce, so for that we shall look to specialists. Whiles specialists are not exactly the best analog for terrain improvement, they will serve our purposes in establishing a basis for comparison between the terrain improvements. This is because, while specialists generally require and are limited by certain buildings, the resources they provide are relatively static, save for some fairly substantial wonders and late game civic options. So, lets take a look...
Engineer = 2 hammers
Merchant = 3 gold
Sage = 3 beakers
Bard = 1 beaker 4 culture
Priest = 1 hammer, 1 gold
Here we can see that culture is clearly an inferior resource to gold and beakers, which both compare to hammers at essentially 3 to 2. Given that, we can say that:
2.) 3 commerce ~ 2 hammers
Combining this with 1.) we get our standard for comparison and establish that:
3.) 2 food ~ 2 hammers ~ 3 commerce

Now, to make this even simpler, I'm going to assign these all point values. So that we can stick with whole numbers, we'll take the common denominator of 6, making food and hammers worth 3 points each, and commerce worth 2.

With that settles, lets start looking at the improvements.

Farms start at +1 food (3pts) and become +2(6pts) by midgame.
Under Agrarianism you trade 1 hammer for 1 food, thus on plains the value of a farm is essentially unchanged, but grasslands, having no hammers, are boosted with an extra food (6 or 9pts). If you throw in Aristocracy you trade 1 food(3pts) for 2 commerce(4pts) (ignoring the Financial trait for this comparison) and so Aristo/Agro farms are basically worth 7pts and eventually 10pts. Without Agrarianism you're looking at a simple 1 point boost to farm value from 3 and 6, to 4 and 7pts.

Staying on the flat lands, we have towns next. These ramp up from 1 commerce (2pts) cottages to 4 commerce (8pts) towns after plenty of working and get another commerce with currency (for 10pts). (Kuriotates eventually get enclaves with an extra food and commerce for 15pts!) Then there's the simple workshop which trades a food for a hammer and throws in a commerce (for 2 pts) then with smelting gets another hammer (for 5 pts) and eventually gets another 2 hammers from guilds (for 11pts).

Now, lets talk about forests. They give you 1 hammer (3pts) and a minor health bonus which, in the long run, could potentially be worth half a food, so lets give it a point for that (for 4pts). The only thing you can really do with a forest is build a lumbermill which is going to add a hammer (for 7pts). (I'm not even considering the commerce you get along rivers, as without the forest, you would get that anyway.) If you happen to be persuing the Fellowship of Leaves/ Guardians of Nature strategy you'll be looking at another food from Ancient forests (for 10pts), but you cant build a lumbermill in ancient forests, so if it's not there when the forest changes you're only looking at ~7pts. (You could chop it down and plant a new forest and build a lumbermill when that new forest matured but before it became an ancient forest; it's just tedious.)(There's also the extra health and happiness under GoN, but that's harder to put a value to.)

Those exact same numbers apply to forests and ancient forests on hills, which makes for a good segue to mines. Mines start out at 2 hammers (6pts) gaining another in the late game at blasting powder (for 9pts) and can also get one from Arete (for 9pts, or 12pts with both). Last of all, there is the windmill, which can't even be built until the mid-game and gives 1 food, 1 hammer, 1 commerce (8pts). It gains another hammer and commerce with the next tech down (for 13pts).

So, a summary:
Farms = 3pts -> 6pts
w/Agr = 6pts -> 9pts (grasslands only)
w/Arist = 4pts -> 7pts
w/both = 7pts -> 10pts (grasslands only)
Town/Cottage = 2pts -> -> 10pts
<Enclave = 15pts (Kuriotates only)>
Workshop = 2pts -> 5pts -> 10pts
Lumbermill = 7pts (10pts w/ ancient forest)
Mine = 6pts -> 9pts (9pts -> 12pts w/ Arete)
Windmill = 8pts -> 13pts

Final notes: I tried not to dwell on it too much, but I want be sure I'm clear about forests. While the FoL/GoN strategy is a perfectly viable one (and can be quite powerful) it is also pretty limiting. If you're an experienced player, it's worth considering, but not something for the novice (unless playing elves). Outside of that, or being elves in general, forest are fairly weak. If you have no hills, you're definitely going to want to use those forests for a while, but for most well balanced city locations, forest are there to be chopped.
Kuriotate, embrace the megalopolis.
Always mine a hill, you may find some goodies.
Towards the late game, if you are at or near your health or happiness caps, start converting a few plots to workshops.
If you've made it to machinery and haven't started blanketing the countryside with windmill, you are a food.

I generally cottage plains and farm grasslands (and floodplains), and tend to lean towards Runes of Kimorph so usually follow the 3As (Agriculture, Aristocracy, and Arete) for much of the game.

There are many strategies, and your opinion may vary, but hopefully this clarifies some of the nuances.
 
This isn't a decision. The early-mid tech advantage conquers the late-game tech advantage and wins.

A lot of people don't play to win the fastest, but to have more fun. I think it's more fun to conquer with archmages and paladins than with axes and catapults. For a certain playstyle, it may be better to get a tech advantage later than earlier. The cottage race car doesn't have as good acceleration as the aristograrian car, but it has a higher top speed. Which one is best depends mostly on the length of the race you want to run.
 
The cottage race car doesn't have as good acceleration as the aristograrian car, but it has a higher top speed.
Wrong. Horribly wrong.

Maybe if empire size and population caps were fixed over time it would be true but that just isn't the case. And that is assuming that you really believe that 3 commerce is more valuable than 2 food.

Unless you start on a tiny continent or end up horribly boxed, top speed is a meaningless and worthless term in discussion. A strict Aristocracy vs. cottage economy comparison must consider the fact that over time the Aristocracy will work many many more tiles than the cottages. You can't simply compare a tile for tile and say +5 commerce is better than +2 food and +2 commerce (debatable at best as I've said many times before). By the time you get to that point, you more realistically need to be comparing +5 commerce from a single cottage to several farms.

For instance, by the time a non-financial cottage catches up to a non-financial farm in total commerce produced, the farm has produced 80 extra food. That is enough for multiple population growths at most population sizes. By the time a non-financial cottage becomes a town (so the 5 commerce is now achieved if taxation is in) the farm has produced 140 extra food. That is enough for many population growths for almost any city.

And there will almost always be a way to convert food to hammers in at least a 1-1 ratio so if we aren't talking about growth we can be talking about extra production which means horizontal expansion which again means more tiles worked compared to the cottage equivalent.

The simple fact is the farms dominate the cottages early thanks to massive dominance on a single tile for tile basis and dominate them in the long term thanks to weight of numbers. The farm economy will fill its available space quicker, will eliminate rivals quicker and will achieve victory quicker. Top speed is a silly term anyway since it really should just be "speed at victory". No good economy stops growing.
 
This is a very interesting thread and I learnt a lot by reading it.

I'd like to quickly add that if you play multiplayer (or sp at highest difficulties) you will very likely have improvements pillaged. Here farms (with aristo) have a huge advantage as they can be replaced very easily, while pillaged mature cottages will take forever to replace.
 
must consider the fact that over time the Aristocracy will work many many more tiles than the cottages.

Am I the only one who early on has to keep an eye on population so it doesn't exceed it's happy cap at a wrong time? I can't see where this "many, many more tiles" is coming from? Sure, I'll use farms if I have a room for growth, but after that I'll switch to cottages. Although for financial or philosophical leader farms can be indeed a goldmine.

The farm economy will fill its available space quicker, will eliminate rivals quicker and will achieve victory quicker. Top speed is a silly term anyway since it really should just be "speed at victory". No good economy stops growing.
Like cabbagemeister said, not everyone wants to win quicker. My main goal is actually to make the game last as long as possible.
 
Here farms (with aristo) have a huge advantage as they can be replaced very easily, while pillaged mature cottages will take forever to replace.

And pillaged farms wont keep an overstretched opponent in the black or support deficit research.
 
Am I the only one who early on has to keep an eye on population so it doesn't exceed it's happy cap at a wrong time? I can't see where this "many, many more tiles" is coming from? Sure, I'll use farms if I have a room for growth, but after that I'll switch to cottages. Although for financial or philosophical leader farms can be indeed a goldmine.

Well, switch to aristocracy and that excess food will magically transform, somewhat indirectly, into a higher happy cap.

Like cabbagemeister said, not everyone wants to win quicker. My main goal is actually to make the game last as long as possible.

I that case I can suggest an über-strategy: Before ending your turn, count to four hundred. You games will instantly see a marked increase in length. There is an advanced version of that strategy I could tell you about, but practice this one first. ;)

Somewhat more seriously, the only measure with which one strategy can be compared to another is speed of victory.

Game length is pointless because victory can nearly always be deferred.

Fun is so far from objective it's not even funny.

"Get to play with fourth tier units." One will get there sooner or later, even with no strategy.

Reminds me of my first game of Civilization. I had, no idea about improving my land and basically just spammed settlers. Eventually I got battleships and bombers and nukes and won by eliminating the Zulu.
 
Back
Top Bottom