How good is Aristocracy really?

[Earthling]

Why is this still even being debated - is anyone still serious about cottages versus farms? DL's or just coincidental new people who show up only to post this? It's very clear that cottages work very well for a few civs and are weaker for the rest. Though of course a few cottages in certain circumstances (plains, so you don't lose hammers, or just any city with a happy cap) are fine in every empire.

And I would like to point out that Aristocracy itself is really kinda strictly worse than cottages; + 2 commerce that stays forever constant versus the growth you get with the cottages. It's Agrarianism which makes farms so good, giving them an extra +1 food they don't get in regular civ (and Sanitation comes mid-game rather than late). But at any rate what I think is still a far more worthwhile question, the one the OP had, is why everybody seems so crazy about Aristocracy - personally I tend to use a lot of the other government civics a lot. If anyone wants to generate a test game sometime I'm still up for it.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Regarding Elves, farms, aristocracy/agrarianism, ancient forests:

There is the assumption that an Ljosalfarian civ is virtually always ancient forest making even a temporary Aristo/Agrarian combo a nonstarter,when the reality is it commonly takes quite awhile to even get forests bloomed, let alone have these new forests turn into ancient forests.

For many turns, unless the Ljosalfar's are forsaking strategic city sites taking into account resources, defensibility and future expansion in favor of any forest locale, an expanding Ljos' nation needn't fear that a temporary A/A combo - exploiting prime floodplains and lowered city maintenance - is always wrong. I've mentioned before that my Ljos strategy is aimed more often for City States/ GoN, but I think the A/A combo has a place along the way. I sure don't mind rebuilding a pillage farm but I hate losing a town.

Regarding Mysticism: Why iss it a disaster to research this early? As an Ljosalfar, I regard this as a crucial tech if I've any hope of founding FoL early, getting priests and forests bloomed. Ultimately it's an economic tech for Elven civs as it helps them live long and prosper.

 

[Frodius]

I have been thinking about this for a few days, and it would seem that aristograrian is probably the way to go for most realistic game situations.

I would think that in the end, the only time you would really want avoid aristograrian is situations where:

1. You have fewer than 3-4 cities and the 50% commerce gained in the capital overcomes what you lose to the farm commerce and the increase in city maintenance caused by God King,

or

2. You have so many cities that the savings in city maintence from city states is significantly more than the commerce gained from the farms,

or

3. A large number of your cities do not have access to freshwater and you are using mostly resource plots to provide your food surplus.

I think that the settings you play on would probably determine how common these conditions are, but I will say that for most games there is going to be a period where aristograrian farms would seem to be the best option.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how and when to try to transition to cottages, or are you sort of stuck on aristograrian once you go that route?

One approach would be to conquer a bunch of cottages I suppose, or to switch to a specialist economy when you leave aristocracy and your food yields go up.

 

[loffenx]

I feel I must join the defenders of God King. Atleast playing on Erebus or ErebusContinent, you usually start with a few resources to keep the benefits of aristocracy negligable during the early eras happy-cap, during which God King is a perfectly viable alternative provided there is a significant commerce in the capital to boost (which there often is possibility for before both education and CoL). More importantly, you can cram out warriors in 1-3 turns which will make an early conquest of a neighbour easy on most difficulties.

It seems like there is a consensus about the overall advantages of aristocracy. Its main strength is that most other models have alot more preconditions, as in fullgrown ancient forests, oppurtunity of long term undisturbed cottage growth, etc. Related is the opinion that the game really is decided in the early / mid game, and that the economic model that offers the most manouvering space coupled with efficiency during that period therefore is the optimal choice (assuming the goal is a stable and comparably quick path to victory.)

 

[vale]

I feel I must join the defenders of God King. Atleast playing on Erebus or ErebusContinent, you usually start with a few resources to keep the benefits of aristocracy negligable during the early eras happy-cap, during which God King is a perfectly viable alternative provided there is a significant commerce in the capital to boost (which there often is possibility for before both education and CoL).

That would be great if God King boosted commerce, which it doesn't unless something has changed in the past month or so. If that has finally been changed then God King is much more viable as an early alternative to aristocracy. Considering though that every change to God King that I've ever seen has been to make it worse for whatever reason, I find it highly unlikely that they strengthened it now.

 

[squadbroken]

God King boosts wealth, not commerce.

As far as aristograrian goes... other than terrain or race considerations, it's not even really a choice for me. Cottages? Pre-Construction space fillers.

 

[Earthling]

@vale: Well, to be fair, most people have major misconceptions about aristocracy too. For instance:

It seems like there is a consensus about the overall advantages of aristocracy. Its main strength is that most other models have alot more preconditions

So farms require more preconditions than other farms? What?

People seem to be missing that you can run Agrarianism without Aristocracy. And that works for the vast majority of civs, no need to worry about elves/lanun/whoever has the "unique" economies. In which case you get an extra food everywhere, allowing more specialists (even better with stuff like GL scientists, or some of the various other civics which increase yeilds), whipping, whatever you want. I could easily even see situations where running the default, no effect government civic is better than Aristocracy because of its loss of food. But then, very importantly, on top of that you get a pick of any of the other government civics to suit your needs.

Also, I personally think GK's bonus to hammers is at least, if not usually more, powerful than the boost to gold (which isn't all that much different from a boost to commerce early game, you probably won't have other multipliers than a library, and it works out better with regards to shrines and stuff). Unless you're dwarves I really can't see having any other way to match that bonus to production for a long time in the early game, whether you're peaceful and need to snag a couple wonders, or just pump out axemen or horsemen. Better yet with special buildings/settled GP or various civ-specific combos. Especially since I'm not under the impression most players out there play huge maps/few civs - and even more so FFH tends to spend ages with just their capital city, so city states/etc... are fairly negligible.

 

[popejubal]

People seem to be missing that you can run Agrarianism without Aristocracy. And that works for the vast majority of civs, no need to worry about elves/lanun/whoever has the "unique" economies. In which case you get an extra food everywhere, allowing more specialists (even better with stuff like GL scientists, or some of the various other civics which increase yeilds), whipping, whatever you want. I could easily even see situations where running the default, no effect government civic is better than Aristocracy because of its loss of food.

The primary benefit for Agrarianism is that it boosts your food. The primary benefit for Aristocracy is that it lowers your food.

I don't see these as contradictory statements. I actually think that Spiritual leaders are even better in FfH than in basic Civ IV. Being able to manipulate your food to rush ahead to your caps and then slow down your growth when you hit them is a wonderful ability to have.

Agrarianism without Aristocracy is wonderful when you have something to actually do with all that food. Remember that Slavery isn't available for a decent chunk of the game (and not at all for some games!) and that Conquest isn't available at the same time as Agrarianism. Without some way to turn that extra food into something useful, you'll hit your caps and then any extra food will be just wasted.

 

[Earthling]

I'd think it's an extremely small, TINY window where the happy cap with Aristarianism vs. just Agrarianism matters. Unless your Aristo farms are like a net of zero food added to the tile, which is just plain silly. In fact, everything above is one of the few general arguments for cottages-if your cities are really going to be size ~7 for a while then cottages could be more efficient than farms. Or you'd just be optimizing for production, or plain old working resources. Not a reason to waste your civics. Also Aristarianism seems like it requires very heavy infrastructure, to get commerce buildings in every city rather than just in a few core ones, and straight production elsewhere (and if you don't get commerce bonuses that's just a waste, since Aristo costs you raw food/prod). Again, I'm not saying it's not useful sometimes, but not even close to the auto-adopt everyone else appears to think.

In the long term, I think there is a very important point here though: basically, everything in FfH either points to a very low happy cap, or an effectively infinite one. There's very little gradual about it - there aren't all too many resources in a typical game, religion just adds a couple :happy: midgame, so my experience is either you're in the 10-15 range (where again it's almost as good to consider a strong mix of non-farm improvements period) or you can easily grow to however many specialists you like. And its usually the early game being very much of the former, the late game much of the latter; non-Aristo even has side benefits like better surviving temporary unhappy/blights or something without starvation. I honestly can't recall ever having a situation where extra food without Aristocracy would push me far into unhappiness, when I wouldn't already be facing it even with Aristo. But tons of situations where I might as well keep the extra food on the farm and gain immense benefits from something other than Aristocracy.

 

[Thonnas]

I just had a thought on how to help balance agrarianism (and therefor A/A) with the other economy civics.

Remove "Farms spread irrigation." Completely.

This would make agrarianism most effective only when you farm all the tiles along a river or lake (even plains), and significantly limit the power of the A/A combo (as the extra food may be better server supporting the development of cottages).

Of course this doesn't really help how weak the other econ civics are, but it nerfs agrarianism a bit closer to them. At the very least, "Farms spread irrigation" could be moved to late game, like machinery or engineering.

 

[Emptiness]

Rivers are already very powerful, they don't need a boost. Well, except that the Illians should get the river bonus in ice tiles, but that's off topic.

Removing the ability to spread irrigation would make rivers vital, and greatly decrease the chance that a non-river city is worth founding/controlling. A non-river start would almost always be a crippling disadvantage. Being unable to spread irrigation does prevent farm spam, but it also blocks the use of farms to make low-food city sites viable. This change would penalize more than just the A/A play style; I think it might actually penalize A/A less than it would (for example) a strategy of maximizing production under Agrarianism by using farms+mines+workshops. Many people would still run A/A from when they got Code of Laws until the end of the game, they would just be sure not to waste any maintenance by having any of those worthless non-river cities as part of their empire.

I don't think removing the ability to spread irrigation is a viable solution. Moving it to a later tech wouldn't be as bad as removing it entirely, but it would also be problematic. Something that more specifically targets Agrarianism, or Aristocracy, or the A/A combination would be preferable.

 

[Calavente]

you have to remember that going aristoagrian blocs 2 civics... for a net gain of +2 commerce per farm.

I know the other eco civics are mostly blahh early-mid game but when you have a lot of food tiles, conquest migth be useful and interesting to get. especially as the tech allows for city raider... you could produce many many warriors /axes

when you have few food tiles : should you really lose the 1 food from agri, especially if this 1F allows you to mine a grassland hill ?

when you have a good mix of tiles ... well it is surely worthwhile to go aristoagrarian.

I think it is not so a no-brainer (especially aristo).

I think your game may not reveal anything.
pangea is not the only map : it was a map script balanced for vanilla giving IMO advantages to farms vs cottages, as the CE in vanilla is so powerful. Going pangea would IMO give a few advantages for a A/A.
erebus or mountain/hill or fantasy are also interesting map with FFH. Maybe you should try your "test" on one of those maps ?

Last : how would you know that the initial start of your civ is not biased for one or the other option ? How would you separate the influence of your respective skill from the influence of the Aristo or GK civic ? ..etc
you may want to think about the ways to evaluate the results before launching your test game.


(personnaly, I'm of the opinion that GK, CS or Aristo are all worthwhile equally.... but not in the same settings, and not at the same time of the game).
Aristo is not interesting (out of financial leaders)
-when the happy cap is limited,
-when ennemy civs are closeby,
-when barbs are aggressives.
-when you don't care about research anymore and are going for a TOE/altar.
-if you are REXing enough and your empire is huge.
-if you don't have an annoying happy cap.. 1F is worth 1.5-2commerce + 3gpp with a specialist or more if you have some boosting wonders-civics or if you have StW).
-for alexis, for the dwarves, for kuriorates, for elves, for luirchips...

But it is a good option in most games, at least for a time. And sometimes it is a whole game option. but sometimes CS is or conquest is ...etc.

 

[Luckmann]

Why is this still even being debated [...]

Because we're bored. Horribly, terribly disillusionised and bored.

 

[loffenx]

Nah, it is still fun. This thread is different than the last too, it had way more numbercrunching and whatnot.

So farms require more preconditions than other farms? What?

I did not mean preconditions as in specific improvements, but nevermind, it just felt that the cottage-model required alot more "all other things equal".

 

[Earthling]

Because we're bored.

If you honestly believe cottages are better than farms in general for most civs, I'd recommend putting that boredom into learning the game better. Seriously, is there anyone here still arguing cottages are better than farms? Was it just trolls the whole time?

@ Calavente: Senethro chose the settings as he's the one challenging me to a game. I don't care if the start is slightly biased, my point is to prove the GK is very viable. He's the one trying to prove Aristo is good 100% of the time all games. Without barbs/events/AI there shouldn't be too huge of a gap in player ability.

About game balance: The short answer is for Agrarianism to do something else, or make the other civics in its category generally WAY more useful. I don't think the government side has a problem, and messing with irrigation/Sanitation won't solve the problem, it'll just change what good city sites are as has been mentioned, which is possibly more unbalancing.

 

[popejubal]

Also Aristarianism seems like it requires very heavy infrastructure, to get commerce buildings in every city rather than just in a few core ones,

Are you building commerce buildings in every city to take better advantage of your trade routes? Of course not. Trade routes still make a significant contribution to your overall economy, however - even without "optimizing" them. An extra 2 commerce from each farm is enormous and (especially for Spiritual civs) flexible because you can always switch out of Aristocracy if you really need that extra food.

Also, you said that the window for hitting the cap under Agrarianism was small. I disagree. I spend a lot of time in games without slavery and without one of the infinite-specialist civics. Agrarianism's 5 food grasslands mean that I'll be hitting the cap very quickly on pretty much any map that allows me to spread irrigation. If Irrigation is blocked by hills in lots of places, then I'll probably be running Agrarianism without Aristocracy since I really want that extra food - and I have to get the food from fewer tiles.

Even before Sanitation, I'll hit caps quickly with Agrarianism. 4 food is a Biology Farm under vanilla-Civ and I can see those before I even have my Mining/Calendar resources all hooked up!


One other benefit: it only takes worker-turns to change a 42 tile into a 14 tile and back by switching between Farm and Workshop. It takes worker-turns + a zillion game turns to change from Cottage to Workshop and back. That added flexibility is a very big benefit in my mind.

 

[EverNoob]

Ahhhh! I'm gone for just 2 days and there's so many posts! Which I think is awesome.

Let's do another sample game. Post a starting save or a save of the turn when you reach education with the leader of your choice (exception: Lanun leaders), where you think going for an aristograrian economy is suboptimal.

We can then compare progress over the following turns. Maybe you are right and there is something the proponents of the aristo economy are missing. Let's find out!

That's a great idea, I'd really appreciate that! To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to doubt my original position that aristo-agrarian isn't superior. But I still concrete evidence.

I will start a game and post it when I reach education.

 

[Earthling]

Thanks to Evernoob for setting up a test game, I'll check it out too. A short comment on the following:

Also, you said that the window for hitting the cap under Agrarianism was small. I disagree. I spend a lot of time in games without slavery and without one of the infinite-specialist civics. Agrarianism's 5 food grasslands mean that I'll be hitting the cap very quickly on pretty much any map that allows me to spread irrigation. If Irrigation is blocked by hills in lots of places, then I'll probably be running Agrarianism without Aristocracy since I really want that extra food - and I have to get the food from fewer tiles.

Even before Sanitation, I'll hit caps quickly with Agrarianism. 4 food is a Biology Farm under vanilla-Civ and I can see those before I even have my Mining/Calendar resources all hooked up!

5 food Agrarianism farms are significantly into the game that you should have some way to use the food. As for the 4 food farms, you do realize that slavery is just one tech further than Aristocracy, albeit a different path? Not to mention that a significant number of religions aren't that far off either. And having more food per farm (especially pre-irrigation, as you do credit) would just allow you to work more mines/resources.

Also, I'm not arguing a general preference for cottages, so the point about workshops is kinda moot - 5 food farms can be converted just as easily as 4 food ones.

Generally, I'd like to ask how quickly people tend to get their second and third cities? I was under the impression again that a vast majority of players wait a significant time on the majority of civs at least, compared to vanilla. Until you get 4-5 cities with a high happy cap I'd think nothing really comes close to God-King; again I can see switching out as time goes on because I agree there's a place for all civics, but simply ignoring the tech until Sanitation era or something seems absolutely senseless.

 

[cabbagemeister]

Generally, I'd like to ask how quickly people tend to get their second and third cities? I was under the impression again that a vast majority of players wait a significant time on the majority of civs at least, compared to vanilla. Until you get 4-5 cities with a high happy cap I'd think nothing really comes close to God-King; again I can see switching out as time goes on because I agree there's a place for all civics, but simply ignoring the tech until Sanitation era or something seems absolutely senseless.

I completely agree with these points. Settlers are SO expensive in FFH and require SO much more protection that BTS-style REXing (3 cities out by turn 50, each defended by a warrior) is simply untenable. I personally don't start REXing until I have Calendar, mining, and GK, all of which make settler production a 10-turn breeze rather than a 25-turn chore.

I also agree that there's no point to dropping out of GK until you have ~5 cities (or maybe 3 cities if they're really far away). I have experimented in the past with an Aristocracy beeline to boost my science very early, and I find that it just cripples my REX to be building settlers without GK and with the food penalty--I lose way too many good city spots to the AI. I think unless you have no neighbors to compete for good spots, or you have a spiritual leader to switch from Aristo to GK during settler production, forgoing GK early is just too crippling to your expansion to be worth the extra commerce.

 

[Rutee]

I have something of a dumb question, but wouldn't, at late game, you benefit more from going Agrarianism/SOMETHING ELSE, and using Scholarship and Caste System (Or Guilds; I remember one allows unlimited specialists, the other adds beakers to all specialists; I mean the unlimited specialists one) be a bigger gain then Agri/Ari? At that point, you're basically getting 4 (Or 5 if you have a lot of specialist buildings) per Specialist, turning 1 food into 2 (Or 2.5) commerce + GPP? And even then, 1 food for 1.5 commerce and 1.5 GPP is a pretty good trade, I would think. Granted, I'm not really up on all the advanced meta game stuff.

I don't doubt Agrarianism's benefit, but Aristocracy's seems to be a mid-game one to me.