Q: Commerce vs Wealth

[mabraham]

In my test games I was building Artemis and using the GMerchants for currency.
I took CoL from Oracle and the GProphets to get to AP, which I then used priests to build. Without commerce, this failed due to lack of research, so at least the first worker is needed.

A workerless economy can't possibly function at this level.

My question:
Since I get currency fairly early (whether from Oracle or GMerchants), would it not be valuable to dedicate an early city to production building wealth?
... A forge is pretty easy to get early.

Sure. See fluorescent's post above.

... Using GMerchants on a trade mission seems to keep you in the unfavorable position of converting commerce to wealth.

Trade missions give you a pile of goldgold. Now you use the slider to convert -> for ages.

... Deficit spending at 100% research is an illusion.

No, it's great. What you really want to do is run at 0% research while you build libraries and monasteries, then run at 100% once your multipliers are up. This gives a higher yield than some middling percentage throughout.

... Whenever commerce is less than expenses you are not paying the bills.

Sigh. No. You're fixated on the wrong things. Commerce is a raw material, you convert that into useful stuff. If your income from your various sources (including from the commerce slider) less expenses is less than zero then you're in trouble once your stockpile runs out.

... With wealth paying the bills, every commerce source goes direct to research (early game).

The bills have to get paid. The important thing (in normal circumstances) is the sustainable beakers per turn. You have to manage the other stuff to maximise that - where your comes from is your concern.

 

[RD-BH]

A workerless economy can't possibly function at this level.

True enough. An arboria map (BotM27) offered an opportunity to get AP built faster by eliminating early workers and forest clearing. I now know this was a bad idea, and I can't imagine any other situation where I would have thought to try. Still, there were turns to be saved with all that woodland.

Trade missions give you a pile of goldgold. Now you use the slider to convert -> for ages.
... What you really want to do is run at 0% research while you build libraries and monasteries, then run at 100% once your multipliers are up. This gives a higher yield than some middling percentage throughout.

When you use GMerchant to lightbulb currency, you build wealth to pay the bills and run 100% research till the end of time.

Sigh. No. You're fixated on the wrong things. Commerce is a raw material, you convert that into useful stuff. If your income from your various sources (including from the commerce slider) less expenses is less than zero then you're in trouble once your stockpile runs out.
The bills have to get paid. The important thing (in normal circumstances) is the sustainable beakers per turn. You have to manage the other stuff to maximise that - where your comes from is your concern.

Yes, I definitely have a mental block when it comes to commerce.
Since 100% of commerce is ALWAYS converted, and my intent is to maximize research, why would I desire conversion of commerce to wealth?
The treasury spenddown isn't deficit spending. It is just lack of wealth to pay the expenses (I think I erroneously said commerce in a previous post), which forces you to convert commerce to wealth.

Re: Binary research
Once you generate enough wealth to pay bills (early game doesn't take much), binary research breaks (100% no longer can create a spenddown).
Isn't this preferred over having to convert commerce to wealth?

 

[Fluroscent]

... Using GMerchants on a trade mission seems to keep you in the unfavorable position of converting commerce to wealth.

You are mixing up commerce with gold again. GM trade mission produces a one time gold gold boost, which has nothing to do with commerce. Like I tried to make clear, the goal is to convert as much commerce commerce to science science as possible. Making the you need by means such as a trade mission will allow you to run your slider at 100% for a good while.

Re: Binary research
Once you generate enough wealth to pay bills (early game doesn't take much), binary research breaks (100% no longer can create a spenddown).
Isn't this preferred over having to convert commerce to wealth?

Yes, exactly! the more turns you can afford to run a 100% slider, the better, because to is (usually) more efficient than to

A pitfall to remember though - The goal is not to run a 100% slider in itself, because then a small empire would always be best. The total is better still in a larger empire, even if you have to convert a higher % of to to pay the bills.

But the point stands from before, making as much as possible from other means than through the slider is the way to go.

When you use GMerchant to lightbulb currency, you build wealth to pay the bills and run 100% research till the end of time.

Oracle currency = good
GM bulb currency = bad

The reason is that even if you build Temple of Artemis and/or Great Lighthouse, you cannot rely on getting a GM fast enough. In fact, you are better off trying your best to make every early great person a scientist OR if going for something specific like a theology bulb/early shrine, a prophet.
If oracle is not an option, or you use it on something else, you should research currency manually as soon as possible, rather than wait for a GM. A GM generally has much better use in the mid-late stages of the game.

If you fluke a GM early enough though, and you have almost crashed your economy so that currency would take a long while to reach, then a bulb is ok, but I'd still consider settling it instead in the future wall street city.

 

[mabraham]

Re: Binary research
Once you generate enough wealth to pay bills (early game doesn't take much), binary research breaks (100% no longer can create a spenddown).

By this, I think you mean it breaks inasmuch as you have more coming in than going out on expenses, despite running 100% science slider. If you can't project a future use for a stockpile that is more valuable than something else right now, then you should slow down whatever your side source of is. For example, don't use so much of your food running priest specialists -> work commerce tiles, or run scientists instead.

 

[lroumen]

I think the abovementioned discussions and improvement points are very helpful, but I do have a few questions if I may.

1. At which point do you build science and when is it better to build wealth rather than science?


Also, considering cottaging etc. I rarely cottage every town. Most of the time I have a few towns only mined and farmed in order to crank out units. However, at a certain point my empire starts to fade due to either too many units or I overextended (after war for instance). In general, my economic malaise lasts a long time when I have to build courthouses etc in newly conquered cities. Thus...

2. Would it be a good idea to build wealth buildings in my own military cities and temporarily put merchant specialists in them, or would building wealth still be better in this case (and thus make use of the forges).

I tend to think building the buildings would be better because they should be finished quite soon considering these are military thus hammer heavy cities, and markets/grocers increase my happiness and health at the same time.

I think part of my economic malaise is due to the fact that I keep too many cities farmed and mined rather than cottage some more of them, so when I wage war and expand in that manner, my economic malaise starts and my empire starts to fall back on all of the AIs except for the one I'm conquering. This holds especially true on higher levels (monarch and higher). Thus...

3. What would be a good distribution early game between farmed-mined cities and cottaged cities (or farmed+mined-gold/gems) to overcome this economic downfall?

 

[beestar]

1. I only build science if I'm desperate (e.g. if I don't know Currency and I really badly need to get to that technology).

2. In those production cities ...

You need a lot of farms to feed merchant specialists. E.g. working 2 irrigated grassland farms (3F) will give +2 food surplus, and this will feed 1 merchant. That merchant generates 3 wealth * multipliers. At best you waste loads of hammers building market, grocer, and bank in a city that rarely generates wealth, and you end up with 6 wealth out of that merchant.

In contrast, those 2 farms can also feed citizens on 2 grassland mined hills (1F 3H each). If you hammer out Wealth, you produce 6 wealth now, which is as good as building market, grocer, and bank. It's not quite a fair comparison because this case has 1 more citizen than the other one, but you can see the point (scale by 3/4 to get to the 3-citizen equivalent, so 4.5 wealth now). Even better with a Forge, which your production cities will probably have.

By the way, "Markets finish building soon because those cities have lots of hammers" is just another way of saying "Military cities are great for producing Wealth because they have lots of hammers".

Markets and grocers are good in commerce cities because they multiply wealth and provide health/happiness, but in other cities there are usually cheaper ways of getting health/happiness.


3. Hard for me to give a rule of thumb, but thinking of it another way, the kind of land I try to grab is (1) resources, and (2) flat grassland to put down as many massive cottage cities as I can. I rarely think about deliberately trying to get a farmed hilly city for production. In the long run, often the strongest production land is green flatland with a food resource and tons of workshops enhanced by Caste System, State Property, Guilds, Chemistry.

 

[lroumen]

2. In those production cities ...

You need a lot of farms to feed merchant specialists. E.g. 2 irrigated grassland farms (3F) will give +2 food surplus, and this will feed 1 merchant. That merchant generates 3 wealth * multipliers. At best you waste loads of hammers building market, grocer, and bank in a city that rarely generates wealth, and you end up with 6 wealth out of that merchant.

In contrast, those 2 farms can also feed workers on 2 grassland mined hills (1F 3H each). If you hammer out Wealth, you produce 6 wealth now, which is as good as building market, grocer, and bank. It's not quite a fair comparison because this case has 1 more citizen than the other one, but you can see the point.

By the way, "Markets finish building soon because those cities have lots of hammers" is just another way of saying "Military cities are great for producing Wealth because they have lots of hammers".

Yes, I've had the same thoughts about it as well. Currently, I build wealth when I'm rebuilding my economy, but I started to think that it may not be the best solution and I'm curious as to what others do.

At first it seems as if you accomplish the same thing so you shouldn't build the wealth buildings and run merchants, but build wealth instead. But look at it this way.
Suppose you have a good food resource + 2 farms + 2 mines, then I could support maybe 3 merchants and still slowly build something in the city like a worker or start on some new military.
Working wealth would accomplish the same thing in the short term with regards to monetary income, but once I start using the mines again, I do have the buildings left to gather gold for at least countering that citys upkeep for the remainder of the game. I never manage to run 100% science anyway since that indicates that I have not expanded far enough or it indicates that I have no military.
So in the long run, wouldn't it work out better that way?


@1. I've seen many people say that it is better to build wealth if your science is below 100% and then adjust your slider to more sceince, but when would you build science then? Seems rather odd.

@3. I see. I often grab close to home resources first and then I get some nice early production cities with 1 food and several mining opportunities. It helps me early game, but some production cities never go beyond 10 population later on since the grounds do not permit it. But by this method I cannot seem to grab a lot of commerce spots. Perhaps I should focus early production on chopping the future commerce cities by putting down cottages over the grassland-forests and use the wood-hammers to build early buildings more?

 

[Fluroscent]

About build wealth vs science

I generally build science if one of the following is true:

-You already turn a profit at 100%, mostly due to a smaller number of cities being needed to cover the costs building wealth - freeing the rest to build science. This happens frequently in "hammer-economy" setups with corporations.

-You need to speed up a key tech or win a race AND slider is at 100% AND you have enough gold in the bank to keep the slider at 100% for the duration of science building.

-You dont have currency yet AND you would build wealth if you could

3. Where to settle is hard to give general advice about, because what is best varies from map to map. Especially the cities you found early on need to accomplish many goals that sometimes hurt their long term power. If talking about "pre-currency" expansion, the things that often take priority are 1. Blocking off land areas 2. Immediately strong tiles (maybe even needed in the inner ring) 3. Getting strategic resources and/or happy rescources, but these often double as strong tiles anyway.
I see no problem in having an early city be productive, but limited to 10 pop for the whole game. Just be sure you use that production power properly (like building more settlers/workers!)

 

[mabraham]

At first it seems as if you accomplish the same thing so you shouldn't build the wealth buildings and run merchants, but build wealth instead. But look at it this way.
Suppose you have a good food resource + 2 farms + 2 mines, then I could support maybe 3 merchants and still slowly build something in the city like a worker or start on some new military.
Working wealth would accomplish the same thing in the short term with regards to monetary income, but once I start using the mines again, I do have the buildings left to gather gold for at least countering that citys upkeep for the remainder of the game. I never manage to run 100% science anyway since that indicates that I have not expanded far enough or it indicates that I have no military.
So in the long run, wouldn't it work out better that way?

Those buildings don't magically "gather gold". They multiply the city's existing output (other than from Build Wealth). So if you are running no merchants/priests while you build your army after your wealth-building phase, and have only a handful of commerce from your farmed river tiles running at a high science % on the slider, you aren't getting any significant value for your +25% market.

Unless you can forecast significant - or specialist-based production in the medium- or longer-term, or will need the happiness/health, or need banks for building Wall St, the hammers that went into a market/grocer/bank in such a low- city would have been better spent converted straight to Wealth. Then you can finish your wealth-building phase faster.

@1. I've seen many people say that it is better to build wealth if your science is below 100% and then adjust your slider to more sceince, but when would you build science then? Seems rather odd.

The point is that building wealth or science happens at the same rate, but normally in the early game (and in most games) the conversion of to is at a higher rate than to

To make a 2-city example, you have a "hammer city" that produces H and will build or and the other "commerce city' has produces C and has only a library.

Suppose the builder city can produce enough building wealth to just pay the expenses. Now the 100% science slider (call that S=100) and library produce C*(S/100)*1.25=C*1.25 as .

If instead the builder city builds , then the slider S must drop to satisfy H=C*(1-S/100) to pay the bills, so S/100=1-H/C. Now the output is H+C*(S/100)*1.25 which is now H+C*(1-H/C)*1.25=H+(C-H)*1.25=C*1.25 - 0.25*H.

The point of the example is that the same amount of is produced to pay the bills, but less is produced in the second case. If that city had a market and no library, the correct decision changes, of course.

Thus there's merit in specializing cities towards and . If you're running 100% science, don't bother with -specialized cities unless you're going to commit it to running lots of merchants and priests (i.e. Caste System).

@3. I see. I often grab close to home resources first and then I get some nice early production cities with 1 food and several mining opportunities. It helps me early game, but some production cities never go beyond 10 population later on since the grounds do not permit it. But by this method I cannot seem to grab a lot of commerce spots. Perhaps I should focus early production on chopping the future commerce cities by putting down cottages over the grassland-forests and use the wood-hammers to build early buildings more?

Yep. A good general strategy is decide that a city will be a cottageville, and plan to chop out most of it into cottages, remembering to have enough (i.e. a farm per plains cottage and grassland mine) to get all cottages working. Don't whip this city if it stops you working cottages! There will be a quiet time mid-game when this city won't build much of anything except maybe university and bank while its towns grow, then a Levee and/or Universal Suffrage brings it to powerhouse status. This should definitely be the approach in your Bureaucratic capital in most cases.

Grassland rivers are the best city sites in all cases - either for or .

 

[RD-BH]

You are mixing up commerce with gold again. GM trade mission produces a one time gold gold boost, which has nothing to do with commerce. Like I tried to make clear, the goal is to convert as much commerce commerce to science science as possible. Making the you need by means such as a trade mission will allow you to run your slider at 100% for a good while.

I think I was stating the same thing. I just missed its significance.
The gain here is running 100% research longer.
I still don't understand the amount gained from trade mission vs. wealth from other sources (markets w/merchant specialists,forges w/production built wealth).

A pitfall to remember though - The goal is not to run a 100% slider in itself, because then a small empire would always be best. The total is better still in a larger empire, even if you have to convert a higher % of to to pay the bills.

(mabraham keeps trying to get this into my head - I'm still struggling with the concept)
??? Isn't the total always higher at 100% than < 100% conversion.
I quess my question is:
Is there an advantage to building a wealth city earlier? Perhaps, after your first commerce city or in conjuction with it.

Oracle currency = good
GM bulb currency = bad

The reason is that even if you build Temple of Artemis and/or Great Lighthouse, you cannot rely on getting a GM fast enough. In fact, you are better off trying your best to make every early great person a scientist OR if going for something specific like a theology bulb/early shrine, a prophet.
If oracle is not an option, or you use it on something else, you should research currency manually as soon as possible, rather than wait for a GM. A GM generally has much better use in the mid-late stages of the game.

If you fluke a GM early enough though, and you have almost crashed your economy so that currency would take a long while to reach, then a bulb is ok, but I'd still consider settling it instead in the future wall street city.

Since I was desiring either a GProphet or a GMerchant, Artemis seemed a good fit for the initial push toward a religious victory. I wasn't building them in my GP Farm, so I figured if I caught an oddball later on, I could just settle it in my wealth city.

The whole framework was flawed (due to commerce vs. wealth), and there was no strategy backup if I couldn't build AP (though I rarely missed).

Thank you,
... you've answered several more of my questions.
... I had played several test games and couldn't determine if there was an advantage taking currency from oracle over lightbulbing it.

 

[RD-BH]

By this, I think you mean it breaks inasmuch as you have more coming in than going out on expenses, despite running 100% science slider. If you can't project a future use for a stockpile that is more valuable than something else right now, then you should slow down whatever your side source of is. For example, don't use so much of your food running priest specialists -> work commerce tiles, or run scientists instead.

Yes, the other benefits still apply (ie rounding gain).

FYI:
... I've only played every other level (chieftain, noble, monarch, and immortal).
... I was winning every game I started on monarch and it was getting dull.
... I play on immortal but I am (don't laugh) ... not very skilled.
... After watching TheMeInTeam's Immortal U Saladin series, I got it in my head to improve my game (My nature is to have FUN first and learn second).
... Some of my quirky ideas are FUN (to me) even if doomed to failure. 8)
... So, I thank you, for your patience (I can be a bit thick).

 

[Fluroscent]

??? Isn't the total always higher at 100% than < 100% conversion.

If you compare, say, five cities generating 10 each (unrealistic, but just for the example) and ten cities generating 10 each.
Now suppose that you can run a 100% slider in the five city scenario, and only 60% in the second. The total science produced in the five cities would be 50, but the ten cities make a total of 60.
In a real game it is of course more complicated, and there will certainly be a period of lower output while you grow the new cities/improve the land, but in the end, it generally takes special circumstances for a smaller empire to win out in comparison.

I quess my question is:
Is there an advantage to building a wealth city earlier? Perhaps, after your first commerce city or in conjuction with it.

It depends..
There are always several competing factors to consider when deciding where to settle your first cities, so yes, it is possible, but it may also be impractical.

... So, I thank you, for your patience (I can be a bit thick).

Just keep having fun

 

[RD-BH]

If you compare, say, five cities generating 10 each (unrealistic, but just for the example) and ten cities generating 10 each.
Now suppose that you can run a 100% slider in the five city scenario, and only 60% in the second. The total science produced in the five cities would be 50, but the ten cities make a total of 60.
In a real game it is of course more complicated, and there will certainly be a period of lower output while you grow the new cities/improve the land, but in the end, it generally takes special circumstances for a smaller empire to win out in comparison.

Using your example:
Instead of 10 cities, only build 6.
Have the other 4 cities generating and building .
Running at 100% research you are still getting 60 and now generate (likely a surplus with 4 cities building ).
If this was 7 cities and 3 cities, you would likely generate 70 at 100% research.

Hence, my questions ...
Why aren't players doing this?
... Is it less effective/efficient?
... Are players addicted to binary research as the Holy Grail/Magic Bullet?
... Are players stuck in a cottage economy mindset (ie paying the bills with commerce conversion, not the whole cottage-vs-specialist debate)?
... OR (wait for it) am I just insane?

 

[lroumen]

Thank you both for the responses on Q1 (building wealth/science) and Q3 (settling). Those have been quite clear.

However about Q2. I'm not so certain that my viewpoint is so unvalid if you consider more than just wealth problems..

Those buildings don't magically "gather gold". They multiply the city's existing output (other than from Build Wealth). So if you are running no merchants/priests while you build your army after your wealth-building phase, and have only a handful of commerce from your farmed river tiles running at a high science % on the slider, you aren't getting any significant value for your +25% market.

Unless you can forecast significant - or specialist-based production in the medium- or longer-term, or will need the happiness/health, or need banks for building Wall St, the hammers that went into a market/grocer/bank in such a low- city would have been better spent converted straight to Wealth. Then you can finish your wealth-building phase faster.

Of course wealth is connected to the amounts of commerce that is converted into it by the slider. So if I run 70% science, 30% of my commerce is turned into wealth, which is in turn increased by market/grocer/bank. If I have a couple of river tiles and some trade routes, would the amount of commerce I get not be quite decent to validate a market+grocer tactic?
I mean, in the same time as building markets and grocers, the production city will acquire some meager wealth after they are finished, but also health and happiness. That would allow my hammer city to grow more as the game progresses and become more powerful later on. If I decide to build wealth instead during my times of troubles, they will not grow and may stay mediocre in the late game due to unhappiness or unhealthiness. I'm thinking it sounds okay.... but then again, at what time do you guys grow your production cities? When you get biology? That sounds very late, unless you prioritise it a lot in research. An dhow to keep them happy if trading is insufficient? Monarchy?

 

[Fluroscent]

Using your example:
Instead of 10 cities, only build 6.
Have the other 4 cities generating and building .
Running at 100% research you are still getting 60 and now generate (likely a surplus with 4 cities building ).
If this was 7 cities and 3 cities, you would likely generate 70 at 100% research.

Assuming that we were breaking even in the first case, then switching out a city to a city would create a deficit (less /turn to pay the same maintenance), so that the 70 would not be sustainable.

In fact, with these values, it would be better if the slider was sustainable at 90%, because that would yield a sustainable 62 (90% of 70 total ), but if the slider would drop to 80%, it would only be 53, less than the sustainable 60 with four wealth building cities.

I guess the lesson to take from this is that you should try to strike a balance of sorts, but the actual best commerce vs wealth city ratio is going to different almost every game.

But remember, my example was just to illustrate the power of having more cities vs fewer.

Hence, my questions ...
Why aren't players doing this? They do, if it is profitable (like I just explained)
... Is it less effective/efficient? It depends...
... Are players addicted to binary research as the Holy Grail/Magic Bullet? Binary or not is kind of irrelevant to this discussion actually, though binary is never worse than not, and has certain advantages so yeah..
... Are players stuck in a cottage economy mindset (ie paying the bills with commerce conversion, not the whole cottage-vs-specialist debate)? Maybe
... OR (wait for it) am I just insane? Probably

@Iroumen
True that every city will produce at least some commerce, so you pretty much have to asses the city at hand, and estimate the time frame where it will pay off. Plus consider if putting the hammers into a building that will take a long while to pay off is going to hamper your immediate development.
Also true that production cities (early/mid game) are often smaller in size, and as such have less need for happiness/health. They also have an easier time getting temples etc. if needed, so they should not NEED the market/grocer often. And if it can grow large late game, you can just build the buildings then, where the citys influence (by building wealth) is more marginal anyway.

 

[mabraham]

Thank you both for the responses on Q1 (building wealth/science) and Q3 (settling). Those have been quite clear.

However about Q2. I'm not so certain that my viewpoint is so unvalid if you consider more than just wealth problems..

Of course wealth is connected to the amounts of commerce that is converted into it by the slider. So if I run 70% science, 30% of my commerce is turned into wealth, which is in turn increased by market/grocer/bank. If I have a couple of river tiles and some trade routes, would the amount of commerce I get not be quite decent to validate a market+grocer tactic?

That's straight arithmetic. If you have 2 trade routes at (say) 2 each, and about four river tiles + centre tile picking up 1 each, that's about 10. Slider 30% of that is 3, and a bare market would give zero value. Obviously one can tweak those values so that you can get some return from the market, but it's not going to be more than about 1 in the kind of early- to early-midgame scenario under discussion. If a market cost you 120 to build (guessing, obviously it's dependent on the game conditions) you've got to run it for about 120 turns to break even compared with just building out 120 with Build Wealth.

Now some of that payback time might be offset by having earlier access to some happiness, but the value of having the in hand right away from building it is that you can convert it into useful stuff science:, , support for your all-conquering military, etc.) now, rather than hypothetically later. Early stuff tends to be more valuable than the same stuff produced more efficiently later, because you get the benefit sooner.

I mean, in the same time as building markets and grocers, the production city will acquire some meager wealth after they are finished, but also health and happiness. That would allow my hammer city to grow more as the game progresses and become more powerful later on. If I decide to build wealth instead during my times of troubles, they will not grow and may stay mediocre in the late game due to unhappiness or unhealthiness. I'm thinking it sounds okay.... but then again, at what time do you guys grow your production cities? When you get biology? That sounds very late, unless you prioritise it a lot in research. An dhow to keep them happy if trading is insufficient? Monarchy?

This is dependent on your strategy for winning the game. Obviously, a planned space-race will have different trade-off results from a game where you've challenged yourself with conquest by chariot.

Keeping a city disconnected from your metals can be good for pumping our warriors for HR-happiness - and this is much more efficient in the short term than markets.

I just grow production cities however seems reasonable at the time. I stay close to the happiness cap, and do my best not to be over the uhealthiness cap. That might mean running an engineer and spy, rather than letting it grow. It's all got to fit the master plan, however.

 

[mabraham]

Using your example:
Instead of 10 cities, only build 6.
Have the other 4 cities generating and building .
Running at 100% research you are still getting 60 and now generate (likely a surplus with 4 cities building ).
If this was 7 cities and 3 cities, you would likely generate 70 at 100% research.

Hence, my questions ...
Why aren't players doing this?
... Is it less effective/efficient?

In the medium- to longer-term, yes.

... Are players addicted to binary research as the Holy Grail/Magic Bullet?

Why not? It's more efficient than other slider strategies regardless of the sources of your and . An exception might be for the turn or two just before you acquire a new technology whose payoff from earlier acquisition will be higher than any loss from rounding, such as Currency.

Go and read some War Academy articles and learn from them too

... Are players stuck in a cottage economy mindset (ie paying the bills with commerce conversion, not the whole cottage-vs-specialist debate)?

Some certainly are, but growing cottages is the long-term solution because it comes with higher yields and sustainable earned. Each grassland river can yield up to something like 16 with the right midgame to late-midgame civics (more with river or Financial trait). The best you can do building Wealth or Research with a grassland farm and grassland mine is 3 per two worked squares. So as soon as one member of each pair of cottages grows once, you're already breaking even with cottages, and the future is rosy. Further, the only early sources of multipliers are forges and Bureaucracy. Multipliers for , and abound by comparison.

An exception might be when running Caste System after acquiring Guilds, because of the +2 to workshops. Now a pair of grassland tiles can yield the same 3 per two worked squares, but you're now only dependent on rivers for irrigation (before Civil Service), not rivers for irrigation and hills for mining. This is slightly more scalable than the foregoing. Bee-lining chemistry is necessary for it to work out well, however. This strategy combines with other cities running many farms with either scientists or merchants as suitable. Even then, you need four worked farms to pay for 2 merchants to yield 4 plus the great person points, compared with the same 6 population working 3 farms and 3 workshops building wealth to yield 6. Which is better depends how long you plan to run this way, and whether you have the Pyramids for Representation, or are Philosophical for more GPP.

 

[lroumen]

I see what you mean now. I guess you'll be getting more than 120 wealth by the end of the game, but not at the moment when you need it most. So it makes more sense to me now to build wealth in the early game when you run into an economical malaise rather than building markets where they will not net you much gain.

 

[RD-BH]

... It's more efficient than other slider strategies regardless of the sources of your and . An exception might be for the turn or two just before you acquire a new technology whose payoff from earlier acquisition will be higher than any loss from rounding, such as Currency.

...

... growing cottages is the long-term solution because it comes with higher yields and sustainable earned. Each grassland river can yield up to something like 16 with the right midgame to late-midgame civics (more with river or Financial trait). The best you can do building Wealth or Research with a grassland farm and grassland mine is 3 per two worked squares. So as soon as one member of each pair of cottages grows once, you're already breaking even with cottages, and the future is rosy. Further, the only early sources of multipliers are forges and Bureaucracy. Multipliers for , and abound by comparison.

... you need four worked farms to pay for 2 merchants to yield 4 plus the great person points, compared with the same 6 population working 3 farms and 3 workshops building wealth to yield 6. Which is better depends how long you plan to run this way, and whether you have the Pyramids for Representation, or are Philosophical for more GPP.

Excellent clarification, thank you.

Re: War Academy
... Yes, I've read and researched.
... Pratical application has been less revealing, so your input has been very helpful.