Questions, CE, FE, SE?

[Mutineer]

MKElderGod posts does not deserve any answers. He does not listen anyway.
He can play as he like, who cares? But I beat a lot of people in multiplayer with my FE with tech trading off. The only problem with FE in multiplayer that it is mach more time consuming to manage, making it disadvantageous for multiplayer.

 

[30+]

@Mutineer: Agreed to everything you have said . But, @ Elder anyways....

Why do you keep saying MP MP and NO TECH TRADING? I have already shown you links in my previous post. Most people play SP (about 80&#37, and most of those people DO USE TECH TRADING.

Don't you think it's a bit curious that when you pull the game out of the box, get it installed, and begin your first game TECH TRADING is ON AS A DEFAULT! I have been able to reach Liberalsim in 100AD by incorporating GS lightbulbing before with SE/FE!! How in the world can a CE or HE compete with that??

Anyways, every style of play imo has there strengths and weaknesses. Some late, some early, etc. It just depends on how well the player can maximize those potential gains from each style and transition them into something advantageous.

 

[Dirk1302]

I always find making lucrative trade deals, taking care of the wfybta limit one of the most enjoyable parts of the game. Couldn't imagine turning this feature off.

The idea of FE not being compatible at higher levels is nonsense, there is enough proof of this in the forums. I agree with 30+ that you can be successful with both CE as FE on higher levels. It depends on the leader traits and the victory condition i think. philosophical and to a lesser extent spiritual combined with domination points to FE, Financial and space race points to CE. But you can also win a space race with FE, just look at science in a 30 sized city running 10 specialists under representation, be sure to be first to broadway, hollywood etc. FE is more fun but takes longer to play.

 

[Oggums]

FE makes no sense to me at all. Farms are food, not economy.

SE also doesn't makes any sense the way most people are describing it. Hot tip: If you're using cottages to pay for your science cities, it's still a cottage economy.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

Doesn't make any sense to whom?

 

[Oggums]

I said it doesn't make any sense to me. Why are you asking whom?

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

Which aspects don't make sense?

 

[Oggums]

The part where you use the word economy to describe something totally unrelated to economy.

All economies are going to utilize farms. What you use the extra food for can be running specialists, working mines or whipping slaves...

When you say "Farm Economy" you aren't saying anything at all. Everybody uses farms, regardless of thier strategy.

 

[lilnev]

Everybody uses farms, regardless of thier strategy.

In the Isolated Emperor Start game, I farmed the Corn. Eventually (significantly into the AD years) I built a single non-resource farm, so my HE city could run its full set of hills. Meanwhile, I had over 40 cottages. That game was a little unusual in having lousy opportunities for production cities (which get farms under both economies), but it's not uncommon for me to have 8 or 10 times as many cottages as farms, empire-wide.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Oggums]

I don't know what a HE city is.

Sounds like you put farms only where absolutely necessary, and what you described is clearly a "Cottage Economy", however, I would argue that you would have done far better in your game with more farms early on to produce a few early great people (when burning them on research makes the most sense), and also to take advantage of slavery for early city development.

The term "Farm Economy" just makes no sense to me at all, no matter where I've seen it used. If you aren't using specialists and/or building cottages, your game is not going to go anywhere. If FE is only going to be used as in FE/SE, then you're just being redundant, so why use the acronym at all?

My other point here is that everyone seems to be saying "SE" simply because they are using specialists, yet I see them posting screenshots or they mention having cottages as well, so at this point the term no longer makes sense to me. If you're financing your SE with cottages...how does this make sense at all to call it a SE?

Both cottages and specialists should be a part of your Civ Economy. If you want to play a variant and ignore one or the other, fine, but all these CE vs. SE posts are just ridiculous to me. Use them both when and where they make sense.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

The part where you use the word economy to describe something totally unrelated to economy.

All economies are going to utilize farms. What you use the extra food for can be running specialists, working mines or whipping slaves...

When you say "Farm Economy" you aren't saying anything at all. Everybody uses farms, regardless of thier strategy.

But it's not unrelated to economy. Definition: "The wealth and resources of a country or region, esp. in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services."

In a typical CE situation -- at least, the sort I play -- farms are used in order to provide enough population to work the cottages and mines, and that's it. With obvious exceptions such as a GPF, any excess farmers would serve better pulling minerals out of the earth or selling cigarettes on the street corner.

In a typical SE situation -- at least, the sort I try to play -- farms over-produce population in order to be able to whip the populace into production via Slavery or settle them into castes for commercial output via Caste System.

In the former example, the "production and consumption of goods and services" (ie. generation of hammers and coins) is provided by working mines and cottages. It's called a Cottage Economy, but could realistically be called a Resource Economy, since what is being converted into goods and services are the resources derived from mines and cottages.

In the latter example, that same production is provided by working humans; this is one reason I tend to prefer the term Specialist Economy to Farm Economy, since if they're otherwise synonymous the SE more correctly points to the resources of the particular economy, ie. humans. Human Economy might be better, since it would take into account not only that Specialists are humans working in particular jobs, but also that Slaves are humans being flailed into particular buildings.

P.S.

Both cottages and specialists should be a part of your Civ Economy. If you want to play a variant and ignore one or the other, fine, but all these CE vs. SE posts are just ridiculous to me. Use them both when and where they make sense.

Agreed.

 

[Oggums]

You got me there. Farms are part of the economy. But my point was really that the term "Farm Economy" holds no meaning, as it's a part of every economy. I read a crapload of these SE/FE/CE posts today and haven't seen any context where FE made any sense to me.

Build farms if you need food...seriously who doesn't do it? Do we really need to be stating the obvious?

The best context I could *maybe* place FE in, is when you are liberally whipping citizens as your primary production source. But...if that's the meaning, then don't we already have a term for that (whipping)?

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

Sure, farms are part of every economy -- you need farms to feed people who work mines and cottages in CE, natch. (Well, you don't actually need farms in a pure commerce center, actually; my science centers tend not to have farms, but I digress.)

Calling it FE puts the emphasis on farms. They're not optional. Whereas in CE commerce is derived from working cottages (making cottages the main focus of the economy), in FE commerce is derived from converting food into specialists (making food the main focus of the economy).

 

[lilnev]

HE = Heroic Epic.

I did in that game (and typically do) run scientists off food specials for the first 1-3 GSs. Those are just too powerful and efficient not to generate early. Once I've got (hopefully) the Great Library, or else the National Epic, I generally go back to working cottages in all but the designated GPF, and one or a few designated production cities.

Most of us will acknowledge that absolutely pure SE or CE is rarely the strongest option. But there are still very large and real differences in how the game can be approached; and because of the internal synergies, especially through the civics, it can make more sense to come close to one of the extremes, rather than to sit right in the middle. At the least, we need "CE" and "SE" (or "FE", I've never really cared) as terminology so that we can talk about those differences.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Wodan]

My other point here is that everyone seems to be saying "SE" simply because they are using specialists, yet I see them posting screenshots or they mention having cottages as well, so at this point the term no longer makes sense to me. If you're financing your SE with cottages...how does this make sense at all to call it a SE?

Depends on the examples/screenshots you're talking about, but personally, I don't see anything odd at all in a SE having one or two pure cottage cities (e.g., the capitol to reap more Bureaucracy benefit, or a money city with a shrine or three and Wall Street).

There's nothing more wrong with that than a CE having a GP farm. Both are completely fine and do not invalidate the fact that the majority of the civ may be running either specialists or cottages, whichever.

Both cottages and specialists should be a part of your Civ Economy. If you want to play a variant and ignore one or the other, fine, but all these CE vs. SE posts are just ridiculous to me. Use them both when and where they make sense.

I agree with your YMMV theme, but disagree that the whole CE / SE talks are nonsense.

Without a doubt, there are civ-wide benefits to be had. e.g., Representation, Printing Press. To get the most bang for the buck, that is, to properly leverage these benefits, it makes perfect sense to have as many specialists as you can, or as many cottages as you can. And so on.

With that thought under our belt, the obvious next step is, "which is better, and when?" If terrain is the deciding factor, then it is extremely useful to know when and how. So that you can tell yourself early in the game, "hey, this terrain will really make a CE rock". Whichever factors into the decision, this is valid strategic knowledge to have in your mental arsenal.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

MKElderGod posts does not deserve any answers. He does not listen anyway.

I agree. Anyone who declares flatly these are facts and they are indisputable! when they are clearly anything of the sort and/or contain so many underlying assumptions or situational conditions...... like I said, a windmill just asking for Don Quixote to show up.

Wodan

 

[MKElderGod]

hhonestly F U because my post makes sense. Its so stupid to base your gameplay on trying to GP farm. Do that in MP i wanna see how fast it could be set off, there be 15 axemen waiting at your capital.

BTW why dont you do a head to head pangea 1 v 1 MP or at least come out with some guides on CE or HE.

 

[30+]

@kelder

Once again, most people play SP!!! I have already shown you this in 4 of my other posts, ALL with provided links.

2ndly,

There are plenty of other walkthroughs with SE/FE and CE/HE. Here are some of my favorite as I think Pete is rather sexy, and matter of fact, I play the Incans more than anyone else (but tweak my games to meet my style).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=202226
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205997

I believe many people are having problems with your post because you have a one track MP, NO TECH TRADING, NO CHEATING thought process. Not to mention that people like myself are providing you with links which support and provide information regarding references you have made (i.e. SP/MP polls, and now the above, a CE).

And IMHO, your post DO NOT MAKE sense.

 

[MKElderGod]

Okay i take back what i said, SE/FE is the best way to go in the start. At 680 AD i found my self 8 techs ahead of the 2nd best country in science with no old techs behind. With only 3 cities mght I add. I apologize for my ignorance. Who ever said they ccan get to liberalism at 100 ad PLEASE TEACH ME.

 

[30+]

My other point here is that everyone seems to be saying "SE" simply because they are using specialists, yet I see them posting screenshots or they mention having cottages as well, so at this point the term no longer makes sense to me. If you're financing your SE with cottages...how does this make sense at all to call it a SE?

It is generally accepted by most CE and SE/FE advocates that a CE will use a single GPF while a SE/FE will use a single cottaged city to benefit from beaurracracy(sp?). All your research in SE/FE will not come from a "cottaged city" which you mention. GP are able to sacrafice themselves to lightbulb a technology for up to 1500 beakers which will greatly surpass the amount of research any cottages may be bringing in. And naturally, SE/FE economies will be running multiple cities consisting primarily of specialist further adding to total research. Therefore if you are getting more research from lightbulbing and specialist than cottages you are primarily in an SE/FE state.

The term "Farm Economy" just makes no sense to me at all, no matter where I've seen it used. If you aren't using specialists and/or building cottages, your game is not going to go anywhere. If FE is only going to be used as in FE/SE, then you're just being redundant, so why use the acronym at all?

The CE doesn't need farms in many many cities. SE/FE economies need mostly Farms to work. Farms = research from specialist (raw research and the all mighty lightbulb), and Farms = superior production from the whip. FE was added in conjunction with SE to show where specialist and production are coming from.

I don't see how it still makes no sense to you at all. If you think FE/SE is being redundant so be it.......but then, , that simple means you are being given DOUBLE the opportunity to make sense of it all. How could that possible be a bad thing ??????