Well that makes one of us, because I certainly don't!
Just that you don't get me wrong, I noticed you using your brains in that post, so basically you were thinking, that's something I appreciate a lot, as my own experience with thinking is that it can become quite uncomfortable if done over a long amount of time

.
Well... ok. I think my phrasing in earlier posts wasn't clear and it was a silly idea in the first place so fair enough.
Hmm I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing (probably because I explained things so well again...

)
I wasn't certainly not trying to prove that Espionage is evil (or more evil?

), less effective than Research, or anything. You're saying that in a fair fight, Espionage kicks the ass of Research and
I agree.
But I'm not trying to make a fair comparison between Research and Espionage, I'm trying to estimate if, given the

multipliers you have at your disposal (including Academies of course!) if it is still interesting to steal
Nationalism from a distant Civ rather than researching it. But with
Nationhood, there's no doubt that you're right

it's just we were not talking about the same point in your game hence the misunderstanding on that - was referring to when you spread Juda to Asoka, a few turns before trading Nationalism for Lib + Gold.
Hope I am clearer on my arguments and intentions! I do see now that with Nationhood my arguments don't really stand, I was thinking of a pre-Nationalism point of view I guess
(I don't want to get too off-topic so if you prefer responding by PM that's OK. If you prefer not responding at all that's OK as well
)
Understood the question:
Comparing a Nationalism tech-steal from a far away AI to standard Research:
First screen shows that a tech-steal of Nationalism would cost 3500

(-50% from stationary Spy included) , compared to standard Research of Nationalism which would account with 5000

. 5000 is rougly 1.5 times as much as 3500 (to be exact, it's 1.43 times as much) so to research Nationalism as effectively as stealing it, 43% bonus to research would be needed.
I could take this math further and even show how much the bureacratic capital (the only city having more than 25% bonus) would count, so if its C=1.5*1.75 bonus would be enough, to lift all other cities above the mentioned 43%, but I guess I can quite safely assume that with 30 cities (like in this game) , it's impact on the Commerce is mentionable, but too small to make researching as effective as espionage.
Why was completing Economics a mistake?
And it's not my fault I didn't eat the pizza! Someone put mushrooms on it!
Researching Economics was a mistake, and has to do with me being "rigid" sometimes. I knew I didn't need Economics, I even did maths at that time whether the single free specialist or the foreign traderoutes would be better and surprisingly I found out, that in this very uncommon scenario (Conquest game, late stage, REP available, many Spy-Specialists possible) , Mercantilism really is the better Civic.
I then researched Economics for 2-3 turns initially because I wanted to learn if invested

reduces the cost of

in something, found out it didn't, and then I followed my stupid rule "to end something I begun" and argued with things like "well, maybe I'll be happy to have it when trading it against something" and similar, but from a non-subjective point of view, there was no need for Economics, neither there was for researching past Communism, so it'd have been way better if I had reached Communism earlier and converted the Gold / Science / whatever into Espionage for Spy Revolts.
What an amazingly detailed writeup. The part that stood out the most was the part that says you've played for 47 hours.... I can't do games past about 2-3 hours before my head hurts. I've played about 7 games in my CIV IV career that lasted about 5-10 hours and they were brutal. 47 hours and counting... jeez.
I understand you. There were times, when I couldn't play Civ for longer than 1h without a break, before my head hurt, and I had to take regularly breaks from it to even be able to play further. I think this is absolutely normal, and the 47h mainly show, that I played very slowly and took myself a long time to play single turns, sometimes, 1 session was only 1 turn, but in that turn, I made tons of decisions, and from a todays perspective I can say, most of them were right. I noticed a slight pattern of "insanity" in them, but as I learned, "there's always some reason" .
What this btw. also showed, was, that I had tremendous fun when playing this game.
Seraiel