Wodan
Deity
Yeah, you're right. Sorry. I should have said "You said cottages were aresource.

The former only really applies on resources, right? And hte latter is hardly true. Rivers, for example. Don't you mean "the only time you build Cottages is when the tile doesn't have a resource of some kind"?But regardless of what is actually in the tile, the only time you build Cottages is when the tile isn't generating enough. The function of cottages is to give
where there is none.
Again, have to think on this some. Thanks for your thoughts.No, when your population grows (higher happycap) you need more cottages.
Because cottages upgrades are limited*, they don't scalegrowth. It is population that grows to harvest more
, the fact that cottages upgrade is immaterial. They could be replaced by a flat-rate improvement that has the same average output. All the upgrade mechanic does is make you more vulnerable to pillagers.
* Limited in this context means that they reach maximum potential within a short time compared to the time considered. Since it's early game compared to late game, I think they do. Cottages become Towns in 100 turns, I think. That's short compared to the time between early and late game, which means that Cottages don't scale availablebetween early and late game.
This is broad strokes of course and to some extent they do growoutput. I'm not convinced it is to a great extent, and the fact that fixed income/pop strategies are viable supports my position.
Not always. GPP generation for example, or settled GP.But city-specific bonuses are also empire wide, in that they require techs to build.
Because the city in question may have single-city bonuses. Because the empire-wide bonuses are biased toward a specific end, and it is necessary to generate other things too (i.e., the reason city specialization is a good idea is because the empire needs at least some units, some research, some gold, some GP, etc. City-specific bonuses and multipliers make it most efficient to have those things concentrated in one city for each item.)But how could the map make a cottage city better than a specialist city when everything else is set up for the specialist city?
Low food potential? To me that would suggest a production city or the settler should settle somewhere else. No other space left -> late game, the cottages wont mature. The one scenario that makes sense is strategically important spot. In that case I could see cottaging, not because it is good; only least bad.
Other reasons?
Sure. The basis of Aristocracy is farms.I'm not questioning a GP-farm, in a cottage economy, specialist economy or aristograrian. Nor military production centres.
I question that it is a good strategy to make a cottage city when you are already set up for some other dominant strategy, for instance aristograrian. Legacy cities get a pass because they are already "done". You claimed that even if aristogracy was available from the beginning, some cities would still be cottaged.
- You need fresh water. No water = cottages are your only option unless you're going to make it a production city or something.
- Farms get a food hit under Aristocracy. So if there are not enough food specials, then farms won't cut it. If they are grassland, then cottages are still viable.
- Farms still have a 2 commerce limit. That's inferior to Towns. (I know you argued that "on average" they may be closer to equivalent. But even on average I think the cottages will provide more raw commerce, even if not the maximum if all the Towns were mature.)
- Farms don't provide hammers.