What's in a name? The "Economy"

What is an economy?

  • An economy is the sum of inputs and outputs.

    Votes: 22 20.0%
  • An economy is an economic strategy, based upon inputs and what is done with the outputs.

    Votes: 37 33.6%
  • An economy is something different.

    Votes: 12 10.9%
  • I don't care. I just want to play the game.

    Votes: 39 35.5%

  • Total voters
    110
Id say an EE is a subsystem of a larger economy, not the other way around. The spies are just middlemen, not the source.
That's semantics. The whole idea is simply to indicate the major theme. Whether you label it by the input, the middlemen, or the output, as long as it distinctively tells the reader what it is, that's all that's needed or desired.

Yah, i do that too. I make the religions from CoL and on priorities, if nothing else to reduce diplomatic tensions later on. Sometimes buddhism too.

That still never gives me "too much" gold.
I guess you either do things differently than me, or something. For example, I specifically load up a couple missionaries on caravels and go exploring. With me spamming religions, more often than not there is an entire continent with 3-4 AIs on it who are religionless. A single missionary can cause one of my religions to spread through 30+ cities. Or, I can spread a couple of my religions, to give them something to fight over. :mischief:

I also as a general rule don't do wholesale unit upgrades... I have a military city constantly churning out up-to-date units.

Wodan
 
Something's a bit wrong with your maths here. Without Representation an Angkor Wat priest will give 2 hammers. With forge+ironworks that will go to 4.5 beakers if you build research + 1 gold with whatever modifiers. With Library+university+observatory a scientist will give 3*1.75=5.25 beakers. Representation just adds another 5.25 to each.
Im counting the gold. It can be converted to science at more or less a 1:1 ratio. If you happen to be running at a deficit, they are directly converted to beakers.

So no, you don't generate more beakers that way. Nor for that matter is converting hammers to science of relevance to the value of gold. I'd also consider that since you can only build one thing in a city, it's a major negative to clog up your best production city building research.
I never said it was a good idea (although it can be sometimes). I was just pointing out that its possible. And yes you do.

But not all the concerns of buying tech apply to researching tech, which is precisely my point. I can trade that research if I want, but I can also take different tech routes from the AI, and monopolise tech, which I can't do with gold.
Another case of "what the hell is your point?". One doesnt exclude the other.

The issue is that in virtually every game there are AIs that are so far back that they are never going to be relevant, even if I'm selling them tech for bargain gold prices. It makes no difference whether an AI has knights or not when I have rifles. It doesn't matter if they get grenadiers when I have infantry. It doesn't make any difference if I give Sci Meth to someone when I'm in the modern age. These are zero cost to me, and yet I benefit from the gold. Essentially it is free gold unless you consider that I have a finite number of junk techs to sell to a backward AI, and that that finite number is itself a commodity. If so, it's one that can't be used for anything outside tech/gold trading and diplo bribing.
Sure, that works. Its something i have overlooked actually, i somehow tend to mentally phase out lower rung AIs.

As to whether an AI with a lot of gold is mismanaging its finances, what is your point?
That was the beginning and end of the point.
 
It sounds like your system values :gold: above all things and that :gold: is the primary economic element with the strategic utilization of it coming in the way of purchasing techs.
No, thats just you reading way too much into it and filling in the blanks yourself instead of asking for clarification.

What i have been saying, no more and no less, is that gold is not a bad thing to have, and that it is pretty damn hard to manage to have "too much" of it without specifically trying to.
 
That's semantics. The whole idea is simply to indicate the major theme. Whether you label it by the input, the middlemen, or the output, as long as it distinctively tells the reader what it is, that's all that's needed or desired.
You might be right. But its still incomplete. EE needs to come with a CE/SE qualifier or whatever else it gets the points from.

Then again, maybe CE and SE needs some sort of qualifiers too...
 
Ibian said:
Im counting the gold. It can be converted to science at more or less a 1:1 ratio. If you happen to be running at a deficit, they are directly converted to beakers.

Except what we're discussing is that gold and beakers are NOT exactly interchangeable. When it comes down to is 1 gold better than 0.75 beakers, it's by no means a given. When you allow for having a city unable to build anything, it's really not ahead.

Another case of "what the hell is your point?". One doesnt exclude the other.

Well, if I'm going to buy tech, I don't have much choice but to run the science slider at zero to get that kind of gold (or run merchants rather than scientists depending what's powering my economy), except maybe with a fully fledged corporation in the last stages of the game - when the AI won't trade most tech at any price. Under those circumstances I'm generating minimal research.

To both buy relevant tech for gold, and research tech, I've got to be generating a mish mash of gold and science - which means I've got to build modifier buildings for both; a major negative. If I run maxed out science and scrounge the gold needed for maintenance off other civs, religions and focused merchants, then I don't need banks or markets in most cities, which is a nice big chunk of hammers saved. Since there seems no advantage to buy tech for pure gold over buying it for other tech, I'll go with the route that allow me to become tech leader with a minimum of wasted hammers.

What i have been saying, no more and no less, is that gold is not a bad thing to have, and that it is pretty damn hard to manage to have "too much" of it without specifically trying to.

I don't think anyone's been arguing that gold's bad to have (i.e. worse than useless). This particular line of discussion began with whether gold and beakers were of equal value - my point is that gold is generally less valuable than beakers, and hence my objection to the first point. Given the choice between ploughing commerce or specialist capacity into gold or research, I therefore go for research (unless of course the tech tree is exhausted, but you have to turn off space race and go slow to do that).

At the end of the day I need a certain amount of gold to pay maintenance. The rest of it gets converted back into tech, hammers, espionage etc. one way or another. If I'm just going to run merchant to make gold and then turn them into beakers, I might as well have cut out the middle step. I'll probably get a better conversion rate as well. You get a certain amount that starts off as gold from diplo, religion and especially corporations - particularly with the latter this is a lot more than you need for simple maintenance. That's when you make use of gold to other stuff converters to turn it into something useful.
 
Except what we're discussing is that gold and beakers are NOT exactly interchangeable.
Well, yes. They are. There is such a thing as too much gold, but i cant remember ever reaching that point so for all practical purposes, yes they are.

When you allow for having a city unable to build anything, it's really not ahead.
Bwuh?

Well, if I'm going to buy tech, I don't have much choice but to run the science slider at zero to get that kind of gold (or run merchants rather than scientists depending what's powering my economy), except maybe with a fully fledged corporation in the last stages of the game - when the AI won't trade most tech at any price. Under those circumstances I'm generating minimal research.
What are you going on about now? I never suggested focusing on gold to the point of dropping the science slider.

To both buy relevant tech for gold, and research tech, I've got to be generating a mish mash of gold and science - which means I've got to build modifier buildings for both; a major negative.
Building banks is not a negative. Especially if your gold comes from a single city. To suggest that building banks is a bad thing is to suggest that courthouses are bad.

Since there seems no advantage to buy tech for pure gold over buying it for other tech, I'll go with the route that allow me to become tech leader with a minimum of wasted hammers.
Buying tech with tech gives the AI an immediate advantage. Buying it with gold doesnt.

I don't think anyone's been arguing that gold's bad to have (i.e. worse than useless). This particular line of discussion began with whether gold and beakers were of equal value - my point is that gold is generally less valuable than beakers, and hence my objection to the first point. Given the choice between ploughing commerce or specialist capacity into gold or research, I therefore go for research (unless of course the tech tree is exhausted, but you have too turn off space race and go slow to do that).
The only way gold would not be worth as much as beakers is if you are mismanaging your finances.
 
No, thats just you reading way too much into it and filling in the blanks yourself instead of asking for clarification.

Then stop leaving blanks, lol. :lol:

What i have been saying, no more and no less, is that gold is not a bad thing to have, and that it is pretty damn hard to manage to have "too much" of it without specifically trying to.

I guess it's covered under the "without specifically trying to" clause, but it can definitely become a bad thing to have too much gold if it came at the expense of beakers and/or self-research.

At any rate, I'm getting off that discussion, because it appears MrCynical and Wodan are both saying what I'm thinking, so there's no need to clog the thread with more of the same thing.

EDIT: (I couldn't help myself .. last time, I swear.)

Buying tech with tech gives the AI an immediate advantage. Buying it with gold doesnt.

That's because they already have the advantage on you ... the tables are turned in that you are being blessed with the immediate advantage (if they choose to give it to you, that is).

Likewise, trading tech for tech at worst means you both gain immediate advantage, which as a human you should be putting your new tech to better strategic use than the AI will be theirs.

The only way gold would not be worth as much as beakers is if you are mismanaging your finances.

Again, I really think you should check out the thread Gold, Beakers and Deficit Research for proof that :gold: is not equal to :science:.​

You might be right. But its still incomplete. EE needs to come with a CE/SE qualifier or whatever else it gets the points from.

Then again, maybe CE and SE needs some sort of qualifiers too...

I totally agree with you on that.

Since "CE" and "SE" alone only define how an economy is generating its output ... you absolutely do need another qualifier to define what the economy is generating at its output.
 
Building banks is not a negative.
Sure it is. It costs hammers.

To suggest that building banks is a bad thing is to suggest that courthouses are bad.
Banks do not always provide a benefit. In such a case, you wasted the hammers for nothing. Courthouses, on the other hand, always provide a benefit. One might wonder whether the benefit was worth the hammers spent on them, but that's a value judgment.

Wodan
 
Ibian said:
Well, yes. They are. There is such a thing as too much gold, but i cant remember ever reaching that point so for all practical purposes, yes they are.

You've had a fair number of suggestions in this thread for getting to the point where gold is a clear last in terms of value relative to the other basic "resources"


A city running scientists may also use its other hammers to build stuff. A city running Angkor Wat priests as a means of generating research has to dump all its hammers into research. Trading 1 hammer for 1 beaker is a lousy deal unless you're in a tight race for a specific target (e.g. Liberalism).

What are you going on about now? I never suggested focusing on gold to the point of dropping the science slider.

Then how are you ever going to get enough gold to pay for a relevant tech? Even with corporations going full blast I'd be hard put to do that, and if you're already at 100% science then the gold -> food -> scientists -> beakers conversion will give you a better conversion rate than buying tech.

Building banks is not a negative. Especially if your gold comes from a single city. To suggest that building banks is a bad thing is to suggest that courthouses are bad.

Not true. Every city will cost me maintenance, regardless of what I do, and so will benefit from a courthouse. Not every city has to generate gold (see 100% science comments), and in those a bank is a complete waste of hammers.

Buying tech with tech gives the AI an immediate advantage. Buying it with gold doesnt.

Err... what happened to gold being of more value than beakers? This statement doesn't really fit with your earlier points, or indeed make much sense. I can buy stuff or upgrade immediately with a colossal amount of gold (which you'll need to get a tech). With tech I have to build or upgrade or switch civics to get the benefit, hence is actually slower. Instant effects is one of the few things in favour for having a stack of gold.



The only way gold would not be worth as much as beakers is if you are mismanaging your finances.

Why? I've explained why I do not find gold to be of equal value to beakers in my previous posts. In what sense have the above been mismanaging finances? Thi kind of statement really needs some kind of explanation.
 
Banks do not always provide a benefit. In such a case, you wasted the hammers for nothing. Courthouses, on the other hand, always provide a benefit. One might wonder whether the benefit was worth the hammers spent on them, but that's a value judgment.
And building factories in cottage cities is a waste of hammers. And building libraries in hammer cities is a waste of hammers. That really has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
 
Ibian said:
And building factories in cottage cities is a waste of hammers. And building libraries in hammer cities is a waste of hammers. That really has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

It's even more clear cut with banks. A cottage city will still generate some hammers and a hammer city will still give some beakers (unless at 0% science - for aforementioned reasons undesirable), so the improvements aren't completely useless, even if they hould be very low priority.

A bank at 100% science will often do absolutely nothing. Your gold output will probably be focused in a single city, and it's more efficient just to build one bank there.

As to relevance you stated "building banks was not a a negative". I was merely explaining why this is often untrue.
 
You've had a fair number of suggestions in this thread for getting to the point where gold is a clear last in terms of value relative to the other basic "resources"
That thread i keep getting linked to tells me nothing i dont already know, and the rest of you are not being very convincing.

A city running scientists may also use its other hammers to build stuff. A city running Angkor Wat priests as a means of generating research has to dump all its hammers into research. Trading 1 hammer for 1 beaker is a lousy deal unless you're in a tight race for a specific target (e.g. Liberalism).
Reading too much into things again.

When my wonder city runs out of things to build, guess what it does?

More importantly, a hammer city should not be running specialists while its still building things (happy and health caps with a food surplus aside (which is rare given the nature of workshops)).

Then how are you ever going to get enough gold to pay for a relevant tech?
By having a positive income. How did you think?

Even with corporations going full blast I'd be hard put to do that, and if you're already at 100% science then the gold -> food -> scientists -> beakers conversion will give you a better conversion rate than buying tech.
I never seem to have a meaningful amount of resources to pump into corporations. Usually whatever i have extra of is being traded for things i dont have.

My #1 enemy is always health. Buying a fish is easier and probably better than buying a corporate food.

Not true. Every city will cost me maintenance, regardless of what I do, and so will benefit from a courthouse. Not every city has to generate gold (see 100% science comments), and in those a bank is a complete waste of hammers.
I am assuming that you are not an idiot who builds things that dont do anything. I find this to be a reasonable assumption. Is it?

Err... what happened to gold being of more value than beakers?
This is something i never said. You are making things up on your own now.

This statement doesn't really fit with your earlier points, or indeed make much sense. I can buy stuff or upgrade immediately with a colossal amount of gold (which you'll need to get a tech). With tech I have to build or upgrade or switch civics to get the benefit, hence is actually slower. Instant effects is one of the few things in favour for having a stack of gold.
Gold is not instantly converted to tech. I have no idea what kind of point you tried to make there by the way.

Why? I've explained why I do not find gold to be of equal value to beakers in my previous posts. In what sense have the above been mismanaging finances? Thi kind of statement really needs some kind of explanation.
Multipliers.
 
Ibian said:
Reading too much into things again.

When my wonder city runs out of things to build, guess what it does?

Build units? Hammers to research is seriously weak unless you're shaving turns off a space race.

More importantly, a hammer city should not be running specialists while its still building things (happy and health caps with a food surplus aside (which is rare given the nature of workshops)).

Then why did you suggest running specialists in a hammer city to generate research in the first place?

By having a positive income. How did you think?

A positive income, at 100% science, which has to accumulate to the full value of a relevant tech - you might do it with a great merchant. Otherwise you're not going to get there pre-corporations, and as I've said, corps give a better conversion rate than buying tech off the AI, and you can become tech leader.

I never seem to have a meaningful amount of resources to pump into corporations. Usually whatever i have extra of is being traded for things i dont have.

You could try spending some gold on buying resources. It's generally worthwhile if you have the corporation that benefits from it.

My #1 enemy is always health. Buying a fish is easier and probably better than buying a corporate food.

A fish is a corporate food, and indeed is the corporate food of choice...

I am assuming that you are not an idiot who builds things that dont do anything. I find this to be a reasonable assumption. Is it?

Which is why I don't build banks at 100% science, and why banks can be negative, contrary to what you said earlier.

Gold is not instantly converted to tech. I have no idea what kind of point you tried to make there by the way.

The feeling is rapidly becoming mutual. Gold can be instantly converted into hammers and better units (and according to you tech, by buying it off an AI. I have said why I find this impractical).

Multipliers.

I can only make sense of this by assuming you are referring to the (very marginal) gap between banks and observatories, and are completely ignoring academies. Banks fall between low priority and a complete waste of hammers unless science is 50% or lower. As has been explained ad nauseum, it is preferable to research tech than buy it, hence the preference for beakers over gold.
 
So Wodan,

There's something you were saying that's meshing with some stuff Otaku was talking about as well. He had mentioned inputs and outputs. You'd been talking about descriptions of economies as mixes of other sub-types. It got me thinking, how could I describe an economy assuming that I chose to define Economics as the study of inputs and outputs in Civ4.

How's this look?

An economy is concerned with inputs and transforming those to outputs it can use. Otaku talked about food, commerce, and hammers as input. I would say that GP might be considered a transitive element, or possibly an input. Outputs would be gold, science, hammers, espionage, and culture since all of those can be used to effect the game.

Obviously outputs and inputs can be transformed, at varying rates and with varying methods.

So for example: A traditional cottage economy could be considered as an economy that maximizes :commerce: and specializes in transforming it into :science:, :culture:, or :gold:. Typically the most important element of a CE is it's research. (lord knows they aren't great at production.)

Also: Obsolete's SSE can be considered this way. He maximizes :hammers: with which he then generates :gp: and :culture: by building wonders. Those :gp: are then transformed into :science:, more :hammers:, as well as some :gold:, most of his basic outputs.

Let's see: An SE of the traditional sort chooses to maximize it's output into :science: like the traditional CE. It does this by maximizing it's intake of the :food: input and then via :gp: outputting :science: by bulbing their GPs and trading. However, unlike the CE, it has some facility with producing :hammers: if it shuts down it's maximization of :food: as an input and diversifies. Compared to the CE it pays for this breadth with a less impressive final capacity.

A Religious Economy. Hmmmm, geeze. Let me think about this. Maybe I need to modify my theory.

Do I need more inputs/outputs/transitives? Do I need a transitive, maybe :gp: should just be viewed as an input and an output like :hammers:? Can you categorize the econs people have been talking about using this?

Anyhow, discuss. I gotta go make dinner.

-abs
 
Build units?
Running out of things to build includes units.

Cripes, im spending half my time stating the obvious. This is seriously getting old.

Hammers to research is seriously weak unless you're shaving turns off a space race.
Not in a hammer city with maxed workshops, especially if its an ironworks city. In those cases it beats specialists.

Then why did you suggest running specialists in a hammer city to generate research in the first place?
I didnt. Stop making . .. .. .. . up. I just pointed out that priests sometimes rival or even beat scientists.

The only time i run specialists at all in my hammer cities is when im out of things to build, or if i want the next prophet a little faster. There sadly is no "stop production" option but maybe you could have a talk with Firaxis about that.

A positive income, at 100% science, which has to accumulate to the full value of a relevant tech - you might do it with a great merchant. Otherwise you're not going to get there pre-corporations, and as I've said, corps give a better conversion rate than buying tech off the AI, and you can become tech leader.
Prophets. My gold comes from prophets. Merchants are only useful if they wont bring me over the health cap. A positive income is very easy to get and sustain this way.

Which is why I don't build banks at 100% science, and why banks can be negative, contrary to what you said earlier.
In which case there is no need to ever talk about banks in cities that dont produce gold ever again. Courthouses, similarly, are only being built where they are needed. It just happens to be everywhere.

I can only make sense of this by assuming you are referring to the (very marginal) gap between banks and observatories, and are completely ignoring academies. Banks fall between low priority and a complete waste of hammers unless science is 50% or lower. As has been explained ad nauseum, it is preferable to research tech than buy it, hence the preference for beakers over gold.
I still never said build banks everywhere. Stop making . .. .. .. . up.
 
Ibian said:
Running out of things to build includes units.

Cripes, im spending half my time stating the obvious. This is seriously getting old.

Unfortunately the obvious things you're stating are mostly irrelevant, nonsensical, or exactly the same as what I just said. This particular one has the rather obvious flaw in it that you can always build units, and so cannot run out of them. As for having too many units? It's time to go to war.

I didnt. Stop making . .. .. .. . up. I just pointed out that priests sometimes rival or even beat scientists.

Well what is the point of saying that and then saying you should never do it? In what sense do they rival scientists if you hould never use them?

The only time i run specialists at all in my hammer cities is when im out of things to build, or if i want the next prophet a little faster. There sadly is no "stop production" option but maybe you could have a talk with Firaxis about that.

Why would I want to convert a valuable output (hammers) into absolutely nothing? Even building research is better than that.

Prophets. My gold comes from prophets. Merchants are only useful if they wont bring me over the health cap. A positive income is very easy to get and sustain this way.

OK, you can conceivably get a few gold profit at 100% science that way. Now where's the few thousand more you'll need to get a relevant tech at a point in the game where you've had time to generate these people going to come from. Incidentally, what's the harm in going over the health cap? At worst it consumes the extra food of the merchant, and then you're still 6gpt in profit pre-modifiers.

I still never said build banks everywhere. Stop making . .. .. .. . up.

I never said that you said that. I am merely attempting to find what your point actually is from your single word response to my query as to how gold was worth as much as research. The only logical interpretation of it required a 50% or lower science rate, and hence banks everywhere. I therefore explained why building banks could be negative in response to the statements:

Ibian said:
Building banks is not a negative. Especially if your gold comes from a single city. To suggest that building banks is a bad thing is to suggest that courthouses are bad.

Which was definitely said by you, and is plain wrong.

As to the noticeable refrain:

Stop making . .. .. .. . up.

I have done my best not to, but since many of your statements contradict each other or don't follow from what I've been saying, I'm rather losing the thread of your argument.

To recap, your claim is:

Ibian said:
Gold is beakers and beakers is gold.
It {gold} can be converted to science at more or less a 1:1 ratio

My objection was that

a)Gold is not of equal value to beakers since I can research new tech with beakers, whereas gold can only be used to buy tech which multiple AIs already have and are willing to trade. This prevents becoming tech leader.

b)It is implausible to be able to buy tech for gold and have science rate at 100% pre corporations.

c)In the corporation phase it is more efficient to use corporations to convert gold into beakers than to do so by buying tech.

d)It is detrimental to run 0% science, since it is impractical to become tech leader.

e)It is detrimental to run a 50%ish science rate, as all modifier buildings become necessary to boost both gold and science. The results in wasted hammers on banks.

f)It is preferable to run 100% science and build science buildings than run 0% science and build gold buildings.

g)If you have science buildings, and not gold buildings, gold and science are nowhere near 1:1 convertable.

h)Hence, beyond minimal maintenance, beakers are more valuable than gold under normal circumstances, and presented with a choice of generating one gold or one beaker, you should choose the latter. There are obviously exceptions such as mass unit upgrades.

Please rebut, highlight any errors or explain why you don't agree with the above argument.

Now my patience is wearing rather thin, so I'll leave you to think for a bit.
 
So Wodan,

Though not adressed to me, I hope you don't mind I'm reading his mail. :eek:

I would say that GP might be considered a transitive element, or possibly an input. Outputs would be gold, science, hammers, espionage, and culture since all of those can be used to effect the game.

Obviously outputs and inputs can be transformed, at varying rates and with varying methods.

I think of :gp: as an output because they aren't necessarily present or available from Turn 0 (though they do eventually come around).

They don't show up until after surplus :food: (esp. via Specialists) or :hammers: (esp. via Wonders) has been converted into :gp:.

Like Wonders, I think any output used or reused back into the economy is certainly a transitive element but probably one more akin to a 'process' than an input, since they directly generate output by way of their own, inate process.

So, I think where Great People and Wonders are concerned, it's a multi-stage process with the first input being :food: or :hammers: and the last output being some amount and variety of the aforementioned outputs.


A Religious Economy. Hmmmm, geeze. Let me think about this. Maybe I need to modify my theory.

Not necessarily, because the "Religious Economy" isn't a complete economy or explanation of an economy, because it only explains where the civ is getting the bulk of its :gold:. The "Religious Economy" still needs to define how and where from its :science: comes.

This means the "Religious Economy" is actually a strategic subset of a more general economic type like the SE, CE or TE.

EDIT: After reading a little more definition of the "Religious Economy" in the Types of economies thread, I'd define a 'strict' Religious Economy as a type of Production (:hammers:) Economy, since hammers are being used to build units capable of spreading religion (for gold at the Shrine) and religious Wonders and buildings capable on generating :hammers:, :gold:, :science: and :culture:. If Priest Specialists are also emhasized (both for gold & hammers as well as Great Prophet :gp:), then you could further clarify by saying it's a Priest-oriented Religious Production Economy (since the Priest Specialists' :hammers: are being 'recycled' into the economy to more quickly build even more religious wonders and buildings).

In summary, the Religious Economy is a type of Production Economy, because hammers are being invested into units, Wonders and city improvements which provide the bulk of the economy's muscle.

Do I need more inputs/outputs/transitives? Do I need a transitive, maybe :gp: should just be viewed as an input and an output like :hammers:? Can you categorize the econs people have been talking about using this?

In a round-about sense, everything in the game can be viewed as a transitive element. After all, if I convert :hammers: into a stack of Axemen used to conquer a city, doesn't that make the Axemen a transitive input?

(In that respect and by that definition, we definitely shouldn't try to define every transitive element ... they should instead be defined as necessary per each economic strategy.)

I wouldn't say I'm entirely versed in every economic model, but I'd say every one I've so far encountered can be defined in this manner.

My particular favourite is the "Trade Economy". In the raw sense, it's a "Food Economy" since it converts surplus food into rapid and large city growth to garner lucrative Trade Routes, but since Trade Routes generate Commerce, it is also (and more appropriately) a "Commerce Economy".

... by similar definition a Cottage Economy is also a Commerce Economy ...

The basic management of a TE (esp. using the sliders) is much like that of a CE, though Technology, Wonder and Diplomatic priorities differ somewhat. Likewise, most of the strategic applications and economic subsets of the CE are shared by the TE.​


-- my 2 :commerce:

(I'm gonna go get my dinner now.)
 
Unfortunately the obvious things you're stating are mostly irrelevant, nonsensical, or exactly the same as what I just said. This particular one has the rather obvious flaw in it that you can always build units, and so cannot run out of them. As for having too many units? It's time to go to war.
Not all of us are warmongers. I can play MDK or Total War or any of the Wolfenstein clones if thats all i want. Its akin to your "too much gold".

Well what is the point of saying that and then saying you should never do it?
This is a discussion about economy. It doesnt have to be even a semi-common thing for it to warrant discussion.

More importantly you dont get to ignore parts of my posts when replying to other parts of my post. I already said i use them when i run out of things to build or for a faster prophet.

In what sense do they rival scientists if you hould never use them?
Im not even sure if you are just trying to insult me here. If priests beat scientists then priests beat scientists, whether they are in use or not.

Why would I want to convert a valuable output (hammers) into absolutely nothing? Even building research is better than that.
Thats kind of the whole point, yes.

OK, you can conceivably get a few gold profit at 100% science that way. Now where's the few thousand more you'll need to get a relevant tech at a point in the game where you've had time to generate these people going to come from. Incidentally, what's the harm in going over the health cap? At worst it consumes the extra food of the merchant, and then you're still 6gpt in profit pre-modifiers.
Maybe you just forgot that the game lasts hundreds of turns? An early prophet is worth thousands of gold. Before multipliers.

You dont need a triple digit income to buy the occasional tech, you just need a positive number.

As to merchants. Each food represents half or 1 worked tile or half a specialist.

Which means that if im being pushed into unhealthiness thanks to merchants, half the resources that food represents is wasted.

Prophets on the other hand will always give me their 2 hammers. Given that i settle them in my wonder city which also holds the ironworks, thats a good thing.

I never said that you said that. I am merely attempting to find what your point actually is from your single word response to my query as to how gold was worth as much as research. The only logical interpretation of it required a 50% or lower science rate, and hence banks everywhere. I therefore explained why building banks could be negative in response to the statements:
Aside from shrines, all my gold comes from one city. Thats where i build wall street. This means that my gold gets a higher multiplier than my empirewide research. This remains true until oxford has been built, as well as academies in about half the cities - which may or may not be possible depending on size of said empire - or desirable depending on economic model.

Which was definitely said by you, and is plain wrong.
Its absolutely true. It only becomes wrong if you deliberately do something stupid like build banks in cities where there is no gold, and i have already credited you with enough intelligence to not do that. Now leave that topic.

a)Gold is not of equal value to beakers since I can research new tech with beakers, whereas gold can only be used to buy tech which multiple AIs already have and are willing to trade. This prevents becoming tech leader.
And as i have said over and over, the difficulty with buying techs also applies to trading techs. And if you are already in the tech lead what do you care if you have some gold lying around?

b)It is implausible to be able to buy tech for gold and have science rate at 100% pre corporations.
Not really, no.

c)In the corporation phase it is more efficient to use corporations to convert gold into beakers than to do so by buying tech.
If you have the resources.

d)It is detrimental to run 0% science, since it is impractical to become tech leader.
Which is something i never suggested.

e)It is detrimental to run a 50%ish science rate, as all modifier buildings become necessary to boost both gold and science. The results in wasted hammers on banks.
Never suggested this either. No, a hypothetical in an economic discussion is not a suggestion.

g)If you have science buildings, and not gold buildings, gold and science are nowhere near 1:1 convertable.
Which i just covered.
 
c)In the corporation phase it is more efficient to use corporations to convert gold into beakers than to do so by buying tech.

If you have the resources.

Corporate Fees scale linearly, so whether you have 100 resources or only 1, the conversion rate will be identical. (i.e., it's just as efficient no matter how many resources you control.)

Corporate conversion rates are already very respectable ... if you control the HQ (esp. if in your Wall Street city), you'll be hard pressed to find a better Gold-to-Science conversion rate anywhere else.
 
Ibian, I am intrigued by the Ironworks/WallStreet combo.

As I understand it from your posts (and I may be wrong):
- You are running priests in your ironworks city, probably with Ankor Wat so you can run a lot and get the hammer bonus.
- Which creates great prophets which you settle in this city
- The prophets and priests create a high cash income for this city so you also have wall street.
- Its also high production due to the settled prophets so you have ironworks there.
- Because of the high cash income you can run the slider high - maybe at 100% research.
- When you have no wonders to build in the Ironworks city you are building gold.
- The surplus gold gets used to buy things at your discretion which may sometimes include techs, but the majority of techs are still coming from research.
- You prefer not to trade techs for techs but would rather give up gold because you believe that gives a lesser benefit to the AI.

Anything I am wrong or missing?

I'm interested in what such a city looks like in the late game. Just how many hammers and gold does it produce.

Personally I'd prefer to give AIs techs - but ones that everyone else has and they are likely to acquire anyway. Giving them gold might let them buy another tech you don't want them to have - generally I think their bonuses let them use gold more efficiently than I can. But I may be wrong on this.

If the ironworks/wall street city was also a holy city I could see this being very powerful as the shrine would allow even more priests to be run and more gold to pump through wall street. Add corps later for even more effect. And then oxford could be put in a max commerce city populated with cottages.

Not sure I buy into the arguments about whether gold is worth more than beakers or vice versa. But the argument that a priest can generate more research than a scientist through the hammer multipliers is interesting. But I think it only applies to the wall street/ironworks city.
 
Back
Top Bottom