Why Mercantilism?

[Toshiro126]

Does anyone use the Mercantilism civic on a regular basis as part of their overall strategy? Is there a strategic reason to block foreign trade routes?

 

[punchandpie]

I tend to use it mainly if I have enough income to support my civ without having to rely on foreign income. Especially in the case that I have the holy shire for a religion and have converted the most of the other civs to my religion. The income from that alone is a big help. With the add specialists I can fine tune my specailized cities even more. But the strategy only really works well with a Finacial leader though.

(Note: I have only been playing Civ4 for a couple of months know, so my opinions may not be of use to anyone. My opinions aren't of any use to me most of the time )

 

[Wodan]

I tend to give it more weight, when choosing a financial civic, if I have a big empire. I figure that my internal trade routes are worth more if my empire is bigger. That might be a mistaken impression, but there you go.

Also, I probably would never run Mercantilism unless I am also running Representation.

Wodan

 

[jar2574]

I tend to give it more weight, when choosing a financial civic, if I have a big empire. I figure that my internal trade routes are worth more if my empire is bigger. That might be a mistaken impression, but there you go.

Also, I probably would never run Mercantilism unless I am also running Representation.

Wodan

Yeah, if you're running Representation then Mercantilism can be a good choice. Sometimes foreign trade routes don't offer that much gold, and extra specialists under Representation are nice.

 

[Toshiro126]

Originally posted by Punchandpie:
(Note: I have only been playing Civ4 for a couple of months know, so my opinions may not be of use to anyone. My opinions aren't of any use to me most of the time )

It's ok. I see from your info that you're living in Massachusetts like I am. So I'll let it slide this time.

Originally posted by jar2574:
Yeah, if you're running Representation then Mercantilism can be a good choice. Sometimes foreign trade routes don't offer that much gold, and extra specialists under Representation are nice.

I hadn't thought of the Mercantilism/Representation combo. Thanks, Jar2574 and Wodan.

 

[Steve2000]

The most obvious use is a game in which you do not have open borders agreements with any (or at least any rich) opponents. Then Foreign Trade Routes is worthless because you have to have open borders to have them.

 

[jar2574]

No problem amigo.

 

[DarkSchneider]

In terms of wealth + science production, you will generally go up after adopting Representation and Mercentalism concurrently.

 

[punchandpie]

It's ok. I see from your info that you're living in Massachusetts like I am. So I'll let it slide this time.

WOOHOO A fellow person from Mass. And to think I was the only one from this <b><i>wonderful</i></b> state

 

[petey]

If you're rich enough to support yourself without foreign trade routes, then Mercantalism is a good civic. Not only do you get the extra specialists, but if you're that rich, you likely have a lot of large, productive cities that are themselves valuable trade routes for AI civs. So by choosing this civic, you're denying the income from those trade routes to the AI and forcingthem to have other, perhaps less valuable trade routes.

If you can afford the hit better than they can, then it's a good thing to do.

 

[MrCynical]

Mercantilism is good in an always war game, or if you are REALLY unpopular. Other than that I regard it as a very dubious civic, since you're losing at an absolute minimum around 5-6 commerce per city per turn. This is before multipliers are applied. Foreign trade routes produce around two and a half times the amount of gold as domestic ones, and you'll have at least two per city when mercantilism becomes available. With Representation and Pacifism the extra specialists might just be worth it until you invent Free Market, but after that you're losing a fortune. Switching back from Free Market invariably costs me 100+ gold or science a turn, and frequently 250+, so I tend to avoid this civic like the plague.

If you're rich enough to support yourself without foreign trade routes, then Mercantalism is a good civic. Not only do you get the extra specialists, but if you're that rich, you likely have a lot of large, productive cities that are themselves valuable trade routes for AI civs. So by choosing this civic, you're denying the income from those trade routes to the AI and forcingthem to have other, perhaps less valuable trade routes.

If you can afford the hit better than they can, then it's a good thing to do.

It doesn't work like this. Trade routes are one directional, and just because you have one to a foreign city doesn't mean they have one with you. Mercantilism doesn't stop AI cities from having trade routes to you, it just stops you having trade routes with them. Similarly you can have trade routes to an AI with Mercantilism. Switching to mercantilism will do absolutely no harm to any other civ's economy, so if you've been giving it credit for this you need to rethink your strategy. I wish this was made clearer in game because a lot of people seem to be operating under this misconception.

 

[podraza]

I'm confused on one small point, can you still have open borders agreements while running mercantilism? I understand no foreign trade routes, but you can still have open border agreements right?

 

[Kilroy]

It doesn't work like this. Trade routes are one directional, and just because you have one to a foreign city doesn't mean they have one with you. Mercantilism doesn't stop AI cities from having trade routes to you, it just stops you having trade routes with them. Similarly you can have trade routes to an AI with Mercantilism. Switching to mercantilism will do absolutely no harm to any other civ's economy, so if you've been giving it credit for this you need to rethink your strategy. I wish this was made clearer in game because a lot of people seem to be operating under this misconception.

I think he's refering to when you close your borders.

 

[bkwrm79]

Mercantilism is a very poor term for that civic if it doesn't prevent other civs from having trade routes with your cities. I haven't tried it yet. Maybe there's a bug? Or at least it might be moddable.

 

[MrCynical]

I'm confused on one small point, can you still have open borders agreements while running mercantilism? I understand no foreign trade routes, but you can still have open border agreements right?

You can still keep your borders open with mercantilism.

Mercantilism is a very poor term for that civic if it doesn't prevent other civs from having trade routes with your cities. I haven't tried it yet. Maybe there's a bug? Or at least it might be moddable.

It's not so much a bug as a flaw in the basic way the trade route system works. I'm not sure whether it would be possible to mod this since youd need to somehow force the system to recognise trade routes should work both ways, which it currently doesn't.

 

[shadow2k]

It's not so much a bug as a flaw in the basic way the trade route system works. I'm not sure whether it would be possible to mod this since youd need to somehow force the system to recognise trade routes should work both ways, which it currently doesn't.

Very often your most profitable trade routes will not be as profitable if it were forced on the AI, and vice versa. Especially true when talking about which civs have open borders with which, technologies known (think Astronomy or how many routes they get), and especially in the case of geography. If you're exactly between two civs, you might have 2 nice routes with each of them...they, on the other hand, have better routes with each other, not you, due to distance...especially on maps where there's no wrap around, like Great Plains.

 

[Beamup]

It's not so much a bug as a flaw in the basic way the trade route system works. I'm not sure whether it would be possible to mod this since youd need to somehow force the system to recognise trade routes should work both ways, which it currently doesn't.

You wouldn't really have to do that. There's already a test for Mercantilism on one end of the route. Simply add the same test on the other end. You keep one-way trade routes but you can no longer trade with Mercantilist civs.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

So ... maybe Protectionism would be a better chosen name for this civics ?

 

[DaveMcW]

If your strategy involves tons of great people (i.e. Great Artists in a culture game), Mercantilism is useful.

 

[Blazer6]

Will it prevent the trade with our worst enemies penalty?