 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
Good discussion 
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Catt, your test results may very well not show a huge difference in favor of Commercial, but you need to remember that the trait shines in cities with many other cities closer to the capital. This happens most often when you have a tight build pattern. |
Yes, I understand that. What I did was set up a series of "editor-made" empires of varying sizes, and tracked the differences between the same empire operating under a commerical and non-commercial civ. As opposed to getting detailed data on production difficulties, I wanted to "get a better feel" for what commercial would do to a series of different empires -- all of which exceeded the OCN - some by a few cities (25% over OCN), and some by quite a few cities (100% over OCN). The editor-made empires were imagined in the industrial ages and represented a bit of a builder's paradise -- all core cities had most improvements, up to and including stock exchanges in a few cities (but banks and universities in all cities up to about the OCN limit). The fringe cities were given minimal improvements, and, in subsequent experiemnts, also enjoyed a courthouse. Again, since the test was more of a personal experiment, the pretend empires were modeled on what my empire might look like in a game where I restricted my war-mongering and/or settled on a largely peaceful, economic and scientific win gameplan.
quote:
. . . but you need to remember that the trait shines in cities with many other cities closer to the capital. This happens most often when you have a tight build pattern. |
Paradoxically, at my snapshot moment in the Industrial corridor, the biggest benefit from the commercial trait was from the extra gold in the city center of cities and metropolises, primarily from the core. The three extra gold in the city center of a core metro, operated upon by the science or tax imprvements in the city, and subject to very little corruption (we're in the core) generated far more gold towards either the treasury or the science budget than did the slight reduction in corruption on the fringes of the empire. Consequently, I changed my play-style just a little bit to be more inclined to play a commercial civ with the conscious choice to count on having lots of metropolises in my core -- sometimes with a tight build pattern I'll have only a few metros, and in some games, depending on circumstance, I'll have virtually no metros (all cities at size 12). In my view, the trait really shined with larger-pop cities, but didn't shine all that much on the outskirts.
IIRC, the "get a feel" results for the empires of varying size were more or less the same across empire sizes -- a reduction in research time of approximately 10% - 15% (roughly one turn from a 8 or 9 turn base pace), at Industrial corridor tech prices -- with roughly the same surplus or deficit.
Now what my little experiments certainly did not try to quantify was the anti-corruption benefits during the ancient and middle ages -- particularly the ability of fringe cities to be more productive turn after turn -- not only in terms of gold but in shields (which obviously offers more opportunity for increased gold). That struck me as a little too hard to try and quantify  .
So, again, what in the end surprised me most was that, with a mature and stable empire the power of the extra gold in the city center of metros and to a lesser extent cities was the real driver of the perceived beenfits of the commercial trait; it was not, in such a circumstance, the lowered corruption in fringe cities. I will try to find my test scenarios and get some screen shots to share.
Catt 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epics
|
|
just silly question:
what does OCN means?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
The Commercial trait is indeed very powerful in MP games, where a tight city-spacing is a must. The "extra" one or two Shields you get in most cities is critical in the early-game. The reason this is not so obvious in SP is that the AI keeps up in pretty much everything you do, especially production. In MP, you really notice the relative advantage Commercial provides (just like its big brother, Industrious).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epics
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
It's not a silly question.
It's the optimal number of cities for a given map size.
For more details, see the corruption FAQ. |
thanks for the link and OCN
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Argh, I'm double-posting everywhere today...
Last edited by Dominae on 07-02-2003 at 02:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Feephi
Expansionist Fans: I challenge you to a PBEM game. I will be the Civ that has the traits which I know are the best ones: Commercial and Industrial. France. The rest of you take the Expansionist Civ of your choice (about the only one I'd be a little concerned about are Americans). I will prove which are the best/worst traits! |
If it's just you and I on a Tiny map, I'll take the Zulus and probably prove you wrong. The larger the map, the better Expansionist will be. The Americans always have a strong start, which often trumps the French. The Iroquois can run down almost any civ in the Ancient age, regardless of traits.
The point here is that there are strong arguments against the claim you're trying to make with your challenge. Any one game will not prove you right. But here's a counter-example: in a PBEM game I'm playing now, the two Expansionist players are the strongest. I'm quite sure this is not due to their greater play experience, so what's the explanation?
About winning on Emperor or Deity with an Expansionist civ, excluding Aeson's Iroquois which was hand-crafted to benefit maximally from Expansionist, there's plenty of examples here on 'Poly. In fact, there was a whole AU scenario based around expansionism, and many players won it.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Yay, my first triple-post.
Last edited by Dominae on 07-02-2003 at 02:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
If it's just you and I on a Tiny map, I'll take the Zulus and probably prove you wrong. The larger the map, the better Expansionist will be. The Americans always have a strong start, which often trumps the French. The Iroquois can run down almost any civ in the Ancient age, regardless of traits.
The point here is that there are strong arguments against the claim you're trying to make with your challenge. Any one game will not prove you right. But here's a counter-example: in a PBEM game I'm playing now, the two Expansionist players are the strongest. I'm quite sure this is not due to their greater play experience, so what's the explanation?
About winning on Emperor or Deity with an Expansionist civ, excluding Aeson's Iroquois which was hand-crafted to benefit maximally from Expansionist, there's plenty of examples here on 'Poly. In fact, there was a whole AU scenario based around expansionism, and many players beat it.
Dominae |
hi ,
indeed the americans are very strong because they are expansionist and industrious
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
double post
Last edited by panag on 07-02-2003 at 02:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
Freakin' server.
Commercial is perhaps overly maligned. For me, it isn't that I dislike the trait. It's that given the choice, I most often want one of the others (religious, industrious, militaristic).
That said, one of my favorite empires I've ever created is my recent Roman game. The sheer economic power of my empire is incredible. I usually end up with excess cash towards the end of the game, but this has gotten silly ($13K+ and growing faster than I can spend it... and that's with 300+ military units and 4 turns/tech in the modern age).
France/Carthage definitely have good trait synergy. The ability to expand/develop land quickly coupled with reduced corruption is definitely nice, and does a lot to overcome the full-price buildings (as does industrious forest chopping. 5 turs = 10 shields).
Alexman brought up city spacing. Perhaps one of the reasons I still rank commercial relatively low is that I still refuse to play borg. At MOST, I will use 4 tile (city - tile - tile - tile - city) spacing. Any closer is just beyond my ability to accept (specific special circumstances notwithstanding). Therefore, I have never experienced the power boost of borg spacing + commercial.
Still, since I typically play the warmonger, my opinion of commercial has improved somewhat. I like large, efficient empires.
My ranking (for single player, PTW, Monarch level, standard, continents, 70%, roaming, temperate, normal, 4 billion):
Religious/Industrious - 1st tier
Militaristic/Commercial - 2nd tier
Scientific/Expansionist - 3rd tier
Scientific used to rank higher with me, and Commercial lower. I've flip-flopped them due to the fact that Commercial provides a more direct power boost (more raw shields/commerce) which I tend to use to beat on the AI.
I do, however, have some respect for scientific: if I have my choice between to AI civs - all other things being fairly equal - I will hit the scientific one. NO FREE NATIONALISM FOR YOU! YOU COME BACK, NEXT GAME!
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Brizey
|
 |
The Republic of Texas
Apr 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
I am almost finsihed with an experimental game. I am playing on Regent to give myself a chance. I am playing Korea on a 80% water, standard, arch. map. The game is almost over. I was on my own island, which I borged. Then I did a massive catapult to 'Cha upgrade (~50). I had a gazillion caravels and a few cavalry and musketmen. I pounded the crap out of India, my nearest neighbor and biggest threat.
Meanwhile, England got MOWs and went berzerk. When I reached the modern age, they were actually bigger than me, but I had a really strong tech lead (probably due to Regent setting and Scientific and Commercial on a inherently spread out map). I invaded England's home island with 50 tanks and 70 artillery. i captured four big cities, but they are STILL ahead in points. England! I now have MA and MI, so I can crush them at will, and with 70 artillery, with almost no casualties.
Obervations:
The extra firepower and range of Artillery makes a HUGE difference. It took me forever to pound down India's capital on hills with musketmen with 'Chas. Artillery pounded down riflemen more easily on hills.
Lots of artillery (70+) makes any battle winnable. I woudl rather have 150 artillery than 150 MA against MI on hills with CviDef. You just park them on some hills, defend with about 10 MI, and pound away for five or six turns. Eventually you destroy the barracks and the population. I need to set this up as an experiment.
Korea is better than I thought. It's been awile since I played scientific, and I really appreciated the free Nationalism and Rocketry. And Commerical made a giant difference on this map. I had two landmasses at full production.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Artifex
|
|
Kentucky USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
How tight do you need your cities to be in order to take advantage of commercial?
1. city-tile-tile-city?
2. city-tile-tile-tile-city?
3. city-tile-tile-tile-tile-city?
I usually build my cities like #2 or even #3. So I guess commercial stinks in that case right?
Can option #2 work with commercial or not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Artifex
|
|
Kentucky USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
With Rome, when you use the warrior build/upgrade/legion rush strategy. When is a good time to upgrade and rush? How many cities/warriors should you have when you do this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yxhuvud
|
|
artifex:
Regarding city placement. Place your cities so you can get production from as many good spots as possible in the short run, and from as many spots as possible in the long run. This includes water tiles. Usually this makes for a combination of 1 and 2 for me, sometimes I will use even shorter distances. It depends solely on how the map looks also on how close your opponents are. The closer your oppenents are, the tighter your city placement should be, since you will want to have as muhc production as possible when you go to war.
Which takes us to your second question. As a general rule, you cannot have too much troops. On the other side, you cannot attack too early if you have sufficent troops. This also heavily depends on how close your opponents are, and if you are going to war with one or two stacks. Which also comes down to how the map looks and where your opponents are. If you are doing early (around 1500BC) war, and going to use an oscillating strategy, I would recommend having at least six or eight warriors to upgrade. Later wars naturally takes more troops.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
The reasons you pack your cities in close when the terrain sucks are the very same reasons you should pack them in close when the terrain is nice.
I could go into a big long explanation, but just think about it and let me know if you agree.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
|
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
First, I'm sorry . . . I last posted here saying I'd try to find the tests I had conducted some time ago, and then forgot all about the subject until this thread jumped back up the board today.
I am still a bit befuddled by the view that the principal strength of the commercial trait is the ability to engage in tighter builds without resulting painful corruption. While I see that the tighter build pattern allows the benefits of the trait to shine more clearly, I still can't get over the view that the +2 gold in the city center for cities, and the +3 in metros, is a far larger distinguishing factor that separates the commercial from the non-commercial civs.
I couldn't find my old screenshots, but I took a few new ones. It is difficult to capture the relevant details in a screenshot, so, a few posts down, I'll also attach the scenarios constructed which generated the screenshots (and, of course, the data) should anyone care to take a look at the scenario maps and "empire set-up."
My original tests, weeks or months ago, were run using an imaginary empire -- it employed a loose build pattern -- not the "optimal" of no overlap, but also not a rigid city-tile-tile-city pattern (or denser pattern). It was "set" in the Industrial Age, with a very well-developed infrastructure -- banks (and stock exchanges in some cases) and universities being quite common. It in fact was an "overly builder" empire in that it was paying maintenance for improvements in a few 95% corrupt cities. It had a well-centered Palace and FP; was played on Emperor; standard map. Under such conditions, the OCN, as modified by the difficulty, should be 9.6 (12 x 80%). For a commercial civ, the OCN should be 12 (25% boost). This imaginary empire (one of several) contained 32 cities. Just about all (if not all) cities were Cities (<13 pop) or Metropolises (>12 pop).
Below is a screenshot of the summary F1 information from 2 versions of the scenario -- the first when played as a commercial civ and the second when played as a non-commercial civ. You can see that the commercial civ enjoys about 8.3% more income from its cities about 170 gold). What you can't capture in a screenshot is that the vast majority of this extra gold comes from: (1) the city tiles of cities and metros within the core; (2) as modified by the improvements (markets and banks).
A detailed review of the F1 screen shows in fact that 9 commercial civ cities have had their corruption reduced by 1 gold compared to the noncommercial civ's cities -- this 9 gold makes it to the treasury as 18 gold (markets and banks). The remainder of the excess gold generated by the commercial civ all comes from the city center tiles -- and most of it comes from the core cities -- the reason that the raw corruption numbers seem to be about the same is that the extra city-tile gold afforded the commercial civ, in terminally corrupt cities, goes right to corruption itself, to some extent artificially inflating the commercial civ's raw corruption total.
 Attachment: com comparison f1.jpg
This has been downloaded 48 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Catt, assuming your analysis is correct (I'm not the one that's going to dispute it!), there's still the fact that a tighter build pattern helps the early-game immensely. Forget about Commerce in the Industrial age, I'm focusing on Shields on the Ancient age. I think what alexman was getting at is that the tight build pattern that is known to work well is actually helped by the Commercial trait, in the early stages of the game. Once cities can get real big (beginning to middle Medieval era), the effects mentioned in your test should start appearing, and will come into full force in the Industrial age. But, as always, getting there is the key. A tight build pattern makes this easier.
It is possible to ICS (city-tile-city) in the early game, and remove cities later on to get some good Metros. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do this with a looser pattern (city-tile-tile-city), which I prefer.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
What am I missing / being a bonehead about / screwing up in arriving at the conclusion that the principal advantage of a commercial civ is the city-center bonus gold? |
Nothing. It's true. The point alexman is trying to make is that commercial has an early advantage over scientific and religious because the tightly spaced ICS and early war without the distraction of improvements strategy is optimal. (Your shooting yourself in the foot by arguing in the other thread that the strategy you play is not ideal.) I pointed out in the 1st reply that while Commercial helps this startegy, it doesn't necessarily encourage it.
This is why this has little relevance to his argument. If you do REX for ICS, it will be some time before any city is size 7 even with rivers. Aqueducts come at the same time as goverment changes and the middle ages when the Commercial advantages are much smaller than those for Scientific and Religious.
As for sanitation, a Commercial civ has no more reason to prioritise it than and Industrious one as the gain is similar. It's city level where Commercial has the advantage. Of course if you only play Carthage and France it doesn't matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Artifex
|
|
Kentucky USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
I might try city-tile-tile-city, but I can't see myself ever playing city-tile-city..thats just too extreme.
I thought city-tile-tile-city was ICS...and that I thought was pretty extreme...but you call this a loose pattern? wow.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2003 22:06
Yes, with warriors 1/3 or even 1/2 of the huts contain barbarians, while with expansionist the chance to get something valuable is much higher. Actually, speed is the key. Have you ever tried to cross a huge pangea with a warrior? Even with a scout it lasts half an age. With scouts you can win races for huts against AI warriors. With scouts you can much better use the benefits of the terrain, basically "jumping" from mountain to mountain.
Ack!
Attachment: 
|
