A Commercial trait commercial

[Dominae]

I consider city-tile-city ICS, since that as close as the game allows you to place cities. For me, city-tile-tile-city (or 3-spacing) is pretty standard, and achieves good results without exploiting the game too much (in comparison to what the AI does).


Dominae

[Artifex]

It kinda sucks that is the way too play for optimum results. oh well. I'll try 2 spacing..that is about as far as I am willing to go.

[Catt]

First - someone let me know that alexman is away for the weekend - and so not able to join the conversation till next week.

Originally posted by Nor Me

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.

I had thought that this thread was about the advantages / disadvantages of the commercial trait in general -- how did it stack up, overall, against the other traits. And I interpreted alexman's argument in support of commercial (not claiming it was fabulous -- just pointing out its strengths) to be that it was particularly powerful because of the benefits it might offer to a "tight builder" in the early game -- i.e., where a dense build is typical for many players at higher levels.

(Your shooting yourself in the foot by arguing in the other thread that the strategy you play is not ideal.)

Nah - I can only rarely shoot myself in the foot since I only rarely advocate that I know, beyond a doubt, what the best play is in any given circumstance (and wouldn't ever claim that I play an optimal strategy). I just want a better handle on the game and how it works -- optimal play or otherwise.

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.

Now I feel that we're more into the discussion -- again I come to this thread with a view to discussing the relative worth of the commercial trait. I don't think alexman was supporting a commercial trait-ICS strategy anymore than I think most of the folks on the strategy forum play an ICS game. But I think his argument (and others') is that the commercial trait is more valuable than it appears to many players because of it's value in the early game, especially when employing a denser build. My view is that the advantages of the commercial trairt are overwhelmingly in the later game -- that the early game advantages (from more productivity in a dense build) pale in comparison to the later game advantages -- and that if we want to objectively evaluate the value of the commercial trait, relative to other traits, we ought to identify where it shines and where it doesn't -- I think it shines in the later game, just as I think the expansionist trait shines in the earlier game.

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.

No - it's completely different! Gold is fungible -- the excess goes to the treasury for use elsewhere (trading, supporting greater spending elsewhere, etc.). But shields are tied to their city of production -- if the goal is to produce a cavalry unit, it doesn't matter if the city produces 79 or 40 shields, nor does it matter if the city produces 39 or 26 shields -- the time to produce a cavalry is the same and any excess shields produced are wasted. An extra shield or two is often wasted. Gold is never wasted -- increasing a city's net gold production by one increases the empire's treasury by one. With gold, unlike with shields, there is no loss due to rounding.

To repeat my fundamental point -- if the substantive argument is to identify and celebrate the power of commercial, then in my view that argument should probably focus on the later game when I believe the power of the commercial trait starts to shine more clearly. If the substantive argument is to to identify the traits that are strongest in the early game, than I'm not convinced that the commercial trait is the poster child.

All this comes with a big "help me!" because, whenever I get into a corruption discussion (which is necessary when talking about the commercial trait) alexman explains to me how I have completely misunderstood and misapplied his learnings.

Catt

[Catt]

Forgot to make a related point that I wanted to make. There is a structural similarity between "commercial" and "industrious" in that each offers a "non-city" advantage and a "city" advantage. Industrious = faster workers and extra shields in the city tile; Commercial = OCN % increase and extra gold in the city tile. I think that fundamental value of an industrious civ is found in its "non-city" advantage; I think that the fundamental value of a commercial civ is found in its "city" advantage.

Catt

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
I think that fundamental value of an industrious civ is found in its "non-city" advantage; I think that the fundamental value of a commercial civ is found in its "city" advantage.

The difference of just one extra Shield (or two!) during early expansion and buildup should not be underestimated. From 1-2, 2-3 or even 5-6, those little differences make a big difference when most projects cost 30 Shields or less. Surely, the later-game effect you mention is "bigger", but is it more powerful than the early-game one? Comparing the value of large gpt in the Industrial age to that of 1 extra Shield in the Ancient age is difficult at best.

alexman's post was simply to convey how this effect is independent of tight-city build, making it even more potent.


Dominae

[yxhuvud]

By the way, city-tile-tile-city has the added benefit that the cities usually manage to grow to about size 13-14 when you come to the industrial age. And since the optimal size is smaller, it takes less time to get there.

[badman]

Originally posted by 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

I think that packing cities closer on bad terrain has additional benefits.
Since the production in a city center is the same no matter what tile it is built upon and it is higher than the output of an irrigated and RR'ed desert tile (IIRC) it's better to build more cities on desert tiles. Desert cities also won't grow as fast as grassland cities so building more smaller cities is more effective on deserts than it is on good terrain.


I'd like to comment on Catt's analysis: tight city spacing means more city cores which also means more income (you mustn't pack your cities too close to grow beyond size 6 though).

BTW: I thought that you only get those industrial extra shields in cities beyond size 6. (?) I usually don't have cities beyond size 6 in the early game.

[Theseus]

Great thread.

[Artifex]

I play emperor and started playing as Carthage. I must say the UU and civ benifits industrial+commercial are pretty powerful , I am enjoying them.

Anyone else here like to play Carthage?

[Dominae]

Carthage: .

[Thoth]

Originally posted by badman


BTW: I thought that you only get those industrial extra shields in cities beyond size 6. (?) I usually don't have cities beyond size 6 in the early game.

The bonus city square sheilds don't appear until size 7 (Civ III) or size 13 (PTW) but Industrious civs still effectively get bonus sheilds thanks to the faster terrain development.

[Panag]

hi ,

funny how most votes go to expan , .... its not a bad trait , .....

in fact when combined with industrious like the americans its great

have a nice day

[alexman]

Originally posted by Catt
First - someone let me know that alexman is away for the weekend - and so not able to join the conversation till next week.

It's just my luck. The strategy forum stands dormant for days, and then you guys wake it up just as I'm traveling through blizzards and thus unable to participate.

Catt, thanks for your test results and analysis. I had not imagined that a bonus to a single tile in each city could make that great of an empire-wide difference, especially when that bonus is still subject to corruption. You have proved that in the late game, the main bonus of the commercial trait comes from the center-tile. That's a great observation, and after looking at your tests it makes sense. In a developed empire, the commercial corruption bonus is small when compared to courthouses and police stations. OTOH, the center-tile bonus gets multiplied by marketplaces, libraries, et cetera.

However, there are two facts (already mentioned by Dominae and others) that make me still believe that the main reason for choosing a commercial civ should come from the reduced corruption, not the center-tile bonus.

First of all, the center-tile bonus is just a commerce bonus, but shields are much more valuable, especially in the early-game.

Secondly, I think most will agree that an early-game advantage is much more valuable than a late-game advantage. A prime example is the expansionist trait. It is one of the favorite traits of some of the most successful players (Aeson comes to mind), yet it gives virtually no benefit after the ancient age. The Industrious trait is another example of a trait which is probably the most popular among all civ players, yet it provides minimal benefits beyond the early game. Because of the way civ3 works, an early-game advantage needs to be multiplied many times before comparing it to a late-game advantage.

In summary, I think that the Commercial trait gives an advantage to a strategy that already works, which makes that advantage even more powerful. By the late-game, a 10-20% increase in income, although very welcome, is rarely enough to make a difference in the outcome of the game. Having even one city that produces a settler one turn faster in the ancient age, however, is something I would take any day. It's still not a game-breaker, mind you, but I don't think any of the traits in civ3 provide a game-breaking advantage.

All this comes with a big "help me!" because, whenever I get into a corruption discussion (which is necessary when talking about the commercial trait) alexman explains to me how I have completely misunderstood and misapplied his learnings.

This is not true! Catt, you understand corruption as well as, or better than anyone, including me.

[Catt]

Originally posted by alexman

. . . there are two facts (already mentioned by Dominae and others) that make me still believe that the main reason for choosing a commercial civ should come from the reduced corruption, not the center-tile bonus.

First of all, the center-tile bonus is just a commerce bonus, but shields are much more valuable, especially in the early-game.

Secondly, I think most will agree that an early-game advantage is much more valuable than a late-game advantage.

That's what you get for taking a weekend off of civ and 'Poly.

I agree that shields, rather than gold, are more valuable and hard-to-come-by in the early game. And I agree that advantages in the early game are worth much more than later-game advantages. I just find it very, very hard to quantify the extent of the advantage that the slightly reduced corruption, taken togteher with a dense build, provides to a commercial civ versus a non-commercial civ. It starts to get into the fuzzy "I like commercial because it really helps my game" argument -- an argument which is undoubtedly (IMHO) true, but which is difficult to compare to the advantage that another trait might offer.

There are so many variables involved in early game performance (map and terrain not the least of them), that the reduced OCN corruption offered by the commercial trait in the ancient and perhaps early middle ages may not be much of an advantage at all in many games -- and it may be a large advantage in other circumstances. My point was largely that, regardless of how the early game goes (assuming I'm still alive), I know what advantage my commercial trait offers my mid- and later-game, and therefore I know how to more effectively exploit it. Put another way, the commercial advantage may be hit or miss in the early game, but is a sure thing later (OTOH, expansionist may be a total or near total miss - i.e., archipelago, no huts or pangaea, close starts, no huts).

The Industrious trait is another example of a trait which is probably the most popular among all civ players, yet it provides minimal benefits beyond the early game.

We've disagreed on this one before -- and I still think the industrious advantage is apparent well past the ancient age, but that gets me into the very the fuzzy 'I like commercial because it really helps my game' argument that I passed on above - and is otherwise besides the topic of this excellent thread!

Catt

[Dominae]

Catt, speaking very loosely, the Commercial trait provides +1 Shield in all early cities that are big enough to suffer from Corruption. That's tangible, and quite the ability. Yes, this depends on terrain up to point, but there's usually enough room to build a first core + part of the second ring, which is what the early Commercial benefit applies to.


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
Catt, speaking very loosely, the Commercial trait provides +1 Shield in all early cities that are big enough to suffer from Corruption. That's tangible, and quite the ability. Yes, this depends on terrain up to point, but there's usually enough room to build a first core + part of the second ring, which is what the early Commercial benefit applies to.

I fooled with the editor a bit over the weekend in playing with a bunch of 3-tile spacing empires with various terrain and terrain improvements before I threw my hands up at the amount of work it would take to quantify it with any degree of certainty. But what my fooling around semeed to indicate to me was that the advantage was often fleeting -- in towns that got big enough and far enough away from the palace to feel the pinch, the commercial trait did add a shield -- but if the shield added was moving the city from 5 to 6 shields, it made a difference only in the costlier ancient age improvements -- barracks (for non-militaristic), granaries, temples and libraries for example. Far rarer was a move from 1 to 2 shields or 2 to 3 shields -- I think just because of rounding issues.

It sounds a little off-the-cuff since I'm not producing examples for everything, but my tests indicated to me that the effects, especially given the uncertain terrain and build pattern of any given game, and the nature of progressive city growth (instead of "insta-empires" created in the editor), not to mention the other numerous variables, meant that the early game advantages of the commercial trait would be incidental (but still helpful!) rather than something that one could effectively plan for and exploit as part of the empire growth strategy. On any given turn, in any given empire, it might mean an extra shield in these four cities or an extra shield in those five cities (independent of whether the extra shield speeded construction or otherwise let one rearrange citizens to produce more food without delaying the build) -- but it simply strikes me as inconceivable, at least with the degree of micromanagement I tend to put up with, that I would be able to effectively make build decisions and control pop growth timing to both (1) squeeze out the advantages it offers to their fullest extent, and (2) not impede a more important objective (like building the right thing at the right time, given the then-present needs of the empire).

Just my two cents.

Catt