Mercantilism weak ???

[trev]

I run mercantilism only if representatation is available also and I am not yet technologically advanced enough for access to Universal Suffrage and Free Markets. I will never run Mercantilism without Representation though

[Gherald]

I tend to run Mercantilism/Representation/Pacifism until I've conquered part of a neighbor, then I switch to Free Market if I have enough open borders agreements to make it worthwhile.

But for instance on continents maps it's often not worth it until after Astronomy, which I'm usually in no hurry to get especially if I have the Colossus. By that point, if I don't have another reason to change civics I may just wait and go directly from Mercantilism -> State Property.

Mercantilism is also very powerful in Multiplayer games, since humans are much more reluctant to sign Open Borders. It is especially powerful in duels and permanent alliance games (2v2s, 3v3, etc) since there are no foreign parties to trade with anyway (you can still trade with your allies!).

Making Mercantilism a +2 specialist civic would unbalance it immensely, even with High upkeep.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by phooey73
Oh, and what's ICS ?

ICS = Infinite City Sprawl. This was a common problem in earlier Civ versions. Basically, it is the concept that having more cities is always better--ICS has been mostly eliminated in Civ4 due to the exponentially increasing maintenance costs for each additional city.

The reason that I brought it up here is that my modification (allowing Mercantilism to give two free specialists instead of just one) would tend to encourage the player to want more cities, so I raised the Upkeep level for it by one level to balance it.