Mercantilism weak ???

[phooey73]

Originally posted by monkspider
The only civic that I think could truly use a boost is mercantilism. I never use it except under very rare circumstances (philosophical civ, already running representation, poor relations with all neighbors, etc).

That's funny, I always run Mercantilism from the moment I get it. Throw in Representation and the Sistine Chapel, and its quite nice.

Of course, I don't even know how much I might be missing out on in foreign trade, because quite literally, I ALWAYS run Mercantilism from the moment I get it.

How much do trade routes get you in the renaissance anyway?

[Son of David]

In a sea-based city with harbour and a free market, sometimes the trade route commerce is phenomenal. I've had cities with up to four routes each earning 8 or 9 gold pieces.

Say on average that a landlocked city will be earning 3 gold pieces from trade by the middle stage of the game. Compare that to the benefit of getting the extra two hammers and one gold of a priest, etc.

[Jaybe]

I avoid Mercantalism also, Free Market being much stronger for overall commerce.

Used to try Mercantalism, but I would have to apply most of my free specialists to scientists and merchants and still suffer.

[monkspider]

Right, that's why I very rarely use it too. The reason I thought it should use a boost is because in most games there is very little compelling reason to use it instead of free market, state property or environmentalism.

Now, if I got mercantilism and the game looked like it was going in a direction that I wouldn't get free market for a while (or if I was spiritual), it would be okay to use. But the main problem I see with it is it's weaknesses vis' a vis the other economic civics. I would actually recemend that it be altered to allow only one foreign trade route instead of none. THEN it would be an interesting choice.

[phooey73]

In my current game, I think the following factors make Mercantilism worthwhile... and some of the factors probably arose because of Mercantilism:

(1) Lots of smaller developing cities that benefit disproportionally from the production boost
(2) Sistine Chapel, also very helpful in the new cities for border expansion
(3) Running Representation
(4) Running Pacifism
(5) My big cities are a fair amount bigger than the AI big cities, and I do have a lot of 2 coin trade routes.
(6) With plenty of health resources, I haven't bothered with harbors, even in my big coastal cities. If needed, I opted for Grocer instead, because that at leasts gives a bonus for general coins.

My "little cities" have granary and forge for the most part, and the littlest ones will have them soon.

By switching to free market, I'm figuring I'd gain 11 to 13 coin per city on average, with the big cities much more than that, and the small cities much less.

But I get 2 hammers, 3 beakers, 4 culture, and 6 gpp.

6 engineer gpp at this stage of the game is worth about 4 hammers. And 1 hammer in a brand new city or 2 hammers in a developing city... is worth...

I need to run to catch my train...

[Yosho]

Free market does tend to bring in a lot more money then mercantilism, on contenents if you have open borders with everyone, especally with the lower cost for the civic. On a standard size pangea map, and/or if you're not getting along with some foreign powers, mercantilism can be close enough in terms of money to make it worthwhile for the extra GP points, engineer/priest hammers in new cities, ect.

[phooey73]

I did a trial from this point flipping from Mercantilism to Free Market. I'm not sure if more "open borders" agreements would help... I should have done that too but I didn't think of it.

I have open borders with Victoria, Saladin, Alexander, and Peter, at least.

And when I switched almost all of my small cities STILL used my big cities as their trading partners, despite having access to foreign markets!

My big cities saw a net gain of 1 to 2 in each their trade routes, and all cities got the bonus trade route of course.

For a net gain of about 5 commerce per city, if that.

I'll take my free 2 hammers, 3 beakers, 4 culture, and 6 gpp in every city no matter how small. Mercantilism wins hands down in this case, even if I weren't Organized.

Even if I switched from representation to universal sufferage, Mercantilism would still be useful, though not so clearly as with representation.

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=78493_GeorgeAD-1446.Civ4SavedGame

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by phooey73
I'll take my free 2 hammers, 3 beakers, 4 culture, and 6 gpp in every city no matter how small.

You won't get that from one single specialist, unless you already have a bunch of wonders helping.

Besides, my coastal cities usually get at least 3 trade routes at 3 coins each, all of them foreign.

Mercantilism can be good in the right sort of circumstances. For example, you have a bunch of small cities and you wish to expand their cultural borders ASAP. Or if you are essentially landlocked and got no foreign trade routes to speak of.

I used to use it quite often, but now I don't.

[Ijuin]

Mercantilism is uber powerful IF you have the Sistine Chapel and Representation, but is weak if you have neither. In my game I have altered it to give two free specialists instead of one, and raised the Upkeep cost to High (to discourage the ICS that might result)

[phooey73]

Originally posted by Ijuin
Mercantilism is uber powerful IF you have the Sistine Chapel and Representation, but is weak if you have neither.

That's my conclusion now too. Only in my current game specifically, for reasons of specific conditions (my cities are so much bigger, and I control 28% of the map) and my goal of growing my smaller cities, Mercantilism would be about on par with Free Trade even if I had neither Sistine or Representation. And since I DO have both, Mercantilism is WAY better.

But generally, I think this is an accurate statment.

[phooey73]

Oh, and what's ICS ?

[monkspider]

I loaded up your save, and I would agree that mercantilism was the smart choice there.

[Son of David]

Well, here's a thought.

As I understand it, mercantilism is the restriction of foreign imports so as to maintain a favourable trade balance in the domestic economy. So that means your own exporters are free to ship as many goods as they can abroad but foreigners are restricted in how much they can sell to your people.

Therefore a better translation of this in Civ terms might be for mercantilism to leave YOUR cities' trade routes unaffected (because in general an economy makes money from exporting goods and not from importing them) but to prevent OTHER civ's cities having trade routes with your civ.

To make this civic also attractive to smaller or poorer empires, mercantilism could also provide a modest trade BOOST to your cities, say +25% trade route yield.

As it stands, to economically penalize a nation running mercantilism makes little sense. A mercantilist nation is essentially boosting its own exporters. Exports CREATE wealth. Imports create debts.

[Gherald]

Originally posted by Son of David
As it stands, to economically penalize a nation running mercantilism makes little sense. A mercantilist nation is essentially boosting its own exporters. Exports CREATE wealth. Imports create debts.

It makes perfect sense, because trade must be bidirectional in order to be sustainable... hence, you know, the word TRADE.

If you don't import much, no one will have anything to pay you with! Not to mention the fact that they'll be really pissed that you're unfairly refusing their exports, and will impose huge tariffs on your goods in retaliation.

Ah, tariff wars, such great fun ...

[insert US-China deficit joke here]

[Son of David]

I am not saying that mercantilism is about banning imports altogether, which by the way is what FIRAXIS says it is about! In Civ4 anyway.

No, it just means you (the exporter operating in the city) get much more favourable terms because the government is there to prevent you from having to compete. The result is a creation of a monopoly, making the exporter very rich.

But you are right, mercantilism ought to annoy the living hell out of other civs. But that would make the game more interesting and I don't think it's an objection to the idea (just a theoretical idea, I have no doubt Mercantilism will never be modified again by Firaxis!)