A Commercial trait commercial

[alexman]

NYE, your results are normal. You are seeing exactly the effect of a courthouse for the corruption due to number of cities. It's easier to see if you break down the corruption into its components.

In your test, you have 30% distance corruption without a courthouse, and 15% with a courthouse. (See the corruption formula). The Commercial trait makes no difference to this component of corruption, but it does make a difference to the number-of-cities corruption.

[B]Corruption percentage for NYE's test[/B]
                        Total Distance Cities
Rome, no Courthouse      55%    30%     25%
Egypt, no Courthouse     62%    30%     32%
Egypt, with Courthouse   40%    15%     25%
Rome, with Courthouse    36%    15%     21%

These values are exaclty what you reported. Notice how the number-of-cities corruption is the same for Egypt with a courthouse as it is for Rome without.

[notyoueither]

OK. However, this difference becomes overblown.

When accounting for rounding, the differences are not that great between a commercial civ and a non commercial civ.

What is more importent is that the non-commercial civ with a courthouse is way ahead of a commercial civ without.

[alexman]

we keep cross-posting

I think you took my post out of context. In the very first post I sad that the Commercial trait has the effect of a free courthouse as far as corruption due to number of cities is concerned. If you got a free full courthouse effect, there would be no reason for me to suggest that the Commercial trait is better for a tight build than for a relaxed build.

As for the rounding, it evens out. In the ancient age, a 5% reduction in corruption might yield just one shield per turn, but that is the difference between a warrior (to be upgraded to a Legionary) in 2 turns or in 3 turns.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by alexman
we keep cross-posting

I think you took my post out of context. In the very first post I sad that the Commercial trait has the effect of a free courthouse as far as corruption due to number of cities is concerned. If you got a free full courthouse effect, there would be no reason for me to suggest that the Commercial trait is better for a tight build than for a relaxed build.

I admit guilt in having an agenda here.

When someone says 'free Courthouse' it is natural to think that Commercial without Courthouse equals Non-Commercial with Courthouse as far as total production is concerned. I know you have not said that, but some others have dropped the qualification regarding number of cities.

In fact, the Commercial trait is akin to the second step of 4. The base line is Non-Commercial, the second step is Commercial, the next step up is Non-Commercial with a Courthouse, the final step is Commercial with the Courthouse.

Standard size world.
24 cities (2x optimal cities or 12).
Regent Difficulty.
Random map with 24 cites placed using 2 spacing (2 tiles between cities).

Default editor values for terrain.

Values empire wide
                                                Commerce
Roman (Commercial, No Courthouse).             169 of 328. 52%
Egyptian (Non-Commercial, No Courthouse).      135 of 300. 45%
Egyptian (Non-Commercial, With Courthouse).    180 of 300. 60%
Roman (Commercial, With Courthouse).           218 of 328. 66%

[Harovan]

Here they meet, alexman with the pink frog, and Alexfrog himself.

Since Commercial has been fixed from 10% to 25%, it's one of my favorite traits for games, where I don't intend to play like Attila the Hun. I have played epic emperor games with France and India on huge maps (great for commercial!) and in both games easily outproduced and outresearched all AIs, even though it's not easy to keep pace with 15 techwhoring opponents. The commercial trait is a cash machine, especially when it comes along with industriousness. Due to less corruption even in farther cities, it also helps producing military units quickly in a big amount.

In my French game I archer/horse/swordsman rushed Egypt, England and Russia (my immediate neighbors), finished Russia with Knights, Egypt with Cavalries and Germany with Inf/Arty and later Tanks (England had been finished by a German/Egyptian alliance in the medieval age). This left France alone on a huge continent. Some of you may remember the map animation I once posted. Commercial and a good P/FP axis made, that none of my cities, including 2 nearby islands, had more than about 50% corruption, even though I remained a Republic till the end of the game. The only exception was ex Germany, which was poor terrain anyway and I didn't build up the cities there. As example may serve, that my Tanks fought against German Knights, that was the best what Bismarck had.

This game was about the time, when we talked about creating killer AIs. I had just played 2 games with Japan, and had China and France as killer AI opponents. In other games Greece, and even Rome were very strong opponents. This made me think, that on rough map the key for a killer AI is without any doubt the industrious trait, while on good terrain nothing trumps commercial. We all know, that the AI doesn't take any advantage out of the militaristic and expansionist traits, and in a mediocre way handles religious and scientific. Commercial and industrious offer their benefits without a special game strategy, what makes them very strong AI traits.

[nutriphat]

i do not understand why everybody hates the french (except for the color). I remember i read a thread where the traits were quantified and commercial and industrous came out best. WHY WHY WHY do you hate the french???

[Harovan]

I think nobody hates them here. Ask in the general forum, there may be some French haters left, but people here in the strategy forum see things a bit more sober. The French are a first choice civ for the builder and even for the moderate warmonger. Less corruption and quick developed terrain helps in any playstyle.

Alexman, with all respect, but I abstain from voting in this poll. There is no such a thing like a "worst trait". It depends greatly on world size and other map settings, the playstyle and the intended game outcome. If I want to go for a domination or conquest victory, I most likely won't use the Greeks, but for an intended space race victory they are among the first civs I would consider to use. Since there is neither a "depends" nor a banana option, I abstain.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
There is no such a thing like a "worst trait". It depends greatly on world size and other map settings, the playstyle and the intended game outcome.

I agree 100%. That's why I didn't vote either. I thought most people would vote Commercial, so I was hoping to make a point by defending the trait that everyone dislikes the most. Evidently, however, people like Commercial more than I thought. By the way, who voted for Industrious? And Religious?

[Brundlefly]

Expansionist is the worst. Absolutely useless.

Anyone who "maligns" Commercial is a warmonger. Nothing wrong with that - it's just their style of play. My style of play is to be a builder and to play on large/huge maps. Commercial is the second best trait. Industrial is the best. I only play Industrial Civs. France, imho, is the best civ to play, followed by China and then Persia...

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Feephi
Expansionist is the worst. Absolutely useless.

Try a huge pangea with 8 civs. Build 20+ scouts and set research to 0%. You'll get all ancient techs out of huts or buy them from the AIs you meet very soon. Chances are good, that you get 1-2 settlers. Scouts are nice cheap and fast units to watch potential enemy activities. Building an early granary (you start with Pottery) works a charm on undercrowded maps. You will most likely get out of the ancient age first on any difficulty level, what mostly means, you won the game. Given these circumstances, expansionist is worth all other traits together.

I agree with you on a tiny archipelago with 80% water, though.

[metalhead]

alexman, I don't think people have taken the bait to vote for commercial in this thread yet because your fellow commercial apologists, like myself, are probably the first ones to show up in this thread. I voted for Militaristic, because I've never had more success at war with or without this trait.

As far as commercial goes, I'll repeat what I've stated in the past - it is the most maligned trait because there is no tangible benefit to the trait. Every other trait gives you a new unit, a cheaper building, or a faster worker, while the benefit of the Commercial trait is not readily evident. I always have my best games and most productive empires as commercial civs, and I particularly think that the French (!) are the best civ in the game for SP.

[alexman]

After the discussion with notyoueither, I'm afraid people are missing the point I made in the initial post.

The point was not that Commercial is some amazing trait that gives you a free courthouse in each city, because that's not the case. But the Commercial trait does offset the additional corruption you get from tight city spacing. In other words, a commercial civilization gets all the benefits of tight city spacing, without the only disadvantage. Given how powerful tight city spacing is in Civ3, I'll take Commercial any day.

Let me illustrate this point with an example.
Standard size, Monarchy, Emperor level, 75 total citizens

Case 1: Loose build pattern
15 cities, each of size 5, spaced 4 tiles apart, and arranged as follows:

OOOOO
OOXOO
OOOOO

(X=capital, O=city)

Case 2: Tight build pattern
25 cities, each of size 3, spaced 3 tiles apart, and arranged as follows:

OOOOO
OOOOO
OOXOO
OOOOO
OOOOO

Let's examine the total income after corruption, normalized by non-commercial, loose build:

                   Loose    Tight
Non-Commercial    100.0%    94.6%
Commercial        106.8%   103.3%

Look! Not only does the Commercial trait give you 9.1% more income over your entire empire in a tight build (6.8% in a loose build), but it actually is better than the non-commercial trait in a loose build! The corruption disadvantage of a tight build has disappeared, and you get to keep all the advantages.

Now who will play borg-style without the commercial trait?

[Brizey]

MH:

I have been a defender of the French as well. Commerical civs have a larger "right size" in the early industrial era. This larger "right size" is perfect after two or three major military campaigns. I find that with a non-commercial civ, I have to hold back the last offensive so that I don't out-expand my productiveness do to corruption.

I like the French better than Carthage because its UU is a better (I claim the best) timed one.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Try a huge pangea with 8 civs. Build 20+ scouts and set research to 0%. You'll get all ancient techs out of huts or buy them from the AIs you meet very soon. Chances are good, that you get 1-2 settlers. Scouts are nice cheap and fast units to watch potential enemy activities. Building an early granary (you start with Pottery) works a charm on undercrowded maps. You will most likely get out of the ancient age first on any difficulty level, what mostly means, you won the game. Given these circumstances, expansionist is worth all other traits together.

I agree with you on a tiny archipelago with 80% water, though.

Scout is a nice unit, but with Industrial I can pump out many warriors to discover just as many enemies and goody huts.

Cheap granaries are nice but they wont help you offset the AI advantage in tech and production at higher levels like commercial/industrial will.

I'll bet there are very few people who have won at Emperor or Diety with an Expansionist civ...

[alexman]

Feephi, I suggest you spend some more time reading these forums before making strong statements like that...

FYI, Expansionist doesn't give cheap granaries, they are great because they don't get barbs from huts (so they get more good things), and Aeson has a score of over 60,000 on Deity, playing the Iroquois.