Commitee of Strategic Planning

[Kataphraktoi]

I'm just afraid that living on one continent with GS until endgame is like sitting on a powder keg.

Thats a ussual tradeoff when making a permanent alliance. When your team wins, the first guy to stick a knife in the others back wins.

I am studying the tech tree ingame now. We cant get banking for dozens and dozens of turns and as far as being used to prop up extra cities, that will probably take place after we already have built all the pre-GS-war cities we can. Our next tech is COL obviously. Imagine if GS researches fuedalism for us. That could leave us enough time to get music and drama+pop theology in the same time. Should take about 20+ turns for gs to get fuedal and 20+ turns to get music+drama.

Banking and the music plan are not exactly mutually exclusive.

[binTravkin]

Well, if I have to choose between music plan and caravel plan I choose the latter. :P
It at least is sure to give benefits - sooner or later those caravels will find someone, and having caravels early, we're sure to get the circumvent bonus, which will help us protect our coasts.

[N35t0r]

yeah. A permanent 1-move bonus on ships is extremely helpful. Also, attacking GS without knowledge of what's going on on the other continent is a big mistake.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
The deity HOFs i talk to consider that a way to make the game easier and use it for number rigging.

Did those deity HoFers also win on a huge map?

Ive been recommended to use as many AI as possible to make the game easier-and i agree with this. A smaller map should just magnify the humans micromanagement bonus by reducing the number of factors.

I'd say it's increasing the number of factors gives more opportunity to let human micromanagement play a beneficial role.

Anyway, I have never played a Civ4 game on a huge map due to my crappy computer, so I can't really compare. My experience comes from SMAC. There you can build yourself quickly to victory, and AIs are basically an annoyance on the road. And the smaller the map, the more they can annoy you on the road to victory. I assumed it would be the same in Civ4. Are you saying starting right next to AIs who start with two settlers and some workers and archers is an advantage?

***

1) To other people: I'm not feeling angry or pissed or anything, but due to the lack of respect binTravkin is showing, I'm gonna try insulting him a bit in the rest of my post out of principle. I'm not very good at insulting people though. So please no "Ha - is that the best you can do?!"

2) I'm not so sure anymore about the value of Music or Philosophy. I don't think it's proven to be a bad plan. Its effects simply can't be measured very well - eg how do you measure denial? Therefore I'd suggest to research Code of Laws and Calendar, and only when that is nearing completion, when more turns have passed meaning we have more accurate information, make a decision on what to research next.

Did you read the part about how much stuff mercantilism will net us once instituted?

You mean this crap?

blah blah
If we assume we have ~16 cities by the time we get to mercantilism (and we should have something like that),
blah blah

How do you get to the assumption we'd have 16 cities by the time (what timeframe is that??) we get mercantilism?? You're just pulling some random figures out of your arse. If I'm ignoring something you wrote, perhaps it might be because you wrote nothing worth paying any serious attention to. In ACDG3 Sparta I was more or less the economy/micromanagement guy. IIRC the plans I drew up often predicted to the exact mineral/energy what benefits a certain course of action would result in. You however I have seen do nothing but post some vague assumptions upon which you draw way too fargoing conclusions.

The part about how much extra gold (read extra cities) we can make by having +100% econ in a single major commerce city?

This:

Why can be explained by a single example - let's imagine Beijing has 60commerce/turn by the time we arrive there, which is easily doable as it has 30+ now already and growing.
Now, if we had +100% gold there and were running 50/50, we'd be having +60g per turn.

"Let's imagine"... Am I the only one who isn't convinced by this? You need to show how that 60 commerce per turn will be reached, and in what timeframe it will be reached. And to be really good show that there are no better alternatives than spending 3432 beakers and 500 hammers to perhaps gain 30 extra gold in Beijing. I'm not sure what your definition of facts, figures and answers is, but IMO this certainly isn't it, noob.

The part about noobish instinct to drive allocation higher (and the link) whatever good the other option might be?

Your assumption I have that instinct is based on a misreading of what I'm saying. In fact, wasn't it me who objected to razing Banana cities, because we shouldn't be afraid of a temporary drop of the science slider?

I said that apart from other bonuses Engineering provided pikemen, to which you threw a poorly thought-out argument about units of same strength.

What's poorly-thought about it? The last you said was "GS elephants", to which I have already replied. Anyway, if I understand correctly, you're not seriously suggesting to research Engineering soon so this is less relevant.

And then, how much of those mistakes could never been made if you just opened the savegame?
And then, how many useless arguments could never have been thrown if you just opened the savegame?

Making wrong assumptions here.
I had opened the last save I downloaded from two turns ago several times during this discussion, and have at this moment the latest turn open, in which - as I assumed - nothing dramatic has changed.

Now go compare it with statements like 'I haven't seen anything to contradict this yet'

That's posted when you don't reply to an argument I make.

'That doesn't convince me'

That gets posted when stuff you say is too vague.

'I disagree' (without elaborating on factual basis of disagreement),

I didn't see any factual basis to agree or disagree upon.

skipping relevant parts of text

See my earlier opinion about what you consider decent facts and figures.

not reading past the first sentence at least two times in a row;

Making wrong assumptions here.
I did read it several times, but didn't understand it anyway. Anyway, what you posted is wrong both when talking about upgrading and hurrying.

requesting data when providing almost none yourself, even when asked

What do you need data on?
Anyway, my opinion kinda is there's too little information available to make any well-argumented decision about what long-term course to follow. So there isn't much data to post.

dismissing arguments as non-arguments without really trying to understand them; not checking the savegame even after suggestion to do so,

Making wrong assumptions here.

drawing experience from a completely different kind of a game and positioning it as valid in the context, etc.

Yeah, my experience that workers often run out of stuff to do is probably partly related to the fact that I play on small maps. I assume this is less the case the larger the map is? Though I should add that I have seen many other players post the same. Furthermore, given the lack of real data, experiences from other games might be the best we can do to make some decision on the long-term course to follow.

Nevertheless, cottages will not be a dominant source of our commerce until maybe late game

Please elaborate on this statement.

All I was asking for a discussion where people would actually:
- care to read the arguments
- think about them
- do research/analysis (heck, it would halve the length of this discussion and make it twice as meaningful, if people just cared to spend 5 minutes on checking the turn, rather than spitting what first comes in mind)
- provide thoughtful counter-arguments
- don't start name calling when their argument turns out poorly based

Funny - I think this applies to you. Especially the last one - you say yourself you have a hostile tone. Exactly who started this? I'd appreciate an apology to Kataphraktoi and me.

Where do stuff, like suggestions about Printing Press when we hardly have any cottages,

It takes 30 turns to grow from a cottage to a village. It would probably take more than 30 turns to get to Printing Press. Meaning the value of Printing Press could mainly depend on how much emphasis we want to place on cottages in the future.

claiming wrong tech costs

I checked once again the turn.
We must have a different game, because you obviously know what you are talking about.
It clearly says to me here that Banking costs 1001 beakers. Guilds costs 1430 beakers. I added this together to 2500 beakers - I rounded up the wrong way because I wrote that after having closed the game and was working from memory. I'm not even counting the 1001 beakers from Feudalism.

So where the hell do you get the idea from that getting to Banking costs 1700 beakers?

Perhaps you should first check then propose?

Originally posted by Lacero
We can't settle this friendly discussion () without knowing how many cities we're aiming for.

Hey, this guy is talking sense!!
I seem to recall also saying this, but it was ignored...
Repeat after me: data, data, data...

I reserve a right to be angry over such behavior

No, you do not have that right. Once again, if you keep up this attitude, you shouldn't play a DG. If you do keep up your attitude, you're just chasing away everyone else, and you'll end up with complete silence, as PJay points out. You're a crap team leader. If you always treat everyone like this, no wonder your pathetic Gaian team failed (ouch, that one might actually hurt )

[-SafaN-]

children, can we cut it please?

[binTravkin]

How do you get to the assumption we'd have 16 cities by the time (what timeframe is that??) we get mercantilism?? You're just pulling some random figures out of your arse. If I'm ignoring something you wrote, perhaps it might be because you wrote nothing worth paying any serious attention to. In ACDG3 Sparta I was more or less the economy/micromanagement guy. IIRC the plans I drew up often predicted to the exact mineral/energy what benefits a certain course of action would result in. You however I have seen do nothing but post some vague assumptions upon which you draw way too fargoing conclusions.

Where are your plans now?

Of course, my build plans which practically guaranteed us Oracle in 5 turns and the other wonders lined up nicely are crap.
I also know nothing about the game because everything I say about it is pulled out of arse and when Maniac opens the turn he never sees that stuff there. Could we be looking at different turns?


The maths I pulled out of my arse are pretty simple and one could do them himself if he wanted:
CS: ~15 turns
Guilds: ~20 turns
Banking: ~15 turns
(now let's scream bT posted his stuff pulled out of the arse, because we don't understand why Guilds will only take 20 turns if it's now listed 30, Banking 15 turns if it's now listed 20something etc. No thinking about bT not having hours of time to get down the precision to floating point.)
That's actually an optimistic estimate, a poorer real outcome only serves my argument.

Now, Tassagrad, Xian and Msaha are going to finish their courthouses no later than 20 turns from now. After that they can do settler/worker spam with 1 settler + 1 worker built in 10-12 turns (doable in Xian and Tassagrad atm).
If we continue to spam settlers (and workers, if needed) from finishing courthouses(20 turns from now) to 60 turn margin(finish Currency, do CoL and then those 3 listed above), we can have (60-20)/12*3 = 10 + 6(current) +1(settler in production) = 17 cities.
Factor in time when first bank comes online and the argument becomes ever stronger.

Now, one can again nitpick that the upkeep cost would be enormous, but that would be simply to disturb discussion as if one thought about it for some time, he'd realize that the upkeep cost with courthouses and FP will be growing only slightly relatively to total income.
For example, Hong Kong is expected to reach max pop in some 10 turns or so, providing a sizeable income of >30 commerce to upkeep the new, developing cities, which in turn will also kick in as producers not consumers quickly as they will have a minimum of +5commerce upon settling (trade routes + city) and will offset the added upkeep cost at 3-5 citizens (depending on their number in the city list).

Argument about how much cities we are able to build can be answered by looking at the maps plentifully posted in this thread and checking that we have good city locations for at least 10 more cities, 4 of them being in formerly our part of the continent and others in the Banan part, especially coasts south of Msaha.

Argument, how much cities we really want - well we want the whole continent I guess, so it's no talking about the numbers as low as 16.

See, it takes only a couple of minutes to think about this, but it takes three times as much to write down, and even more to write down in detail.
The problem here is, I, similarly as others have less and less time at my disposal. I consider to be a good arguing style to investigate the opposite argument, which I, quite obviously did with yours, for example by checking up whether Theology is really so easy and found out that Drama needs to be researched as well. You on the other side, throw any argument you don't understand on first sight out of the window (a case plentifully seen in this thread), without;
- thinking
OR
- asking to elaborate

Okay, you asked me to elaborate on how we could get more happiness than your proposed Theology move.
NOW, that's what I call disrespect!
It is OBVIOUS in the savegame, we have plenty of happiness lying around in our, now big, part of continent just to be hooked up, or, some, needing quite a cheap tech like Calendar, to be hooked up.
This is also why I don't believe you ever looked at savegame. Or if you did, it was something like opening and closing it, for it is not much analysis to see those resources, just to turn on the resource indicators and zoom out a bit.

IF we are to continue any reasonable discussion here (though this holds true everywhere, but offtopic), we must try to comprehend the opposite argument, because writing down every argument to bits and pieces is something none of us can afford, being working adults, some with families.
Even if we don't understand the argument after trying, we should ask, or provide our wrong (but somewhat thoughtful) answer in the style 'I don't think you're right here, because this, this and that', not 'I disagree'.

"Let's imagine"... Am I the only one who isn't convinced by this? You need to show how that 60 commerce per turn will be reached, and in what timeframe it will be reached. And to be really good show that there are no better alternatives than spending 3432 beakers and 500 hammers to perhaps gain 30 extra gold in Beijing. I'm not sure what your definition of facts, figures and answers is, but IMO this certainly isn't it, noob.

Again, assuming 50 turn optimistic estimate for Banking (again worse outcome only serves my argument), we can check that Beijing now has a pop growth for every 3 turns at +6food. This situation is not likely to change much, only in the turns where we want to rush a wonder, like Library.
Library will be finished in 11 turns, so there will be 40 turns for Beijing to grow.
During that time it can grow to a maximum of 40/4(let's assume it'll be 4 turns/pop) = 10 pop, for a 16 pop total. If we have Calendar, the city is likely to be able to support it by the time (calendar +3 health, aqueduct +2 health, grocer, +2 health for a total of 15).
Now, let's look from the other side of argument - how many pop Beijing needs to have 60 gold per turn:
Palace = 8 gold
FP cottages = 12 gold
Rice and city tile = 2 gold
routes = 4 gold
We're at 26 gold and 3 citizens now
60-26 = 34
34 / 4(sea tile or minor cottage) = 9 rounded up.
So Beijing needs 13 citizens to have 60 gold (12 would be doable too if some minor cottages have grown).

Again, was it so hard to do a little counting?
If you were so good micromanager at ACDG3 it would take you seconds to check that, yet you didn't bother instead completely ignoring the argument further in discussion, which by the way is considered disrespect of the opposite arguer.

Your assumption I have that instinct is based on a misreading of what I'm saying. In fact, wasn't it me who objected to razing Banana cities, because we shouldn't be afraid of a temporary drop of the science slider?

Guess, who said this:

In Civ4: the higher your science rate, the better. Simple as that.

What's poorly-thought about it?

Here:

We already have a unit of around the same strength as Pikeman.

Obviously, we don't have such unit when fighting mounted troops and elephants until quite recently viewed by many as a threat. Certainly, chuks can't really stand their own on elephants and spearmen have like 50:50 chance of winning in the open. Pikemen would be clear show-stoppers for any elephant armies.

Making wrong assumptions here.
I had opened the last save I downloaded from two turns ago several times during this discussion, and have at this moment the latest turn open, in which - as I assumed - nothing dramatic has changed.

Well, if you were looking for something dramatic I can understand your lack of insight how we could get much more happiness much cheaper than 1287b + (missionary) + temple.
Apparently you should have looked at something so simple as resources available on the map, when I claimed happiness can be obtained easier, or Beijing's ability to grow and provide commerce, when I claimed we can have 60commerce by the time Banking is around.

That's posted when you don't reply to an argument I make.

Umm, again, selective reading?

Name the immediate short-term benefits of ANY tech besides Code of Laws. IMO after Code of Laws there isn't any tech we really need right now. So we might as well get two techs for the price of one, and deny other civs a free great artist and religions (and make free religion civic better later on).

CS - Bureaucracy
Calendar - plantation (yes, it's pretty immediate)
Optics - +1 sight range
Engineering - +1movement on road
Banking - mercantilism (by current values mercantilism is better than decentralization)
Gunpowder - units
Chemistry - frigate
Steel - cannon, ironclad

Certainly, there are options which gives us more both short and long term benefits than an extra religion (because that's the only real thing we can get from Music).
Actually the only immediate benefit from Music is denial (or two if we get Theology too).

QFT. I havnt seen anything to contradict this yet.

Even, you in the next post agree, that at least first three are worth it, thus voiding your own argument.

I see the value in these. And find them decent research options.

[binTravkin]

That gets posted when stuff you say is too vague.

Most of the stuff I say can be vague to someone who can't see resources on a cIV map.

I didn't see any factual basis to agree or disagree upon.

Well, but you did disagree.

Music is quite an expensive tech and the Artist is then cashed for Theology. Neither of those techs give real and immediate benefits to us.

Now, at 858b Music can't be called cheap.
If you call 1/3 chance to deny religion and a bit more chance to deny GA (analysis below), a real and immediate benefit well..
You didn't provide any data to convince me of the opposite.

See my earlier opinion about what you consider decent facts and figures.

See my opinion about skipping arguments, elaboration on some of those data and points about opening the turn and not seeing anything in it.

Making wrong assumptions here.
I did read it several times, but didn't understand it anyway.

You never asked to explain, instead throwing the argument out of the window, call that respect.

Anyway, what you posted is wrong both when talking about upgrading and hurrying.

How characteristic. Claiming something's wrong without understanding the argument and elaborating on why exactly it's wrong.

What do you need data on?
Anyway, my opinion kinda is there's too little information available to make any well-argumented decision about what long-term course to follow. So there isn't much data to post.

Umm, obviously the missing data which would back up the argument that denying a religion to a civ which has at least 2 other shots for one, is a good move.

In reality there's plenty of data available, you can elaborate on every situation, for example the above:
So, let's assume we deny Mercs a religion. What are their maximum benefits from it?
+2 happiness (+1 instant, +1 temple)
+25% build speed (org rel.)
+1 culture where spread (they have +2 in each city already)
+10% research with monasteries
+1 priest in cities where there is temple.

Now, divide that on 3 (our approximate actual chances to deny them a religion, due to them having other options liek Philosophy, Divine Right and simply taking up Sarantiums religion, out of which they will likely not take DR, but it's still 3 options to them, one slightly inferior - taking up Sara's religion and one clearly superior - Taoism with Philosophy and Pacifism). Sounds like much to deny?

Or assume they went Theology and lost the beakers because we got there first:
We do 858(Music) + 429(Drama) = 1287b
They do 710(Theology)
Who loses more?

Or check what could be denied to them by them not having GA. +3 gold per turn at max (settled GA). Now, is that a reason to spend 858b?

And that's actually the most blurred example relevant to this discussion. If you were so good micromanager back a team ACDG3 I wonder how could you make such statement.
Again you don't see data in front of your nose (like the resource example).

Making wrong assumptions here.

you posted just above that you skipped some of my arguments by simply dismissing them without investigation.

Yeah, my experience that workers often run out of stuff to do is probably partly related to the fact that I play on small maps. I assume this is less the case the larger the map is? Though I should add that I have seen many other players post the same. Furthermore, given the lack of real data, experiences from other games might be the best we can do to make some decision on the long-term course to follow.

Yes, I agree, data from your games or stuff that other players mention is not real data.
I can also imagine how it can seem that there's no real data, if even resources cannot be seen on the map.

Please elaborate on this statement.

Check the map. Do you see that much cottage terrain there?
Haven't you heard about the plan to use coastal cities for commerce, working sea tiles?
Haven't you heard building a cottage actually takes time, even if we started cottaging like mad immediately, it wouldn't be until midgame when there will be enough cottages for that part of economy becoming dominant.

Funny - I think this applies to you.

Told to me by a person who doesn't see resources on the map and openly admits he skipped arguments and consider it an acceptable practice.

Especially the last one - you say yourself you have a hostile tone.

Hostile tone is not equal to disrespect by dismissing arguments without investigation and can be viewed as a natural result of such, repeated behaviour.

Exactly who started this?

The person who outright ignored arguments.

I'd appreciate an apology to Kataphraktoi and me.

I owe apology to Kata at best, I understood his statement about Sara and Mercs not cooperating as trying to ridicule me, which was probably a misunderstanding because of lesser skills in English.

It takes 30 turns to grow from a cottage to a village. It would probably take more than 30 turns to get to Printing Press. Meaning the value of Printing Press could mainly depend on how much emphasis we want to place on cottages in the future.

You call this analysis?
Where do you factor in that we have almost no cottages now?
Where do you factor in how many worker turns (which you think there are plentiful enough to completely dismiss Hagia Sophia) it will take?
Where do you factor in how many cities will actually have use of cottages and in how many cottages it will result into?
Where do you compare that cottage count to worked sea tile count?
Where do you weigh the benefits versus going for more cottages then the current sea tile focus?

Talk about pulling stuff out of the arse.

I checked once again the turn.
We must have a different game, because you obviously know what you are talking about.
It clearly says to me here that Banking costs 1001 beakers. Guilds costs 1430 beakers. I added this together to 2500 beakers - I rounded up the wrong way because I wrote that after having closed the game and was working from memory. I'm not even counting the 1001 beakers from Feudalism.

So where the hell do you get the idea from that getting to Banking costs 1700 beakers?

Perhaps you should first check then propose?

Wow, I made another mistake. What a huuge discovery for a person who doesn't see resources on the map and can't even check his very first proposal against the game to discover the fact it needs Drama.

I seem to recall also saying this, but it was ignored...

And that is said by a person who admits ignoring arguments just by assuming they are pulled out of arse.

Repeat after me: data, data, data...

Yes Maniac, you really should. And start with the turn. It offers tons of data for an interested investigator.

If you always treat everyone like this, no wonder your pathetic Gaian team failed (ouch, that one might actually hurt )

Yet more ignorance on your side. You don't know a **** what happened inside Gaian team, nor had you bothered to check after the game, yet you pull assumptions out of your arse.
If CT was here, he'd told you that initially I wasn't that active of a member in Gaian team, neither I was a turnplayer or any important figure whatsoever.
Only when it was me and CT left (most people leaving because of apparent uselessness of the game as Sparta was clearly winning), he asked me to become replacement turnplayer as he couldn't play every turn due to RL issues, at which point I became more involved in the game.

No, you do not have that right. Once again, if you keep up this attitude, you shouldn't play a DG. If you do keep up your attitude, you're just chasing away everyone else, and you'll end up with complete silence, as PJay points out.

So Maniac thinks that an arguer:
- Should mine all the data there can be
- Provide detailed analysis on the very smallest thing he is proposing or arguing over
- Never get angry when someone thinks he has the right to just throw out of the window your already hard thought of idea without providing any backing why it's justifyable
- Keep elaborating on every thing even if the other side doesn't bother to go further than 'I disagree', 'I am not convinced' etc.

I'm not even talking about how far he himself is from that, but by that standard, yes I am

a crap team leader

Unfortunately I don't have tons of time to count every bean you might perceive as wrong (still just because you don't bother to do any counting yourself), neither I have the patience to repeat my arguments three times and more, while getting ignored, nor I have the nerve to withstand ignorant people who think that throwing arguments out of the window just because they cannot or don't want to understand them, is an acceptable discussion practice.

You know, I just lost more than hour writing this reply.
That was my last hour here.
Good luck to everyone!

(if someone needs to be accepted in the team, or other forum actions need to be taken, send me an email to bintravkin@gmail.com or contact via Skype)

[binTravkin]

Talking about Chaos Theory:

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5056611&t=1421#post5056611

[-SafaN-]

*sigh*

we don't need to research drama, its right here!



come on people lets bring back the fun ...

[Lacero]

[Kataphraktoi]

Enjoy the game, guys

[Impaler[WrG]]

Another though occured to me recently, Calandar has been thrown around as a possible tech choice following CoL as it accesses silk for us for more happiness. It seems to have been overlooked that we could also access Incense with it for an additional happiness (and more with Cathedrals but I never build them), it would require a new city placed to the east of the desert area ware the Incense is found, such a city could become a successfull commerce oriented city with access to the sea and irrigatable farmland. This effectivly raises the value of Calander to us and would make it a strong choice after CoL and CS are finished.

[binTravkin]

Some thread necromancy here.

Issue: city specialization

In light of recent events and ability to develop cities beyond hooking up the basic bonuses, we should rethink our improvement building guidelines.

Basically, we have at least two cities which need to decide immediately what will be their improvement guideline:
1.Beijing - we are kinda going for it to be our GPP city, so the question is should we farm the grasslands near it and otherwise emphasize food (say windmills instead of mines)?
2.Tassagrad - this city will have it's power in hammers (Heroic Epic), but has low food output atm. My proposal would be to build farms on grassland river tiles, and use windmills on hills for hammer sources, instead of mines.

Other cities with this same question include Xian, Mhasa and Bananapolis.

Current max food surplus for the named cities:
Beijing: +7
Tassagrad: +3
Xian: +3
Mhasa: +3
Bananapolis: +3

Basically there are two decisions for each city to make:
- what will they use as food improvements (farms or cottages)
- what will they use as hammer improvements (mines or windmills)

Those two decisions would practically decide what is the emphasis of the city (food/hammers/commerce)

[binTravkin]

Some points about mercantilism versus free trading (meaning Decentralization not Free Trade civic):

1. It's not clear how soon we'll get contact with other civs than GS (which ain't keen on trading)

2. It's not clear whether Sara and Mercs will trade with us. I expect, though, that Mercs won't have problems with it.

3. Even if they do trade, it's not clear whether the benefit will be similar and which side will benefit the most if it is not.

4.Then, we have to calculate the value of the trade routes gained. It is unlikely at the moment that we would be getting more than 10gold from each cIV, which currently is less than the estimated added benefit from free specialists (which is 40+ as a minimum). This is analysis of current situation, but it's reasonable to think that the balance will not change until late game, as, according to the trade formula on distances predicted between us and other continent, distance factor is an important factor on route's size and that factor will be constant, while the number ouf our cities grows thus directly adding to benefit from mercantilism.

5.One must remember, that the total benefit from mercantilism in global politics is bigger than from equal trade as long as the commerce benefit is similar. That is because you deny other civs the valuable commerce they'd get from you while still having it yourself.

6.Mercantilism bears no additional cost of having to upkeep good relations in order to keep the trade routes.

7.Low hammer (coastal commerce) cities benefit from the ability of the extra specialist to generate up to 2 additional hammers, which might even double the city's total output of hammers. One cannot build just with food and whipping.

[Lacero]

point 5 isn't entirely true, because by denying them your trade you make mercantilism better for them, meaning they get the beneift as well.

I guess we will have more cities than anyone else and representation so the benefits from mercantilism to us are more than everyone else.