Let us compare two civilization advantages. The first advantage is being able to build a unit faster or cheaper. The second advantage is obtaining three free units whenver you build a stable.
I think it is obvious to everyone that the former advantage is probably the preferred advantage than the latter. This isn't to say that the latter is never helpful. In some cases, this latter advantage might be a lifer saver such as in the situation when you, without any army of your own, are confronted with an invading army. However, in general, the former advantage will be more valuable.
Now I want to analyze why exactly is the former advantage more helpful. What is that exact characteristic of this former advantage (of being able to build a unit cheaper or faster) that makes it so valuable.
In my opinion, the cumulative effect of being able to build faster or cheaper is why the former advantage is so much more prefered.
You see. When you can build units faster, the time it takes to build certain number of units decreases as the number of unit gets larger. In another word, if time saved from being able to build faster is considered a benefit, then the benefit faces increasing return to scale, as oppposed to constant return to scale.
Now, does getting three free units for every stable you build allow you to take advantage of economy of scale? In another word, is there cumulative effect to this advantage? I don't think so, unless you want to build ten stables. By building ten stables, you can have thirty free units. However, the cost of building these ten stables may be prohitive, not to mention ridiculously absurd. (Is it even possible to do that in Rise of Nation?)
Knowing that cumulative effect is the characteristic that makes the civilization advantage valuable, one should be able to see clearly what the implication is.
Many civilizations have advantages such as being able to build scholars/merchant faster or cheaper. But is building scholar/merchant faster or cheaper an advantage that allow you to take advantage of cumulative effect? If there is a good reason to building twenty or thirty scholars/merchant, then you will be able to take advantage of cumulative effect. otherwise, this advantage is pretty much useless, in my opinion.
However, one possible advantage that being able to build scholar faster or cheaper has is if this civilization has faster rate of knowledge accumulation. In another word, building scholar faster by itself isn't an advantage, but it is an indirect advantage that can be harvested if coupled with another advantage that does have direct cumulative effect.
For example, let us assume that both the Greek and Chinese have the same speed of knowledge accumulation, but Greek has faster scholar build rate. If the Greek build scholar faster, it will be able to take advantage of the cumulative effect of faster knowledge accumulation earlier than the Chinese. This will give Greek an advantage.
What is the conclusion? It is this. In choosing a civilization to play, pick those with advantages that can allow you to take advantage of cumulative effect. In seeking to eradicate an enemy early in the game, pick that enemey that does not have this advantage.
Second, cumulative effect doesn't have to come strictly from civilization advantage. Some wonders or resources allow you to build faster or cheaper. This will also enable you to take advantage of cumulative effect. In playing this game, take seriously the implication of cumulative effect and select strategies that will enable to obtain such an advantage, and you will be able to command the outcome of the game.
[This message has been edited by Thunder of the East (edited 05-22-2003 @ 08:06 PM).]