Time to settle this once and for all.

[vmxa1]

Non-Religious civs want to get out of despotism ASAP and they do not want to make another switch to anything.
This means going to Republic, under most conditions (can you say AU208). Once there you do not want to spend research time learning Demo and you sure do not want to take the hit to switch and you don't need to do it.
Speedy workers are not a big deal by the time I come up with the tech to use Demo, I will have enough workers to do the job.

The depends part is just for a rare set of unusal circumstances for non-religious civs. If you are religious, that is another story.
It is likely that it is best to research only Republic and not have to learn Monarchy/Rep/Dem. Those are non required techs and as such are better skipped. You can get them dirt cheap much later.
Notice I never mentoned Communism, it is way too late and onerous.

[vmxa1]

I just looked at the poll and it is really shocking to see so many for Dem, are these Regent games? Really want to wait for Dem and stick with it at higher levels as a non religious civ? Actually in this poll even a religious civ would be beter off with Rep. You would be stuck in despost for such a long time.

[Panag]

hi ,

DemocraZy without a doubt

followed by republic


have a nice day

[G'Kar]

Arrian's answer was correct, it depends.

But Monarchy is the most flexible.

[Alex]

Where's the banana?

Well, I'd have to say Republic. By the time I switch to Republic, I don't really need Democracy (not for the bonus it provides, anyway) and Republic seems to be pretty flexible to me - I don't have problems waging war during this period.

[grappleman]

time to redo the whole kit and kaboodle of this thread. heres why, the new ign review gives us this information:
"Republican governments will find it much harder to wage war now as their unit support cost has been doubled. That's right, doubled. While it sounds harsh, it definitely helps emphasize the distinction between the warmongering governments and the more peaceful ones. "

Looks like after c3c the love for republic might change

[Ljube]

I never switch between governments, so despotism is the best form of government for my style of play.

Democracy and Republic are completely out of the question being inappropriate for deity level; monarchy can challenge despotism in certain conditions (if the land is particularly good so the cities can grow fast and support larger armies more easily). Communism is nice, but at the time it becomes available, loss of several turns in anarchy could very easily prove lethal.

If I'm religious, I'll switch to monarchy and later to communism and sometimes even to republic (very rarely though).

[GhengisFarb™]

Typically the Republic to Democracy switch never happens for me. I'm either in a dead heat to gain dominion and can't afford the anarchy or so far dominant it doesn't matter.

[Alex]

Originally posted by grappleman
time to redo the whole kit and kaboodle of this thread. heres why, the new ign review gives us this information:
"Republican governments will find it much harder to wage war now as their unit support cost has been doubled. That's right, doubled. While it sounds harsh, it definitely helps emphasize the distinction between the warmongering governments and the more peaceful ones. "

Looks like after c3c the love for republic might change

this is really interesting, but it may ultimately reduce the choices opened up to the player. after all, USA is a so-called democracy and they wage war as if there is no tomorrow.

[lorddread]

Federal Republic

It is the best gov ever conceieved for this game.

No other gov can come close to it

[bvoncranium]

For Civ3PTW, in most games I'll follow a pattern like this:

1) Early in the game when I need to expand and have few resources, DESPOTISM is fine as long as it makes economic sense. If I'm on a small map and quickly forced into war, I may remain there until the opposition is no longer a concern.

2) When expansion begins to slow or corrupt, I'll switch to REPUBLIC to turn my empire into a productive and lucrative one (better tile production / lower corruption).

For many games that's as far as the government will evolve. The war weariness in Republic is not a big issue in most games, as I've been fortunate enough to have run short, hard-hitting wars when I have the choice.

3) If I'm running a Religious Civ, and am on a larger map, I sometimes switch to DEMOCRACY in peace, to get the Worker acceleration during territorial development, and the lower corruption.

Finally, when I'm far enough ahead in a peaceful game (rare), I pick up Communism, usually not to switch to it, but rather because to build a few Police Stations (still a relatively low priority though).

Obviously no one recipe works, as Civ is a situational game, but the above pattern has led to repeated success.

All the best, bvc

[Asmodean]

I'm a peaceful empire builder so I mostly play demo. Whenever I decide to go on the war path, I usually switch to Republic, but really I hate it, 'cause I lose the fast workers.

Asmodean

[pedrojedi]

My government switches go usually fine with non-religious civs, so I usually afford the desp-rep-demo line. If I'm planning a constant war game, then it goes desp-mon-(maybe)comm. During the last few days, I made some brainstorming about paying workers for improvements, and got to the conclusion that it could worth it, with the right handling.

But, if I had to choose just one... Demo.

[zorbop]

I am surprised so many people chose democracy. Personally, i find that i already have so many workers the worker bonus is useless, and the corruption change is small, it does not make up for teh war weariness....

[Panag]

Originally posted by zorbop
I am surprised so many people chose democracy. Personally, i find that i already have so many workers the worker bonus is useless, and the corruption change is small, it does not make up for teh war weariness....

hi ,

maybe its because all those people have found the benefits of democraZy , .....

have a nice day

[Turrosh Mak]

I'm really surprised that noone else thinks that the "government switch" is broken. IMO, five to eight turns of anarchy is too long to make a second government change worthwhile once you become republic.

I'm sure this is NOT what the developers wanted. Even the US came close to a command economy during WW2.

Am I the only one who hears the constant refrain spoken on these boards?

"If I'm religious, I switch governments willy nilly BUT if I'm not I go Depot-Republic and never switch again"

Does the religious trait spoil us into thinking that more than one turn of anarchy isn't worth it? OR is it because 5-8 turns of no production really can't be overcome by the rep-dem switch?

From personal experience, its the latter. I once switched from republic to democracy late in the game (post tanks). I had 7 turns of anarchy. Many of my "plains" cities lost huge chunks of population. Four turns after coming out of anarchy, the zulu sneak attacked me and razed 5 metropolises. Least to say 5 turns later my democracy folded and I was back in frigging anarchy for another 6 turns. I have never switched from republic since that game.

[pedrojedi]

You've a reeeeeaaally bad luck.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Turrosh Mak
I'm really surprised that noone else thinks that the "government switch" is broken. IMO, five to eight turns of anarchy is too long to make a second government change worthwhile once you become republic.

I'm sure this is NOT what the developers wanted. Even the US came close to a command economy during WW2.

Am I the only one who hears the constant refrain spoken on these boards?

"If I'm religious, I switch governments willy nilly BUT if I'm not I go Depot-Republic and never switch again"

Does the religious trait spoil us into thinking that more than one turn of anarchy isn't worth it? OR is it because 5-8 turns of no production really can't be overcome by the rep-dem switch?

From personal experience, its the latter. I once switched from republic to democracy late in the game (post tanks). I had 7 turns of anarchy. Many of my "plains" cities lost huge chunks of population. Four turns after coming out of anarchy, the zulu sneak attacked me and razed 5 metropolises. Least to say 5 turns later my democracy folded and I was back in frigging anarchy for another 6 turns. I have never switched from republic since that game.

hi ,

in the real world it takes a while also before a gov is changed , sure the gov acan change in a matter of hours , but the people , the new laws etc , that takes time , ......

if a player is well prepared to change then it goes easy

have a nice day

[bvoncranium]

Originally posted by Turrosh Mak
OR is it because 5-8 turns of no production really can't be overcome by the rep-dem switch?

You nailed it. You have to squeeze a lot of advantage out of the Democracy worker productivity bonus and reduced corruption to counterbalance the drawbacks of the government change penalty.
Given that you usually get Democracy after building an empire of considerable size, the losses during change are proportionally sizable.
The losses include:
* Direct Loss: 5-8 turns of productive output (growth, units, improvements) from all of your towns
* Opportunity Cost (1): all of the follow-on growth that would have occurred from the delayed settlements, extra worker output, granary growth, treasury growth, research, etc.
* Opportunity Cost (2): relative reduction in military strength in terms of units and position (other Civs likely have grown & improved deployment while you are changing gov'ts).
* War Weariness: If at war now or in the future, it becomes a cost in terms of money and management time.

Earlier in my Civ3 gaming Democracy seemed like a great gov't. After doing a more thorough analysis, and direct experience, I concluded that it is good for some situations, but not worth the cost in most cases.

Note that this conclusion is a direct result of how long it takes to change governments for a non-Religious Civ.

To the original point, Democracy would be a fine choice if it didn't cost so much to change to it! The many turn change penalty not only is hard to justify historically, in terms of gameplay it is very limiting. IMHO if Firaxis made the change 2-5 turns, it would enrich the game in the sense that players would more frequently research other forms of government and use them situationally, as they do for other Civilization Advances.

My (lost) $0.02 - bvc

[Alex]

The transition from despotism to democracy is tricky also in the real world. Look at Iraq.

[WarpStorm]

Of course, bvc, this analysis will have to factor in the fact that the Democracy only pays one gold per unit. and Republic will pay two.

[Turrosh Mak]

I'd rather pay higher upkeep on my units and actually be able to use them than pay less and be afraid of a long war against a powerful AI nation.

[WarpStorm]

Of course if you had twice as many units the war might be over quicker.

[ceroomaster]

Republic.
Although I use all of the others depending on the situation I am in.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Turrosh Mak
I'd rather pay higher upkeep on my units and actually be able to use them than pay less and be afraid of a long war against a powerful AI nation.

hi ,

and thats why most of the people go for a demo or rep for longer wars that are fought outside cities , .....

have a nice day

[Cookie Monster]

Never realised that it took so long in anarchy to switch to democraZy. That plus war weariness has to be the big reasons why I would never use such a govt. in Civ3. Sure there may be HUGE benefits to demo, but the penalities are equally HUGE.

When my empires are properly set up, I can research new techs and pop out new units fairly quickly under monarchy and republic. What possible benefit could democraZy have that one could convince me, a warmonger, to use democraZy.

[Shogun Gunner]

So, it's finally settled "once and for all".

The answer = it depends.

Shogun Gunner

P.S. I saw the REPUBLICans stuffing the ballot box on this poll. I demand a recount.

[bvoncranium]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
P.S. I saw the REPUBLICans stuffing the ballot box on this poll. I demand a recount.

Hey, the Democrats caught up pretty quickly...
I guess we'll never know the real result because of all of the uncounted ballots from Florida

[georges bonbon]

It depends on which level you are playing.

And it also depends on the AI's attitude towards you, how strong you are.

Overall I voted democracy.

Or is it democrazy?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Cookie Monster
Never realised that it took so long in anarchy to switch to democraZy. That plus war weariness has to be the big reasons why I would never use such a govt. in Civ3. Sure there may be HUGE benefits to demo, but the penalities are equally HUGE.

When my empires are properly set up, I can research new techs and pop out new units fairly quickly under monarchy and republic. What possible benefit could democraZy have that one could convince me, a warmonger, to use democraZy.

hi ,

if one is well prepared it could take as little as two turns to switch , agreed one cant build during that time , but the money can kep flowing in , units can fight or move , workers can still build , and a good way to build during revolution is to disband something there before and rush or just rush , this way you get something extra anyway the next turn , .....

the key to any revolution is being prepared , its that simple

have a nice democratical day