a suggestion for improving democracy

MattPilot · January 29, 2004, 17:21

since democracy is seen as weak do to the war wariness factor (well, thats a matter of opinion actually), how about the following positive effect.

Initially, when going to war, the civilization should gain a boost in its economy (commerce, production), to reflect its enthusiasm for the "fight for freedom". However, as reality of war comes back to haunt the civilization (deaths of loved ones), the boost is lost and warwariness takes its toll.

so what i'm saying is, as long as the war wariness points are kept low, say 33% of amount that would lead to revolution, the civilization should enjoy the boost in its economy.

comments?

GhengisFarb™ · January 29, 2004, 17:27

I would think a boost to production to represent enthusiasm then slowly war weariness seeps in.

CerberusIV · January 30, 2004, 06:34

I have a suggestion for improving Democracy too. Leave it alone!

Seriously, it works just fine if used right. If it doesn't suit your particular circumstances there are plenty of other government types to choose from.

Mr Justice · January 30, 2004, 06:59

i agree with CerberusIV on this one.

as i see it democracy is a peace time govement, as such it has the most benifits to a peace full empire. if its war u want then go for another government type.
you cant have it all.

Harovan · January 30, 2004, 07:29

Democracy is fine as it is.

SporkPimp · January 30, 2004, 19:30

Then why is it useless?

steven8r · January 30, 2004, 19:48

I've actually found it quite useful for boosting research and gold, not to mention the extra little Worker boost.

Sure, there's War Weariness, but just keep the wars short and the Luxes up and it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

How exactly, SporkPimp, do you find it useless?

Steven

ErikM · January 30, 2004, 20:16

It's not that Democracy is bad.

It's just that Anarchy lasts too long.

vmxa1 · January 30, 2004, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by SporkPimp
Then why is it useless?

To me it is useless, because I never get around to switching to it.
That is not to say it is bad or broken, but I just don't use it.

cracky · January 31, 2004, 03:57

Quote:

Originally posted by ErikM
It's not that Democracy is bad.

It's just that Anarchy lasts too long.

*cough* religious civ *cough* *cough*

Seriously though, even when I'm not playing a religious civ, I usually take the despotism-monarchy-democracy route. Yes, the anarchy no fun, and I know most people seem to go straight to republic, but for me, the early deadly unit support costs of republic, especially in the late ancient age, early middle ages, makes it prohibitive, but I just can't live with the slow research of monarchy.

Also as steven8r mentioned, war weariness can be managed fairly well in democracy with a decent number of luxuries. I'd add though, that the luxury slider is your friend (which I'm just beginning to discover).

joncnunn · January 31, 2004, 17:24

Democracy is fine as it is, athough I could argue that all three of Democracy, Communism, and Facism should come later in the tech tree.

The main issue is that Republic provides way to much unit support for Metros. I'm in favor of knocking support down to 0 for Metros for Republic myself as a way to encourage the non-Religious civs to leave the Republic around the time of Sanitation.

SporkPimp · February 2, 2004, 02:39

Keeping wars short is an impossibility under Democracy, unless you suck up the huge military expenditures (and you will have to). Either that, or up your luxes... either way, extra expenditures over Republic (you wouldn't have to spend as much on luxes, and the unit support is definitely enough to wage strategic war or shut down a sudden invasion).

The small boost in production is counterbalanced by the above expenditures (perhaps they were possible to avoid before Conquests... though I doubt it, at anything higher than Warlord... but now, military conflict is unavoidable), and by the cost of Anarchy (or the cost of having Religious instead of a more powerful trait).

In short... it's probably better than Republic for Chieftain builders, but even at Regent (where I play since Conquest... and I used to be a vanilla Monarch *sniffle*), the net gains (that is, gains - losses) generally don't make up for the cost of the optional techs and Anarchy.

-SporkPimp

CerberusIV · February 2, 2004, 06:33

Quote:

Originally posted by SporkPimp
In short... it's probably better than Republic for Chieftain builders, but even at Regent (where I play since Conquest... and I used to be a vanilla Monarch *sniffle*), the net gains (that is, gains - losses) generally don't make up for the cost of the optional techs and Anarchy.

-SporkPimp

Frankly, I disagree entirely. Although I only play at monarch, rather than the higher levels, I invariably go despot-->monarchy or feudalism-->democracy. In my current game I have overrun 2 civs to total 33 cities (standard map) and share my continent with the fascist Portuguese. Most of my cities are productive enough to build their own improvements under democracy.

I have around 130 units total and building bombers now and tanks shortly. The Portuguese just attacked and are being bombed to oblivion. War is not a problem in the circumstances.

I could have just gone to republic but would have to have spent much longer in despotism before I could afford to do so. Three changes of government is too many at monarch, two is OK.

As a mid to late game government democracy is works fine - so don't fix it!

Thoth · February 2, 2004, 18:34

Cerberus: The problem with Demo is that it isn't enough better than Republic to justify a switch as a non-Religeous civ. If you change to Republic as your non-Despot gov, there is little point in ever changing out again.

CerberusIV · February 3, 2004, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Thoth
Cerberus: The problem with Demo is that it isn't enough better than Republic to justify a switch as a non-Religeous civ. If you change to Republic as your non-Despot gov, there is little point in ever changing out again.

That's just the point. The way my games usually go I don't have enough cities to make military support viable with republic so I end up using feudalism or monarchy to get out of despotism. By the time I can afford to switch to republic I am so close to getting democracy I might as well wait and use that instead, particularly for a larger empire where it does seem to make a difference to corruption in outlying cities.

okblacke · February 3, 2004, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by SporkPimp
Keeping wars short is an impossibility under Democracy, unless you suck up the huge military expenditures (and you will have to)...[snip]...the net gains (that is, gains - losses) generally don't make up for the cost of the optional techs and Anarchy.

Playing at Regent, I find that Democracy is where I pull ahead of the AI. If I'm religious or if I already have a lead, I'll switch right away, otherwise I'll wait until the late medieval Wonder-cascade is over.

But the main way Democracy helps me pull ahead is that the AI will pay through the nose for it, as it will for any government. One good tech like Demo can put you in the situation where you're at full research (or nearly) for the rest of the game (by continually whoring techs).

On top of that, I want the AI to have Democracy. It reduces its ability to sustain a war on my soil. (I'll sell Republic for the same reason, but there's never any money to be had from a civ that needs Rep so it usually goes to a backward Civ when I'm in Industrial.) And if they don't switch to Demo, they can't keep up with me in terms of RR building, research, etc.

I find Democracy pays for itself quickly. As for war, when I'm defending as a Democracy--i.e., when someone else started the war--I'll play by the wounded victim rules and not go on to the enemy's territory. When I'm attacking as a Democracy, it's Operation Iraqi Freedom: Conquer the entire empire in one turn. (Ideally. Minimally, never attack a city unless you can take it that turn--and hold it.)

[ok]

Edit: And with the cash you get from tech-whoring, you can support a huge military. It's easy to end up with 200-300 units being a minor cost.

BulMaster · February 4, 2004, 19:37

I play on emp usualy and I do play on democracy all the time. I find the concept of war weariness in democracy inadequate. I mean you discover it in the end of middle ages. In the Ind era you discover nationalism. Now nationalism and war weariness do tend to oppose each other. Even though the loved ones were dying ppl were continuing to produce even more since the other solution is to be conquered. It's only in the late 20th century that war weariness actualy really appears as a social effect. Nothing of that before hand. In that matter I think Demo needs adjustments.
As for wars in demo you do have around 10 turns free of that. If you declare war and can't make progress in those first ten turns then you won't do it at all. As okblacke says if you can't conquer the city in one turn, I say two at max 3 then you are in troubles.

Aslo to come back to the war weariness issue, even today when we have anti war demostration the countries still continue to work at full trotle and are not affected. What should actualy have an impact is probably the relation of the pop to the army, but in civ they are not related. Instead of beeing able to pump huge armies, they might be linked with your pop I mean those men that fight don't come from shields only

, so at one point you will run out of ppl that will cripple your economy a bit, then further and you will colapse. At least that's how the long wars were fough and won. which is the effect of ww on the long term if you look at from a different angle. Still I do believe that WW in demo should increase to its current stands like someway after nationalism, otherwise rename nationalism to something else!