Communism?

Jason · November 15, 2001, 18:50

I've waged a few aggressive wars as a Republic without too much difficulty, so I'm wondering if Communism is really worthwhile as a wartime government.

The benefits of no war weariness and unit support would have to make up for the lost science and money, would they not? And has the espionage bonus panned out for people? So long as I can keep up in technology, perhaps this is the endgame government for a warmonger strategy, like Fundamentalism?

Except that fundamentalism was also a cash-cow.

Skanky Burns · November 15, 2001, 20:18

Communism spreads corruption evenly throughout your empire, so if your capturing cities on another continent, and actually want them to build stuff, communism helps there.

Velociryx · November 15, 2001, 20:49

Under Communism too, when you rush build stuff, you sac. pop points to do it....Despotism on steroids....

-=Vel=-

Khannalxytys · November 15, 2001, 22:04

Since on communism u can't rush things with money..

1- gather resources to keep your people happy..

1a- then spend on big time science and trade with the community for large profit(never tried though i think it'll not work .. due to the trading of their own

)
1b- good part... since corruption isn't that much of a problem .. and u can't rush things with money .. and u have UNIT SUPPORT!.. start pumping as much money as u can in military units... u'll end up having a huge army .. and not denying the rushing.. for u can force the sorry laborers for that

meaning: it's WAR TIME BABY!

Also .. spies are useful for knowing the exact/ location/number of enemy units.. and aiding artillery lower defense bonuses of cities with the poisoning of water

along with other things

Fistleaf · November 15, 2001, 23:22

If you have a lot of cities, I believe communism and courthouses in every city will reduce a lot of corruption. In this case, I think Democracy will be inferior to Communism.
And isn't poisoning of water supply removed from the game?

jadlakha · November 15, 2001, 23:38

The only thing a surplus of money is good for is for rush building and buying stuff from the AI. By the time you get communism, there shouldnt be much need to buy tech and the like from the AI therefore raise your science all the way till you go into the negative, then when you have about 1 or so gold left, lower the science till your making zero profit or maybe only 1 or 2 gold. Really excess and surpluses of gold are useless under communism except for maybe getting stuff from the AI, except with the war time benefits it might just be better to take what you want by force anyways and pummel the AI. Another thing is you wont have to pay for most of your units anymore so unit costs are cut tremendously so more money for science.

nap2 · December 15, 2001, 13:08

I definitely think communism is weaker in civ3 than in civ2. I dont' know how great the corruption reduction is compared to democ. Does anyone know if you can gaina tech adv. in under 4 turns??

No matter if i make all scientists and crank reeach, I can't get advances in under 4 turns....sucks....

Zardof · December 15, 2001, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by nap2
No matter if i make all scientists and crank reeach, I can't get advances in under 4 turns....sucks....

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33948

nap2, check out this thread..........................z

jgflg · December 15, 2001, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Fistleaf
If you have a lot of cities, I believe communism and courthouses in every city will reduce a lot of corruption. In this case, I think Democracy will be inferior to Communism.
And isn't poisoning of water supply removed from the game?

I believe that communism sets all your cities to a corruption rate of 40% and I don't think that courthouses help reduce it. Communism is actually awful in a large empire because it cripples your core cities and you don't need the reduced corruption in your fringe cities since you're just using the whip on them anyway.