Is there ANY reason to be a Republic?!

[Nick Yeast]

I'm in the middle of my very first game of Civ III. Hadn't found this website before I ran into my little problem... Want to say thanks first of all to everyone here - I've picked up a lot of ideas just reviewing old posts!

Situation is this. I'm Rome, toddling along (hey, first game) in cheiftain mode. Got a big war going with the &*$#& Aztecs. Kicking butt, but have loads of legionaries. I notice big problems with waste and corruption. Its somewhere in the 1300s, and I'm still in Despotism. I read through the government descriptions, see that corruption and waste in a Republic is 'nuisance'. Hey!, I think... Rome was a republic! (sort of). Decide to end my war with the Aztecs, have a revolution, become a Republic, rake in the bounty of not being a Despot.

Sheesh. No noticeable reduction in waste or corruption, and now my income is in the toilet because I'm paying maintenance on all of my military units, none of which can reduce unhappiness in a town. Guess I should have read the fine print, or some of the posts here about how nothing seems to counteract waste/corruption.

Is there any reason anyone would EVER want to be a Republic??? I am genuinely interested in what anyone has to say on this issue. Also - where does one go as Rome, from being a Despot? What's the point in switching?

Thanks much!!

[JMan]

I have won several games as a Republic.

While Republic has corruption problems, it isn't as bad as Despotism in that respect. Also, I was playing as the commercially endowed French, so that was mitigated to a degree.

Bear in mind that while unit costs go up, so do trade, food, and shield production on developed tiles. Despotisms can produce a max of two of each resource per tile, and Republic gets you beyond that. I found the move to be well worth it.

I didn't switch to Democracy when that became available because my instincts told me that the corruption reduction and other benefits wouldn't be worth the war weariness increase and seven turns of Anarchy.

If someone else could describe the benefits of a Republic to Democracy switch, I'd appreciate it.

[Nick Yeast]

Thanks for the viewpoint!

Since I posted, I did a few more searches and see that there are a few tricks to doing well with a Republic, such as having luxuries and some city improvements built already. One of the problems I was trying to overcome was outlying cities with too much waste/corruption, and no way to build improvements. Didn't want to keep sacrificing population and building up badwill, but from what I'm reading, that may be necessary.

Basically, I'm still fumbling around trying to find my own arse, this being my first 'keeper' game of Civ III and all. I know there's a certain complexity of requirements to get the most out of each government, but I had sort of hoped that moving to a 'higher' form of government than Despotism would bring some broad inherent benefit. From what I'm reading, sounds like there are situations where Despotism is a viable government well into the later stages of the game.

If I want to remain a Republic, looks like the first thing I need to do is retire scads of now-out-of-work legionaries, and then be prepared to sacrifice some pop to get the improvements that corrupt officials will never let me build the conventional way...

[jgflg]

I don't know much about the Republic form of government because I usually wait until Democracy to switch. The benefit of a Democracy is a worker rate of 150%, minimal corruption and an increase in your production as well as commerce rates. According to the civilopedia, Republic only increases your commerce rate. Of course by how much for any of those things is anybody's guess. Maybe I'll give Republic a try my next game and see what the difference is on war weariness. I've experienced enough frustration with it on Democracy that I only play Religous civs now.

Edit: I should add that I think the Marketplace is the key building to have for a Republic since it helps out your commerce substantially.

[Nick Yeast]

I should probably also add that it was in the wee hours of the morning that I switched to Republic, after a couple of hours bringing my campaign against the Aztecs to a satisfactory end. Through bleary eyes, I surveyed the cities I thought the change would help, and didn't find the expected benefit. I confess that I didn't have the wakefulness or the heart left at that point to go searching for benefits I hadn't originally been looking for... I was pretty disheartened, in that sleepless state When I fire the game up again, I'll have to take a closer look at what the new government is doing for my civ.

[JMan]

Playing on Regent, I have found war weariness as a Republic to be only a minor problem. As long as my luxuries don't get disrupted, I've been able to keep offensive wars going for hundreds of years in the early middle ages.

It seems to me that a big key there is having enough Marketplaces. They multiply the effect of luxuries. If you plan any wars as a Republic or Democracy, Banks and Marketplaces are important tools to keep your people happy.

[Mr. Socks]

Well, it's important to know all the info in the civilopedia comparing the different governments, but it's also important to try them out in different situations to see where they work. Basically, the more advanced gov'ts give you higher production potential, but require more developed cities (population and infrastructure) to support them. If your cities aren't developed enough to support a more advanced government type, you'll be worse off (at least in the short term). If you wait for the right time, you'll benefit. If you wait too long, you'll be missing out. Some people might stay in despotism for the entire game to try for a quick, relentless domination victory. But that's about the only reason.

In civ III, my basic strategy is currently despotism --> monarchy --> democracy.

For the despot->monarch switch, I've settled on these basic guidelines:
- no more neutral territory available to settlement
- basic terrain improvement around most cities (ie, few worked squares are "raw"
- most cities around the 5-7 size or maxed out
- most cities have aqueducts & enough happiness producers to handle another couple of citizens in the immediate future

The basic idea is that most of your cities should go above 6 without much trouble, shortly after the switch. If this is done right, you should soon be producing more net revenue / science even with the increased military costs.

As far as the benefits of republic vs democracy, one is that workers are faster under democ. There is also less corruption under democ, but I haven't really looked to closely at this. They're more alike than different, and I believe that the biggest difference is that repub comes much earlier in the game. It's sort of the ancient-era democracy (while communism is sort of the modern-era monarchy). Some people go straight from despotism into repub. It might be that it's not usually worth it to switch from repub to democ if you go for the early repub. However, I prefer to wait for democracy, so I don't bother with republicanism for the same reason.

[barefootbadass]

You need to have roads everywhere you are going to work at least, to pick up the extra commerce point per square. Also, it is good to have your cities decent size or at least in a position that they can grow a bunch when the food restrictions are lifted. Temples and cathedrals are nice, since you will lose martial law, although you still may need 10% lux or something if you pop rushed a bunch. Be sure before every turn of anarchy to check that no disorder occurs, and after you get into republic. Marketplaces and libraries should be in place in most of your cities, if they aren't in some cities, buy them as soon as you can.

Basically its the same situation you had in civ 2, the switch to republic was beneficial only when you had adequate infrastructure.

[sophist]

Originally posted by JMan

It seems to me that a big key there is having enough Marketplaces. They multiply the effect of luxuries. If you plan any wars as a Republic or Democracy, Banks and Marketplaces are important tools to keep your people happy.

Banks only help with tax revenues.

[Nick Yeast]

Thanks very much again, to everyone who responded!

Lack of the necessary infrastructure was/is definitely my problem. I was looking for the change to really help a couple of my outlying towns where corruption/waste was keeping me from building things. Unfortunately, the things I couldn't build are the things I need to benefit from the new government. Either that, or all the new production is also getting wasted away. Looks like I'm going to have to sacrifice pop to get the structures I need, although from some of the other posts I've read, I don't have much hope of getting corruption/waste down to reasonable levels in my outlying cities...

[Thrawn05]

I always make beeline for Republic and Democracy. Many because you get less corruption and more happniess (i think), and the later you get a 150% worker rate (I'm building railroads in one turn!). I usually keep since at like 60% and happiness at around 20-30%, and I still get a major +30 gold per turn . After a couple of turns, I can just buy new improvments without much dent in my income.

[MarshalN]

It seems like nobody has talked about this..... it really depends on your style of play. If you're a war mongering president, you'll have a terrible time. Democracy's war weariness can kill you if you don't have enough happiness buildings and marketplaces in all of your cities. You can be spending half your income on luxury just trying to keep people happy.

If you play peaceful, however, democracy is the way to go. The tax revenues are significantly (noticeable anyway) higher than republic, corruption is lower, and workers work faster. Remember, less corruption also means higher production on top of higher trade. Now with police stations reducing corruption, you can really clamp it down and keep it to a minimum in democracy. I'm having a great time right now playing democracy. I only war occasionally, and as long as I keep it short, I can keep the people happy through luxuries (good and taxes). Police stations also help. I'm now enjoying a comfortable tech lead and still gaining on the AI all the time. It's defintiely worth the anarchy IF you have

1) enough years left in the game
2) not too many wars.

Otherwise... go communism!!!

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by MarshalN
It seems like nobody has talked about this..... it really depends on your style of play. If you're a war mongering president, you'll have a terrible time. Democracy's war weariness can kill you if you don't have enough happiness buildings and marketplaces in all of your cities. You can be spending half your income on luxury just trying to keep people happy.

That's true, when I'm in a democracy, I turn down my science spending and add some to Entertainment. I usually already have wonders like Hanging Gardens and the Chapel, and I'm big on building improvments before units. I also add some of my workers to city to get a little boost in building units during a war. I've surrvide a 30 turn war against India once during the industial age I think, and I didn't have any warnings of rioting or such, even in the one city I captured. BTW, I did start the war, he had coal that I needed, and Gandhi was trying to bust a cap on me for doing that.

[CubsFan915]

Of course, playing as a Religious civ gives you (in addition to the cheaper temples and cathedrals to help with happiness) the ability to only have one turn of Anarchy... Makes switching a lot easier if you like to government bounce, like I do...