Communism vs Monarchy

[Action]

Ok I was in Monarchy, making 224 gold a turn, Discovering the next tech in 7 turns, and losing 187 trade to corruption. (I was playing the Indians.)

So, I revolt and 1 turn later I switch to Communism, im making 227 gold a turn, Discovering the next tech in 7 turns, and losing 183 trade to corruption.

Not impressive, but even worse, the production of my core cities was shot, building wonders would be much slower now. The idea of spreading corruption equally over your cities doesnt work too well for me, since my core cities near the palace and forbidden palace are usually much more developed than the periphery.

The late game governments are two extremes, democracy, excellent for the pacifist civ, and communism, probably would be ok for a civ withs lots of cities which are all equally poorly developed, but where is the government for a civ which is medium sized and well developed but has to defend itself alot? Hopefully expansion pack will add facism and or fundamentalism, becuase I there is a definate need for another late game government.

While it's nice and realistic for communism to be totally crappy, it does kinda suck to be in monarchy for 85% of the game.

[Aeson]

Communism was supposed to be best for large empires, but often even despotism will be more productive if you have a large number of cities. I've actually had over 70% corruption in my capitol under Communism, which is insane. Democracy hinders warfare too much for my tastes, and is only worth it for religious Civs who can switch fast when the bullets start to fly. Monarchy is my favorite late game government, as by then gold is easier to rush with than population, and no worries about war weariness.

And why would being the King (or Queen) bother anyone?

[Ned]

Monarchy and Communism are not the only good choices. The last game I played, I stayed in Republic the whole way. I kept the number of cities fairly limited, and as soon as I built the Forbidden Palace, my corruption problems, as the French, were virtually ended.

I am not sure what the differences are between Republic and Democracy in other areas, but if you play a commericial civilization, there seems to be no practical difference in terms of corruption between Demo and Republic.

As well, I engaged in several wars as a Republic without noticing any war weariness. I kept my units home, if that makes any difference. On the other hand, war weariness is a killer for Democracy. But I have not seen it as with Republic.

[JZ Temple]

Originally posted by Ned
As well, I engaged in several wars as a Republic without noticing any war weariness. I kept my units home, if that makes any difference.

From the Civ3 Manual:

The most important factors in causing war weariness are stationing your units in a rival’s territory, enemies having troops in your territory, declaring war, and engaging in battle. Having a rival declare war on you actually decreases war weariness, perhaps because it relieves the prewar uncertainty and tension.

So, as a Republic or especially as a Democracy, if you must have a war, do what you can to provoke the other guy and minimise the time your troops are in enemy territory.

I'm in a game right now where as a republic I've been at war for fourty turns, but since the other guy started it and I haven't put my troops on his lands (yet) my people remain happy.

[Arrian]

If you want to fight as a republic, or especially as a democracy, which I do all the time, you have to use the advantages of those governments to build up a huge army so that you have overwhelming force. Rep & Demo make tons of cash, so you can support lots of troops. They also provide good tech research, so your troops should be, at the very least, on par with your opponent, but ideally they should be more advanced. If you get attacked, as mentioned above, it won't hurt you nearly as bad in terms of war weariness. If you do the attacking, do it with enough troops that the war will end quickly (say 10-15 turns).

This is why I usually build mobile troops almost exclusively (Knights, Cavalry, Tanks, etc.), and really skimp on defenders. Blitzkrieg! I know how to create a good combined arms stack... but I rarely do it anymore.

I have never switched to communism and hope I'm never forced into it (though I imagine I will at some point). However, I would imagine that Monarchy would be more effective for you if you have a small to medium sized empire, as your core will be more productive than under Communism. Communism should be more effective if you have a large to huge empire and are on your way to domination.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Thanks, but does anyone know whether War Weariness is less in Republic than in Democracy, ala, CIV II?

Ned

[Arrian]

Yep, war weariness is less of a problem in Republic than Democracy. I have, several times, delayed my switch to Demo while finishing off a Middle Ages war.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Arrian
I have never switched to communism and hope I'm never forced into it (though I imagine I will at some point). However, I would imagine that Monarchy would be more effective for you if you have a small to medium sized empire, as your core will be more productive than under Communism. Communism should be more effective if you have a large to huge empire and are on your way to domination.

I think that this certainly is the way the governments were supposed to work, but in practice I haven't found any use for Communism. Its a form of government that becomes less effective the larger the empire becomes, while not being better than any form of government in smaller empires, other than Despotism. Often a civilizations total commerce and production drops dramatically when switching to Communism. From what little experience I have with Communism, having 2 times the optimal number of cities or more means is about the most you can have and still hope to have any real production. I really don't feel Communism is a viable form of government under any circumstances. Has anyone found a good use for it that couldn't be better served under another government?

[Grim Legacy]

Yeah I've been successful with Republic too. This government comes early too -allowing maximal benefits. Democracy and Communism are kind of afterthoughts to me. Nothing big over Monarchy or Republic, arriving late and demanding another costly revolt.

[prince_aki]

I find that communism is a very viable government, when there is a threat of an invasion, and you need to support a very large defensive force. For those who do know, communism allows you to keep a very large military, without having to pay for it. If you keep 4 defensive units in all of your cities (the communist government can support this), not only will you have leverage when negotiating with other computer players, but your citizens will be "very happy". In addition, if your cities are connected by rail, any invasion force can be easily destroyed.

[Ned]

I agree, the large army bit seems to be an advantage. However, Communism introduces a very large amount of corruption in the core empire not experienced under any other form of government. This is why communism is bad in this game.

Ned

[Aeson]

Monarchy gives the same number of free units per town (2), city(4) and metropolis(8). Despotism actually gives more free units if most of your settlements are still small (town(4), city(4), metropolis(4)). Gold rushing is usually better than pop-rushing by the time Communism is available. Given Communism's problems with corruption, Monarchy is a usually a better choice for wartime governments. I think the real question is Republic vs Monarchy in such cases, as both would seem to have advantages depending on the situation.

[nap2]

What if you have a highly productive core and a massive empire. I strongly believe that there is a need for a late-game government to cover this aspect. Why dont' they think up a couple new forms of government....get creative. Who says you have to stick with the ones from history.

I'd like to have a great late-game gov where your production is maintained and corruption is manageable, but I'll take a huge science cut.....who cares anyhow....I'd have all the techs anyway.

Just a hopeful thought....

[enderw]

Communism can be better than Monarchy when you are capturing cities in an opponents homeland. When capturing cities bigger than size 10 you almost always have to raze them, since they just revert other wise. Under communism, when capturing those mid- sized cities, say 5-10 people, you can keep the city. Put in several military units so that you squash the resistance within 2 or 3 turns. Next rush a temple and a cathedral. Also rush a library or barracks if you need to to get the population below 3.

If the city was in a good food producing neighborhood it will only be a few turns before you have a decent culture city where you own citizens outnumber the forign citizens.

Thos technique is impossible under monarchy because you cannot kill off foreigners and harder under despotism becasue the food production restrictions will make it harder to grow your own people.

Mike

[Ned]

Why not Nazism or Muslim Fundamentalism. Both exist(ed) on Earth and don't have to be made up. The use of either form of government should have minimal corruption, but be maximally offensive to other forms of government, so much so that if one stays in that form of government for too long, every other government will or must declare war.