Which gov't type works best for long wars?

Jawa Jocky · July 9, 2002, 19:02

Monarchy or Communism that is the question?

My Republic is full of peace loving hippies. War weariness got so bad I had to start a revolution. Anarchy has made everyone happy, but thats because those lazy hippies are not going to work and building new units. Now I need to form a new government that will rule the peace loving hippie scum and force them to go back to work (and like it).

All feedback is welcome.
Thank you!

DeepO · July 9, 2002, 19:20

This was exactly the question I was asking myself a few days ago, when trying the mini tourney IV. In normal games, I always try to maintain a democracy, or a republic, and keep my wars short. The longest, normal war for me is 20 turns, the amount it takes to cancel MPPs and alliances without diplomatic penalties. Using lots of policestations, and hopefully the Universal Suffrage, sometimes a bit of lux-sliding keeps everyone reasonably happy.

However, in MT IV, it is not possible anymore, you need longer wars as you can't blitz your way through an AI empire so easily. So I was thinking about the implications of commie versus monarchy as well. What I came up with:

it depends on the situation (like everything in Civ). One of the biggest advantages of Communism is the way in which corruption is handled: if you intend to keep a certain amount of cities, and want them to be productive, commie is the way to go. However, from a certain amount of cities on, the corruption can become so bad that all of your cities are 95% corrupt. Monarchy would be the choice then.
poprushing. Commies can pop-rush, which is a blessing to quickly get rid of foreign population, while doing something meaningfull with them at the same time.
palace functionality: if you have a palace, of a FP close to the cities you intend on capturing, Monarchy could be the prime choice. This is certainly true when you have loads of corrupt cities all ready.

My guess is that in general Communism is the way to go, unless your empire is too big. At that time Monarchy will ensure that at least your core cities keep producing reinforcements. Communism can be a handy way to quickly rush several buildings (e.g. 3 turns of communism, to rush 2 buildings in all cities), so when religous it might pay off to switch between the two.

I have to say I'm looking forward to the comments of some notorious warmongers, this is an area I'm quite new in. At any rate, if you can do it, make your wars short, and keep in demo/rep. That surely is the best solution.

DeepO

Jawa Jocky · July 9, 2002, 20:21

My wars are always short too. I have a few cities and/or resources/luxuries in mind and I sue for peace when I get them. Or I build up and take the entire civ in a few turns. I even avoid alliances (unless neccessary) so I can keep wars below 20 turns. With these guidelines I can stay in Democracy/Republic durning my wars.

Since my computer is so slow this is also a good strategy for a beeline to SS victories. However this game had all peaceful victories disabled. So I find myself in unfamaliar territory (long wars). It's kind of an interesting change, but I'm definately not going to do this again anytime soon. I just don't have this kind of time.

Catt · July 10, 2002, 02:09

Like the two of you, I have evolved my play style to try and accomodate short (8 - 12 turn) wars in the industrial and modern ages so that I can remain a productive democracy; unless, of course, I'm religious, and then I can warmonger to my heart's content. But even as a religious civ, I don't have enough experience at prolonged, late warfare to add much to the thread. (And I have only replayed certain war situations in both Monarchy and Communism in order to compare and contrast effects a half dozen times at the most).

DeepO gave a good overview. My limited experience indicates that the optimum government choice may work in a bell curve fashion when plotted against empire size. On huge, sprawling empires and on small, compact empires, communism is oftentimes an attractive option -- with dozens and dozens of cities able to produce military units, I am less concerned about my core cities' sudden production losses under Communism, and with a compact landscape, my core cities' production abilities seem little changed. With my more typical "medium-sized" empire, and assuming a decently-located FP and Palace, Monarchy offers two distinct cores able to produce advanced units very quickly -- damn the far flung corruption, ve haf other vays of dealing vith zat!

Since gold seems to be much easier to come by in the later game, I do greatly prefer the "buy rush" of Monarchy to the pop rush of Communism.

Others who warmonger in the late game extensively have a view?

Catt

The Pioneer · July 10, 2002, 02:48

If you keep your wars short then you can certainly remain Rep/Dem but short wars are often fought in lower difficulty levels. Regent and above the wars are longer and as far as my experience goes the AI does not sign a peace treaty so easily with you. This can then throw you into Anarchy.
I tend to go for Communism myself when I go to war, my people are content/happy and the corruption problem is eliminated. I do some pop rushing which is cheaper than buying. But if I revert back to Democracy as soon as the circumstances allow it.

Arrian · July 10, 2002, 10:51

If you have a large, productive empire with well-placed Palace/FP, definitely go with Monarchy. See the "Game of Ultimate Power" thread - I remained a Monarchy from BC times through the end, and pretty much fought the whole time. Due to helpful geography (the continent was kinda barbell shaped), my palace and FP made nearly my entire empire productive. Going commie would have been moronic in that situation.

If, however, you have a sprawling empire w/o optimal Palace/FP locations and with financial issues, communism may be the way to go. I've honesty never used it, so I suppose I shouldn't condemn it, but with the 1.21 corruption level, I think it's a poor government choice.

-Arrian

Franses · July 10, 2002, 12:02

I have tested communism more than once. It never came in better than Monarchy from a shield nor a gold point of view. Yet I notice that some people keep using it as their governement of choice. If anyone has a save file that shows communism to be better than Monarchy, I would be very interested. I am very curious what such an empire looks like.

alexman · July 10, 2002, 13:32

In theory, DeepO has nailed the factors. Communism does not incur corruption due to distance, but it does incur corruption due to number of cities. So this government is best when you have a fair amount of cities, close to the "optimal" number, but with large distances between them. An archipelago map with max water, for example.

In practice, I have never encountered such a situation either.

Solver · July 10, 2002, 15:25

Monarchy bests commie in most cases, as Franses says, but sometimes the drafting ability of 3 units is useful. And I certainly prefer buying over poprushing - easy gold, no unhappiness.

albiedamned · July 10, 2002, 19:18

Which one has a draft rate of 3? I thought they were both 2. Did I miss something?

Franses · July 11, 2002, 03:10

Communism indeed has a draft rate of 3. Monarchy has a rate of 2, the same as Despotism.

albiedamned · July 11, 2002, 06:46

Actually, I just looked it up in the Readme file that came with the patches. This was from the v1.17f fixes section:

* Fixed Communism Civilopedia entry to reflect the correct draft rate of 2.

Franses · July 11, 2002, 07:31

Checked it in the editor (version 1.21f). I have to confirm that you are right. Communism indeed has a draft rate of 2 now. I will have to adapt my documentation.

W4r_Machine · July 11, 2002, 13:01

Catt ir right religios civ can go to war to thier hearts content. Kind of Ironic but oh well.

I always use Monarchy during war may it be short or long, To tell you the truth I stick to monarchy from the moment I get it till I get smoked or WIN...but I change government according to the situation. MOre gold comming in and no war=Democracy for me.

dawidge · July 11, 2002, 13:20

Once I hit Democracy, there's no turning back until I'm forced to change due to weariness. I usually end up spending a lot of money on happiness during wars to stave off the unrest, but as a Democracy I make a lot of money. The $$ cost tends to equal out with switching to Monarchy (not counting the intervening anarchy). As a bonus, I get 50% faster workers.

HazieDaVampire · July 11, 2002, 18:28

I've made a speicle war time government, no war wearyness, but it has draw backs, but isn't like comunism. But isn't very disirable during peacetime!
It kinda acts like British WW2 government!

Franses · July 11, 2002, 18:31

And what settings does it have?

phunny_pharmer · July 12, 2002, 11:26

I use republic, even for the long wars.

If the extra trade gained from the square is put into luxuries, the net change (in gold) should be zero. This will be because the corruption "bonus" between monarchy and republic should pay for the cost of your army.

Now, some cities need more happiness than others (typically the small 4-6 size cities and the very large 15+ ones). In these cities, luxuries will help. In the other types of cities, WLT_D could be triggered. You may make more money, too.

In other words, unless you plan on a war that will bring a republic to its knees, stay republic. It takes four (one) turns to change, anyway.

thorpey · July 12, 2002, 12:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
My wars are always short too. I have a few cities and/or resources/luxuries in mind and I sue for peace when I get them. Or I build up and take the entire civ in a few turns. I even avoid alliances (unless neccessary) so I can keep wars below 20 turns. With these guidelines I can stay in Democracy/Republic durning my wars.

I too, try to keep my wars short so that I can stay in Democracy/Republic.

However, in my current game I wanted to beat the Americans way down so that I could stay ahead in the tech race, and felt that I didn't have enough troops at the time to kick them sufficiently on my own (I had to ship the troops in - fairly time consuming). So I made a MPP with the Persians, who were right next to the Americans, so that I could distract at least half of their forces.
Later, to stop the war dragging on for the full 20 turns I targeted the American cities closest to the Persians, so that I could place myself between the Americans and Persians. The MPP only comes into effect if the Americans attack the Persians.
If they can't get to them they can't attack and I'm not dragged back into the war.
So, the MPP distracted the Americans long enough for me to cut them down to size.... worked well!