Communism vs. Monarchy

johncmcleod · August 12, 2002, 22:44

I have a large empire (I think about 25-35 cities) and a small military, but I'm about to build up a large military for a large war that will soon come. Which gov is better for me?

Mattaba · August 13, 2002, 06:10

How much money do you have?
if you have lots of money I would go for monarchy and if not I would go for communism if i were you.
Communism can also be usefull if your newly conquered cities are far away and you want to build some culture buildings quickly to prevent flipping, because of its communal corruption.

Arrian · August 13, 2002, 10:29

It depends somewhat on the layout of your empire (in particular your Palace/FP setup), but in almost all cases I would recommend switching to monarchy once your military buildup is complete.

-Arrian

Lord Merciless · August 13, 2002, 11:32

If you don't have many far away cities producing just 1 shield, then switching to Communism is no good. Also you need pop-rush to hurry your improvements, something only feasible if your target cities are big.

NeoStar · August 16, 2002, 07:32

Of course switch to Communism - its makes taking over the world so easy

On that point - this arguement shouldn't be there and its stupid to see monarchy even able to compete with communism. Will PTW have better gov control (like unqiue unit)? - its a vain hope...

Arrian · August 16, 2002, 09:38

Umm, I beg to differ, NeoStar. I'm not stupid. I do think Monarchy is better than Communism... in most cases, in fact. At least in the games I play, I work hard to get my empire palace and forbidden palace positioned properly so that I have minimal corruption. I play on standard maps, continents. I have never encountered a situation where it would make sense to trade my nearly corruption-less double core of cities for uniform 40% or greater corruption. In the games I've played, switching to communism would have been stupid.

-Arrian

NeoStar · August 16, 2002, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Umm, I beg to differ, NeoStar. I'm not stupid. I do think Monarchy is better than Communism... in most cases, in fact. At least in the games I play, I work hard to get my empire palace and forbidden palace positioned properly so that I have minimal corruption. I play on standard maps, continents. I have never encountered a situation where it would make sense to trade my nearly corruption-less double core of cities for uniform 40% or greater corruption. In the games I've played, switching to communism would have been stupid.

-Arrian

I mean that in real world terms they shouldn't be able to compete. That is stupid

I know the corruption effects can make Monarchy better, but (sorry, I like it realistic) I would like to see modern governments superior enough to not have this arguement. Civ would need more govs though...

Strakorfsky · August 18, 2002, 00:15

Hm, interesting, very interesting....

I would stay with the Ole Commies

Reason si that first off, the communal corruption is great when makign a global assualt, even the best placed palace anf forbidden palace and not supplement communal corruption, infact, if I am in a close game, I ussauly need the extra units communism gives me for more tanks. Also, for example, I am in the North American contenant, I need to go all the way over to the europe to beat the **** out of the Americans, now, a long away accrose the alantic and I realize that conquering their weak impire will hurt my already well places fp and capital, so I switch to communisim in one turn with my religious aztecs, and though communal corruption hurts my home cities, it makes it easy for me to prevent cultural problems, and so after a serious of cold hearted wars on the Americans, Iroquios, RUssia, and China, I controled nearly 70% of the earth map. I simply could not drive myself back into democracy with that war-time flux, that sheer number of cities I had would have made corruption sa bad in those cities, switching to any other government would ahve instantly ruined more then half of my empire, now, you can not say monarchy beats communism in massive global wars where one captures cities instead of razing. (Mind you this was on monarch)

-Ronnie

Strakorfsky · August 18, 2002, 00:19

Yes, the pop-rush needed for a rush in Communism is one thing I really hate about it.

Jaybe · August 18, 2002, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Yes, the pop-rush needed for a rush in Communism is one thing I really hate about it.

Since I have never pop-rushed,* communism forces me to spew out numerous jet fighters for me to fly to the cities needing hurried improvements, where I disband the fighters for 25 shields each.

*(I keep on telling myself I should try that sometime)

trickey · August 24, 2002, 06:32

I usually go with Monarchy for my warmonging games. I like my inner core of cities can easily build defender/attacks to support the entire empire (with my outter cities focuising on building inprovment.) Also, i usually (and i think most people do) try do build my wonder in one of my inner cities. Its already hard enough to get a wonder on Emperor and up, so idont want the city that is building the wonder suffering from "communal corruption".