About goverment differences

Athitis · September 21, 2002, 16:01

I am messed up with the goverments. I mean, if you have democracy why turn to Republic? Why to keep Monarchy when you can be Communistic? And what's the use of despotism apart from being the starting goverment? Isn't Democracy the best of them all?

Sheik · September 21, 2002, 20:09

Not really. It depends on what your style of play is.

asleepathewheel · September 21, 2002, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Athitis
I am messed up with the goverments. I mean, if you have democracy why turn to Republic? Why to keep Monarchy when you can be Communistic? And what's the use of despotism apart from being the starting goverment? Isn't Democracy the best of them all?

If you are involved in lots of wars, then democracy will prove unusable, quickly falling into anarchy. republic is much easier to wage war in, the people don't revolt as quickly. If you are peaceful, or only get into short wars, then democracy is the way to go.

Get oiut of despotism ASAP, it won't allow you to harvest as much food or shields as monarchy or republic.

If you are religious, then you can hop from govt to govt. if you are not, you might want to skip monarchy and go straight for republic, or get monarchy then wait for democracy. depends on if you can handle the 6? turns of anarchy.

I don't care for communist b/c you have to pay for stuff with pop points, i prefer to pay with gold.

Ethelred · September 21, 2002, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Athitis
I am messed up with the goverments. I mean, if you have democracy why turn to Republic? Why to keep Monarchy when you can be Communistic? And what's the use of despotism apart from being the starting goverment? Isn't Democracy the best of them all?

Unless I am playing a Religious Civ I go from Despot to Republic and stick with it till the end barring War Weariness enduced Anarchy. It saves a lot of turns of Anarchy and War Weariness is much reduced over Democracy. The only real advantage that Democracy has is that the workers are 50% faster, nice but not realy needed especially for Industrious civs. Its not worth the WW or the 4 to 8 turns of Anarchy. Thats two tech lost for me much of the time.

I have only tried Communism once. I think Monarchy would have been a better choice. I was playing Egypt and was having WW from a long war as a Democracy something I wouldn't have been if I wasn't Religious. Switching to Communism actually increased my research, I had been spending so much on entertainment to fight off Civil Disorder.

Despotism is something you want out of as soon you can manage it. It realy hurts shield and food production as well as money. If you are religious its usefull to go for Monarchy while building up your finances and Cathedrals for the Republic. Otherwise I like to have a marketplace and either a coliseum or a cathedral in my larger cities,or at least three to four luxury resources I can sometimes do with just a marketplace for a while.

The Republic gives you more money than Monarchy but you lose the free units so you need enough money to make up for that and the loss of military police means you must have more content or happy faces to make up for that.

vmxa1 · September 22, 2002, 01:04

I think that about some it up.

Athitis · September 22, 2002, 13:52

Thank u for ur replys

Do u prefer communist over monarchy or/and democracy? Lower corruption is a big advantage, isn't it?

vmxa1 · September 22, 2002, 14:37

I loath communism and it is useful in only a few rare circumstances. If you are not religous civ, the fewer switches the better. Despot to Rep is a good route then. If religous, then go to monarch and then to dem. These ideas are not taken into account your situation and where you are in terms of wars. It is just for production basis. After 129f, I do not worry about corruption. Yes it hurts some, but it is not going to make me play differently. IOW you can live with it.

JohnM2433 · September 22, 2002, 16:48

I'm not sure, but Communism might be advantagious for a large empire because you don't have to waste money rushing things in high-corruption cities. I don't thinks its total commerce output is ever as high as in Democracy or even Republic, though. (Does anyone know if there are cases where it might be? A huge empire, for example?) But while your outlying cities become much more productive, your core cities become less so, and thus cannot produce Wonders as quickly. Courthouses, police stations and WLTKD also are said to lower corruption and waste to managable levels in fringe cities under non-communist governments, but I haven't had much experience with that myself.

Under Republic or Democracy, you can probably make up for the lack of military police by allocating some of your greater income to luxury spending. The greatest concern is War Weariness, as far as I can see. The more aggressive you are and the longer you stay at war, the less representative a government you want.

I'm not sure how Monarchy compares to Communism.

Athitis · September 22, 2002, 17:15

Perhaps its not the right moment but I am very messed up with corruption..........I have heard that courthouses cannot prevent it....and I though that Police Stations only reduce War Weariness. Am I wrong?

Monarchy or Communist? That's the question.....

asleepathewheel · September 22, 2002, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnM2433
I'm not sure, but Communism might be advantagious for a large empire because you don't have to waste money rushing things in high-corruption cities. I don't thinks its total commerce output is ever as high as in Democracy or even Republic, though. (Does anyone know if there are cases where it might be? A huge empire, for example?) But while your outlying cities become much more productive, your core cities become less so, and thus cannot produce Wonders as quickly. Courthouses, police stations and WLTKD also are said to lower corruption and waste to managable levels in fringe cities under non-communist governments, but I haven't had much experience with that myself.

WLTKD helps my cities drastically, but there will still be severe corruption in the cities furthest away.

IIRC, police stations only help with WW, not corruption (unless you mod it, which I have done.)

I've had a massive empire-511 cities, 1 bil population, horrible corruption in 2/3 of my empire. wasn't happy with communism. I would rather have a few super cities than a bunch of mediocre ones. That game was heavily modded corruption wise, so its not a good indicator.

I also like buying stuff over the whip, which is why i don't like communism over republic.

asleepathewheel · September 22, 2002, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Athitis
Perhaps its not the right moment but I am very messed up with corruption..........I have heard that courthouses cannot prevent it....and I though that Police Stations only reduce War Weariness. Am I wrong?

Monarchy or Communist? That's the question.....

I was going to make a detailed post about corruption, but then I figured it would be easier to just link you to a great thread on the subject.

corruption thread

Hope that helps

Ethelred · September 22, 2002, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Athitis
Perhaps its not the right moment but I am very messed up with corruption..........I have heard that courthouses cannot prevent it....

Nothing except not playing the game or modding the heck out of it prevents it. However Courthouses do decrease corruption.

Quote:

and I though that Police Stations only reduce War Weariness. Am I wrong?

Wrong. Police stations worked that way in the original release. Since the first patch Police Stations have the same effect on corruption as a Courthouse does.

See the link to the thread that asleepathewheel posted below for details.

Quote:

Monarchy or Communist? That's the question.....

From what I have seen those that use Communism are using it to pop rush in distant cities. They mostly play religious civs and are pretty much into warmongering. By pop rushing they get a temple up and the population down without spending cash. The catch is it hurts the core cities production. I don't think its as popular as it was before changes in the way unhappiness due to use of the wip were made.

Athitis · September 23, 2002, 05:22

Thank u once again for your replies (and the great link)

One last question: What's the best goverment type for a player that is about to start/join a World War? Monarchy?

Ethelred · September 23, 2002, 05:41

Depends on how long you think the war will last and how well you will do in it.

Unless you are a religious civ its probably best to stick with whatever you have unless you are in a Despotic government. The more cities you have the longer the anarchy will last in a government change. It could easily last eight turns. Thats eight turns with no new techs and nothing build including the military you will need for the war.

Even if you are stuck in a Democracy its probably best to stick with it so you can get a fast start in the war. Now if you are religious I would recommend The Republic untill WW gets bad enough to make things difficult.

Spending money on entertainment doesn't help corrupt cities one bit. Be prepared to lose luxuries you are trading for. That is why I like to have MPPs at least with my important trade partners. That way I can get them on my side instead of against me. If you don't have all the luxuries allready I would recomend making the aquisition of the ones you don't have a priority before WW becomes a problem. Besides winning by domination or conquest resource gathering is the best reason for going to war.

SpencerH · September 23, 2002, 08:46

I usually go despot ->republic but lately I've also switched to democracy in order to speed up workers when not using an industrious civ.

Athitis · September 25, 2002, 16:13

I always have problems when I turn to Republic. My economy suffers greatly and thus I almost always avoid it. Only by the time I get Democracy my empire is able to compensate with the military cost. And I never have many units.....one Hoplite per city and a couple of warriors (usually). Needless to say that since i have democracy, I never turn my goverment to Republic ( i never attack

Thus lower WW doesn't really matter for me).

Wormwood · September 25, 2002, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Athitis
I always have problems when I turn to Republic. My economy suffers greatly and thus I almost always avoid it. Only by the time I get Democracy my empire is able to compensate with the military cost. And I never have many units.....one Hoplite per city and a couple of warriors (usually). Needless to say that since i have democracy, I never turn my goverment to Republic ( i never attack

Thus lower WW doesn't really matter for me).

I often have trouble with Republic at first too, particularily if I get it before currency/construction. What I do is time my GA to hit just after I switch to Republic. You then have 20 turns to build marketplaces/aqueducts/courthouses in most if not all cities; these are the cornerstones to a stable republic able to support a strong defensive unit in every core city and two on border cities, a strong offensive force, and a large number of workers. Democracry only makes it sweeter, and like others have suggested, do your best to get luxuries, through war if need be. Once I get to demo., I stay there. I feel that if you can't take what territory/resources/luxuries you need with a relatively short, decisive conflict, then you have not planned it correctly.

Boewulf · September 26, 2002, 06:25

Several people have mentioned religeous, industrial civs etc... how do these help control war weariness? Since playing CivIII (graduating from CivII) I've only worried about choosing the Civ with the best unique unit. Am I missing something?

Personally I don't mind Communism for making war... it's better than Monarchy in so far as it has lower corruption probs for a big empire. However, the down side is not being able to hurry improvements with cash, but rather having to sacrifice population... not good when you want to quickly build an airport in your newly aquired 'beach-head' town (which only has a pop of 2 or 3 once you've attacked it) and airlift units in to take the rest of the continent

. For this reason, Monarchy may be better.

I like Democracy when at peace, but my last game made me wait 7 goes in Anarchy when I decided to change to Communism because of the WW I was struggling to cope with. Does the style of Civ (religeous etc) effect the time spent in anarchy, does anyone know?

Good comments above on Republic.... I've always avoided it but will try it next game. Still... I say bring
back Fundamentalism

.

vondrack · September 26, 2002, 07:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Boewulf
Several people have mentioned religeous, industrial civs etc... how do these help control war weariness? Since playing CivIII (graduating from CivII) I've only worried about choosing the Civ with the best unique unit. Am I missing something?

Civ traits do not affect war weariness in any way.

Quote:

Originally posted by Boewulf
I like Democracy when at peace, but my last game made me wait 7 goes in Anarchy when I decided to change to Communism because of the WW I was struggling to cope with. Does the style of Civ (religeous etc) effect the time spent in anarchy, does anyone know?

With religious civs, you start the revolution on one turn and choose the new government on the very next turn. No anarchy at all...

Quote:

Originally posted by Boewulf
Good comments above on Republic.... I've always avoided it but will try it next game. Still... I say bring
back Fundamentalism

.

Oh, yeah, that's why it was taken out...

Arrian · September 26, 2002, 09:50

Communism sucks in CivIII. Sure, there may be very specific circumstances were it would be useful, but most of the time Monarchy is superior.

A lot of it depends on how your empire is set up. I would encourage you to save the game, and then switch to communism. Have a good look around your empire, check the economic data from the F1 screen, etc. Then reload and switch to Monarchy. Do the same. I betcha Monarchy is better.

-Arrian

WarpStorm · September 26, 2002, 10:16

This will be true if you built your empire on the principle of core cities. If you abandon the concept and develop all cities, I find that you can get a real boost out of Communism over Monarchy.

Zero · September 26, 2002, 10:20

Communism and Monarchy is vastly different. And it's not just forced labor vs Rushing. But first let me clear up one thing so my explanation on two type of govt doesnt get slowed by my need to explain how corruption works.
Go to this thread for corruption anaylsis. It has been dissected so well.

So, you wonder, the difference between Monarchy VS Communism, Republic VS Democracy?

Communism uses forced labor to rush,
Monarchy uses golds to rush.

Monarchy has same corruption level as REPUBLIC
Communism runs under 30% flat ratio.

Communism also works in that forbidden palace doesnt provide a capitol, but a 100% increase in OCN (since communism doesnt need capitol to determine corruption)

Communism can draft more citizen.
Thats all I can spew out on my mind. Now for rep VS Demo,...

Republic has same corruption as Monarchy NOT DEMOCRACY.
Democracy has least corruption level of all govt.

Democratic workers work 150% faster as opposed to republic 100%.

I havent tested if Republic and democracy differ in the extremity of war weariness, though when I play I can't see any visible difference. It has always been the case that Civilization made democracy more appealing than Republic... It's a shame. But it has also been tradtionally that republic handles war weariness (troops away form home in I and II) better than democracy.

But who gives when you get more commerce out of more efficient corruption level and can maintain happiness by luxury? firaxis should balance the two more by making both govt appealing in its own way. Much like how they pulled off very well with communism vs monarchy in making them different enough. Unless Firaxis intend Republic to be a stepping stone to Democracy (just like how despotism is really a temporary govt).

vmxa1 · September 26, 2002, 12:32

Consider how many of the people here that I respect, take the perspective that communist is not a good choice (I agree), there must be a reason (productivity).

Boewulf · September 26, 2002, 18:37

Quote:

With religious civs, you start the revolution on one turn and choose the new government on the very next turn. No anarchy at all...

vondrack.... is this right? I'll have to try it. If it is... thanks. If not, I'll bill you some of my lost revenue

On a serious note though.. what is the balance.. I mean: if Religeous Civs get no anarchy, what do industrious, scientific, etc, Civs get... has anyone documented this, or have I just not read the manual

Er.. actually I think I did forget to do that!

Quote:

Oh, yeah, that's why it was taken out...

Ohh, but wasn't it good? Made for a quick (if bloody) end game anyway

!

Quote:

But who gives when you get more commerce out of more efficient corruption level and can maintain happiness by luxury?

You hit the nail on the head there (Calc II).... I knew there was a sensible reason why a republic didn't work as well when you decide its time to be a warmongerer... to be honest, I never could work out why Sid made the distinction... Fundamentalism now, there's a distinction if there ever was one... sorry

we've covered that haven't we!

Mind you...

Quote:

Democracy has least corruption level of all govt

You mean Civilization doesn't reflect real life??????

Ohh! I'll have to re-evaluate my existence!

... either that or produce a mod- which would of course have fundamentalism (although I prefer the term "hegemonic") in it... but we won't go in to that

Ethelred · September 26, 2002, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Boewulf

vondrack.... is this right? I'll have to try it. If it is... thanks. If not, I'll bill you some of my lost revenue

On a serious note though.. what is the balance.. I mean: if Religeous Civs get no anarchy, what do industrious, scientific, etc, Civs get... has anyone documented this, or have I just not read the manual

Not no anarchy. One turn. You can wait till to the end of the turn hit F1 and start the revolution. Then you start the next turns build and money sequence in anarchy. After all the cities have finished you get to choose your goverment before you move your units. Thats one turn of income and shield production lost. However if you you get in the habit of changing governments frequently those single turns can add up.

Boewulf · September 26, 2002, 20:10

Quote:

Not no anarchy. One turn.

Ahh! Got it... thanks

Don't change that often.... but when I want to... I want to, if you get what I mean.

Still, though, do other Civ 'predispositions' have other effects (Scientific, industrious, expansionist, etc.)?

Ethelred · September 26, 2002, 20:42

Well I could reply RTFM. It does help to that with some games.

However you might want to look at this thread:

Militaristic, Industrious, Religious are so far ahead of the other traits

There a LOT threads covering Civ traits.

Boewulf · September 26, 2002, 21:08

Many Thanks

vondrack · September 27, 2002, 02:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not no anarchy. One turn. You can wait till to the end of the turn hit F1 and start the revolution. Then you start the next turns build and money sequence in anarchy. After all the cities have finished you get to choose your goverment before you move your units. Thats one turn of income and shield production lost. However if you you get in the habit of changing governments frequently those single turns can add up.

Yep, that's correct, I should have probably worded my response in a more precise way. The fact is that it is not even one full turn of anarchy. You lose just a part of one turn, if you do it like Ethelred says (start the revolution only after you've done everything else in the current turn).