Which is the Best Government for Modern Warfare ?

SorvinoBackhand · December 8, 2002, 00:34

Ignoring for the moment that the game badly needs more government variety, which goverment do you all play in the long modern wars of late game and why ?

Herzog · December 8, 2002, 01:34

Absolutly democracy. The number of cities before corrupcion colapses the system in communism is absurd, and with a decent number of lux resourses, with the use of marketplaces, you can afford a war for 15 or 20 turns before war weariness affects your empire

GusSmed · December 8, 2002, 04:12

Generally, whether I'm at war or not is irrelevant to what government I'm using. Yes, war unhappiness is a bit of a problem with Republic or Democracy, but almost always you can offset that with the Luxury slider and still have more income than from Communism or Monarchy.

If I'm playing a Religious civ, I'll switch to Democracy when it becomes available. Otherwise I stick with Republic, since 4-6 turns of zero production and research just isn't worth the minor improvements of Democracy.

The only time I switch governments in a war is if it's been going on so long that I have to pump the Luxury slider to the point that I am losing money even at 10% Science. At that point, I'll switch.

The main benefit of Communism is the ability to pop-rush. There used to be quite a few threads here about how late game Communism was quite powerful if you were just pumping out military units, converting useless population in distance highly corrupt cities into shields.

However, pop-rushing isn't anywhere near as lucrative as it used to be, and you can't pop-rush foreign population anymore, so Communism is pretty much useless these days.

- Gus

Ijuin · December 8, 2002, 06:13

Democracy can handle a medium-long war provided that you have the Universal Suffrage wonder. With that plus Police Stations, you end up having about as much War Weariness as a Republic would have without either. If I can grab that wonder, then I tend to stick with Democracy throughout the Industrial and Modern ages.

Coracle · December 8, 2002, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by SorvinoBackhand
Ignoring for the moment that the game badly needs more government variety, which goverment do you all play in the long modern wars of late game and why ?

I'm not sure which is best, but I read elsewhere when in need of quick cash some players deliberately go into ANARCHY as it supplies more money than Democracy (or Communism?). I assume this would be especially useful during wars.

What do people think of that as a strategy?

Lord Merciless · December 8, 2002, 17:17

Democracy.

Theseus · December 8, 2002, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by GusSmed
The main benefit of Communism is the ability to pop-rush. There used to be quite a few threads here about how late game Communism was quite powerful if you were just pumping out military units, converting useless population in distance highly corrupt cities into shields.

However, pop-rushing isn't anywhere near as lucrative as it used to be, and you can't pop-rush foreign population anymore, so Communism is pretty much useless these days.

- Gus

What changed? What do you mean you can't poprush foreign poulation?

Jaybe · December 8, 2002, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
I'm not sure which is best, but I read elsewhere when in need of quick cash some players deliberately go into ANARCHY as it supplies more money than Democracy (or Communism?). I assume this would be especially useful during wars.

What do people think of that as a strategy?

The only cash flow during Anarchy is what you have in trade agreements with other civs. For example, if you were paying for luxuries, your cash flow would be negative unless you were being paid more for other agreements.

If your treasury is low when you have negative cash flow, the results can be UGLY. I learned my lesson so well the first time, I don't remember whether you lose units, improvements or default on your payments when you run out of funds.

Datajack Franit · December 8, 2002, 18:37

So monarchy is the key, unless you're into a tech run

DaveMcW · December 8, 2002, 21:53

Anarchy would be good if you were supporting 1000+ units. But micromanaging that many units is insane.

I once did a modern age OCC conquest in anarchy after the nukes started falling.

badams52 · December 9, 2002, 00:53

While you'll make money in Anarchy as long as you aren't paying other civs more then you're getting. I think the majority of players are getting much more $$ from the AIs than they are paying out.

The downside, no new units. If you don't have the numbers to take out the AI you're fighting, then you'll start losing substantially when you can't replace those troops in the field.

joncnunn · December 9, 2002, 14:38

Democracy is genneraly the best.

But if the war drags on too long, a switch will need to be made to Communism. (And past 50% unhappiness due to Peace Protests, your Democracy/Repubilc may collapse on it's own.)

ManicStarSeed · December 9, 2002, 16:40

I have had 25+turn wars in Democracy. Only the last 5 turns did I see thos two turn MA become 3 and 4 turn MA. It could have lasted 30-40 turns before WW became a major hinderance.

Mss

joncnunn · December 9, 2002, 17:00

I'm thinking that the number of combats involved is a factor in addition to the number of turns.

In the same game, I had a 40 turn do-nothing war with no protests breaking out as all.
(One of those AI lands on your property, declares war when you ask them to leave, you kill them there the same turn as there's no follow up by either side, except the AI isn't willing to settle for peace for 40 turns.)

But just as I was nearing completing reserach of the last part, I had a second war, except I followed thru with a modern era counter invasion and had protests break out in 3 turns, got to 50% peace protests in 10 turns, and barely accomplished all military objetives and declared peace in time to keep my Democacy from collapsing.

Quote:

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
I have had 25+turn wars in Democracy. Only the last 5 turns did I see thos two turn MA become 3 and 4 turn MA. It could have lasted 30-40 turns before WW became a major hinderance.

Mss

Dominae · December 9, 2002, 17:00

You also get income from Taxmen and Scientists when in Anarchy, in addition to any gpt deals you have with other civs. Furthermore, it is possible to complete improvements and units via Forest-chopping.

Dominae

Worthingtons · December 9, 2002, 18:09

in the modern age there is something called Nukes. If you use these democracy isnt an option. Even if you do have Sistine Chappel,J.S Bach's and Cure for Cancer with all the luxuries!!

Jaybe · December 9, 2002, 19:09

joncnunn, the popularly held conception is that combat LOSSES contribute to WW. That's what makes bombardment and cruise missiles so popular.

DaveMcW · December 10, 2002, 02:04

Your losses (units and cities) and units in enemy territory (both yours and theirs) contribute to war weariness.

Breaking a peace treaty before 20 turns is up immediately restores WW to the pre-treaty levels.

Mad Bomber · December 10, 2002, 02:45

with war weariness, remember that the amout of allies and enemies that you have are factors in WW. If you are facing a multiple front war and are all by yourself, you will be facing significantly more WW than if you are leading a coalition to get rid of an 'evil' civ.

Rothy:

I have used nukes as a demo and it doesn't hurt nearly as bad as you would think. Especially if they use the nukes first.

dominae:

you can also disband units to complete improvements in anarchy

badams52 · December 11, 2002, 13:01

Dominae, MadBomber:

But I'd like to see you create an army of tanks or MAs when in anarchy.

Dominae · December 11, 2002, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by badams52
Dominae, MadBomber:

But I'd like to see you create an army of tanks or MAs when in anarchy.

Given enough Forest and obsolete Stone-age Warriors...anything is possible!

Dominae

DaveMcW · December 11, 2002, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae

Given me enough Forest and obsolete Stone-age Warriors...anything is possible!

Dominae

I can see it now... "AU 203: Anarchy Works Best".

Goal: win the game while switching to permanent anarchy as soon as possible!

Dominae · December 11, 2002, 14:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW
I can see it now... "AU 203: Anarchy Works Best".

Goal: win the game while switching to permanent anarchy as soon as possible!

Say, that's not a bad idea! Anarchy obviously doesn't "work best", but maybe it's possible to win the game on Chieftan or Warlord in Anarchy. Of course, we would have to create a scenario such that Anarchy is the starting government. Hmm...

Dominae

badams52 · December 12, 2002, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW

I can see it now... "AU 203: Anarchy Works Best".

Goal: win the game while switching to permanent anarchy as soon as possible!

I'd have to tip my hat to anyone who could win such a scenario. Even on cheiftain, I think it's darn near impossible.

I think conquest or domination would be the only possible victories one could achieve in permanent anarchy

Mad Bomber · December 12, 2002, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcW

I can see it now... "AU 203: Anarchy Works Best".

Goal: win the game while switching to permanent anarchy as soon as possible!

Anyone who can win with this senerio will ascend to godhood in the CIV 3 universe.

Hope you have plenty of forest...

georges bonbon · December 13, 2002, 06:43

I am going for republic.

And by the way, I always try to keep my GA for the last 150 years of the game. I sometimes refuse less interesting GW for fear of clinching GA.

So when you are technically ahead, go for the Internet and start fighting 20 years before it is build. With GA you can go on fighting for another twenty years without problems.

Try it.

Mad Bomber · December 13, 2002, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by georges bonbon
I am going for republic.

And by the way, I always try to keep my GA for the last 150 years of the game. I sometimes refuse less interesting GW for fear of clinching GA.

So when you are technically ahead, go for the Internet and start fighting 20 years before it is build. With GA you can go on fighting for another twenty years without problems.

Try it.

No doubt that A late GA is the most productive overall, but I am of the view that any GA is a great GA. An early GA is great for REX. A middle or industrial GA is great for wonder building, and a late GA is great for cash hoarding, and making production sky through the roof. Of course all GA's are good for unit production and warmongering. The only bad GA is the one you do not get. Personally I like to get my GA with the Americans right after I switch to republic, when you get it at this time your overall REX phase doubles in effectiveness at the expense of the other civ's on your continent and its even more effective on a pangea map.

Zero · December 14, 2002, 01:44

The best warring govt is monarchy or communism.

If you can deal with WW as rep/demo great, but if ur in a serious war, mostly likely WW will be too overwhelming for u.

If its light war, Democracy may be viable
If its a bit heavier Republic may be viable (they seem to hanle WW better IMO.. is this true?)

If its any full fledged war, either crank lux up as either of those govt or pick monarchy or communism. Communism may be a better choice for big civ, even though you cant rush buy.

Mad Bomber · December 14, 2002, 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
The best warring govt is monarchy or communism.

If you can deal with WW as rep/demo great, but if ur in a serious war, mostly likely WW will be too overwhelming for u.

If its light war, Democracy may be viable
If its a bit heavier Republic may be viable (they seem to hanle WW better IMO.. is this true?)

If its any full fledged war, either crank lux up as either of those govt or pick monarchy or communism. Communism may be a better choice for big civ, even though you cant rush buy.

I must admit that until recently I have not seen the value of Monarchy but I feel now that Monarchy may be the best warring government.

The difference between the two in my opinion is the cash buy option. Have you ever tried to launch an invasion across the deep blue, get to the continent, take a town, and realize that you can't rush an airport there due to the fact you have to whip the populace?

DaveMcW · December 14, 2002, 03:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

No doubt that A late GA is the most productive overall, but I am of the view that any GA is a great GA.

I disagree, a late GA is the LEAST productive!

A despot GA turns all your 1-shield tiles into 2-shield tiles. Mined shielded grasslands don't get any benefit, so I'll call the average production increase +80%.

A middle age GA gives all your tiles the +1 shield bonus, but by this time you are working hills and forests which already give a lot of shields. So it's more like a +70% production increase.

After railroads the average tile makes 2-3 shields, so +1 more from the GA is not that great. The production increase averages around +40%.