Large Empires - Which Government

[adrianchew]

If you're intending to wage war and capture a ton of cities and grow your empire instead of winning peacefully, what's the best government type?

I find Republic gives a nice boost to research but a lot of cities end up being pretty useless production-wise... would you do Despotism -> Monarchy -> Communism instead?

[vmxa1]

This is not as straight forward as it seems. Los of variables come into the equation. Ignoring all of that it comes down to being religious or not. If religious you can change with little pain.

Otherwise I would go to republic and stay there. It is fine for wars, if you get some luxs and have markets.

Despot is not good for anything in comparison to all other forms.

[vmxa1]

Re: Large Empires - Which Government

Originally posted by adrianchew

I find Republic gives a nice boost to research but a lot of cities end up being pretty useless production-wise...

What do you mean here? Are you talking out corruption from the OCN and distance? Are you talking about unhappy pop?

What is making them useless? Whatever it is, unless it was WW, it won't be fix by a different government.

[joncnunn]

If peaceful, then closely compare how much corruption would be saved under Democracy compared to Republic against unit savings.

Note that if you have a lot of millitary units, it's possible to spend less on unit support under Democracy directly given the 2X cost of units above the limit under Republic.

Yup, if not religious, the up to 8 turns anarchy must be factored in.

If you have 1.13 and have already built the SP HQ, your probably best off staying communist.

[adrianchew]

Useless ie. shield production is reduced to almost nothing - almost any improvement in the faraway cities have to be bought if you want decent build times.

Won't Communism yield overall slightly better shield production in the whole empire + you can have the SPHQ? Plus ability to field tons and tons of units at the same time.

I'm wondering if the lost in commerce is that bad - given you can devote most all to research instead of taxes since all you need is cash to upgrade units but not buy improvements.

[Aggie]

Well I usually wage war an take tons of cites and usually stay in republic. As mentioned earlier unless you are religious, in a competetive game you simply lose too much to change in the industrial age.

If your religious the reduced corruption at a distance comes at a price of lower production at the core(s), so whether its worth it or not depends on too many variables to state here.

Aggie

[The Templar]

Has to be communism - especially if your empire spans islands and multiple continents.

Change pop-rush to gold-rush on communism and you have a really good form of government.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by adrianchew
Useless ie. shield production is reduced to almost nothing - almost any improvement in the faraway cities have to be bought if you want decent build times.

Won't Communism yield overall slightly better shield production in the whole empire + you can have the SPHQ? Plus ability to field tons and tons of units at the same time.

I'm wondering if the lost in commerce is that bad - given you can devote most all to research instead of taxes since all you need is cash to upgrade units but not buy improvements.

I cannot address the commerce issue as I had not really tested it, nor read any reliable reports on it.

But the raw shields should be the same in all forms of government. The corruption will be impacted by government and that determines the net production of the city. So if you are talking about how many shields are generated, you need to look at the citizens and the tiles they are working. If you are actually interested in the useful shields, now the form of government matters.

I am not so concerned about far flung cities and how productive they are, it is the core that matters to me and if FP is functional, those cities. They are going to determine if my empire will prosper or not. Since I do not play on huge maps very often, those far off cities are coming too late to matter all that much. I can get some production out of them and that is all I need. Now with the new specialist I can do quite well.

Anyway I just cannot switch more than once without being religious and I will have to choose between Republic or Monarchy, maybe Dem.

[MoonWolf]

I normally go for democracy even if I have a lot of wars. I normally let my governors manage the citizen mood meaning it will take a long time before my cities are rioting (when they start starving, I'll do something). The trick to go for war in democracy, is to not only have a lot of luxuries and happy-buildings, but to run your wars fast and effective. I have even experienced WLTKD's after I've taken some enemy cities!

My current map is quite special with a long bottleneck to my neighbours. This make it difficult to find a good location for my FP unless I "integrate" my neighbour in to my empire. So I'm actually thinking of trying Communism if I'll grow big (am not religious). I think it's must be a try to find what's best for you and what you prefer. Just stay out of democracy if you run into a longlasting and bloody (for you) war.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by vmxa1



I am not so concerned about far flung cities and how productive they are, it is the core that matters to me and if FP is functional, those cities. They are going to determine if my empire will prosper or not. Since I do not play on huge maps very often, those far off cities are coming too late to matter all that much. I can get some production out of them and that is all I need. Now with the new specialist I can do quite well.

I prefer communal corruption for the following reason - no matter how good your core is, each city can produce at maximum 1 unit per turn. With all cities functioning, each city with a factory can get reasonable progress done on one unit each turn. I find the bottleneck on one unit/one city/one turn more damaging than the small shield hit my core takes. Besides, civil engineers can more than compensate.

Anyway I just cannot switch more than once without being religious and I will have to choose between Republic or Monarchy, maybe Dem.

I usually switch twice if scientific - using the industrial age slingshot to compensate. Either immediately to Dem if I'm feeling like a buildier or to Communism once I get it.

[vmxa1]

The Templar , may be on the wrong page here, but far flung cities are not going to have factories. Anyway how many units do I need and how many can I afford to crank out each turn? At thi juncture in the game I should already have enough units to handle what ever I paln to do and will only make a few more, unless in a war.

[vmxa1]

MoonWolf, just be aware that those govenors are expending resources to keep the pop happy, so you may be suffering already.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by vmxa1
The Templar , may be on the wrong page here, but far flung cities are not going to have factories.

Unless you are using a government with communal corruption (i.e. communism in the official version).

The need to raise a large number of units rapidly comes (for me) with the discovery of tanks. Incidentally, this happens after plenty of time to build factories in far-flung cities under communism.

[Nor Me]

I've just tested the 1.15 Beta corruption model. If it works the way I think it does then Communism is going to be the best goverment for large empires.

That should hold for non-religious builders as well.

[Raghnall]

.

Change pop-rush to gold-rush on communism and you have a really good form of government.

I disagree, unless you are a peaceful Communist. If I'm going communist it's because I'm fighting. If I'm taking cities, and large ones at that, after I've quieted resistence using pop rush to build new buildings is what I want vs. gold rush, because I can reduce the number of indiginous inhabitants that might try to overthrow my puppet regime