a suggestion for improving democracy

[MattPilot]

since democracy is seen as weak do to the war wariness factor (well, thats a matter of opinion actually), how about the following positive effect.

Initially, when going to war, the civilization should gain a boost in its economy (commerce, production), to reflect its enthusiasm for the "fight for freedom". However, as reality of war comes back to haunt the civilization (deaths of loved ones), the boost is lost and warwariness takes its toll.

so what i'm saying is, as long as the war wariness points are kept low, say 33% of amount that would lead to revolution, the civilization should enjoy the boost in its economy.

comments?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I would think a boost to production to represent enthusiasm then slowly war weariness seeps in.

[CerberusIV]

I have a suggestion for improving Democracy too. Leave it alone!

Seriously, it works just fine if used right. If it doesn't suit your particular circumstances there are plenty of other government types to choose from.

[Mr Justice]

i agree with CerberusIV on this one.

as i see it democracy is a peace time govement, as such it has the most benifits to a peace full empire. if its war u want then go for another government type.
you cant have it all.

[Harovan]

Democracy is fine as it is.

[SporkPimp]

Then why is it useless?

[steven8r]

I've actually found it quite useful for boosting research and gold, not to mention the extra little Worker boost.

Sure, there's War Weariness, but just keep the wars short and the Luxes up and it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

How exactly, SporkPimp, do you find it useless?

Steven

[ErikM]

It's not that Democracy is bad.

It's just that Anarchy lasts too long.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by SporkPimp
Then why is it useless?

To me it is useless, because I never get around to switching to it.
That is not to say it is bad or broken, but I just don't use it.

[cracky]

Originally posted by ErikM
It's not that Democracy is bad.

It's just that Anarchy lasts too long.

*cough* religious civ *cough* *cough*

Seriously though, even when I'm not playing a religious civ, I usually take the despotism-monarchy-democracy route. Yes, the anarchy no fun, and I know most people seem to go straight to republic, but for me, the early deadly unit support costs of republic, especially in the late ancient age, early middle ages, makes it prohibitive, but I just can't live with the slow research of monarchy.

Also as steven8r mentioned, war weariness can be managed fairly well in democracy with a decent number of luxuries. I'd add though, that the luxury slider is your friend (which I'm just beginning to discover).

[joncnunn]

Democracy is fine as it is, athough I could argue that all three of Democracy, Communism, and Facism should come later in the tech tree.

The main issue is that Republic provides way to much unit support for Metros. I'm in favor of knocking support down to 0 for Metros for Republic myself as a way to encourage the non-Religious civs to leave the Republic around the time of Sanitation.

[SporkPimp]

Keeping wars short is an impossibility under Democracy, unless you suck up the huge military expenditures (and you will have to). Either that, or up your luxes... either way, extra expenditures over Republic (you wouldn't have to spend as much on luxes, and the unit support is definitely enough to wage strategic war or shut down a sudden invasion).

The small boost in production is counterbalanced by the above expenditures (perhaps they were possible to avoid before Conquests... though I doubt it, at anything higher than Warlord... but now, military conflict is unavoidable), and by the cost of Anarchy (or the cost of having Religious instead of a more powerful trait).

In short... it's probably better than Republic for Chieftain builders, but even at Regent (where I play since Conquest... and I used to be a vanilla Monarch *sniffle*), the net gains (that is, gains - losses) generally don't make up for the cost of the optional techs and Anarchy.

-SporkPimp

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by SporkPimp
In short... it's probably better than Republic for Chieftain builders, but even at Regent (where I play since Conquest... and I used to be a vanilla Monarch *sniffle*), the net gains (that is, gains - losses) generally don't make up for the cost of the optional techs and Anarchy.

-SporkPimp

Frankly, I disagree entirely. Although I only play at monarch, rather than the higher levels, I invariably go despot-->monarchy or feudalism-->democracy. In my current game I have overrun 2 civs to total 33 cities (standard map) and share my continent with the fascist Portuguese. Most of my cities are productive enough to build their own improvements under democracy.

I have around 130 units total and building bombers now and tanks shortly. The Portuguese just attacked and are being bombed to oblivion. War is not a problem in the circumstances.

I could have just gone to republic but would have to have spent much longer in despotism before I could afford to do so. Three changes of government is too many at monarch, two is OK.

As a mid to late game government democracy is works fine - so don't fix it!

[Thoth]

Cerberus: The problem with Demo is that it isn't enough better than Republic to justify a switch as a non-Religeous civ. If you change to Republic as your non-Despot gov, there is little point in ever changing out again.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Thoth
Cerberus: The problem with Demo is that it isn't enough better than Republic to justify a switch as a non-Religeous civ. If you change to Republic as your non-Despot gov, there is little point in ever changing out again.

That's just the point. The way my games usually go I don't have enough cities to make military support viable with republic so I end up using feudalism or monarchy to get out of despotism. By the time I can afford to switch to republic I am so close to getting democracy I might as well wait and use that instead, particularly for a larger empire where it does seem to make a difference to corruption in outlying cities.