Best governments...

[Mace]

Originally posted by Arrian
Democracy... I've hardly touched it since I got Conquests. If religious, I *might* make the switch. If not, no way. Typically I find that my empire will actually pay more for its military under Demo than Republic, and the difference in corruption is quite small. The worker speed bonus is nice, but it's a pretty small perk to endure anarchy for.

I'm currently experimenting with Republic..
My current game is Carthage, Arch80 map. Since I'm industrious, I am probably going to stay Republic.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Mace


But what about the weaker FP in C3C?
Doesn't that weaken the Republic, vs. PTW?

Not really, because the comparison has to be made of Republic in either game relative to the other government choices available in that game.

In PTW, it could often be worth it to switch to Democracy. In C3C, I've rarely found that to be the case, despite playing the same type of games with the same playstyle.

[Arrian]

My use of Demo in PTW became less and less the more I thought about it - the benifits just weren't worth anarchy for (unless you were switching out of Monarchy, having never used Republic).

-Arrian

[joncnunn]

My normal pattern is Despotism -> Republic -> Democracy

But I like to mod the early game govts to cut unit support down to 0 for Metros for Depositsm, Monarchy, Repubilc, and Fedualism to enforce switching out of them.

[vmxa1]

I really do not see how anyone can justify taking as much as 9 turns of lost production to go from rep to dem (non religious).

In fact I will not even research it. The AI is reticient to trade it, so I won't even have it most of the time.

[Theseus]

Republic sucks. Way too expensive in the early medieval age.

I'm pretty much in accord with UnO... poprushing ROCKS!!!

[Arrian]

Republic rocks if you're going the builder route, T. Build up, build up, build up, KILL (Cavalry).

If you're into a slow 'n steady diet of KILL, well, yeah, Republic prolly isn't for you.

-Arrian

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Theseus
Republic sucks. Way too expensive in the early medieval age.

I'm pretty much in accord with UnO... poprushing ROCKS!!!

The words of someone who can't stay away from wars, eh? Not valid for most of my games, no matter how hard I try. Guess the thing about governments is, as usual in Civ3, dependent on situation.

[joncnunn]

With Conquests, the primary benift of Democracy over Republic can be seen better the larger your empire is. (Corruption)
Unforunately with Conquests, the larger your empire, the longer your anarchy is likely to be. (When non-religious)

The key factor however between Republic & Democracy is the size of the military. That 4 free unit support for Metros for Republic was the exact wrong thing to do if the idea was to give people an incentive to switch from Republic to Democracy. The 3 free support for medium sized cities is also a little on the high side.

Democracy's can still fight wars safely in Conquests, they just can't be wars of attrition on foriegn / netural soil. Bypass their offensive stacks on enemy & netural land in favor of a combiniation of quick strikes directly against a city to make it become your land + killing fields inside your cultural boundary against the enemy stack and citizens won't mind nearly as much.

Monarchy is far if your planning to be at war most of the time between that discovery and the next govt and have a large number of cities with free aquaducts. This is particularly good if you have a Swordmen or Horsemen replacement UU.

Fedualism is also for when your planning on being at war most of the time until the next govt, but is for when you have very few cities with free aquaducts. (Inverse Free Unit Support) The usual plan here is Horsemen built in masse upgrade to Knight (or especally a Knight-replacement UU)

A Republic's standing army size in conquests under standaring rules is highly dependent on number of size 7+ towns. If you REXed out into very favoriable lands, you'll have a better chance affording to have a large enough army to attack your neighbors. (Athough with such favorable land, it's not as needed.) An Agricultural civ can also switch to Republic easier than a non-Agricultrual one thanks to half price Aquaducts.

Democracy is generaly an indication of wanting to win the game via either a peaceful means or else a carefully managed war planning to avoid wars of attrition. If the military is large enough (double the Republic limit), it's cheaper than Republic. Conversely, if military is extremely light, it's also cheaper than Republic.

Communism is the usual choice of an empire that's already large when this govt comes around that intends to win via domination.

Fascism is the usual choice of a small empire that's very well developed (mostly Metros) that intends to win via domination.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Not really, because the comparison has to be made of Republic in either game relative to the other government choices available in that game.

Hm...here's my thinking about Repub in C3C:
In C3C...
You have a FP that does not establish a second core.

And without a 2nd core, you've got a serious corruption problem with Republic. Enough of a problem to hinder your development, esp. with a larger map.

That's always been my thinking about Republic in C3C.

Now, I am playing some Republic games and perhaps I will change my tune. I suspect Rep may be better on large+ map, Arch, Seafaring...(which is what I'm playing now).

Losing the 2nd core potential of the FP really made me shy away from high-corruption govts. It really got down to Demo or Communism. Demo for peace/builder/spacerace and Communism for warmonger. But that's too rigid. I need to broaden...

I have a problem with Communism, though, in that I can't get good advancement (playing in monarch, emperor levels) in late industrial and modern times. Still working on figuring that one out.

[joncnunn]

The deceased corruption with Democracy vs a Republic is OCN based.
(The cities with rank orders 20 - 30 are going to see the same improvement weather or not they are near a FP.)

And the global commerce affects is much more noticeable than the local shield affect.

Even with Communism's SPHQ, it's still not recomended for peaceful builders, even a large one. It's reduced corruption does not offset the lack of an extra trade in every tile already producing one for scientific research. You need to go out and conquer your neighbors under this govt to reduce their science production.

Originally posted by Mace

Hm...here's my thinking about Repub in C3C:
In C3C...
You have a FP that does not establish a second core.

And without a 2nd core, you've got a serious corruption problem with Republic. Enough of a problem to hinder your development, esp. with a larger map.

That's always been my thinking about Republic in C3C.

Now, I am playing some Republic games and perhaps I will change my tune. I suspect Rep may be better on large+ map, Arch, Seafaring...(which is what I'm playing now).

Losing the 2nd core potential of the FP really made me shy away from high-corruption govts. It really got down to Demo or Communism. Demo for peace/builder/spacerace and Communism for warmonger. But that's too rigid. I need to broaden...

I have a problem with Communism, though, in that I can't get good advancement (playing in monarch, emperor levels) in late industrial and modern times. Still working on figuring that one out.

[Solomwi]

There are a few flaws in your reasoning, Mace.

First, that same issue (the lack of a second core) affects every other non-communal government just as much as it does Republic. Again, the comparison has to be between available choices, and the lack of a second core just isn't that crippling when no other government can establish a second core, either.

Second, Republic isn't a high-corruption government. The difference in corruption between Rep and Dem is in the adjusted distance calculation. Under Dem, the distance is multiplied by a factor of 0.75 (among other factors), where that factor is 1 uncer Rep. The upshoot is basically that productive cities in a Democracy have 3/4 of the distance corruption that the same cities in a Republic would have. The net effect of that will vary from city to city, but when factoring in rank corruption, that 25% reduction is an unachievable upper limit on the difference. What you see as a serious corruption problem isn't really that much more serious than the corruption problem under Dem.

Third, the bottom line isn't how much you lose to corruption. It's how much is available for research and the treasury. The unit support added to Republic makes it preferable to Democracy in that respect if you have a large enough military that support costs are higher than what you gain through reduced corruption. In PTW, the only advantage Rep had over Dem was the decreased WW. In C3C, it can be economically superior to Dem, as well. This, in a nutshell, is why C3C Rep is stronger than PTW Rep.

[vmxa1]

Not to mention that Dem is an optional tech you do not need to research. It comes to late to wait for (in depotism), so you will have to suffer an extra government switch.

All of that for a small gain, if any (depends on your military).

[Mace]

Originally posted by Solomwi
First, that same issue (the lack of a second core) affects every other non-communal government just as much as it does Republic.

Ah, I see yer point there. 2nd core is of no signifigance since no other non-communal govt can do that either now.

Second, Republic isn't a high-corruption government.

Well, I think ALL Civ3 govts (except Communism) are "high" corruption govts...but that's just me.
(I think corruption is modelled incorrectly in Civ3.)

I agree with you more and more. You must understand that I have not played many Republic games in C3C, and my observations are in part based on what I've seen in the editor, and Civ2 knowledge. Back with Civ1 and Civ2 I had a lot more time to experiment with these things. Now, I don't.

In my latest game I have gone Despotism ---> Republic on an Arch80 map playing Carthage. I have done two things that I did not think Republic was capable of: I've been able to maintain a large army as the middle ages went on. I've been able to control WW.

***I have, when in the Editor, noticed that Republic has a different corruption rating than Demo (one level worse, if I remember correctly). And this led me to conclude that Repub is a high- (or at least high-er) corruption govt. Technically, it appears that Rep does have higher corruption as you alluded. But the end-result, which is tech and gold, is not much different.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Not to mention that Dem is an optional tech you do not need to research.

You need two optional techs to get democracy at a time when your other options are things like Magnetism, Military Tradition and Industrialization.

As to Mace's opinion that corruption is not modeled correctly, well, everyone has a different feeling on that. My personal opinion is that we all got spoiled with Civ2's infinite number of non corrupt cities. All you had to do was get to one of the zero corruption govs, take a couple AI cities so that you had the most, and then sit back and out-produce, out-research and out-tax everyone else. Any slight lead led to an unstoppable snowball effect.

In vanilla and PTW corruption was pretty harsh and there were some cheesy exploits like RCP. C3C rebalanced corruption and gov'ts. The end result is that Republic is probably the best overall gov't however you are likely to have some riots on hand if you stay at war too long.