Capitalist Democracy vs Communism

[Bear]

Which is best?


Capitalist Democracy - producing large amounts of money. Having a small but up to date and highly mobile army. Having a group of well built up core cities which are highly productive. Being able to raise a large number of troops very quickly.
Good for long term, as production, tax and science are quite high.
Not so good for happiness, but when it is high it is VERY good - +1 population for cities celebrating "We love the Prime Minister/President"

Communism - producing moderate amounts of money. Having a large army, not very mobile and difficult to modernise quickly. Having some of your cities with good infastructure (but not brilliant), and some very unproductive and not well built up. Being able to raise a moderate number of troops quite quickly.
Not too brilliant for long term, as production, tax and science rates are not as high as in Democracy. Also miss out on +1 population per turn for Cities celebrating "We love the Prime Minister/President


Add on your thoughts.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, our armies will stay very modern, because we have Leo's.

[Space05us]

In all of my games Democracy has been very good for income and science, Fundamentalism produces the best armies and some good income but very poor sciences rate, and Communism produces a good inbetween; a decent sized army, good income and moderate science rate.

I don't really see any point in changing to democracy for a long while if our science keeps advancing at the rate that it is.

also all armies are mobile regardless of government. It all depends on the techs a civ has.

[shade]

at this moment the situations is as follows

Commie=best way to advance and have an army and whoop some butts to oblivions in this hostile world

Demo= more money but our butts get kicked to kingdom come because we have ~0production, ~ barely an army

Shade

[civman2000]

And how are cities better in democracy? They both have no corruption. Many of the things dealing with military seem to imply higher production in democracy, but it's the opposite because unit upkeep costs are higher in democracy.

[Gen. Hancock]

If we were to bring all of our troops back onto our own civilizations soil then we would not have a problem with getting a can of whoopass opened on us because we would have a good system of defense built up. Also with Democracy we would have more money to be able to handle the higher unit upkeep costs

Join the APC (Apolyton Capitalist Party)

Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock
Commanding II Corps
Union Army of the Potomac

[Space05us]

Originally posted by Gen. Hancock
If we were to bring all of our troops back onto our own civilizations soil then we would not have a problem with getting a can of whoopass opened on us because we would have a good system of defense built up. Also with Democracy we would have more money to be able to handle the higher unit upkeep costs

Originally posted by Bear
Capitalist Democracy - producing large amounts of money. Having a small but up to date and highly mobile army. Having a group of well built up core cities which are highly productive. Being able to raise a large number of troops very quickly.

It doesn't look good when two members of the same party have conflicting views on the same subject. And the thing about having more money making it possible to have more troops is from Civ 3, in Civ 2 it requires shields, from the untis home city, for upkeep

[shade]

rushbuildcosts
1shield = 4 G (and that's the cheap version when you are building improvements)
1shield= 7G this is for a unit

Believe me when I say I have been rushbuilding >250.000 G last month...I know what I'm talking about,It's to early for us to go Demo.

Shade

[Immortal Wombat]

COMMUNISM

[Kuciwalker]

The dialectic states the the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable.

[H Tower]

Communism!

we need a new position in the government. Gulag commander

[Kuciwalker]

I volunteer (if I don't get my position as Head of the First Chief Directorate of the KGB).

[Dr. Nick]

We cannot allow these men to conspire against the workers! We must purge our nation of political dissent and make them useful to our nation in the best way they can serve our glorious trans-national cause! To the salt mines of Astrakhan!

[cavebear]

With the number of military units we have right now, *and* need for tech research, our only viable form of government is Communism. And I say that acknowledging that I am usually a Democracy at this point in the game.

This may come as a suprise to most of you, but I think we are in trouble. Yes, we are leading well according to the Powergraph. But the AI civs are going to start allying and trading techs rapidly soon. We have not made a lot of progress against the Egyptians, and the Americans are untouched. The Babs and Carths are unknown to us. The Indians are potentially potent.

Our great challenge in the next few sessions will be to find a way to rdfuce the threat from the the civs we are *not* actively attacking. One way to do this is to increase our outpost cities (by establishment and rush building, or by conquering) to form tight groups of cities that can start to carry on war to all the other civs. Or we can focus on democracy and development to try and gain a tech and gold edge beyond what we have now.

Just some food for thought.

At the moment, I favor Communism and surgical war to keep all the other civs down. But we will have to get Ironclads and act quickly when we get them. Fortunately, we have Magellan's and those extra 2 moves per turn can make a difference.

So, thoughts?

[H Tower]

we have to see how far ironclads will carry us. it seems a little strange to put so much faith in a unit i normall end up by passing because destroyers are just around the corner. but once we get ironclads, we'll go a long way to determining how well this game goes. we have a slight tech advantage, but it won't last unless we keep adding cities, by conquest or otherwise