Starting Wars

[debeest]

SG[1]: The initial question was about starting a war while in democracy; I was responding to that. I think there are often good reasons to fight a war while staying in representative government. The costs of even one turn of anarchy can be so enormous that you don't want to shift back and forth between governments. Heck, if Mr. President wanted to change to fundy or commie, there'd be no need for this thread in the first place.

[Mr. President]

That's right, the hope was to maintain the economic perks of democracy while getting into a war for my own nefarious interests. I prefer not to shift governments too often since, in my experience, it causes fairly significant waste.

Anyway, I went away and managed to start a war by using the not-so-subtle technique of surrounding a city with tanks. Since they declared war on me, my government didn't even collapse - for a while.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Mr. President
That's right, the hope was to maintain the economic perks of democracy while getting into a war for my own nefarious interests.

Grasshopper, choose the path of the celebrating communism! We love the comrade days make your economy and science pump almost like a democracy's (the small difference can easily be made up with caravans/freights). High arrow production, hordes of units, and a populace that doesn't care if they are running amok killing the AI.

[Messer Niccolò]

Originally posted by Mr. President
I prefer not to shift governments too often since, in my experience, it causes fairly significant waste.

Oedo years, remember Oedo!

[debeest]

Even when SoL or good Oedo-year timing limits you to one turn of anarchy, that can still be a huge cost, especially if you're going to go to a non-rep government but want to return to a rep government. Think about how much gold and science and shields your civilization generates in that one turn, and ponder how often you want to give it all up.

[rah]

If you use that turn to extort tribute from other civs, it doesn't hurt as much, and can be downright profitable if you haven't done it in a while. You can then rush buy enough caravans to offset the beakers lost.

RAH

[La Fayette]

OT...OT...OT:
I can't help finding that Rah has probably the most expressive avatar at Apolyton. Look at those piercing eyes, brothers! Would you dare playing MP against such a foe?

Back to topic:
I find it useful to draw a strong dividing line between offensive and defensive wars. With some training, fighting a defensive war in Demo is OK. But offensive?
I name that masochism (since you have Commie and Fundy at hand ).

[Mr. President]

Look at those piercing eyes, brothers! Would you dare playing MP against such a foe?

Good Lord, no.

I just don't like government-hopping. *shrug* It's a personal failing.

[rah]

Originally posted by La Fayette
I can't help finding that Rah has probably the most expressive avatar at Apolyton. Look at those piercing eyes, brothers! Would you dare playing MP against such a foe?

Most of the MP players have said it looks like a very ugly transvestite feather dancer.

On-topic, with the right infrastructure, Wars aren't a problem in any government. (the only time I drop out of Demo, is when the senate gives me problems. With sol no problem, revolt for a turn, demand tribute, kill, continue.
Of without SOL, revolt (the year before an odeo year) choose any non-rep government, then go on your offensive, demand tribute, conquer cities don't worry about emissaries, make sure you contact every civ to make sure you're still at war
Then before your turn ends, revolt again, it will let you choose demo on the spot. Now you don't have to worry about emissaries for awhile.

RAH

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by rah

Of without SOL, revolt (the year before an odeo year) choose any non-rep government, then go on your offensive, demand tribute, conquer cities don't worry about emissaries, make sure you contact every civ to make sure you're still at war
Then before your turn ends, revolt again, it will let you choose demo on the spot. Now you don't have to worry about emissaries for awhile. RAH

Really??!! How completely cool!!! Thanks for pointing this out, RAH.

It's 920. You revolt. You select Monarchy as 940 begins. You rock and roll and at the end of 940 revolt again. The game lets you immediately change Gov't again??? (Sorry for stating what is obvious to you; I just want to be sure I understand.)

*****
Bloody Monk amazed again by the detail of what has been discovered and shared here.

[rah]

Yes, you must do the second revolt during the odeo year. If you have already selected a gov that turn, it will let you change it later in the turn. I don't do it often, but it does work.

RAH

[debeest]

RAH: My understanding of the manual is that when you revolt and go into anarchy, you produce no trade and no shields until you restore a government. (To my shame, in spite of all the inaccuracies in the manual, I've never verified the accuracy of this point. Some things I've read here lead me to wonder whether it's true. Is it?) Supposing you've got 40 cities, averaging size 12, for 520 city squares potentially worked. How often can you exact enough tribute to make up for the loss of all the trade and shields from all those citizens? (My experience is that I almost never get tribute from anyone except an adjacent civ, and often many of the civs are not close enough.)

[Scouse Gits]

It is my experience that when in Anarchy two things happen: You get enormous loss of shields & arrows by corruption and whatever the Science setting no beakers are added to the box. Unless I am practicing advanced self-delusion the rest of the mechanics function normally - ie you get food growth/starvation, builds continue (subject to the loss by corruption) and taxes are collected (subject again to the corruption loss).

SG[1]

[rah]

Originally posted by debeest
RAH: My understanding of the manual is that when you revolt and go into anarchy, you produce no trade and no shields until you restore a government. (To my shame, in spite of all the inaccuracies in the manual, I've never verified the accuracy of this point. Some things I've read here lead me to wonder whether it's true. Is it?) Supposing you've got 40 cities, averaging size 12, for 520 city squares potentially worked. How often can you exact enough tribute to make up for the loss of all the trade and shields from all those citizens? (My experience is that I almost never get tribute from anyone except an adjacent civ, and often many of the civs are not close enough.)

If you let them build up their war chests by not doing it often, it can be profitable (check using an embassy and wait till they have 3000 gold). Especially if you slap them around a bit before you do it. And since your purpose of dropping out of Democracy is to bi*ch slap them, it's kind of convienent. I''ve gotten over 5K before. The Civ version you're playing does make a difference though. The Civ gold MP edition makes it less likely that the AIs will empty their coffers.

RAH

SG(1) Yes, no science but you get the food and the reduced production, not sure on the taxes, which wouldn't be much anyway. (which is why I'm not sure) I believe the manual says no taxes, but the manual has been wrong before

[Nilat]

Fundementalismn halves science!!!!