Time to settle this once and for all.

[Shogun Gunner]

I was expecting something like

Have a crappy day for telling me I can't make a mountain out of a molehill with nukes.

Have a confused day

[Catt]

Originally posted by Zevico

Firstly, it is not slightly less corruption. Slightly little would be where each city would experience 1 point less of corruption, which is not the case. Often, the difference between Democracy and Republic is the difference between a productive city and a powerhouse city, or between a dead beat slum to a semi productive city (depending on the size of your empire and difficulty level).

That's a tremendous increase in productivity / lowering of corruption and I've not seen anything like it in my games. Moving from 40 turns to 20 turns is more likely a result of population growth between the time of the government switch and the new government rather than reduced corruption effects - or else it else an almost terminally corrupt city, producing one shield and one gold, but "doubling" its meager output with the government change.

If you look at alexman's corruption formula (or better yet, play with alexman's corruption calculator - attached), you can see that democracy vs republic usually has <5% reductions in total corruption for core, near-core, and even middling cities, maxing out in most cases to around 10% reduction on the very fringes of the empire where corruption is almost total in any event. Even a size 12 city with roads and rivers is making +/- 30 raw commerce, meaning a difference of either 1, 2, or 3 raw commerce in total corruption as the best case -- for smaller cities or cities with less beneficial land, the improvement is further stunted by rounding down effects.

As a hypothetical, we can imagine and compare the extra gold or two per city to the 5 - 8 turns of all commerce (corrupted and uncorrupted alike!) lost to anarchy. Assume 10 cities each gain 2 raw commerce (unlikely, in my view, at least on a standard map). Assume that each such city has a full bevy of improvements increasing the effect of commerce (markets/banks or libraries/univs) so that it reaches 4 "net saved commerce" by the switch. Assume such benefit is enjoyed for 100 additional game turns. The total savings over those 100 turns is 4000 gold. Now compare that to the loss of the empire's entire commerce during anarchy. With 10 cities saving 2 gold, I'd wager you've an empire of at least 20 cities; and in order to save 2 gold (assuming a generous corruption savings of democracy at 10%) the cities must be making at least 20 raw commerce apiece (multiplied by the same improvement modifiers brings this commerce to 40) meaning each turn the empire brings in 800 gold from its 20 cities. 800 gold lost for only 5 turns of anarchy is 4000 gold - and it grows if the anarchy goes longer than 5 turns. So you can lose 4000 gold now for 4000 gold later, plus anything beyond 100 turns, or you can save 4000 gold now in exchange for forgoing benefits of 40 gpt beginning 100 turns hence. This simplified hypothetical doesn't even consider any population loss due to anarchy or opportunity cost of improvements coming on later than they otherwise would by several turns.

The above is only a hypothetical -- a better way to get a feel for it is to find a saved game with a "typical" empire when playing a religious civ -- change from rep to demo or demo to rep and look at both F1 and F11 screens to get a sense for the corruption and waste savings, then compare it to the time that you might expect to lose to anarchy as a non-religious civ.

In any event, I'll still stick by my view that the corruption reduction is de minimis while the WW problems are potentially significant. Now, with C3C out and republic unit costs at 2 while democracy unit costs are 1 . . . well, the relative merits start to become a more interesting choice IMHO.

Catt

[Solomwi]

You make good points, Catt. To play democracy's advocate in that scenario, though, taking into consideration a huge continents map, the main benefits of even a slight corruption/waste reduction that I've seen (or think I've seen) is in the margins. Starting in the mid industrial age, my overriding production concern is getting that one extra shield to get a 99 shield city to 100, 89 to 90, and 59 to 60 (for cruise missiles). Even a small waste reduction can mean 20 more cities producing in one turn instead of two. The corruption reduction is a little harder to pinpoint, since commerce is effectively cumulative, but the sheer number of productive (def: not absolutely crippled by corruption/waste) cities on such a map makes a small reduction across the board potentially quite powerful.

Bottom line, it's not nearly as powerful for players either on smaller maps or who see their games end before the mid to late industrial, but in the right kind of game it can be well worth the down time.

Of course, on such a map, it also means being able to reduce my (typical for non-industrious) 150 worker force to 100, thereby saving 50 gold each turn right off the bat, in addition to any benefits seen in the cities. If I don't trim my workers immediately, which I usually don't with RR coming up, it still allows me to finish my rail net in 2/3 the time and start my wholesale adding to cities that much sooner. Btw, this is the same reason I consider RP the juiciest tech of the early Industrial.

For the record, I'm dying to try Fascism. Fast workers + low (or is it no?) WW is a siren's call to me. I hate seeing the pop penalties incurred (both on switching and via poprushing), but c'est la vie.

[Mad Bomber]

I usually switch to Democracy, as I can't stand corruption. Any benefit to fight corruption is worth it IMO (this might change with C3C though (police+ Civil Engineer) I will try facism out but I doubt it will ever be my main Government switch (communism would be an option if it wasn't for the sacrifice hurry. )

[Arrian]

The tiebreaker for me is the increased worker speed under Democracy.

Sometimes I don't switch, since I also see it the way Catt does: the total loss of your civ's production & commerce for 4-7 turns. Basically, I look at Demo as a luxury. If I'm already ahead, I will probably switch, for the worker bonus and reduced corruption (I hate corruption). But if I'm in a dead heat or behind, forget it! I need those turns, and I'm probably not powerful enough to squash foes before WW rears its ugly head, so republic's lower WW is attractive.

-Arrian

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Arrian
The tiebreaker for me is the increased worker speed under Democracy.

Sometimes I don't switch, since I also see it the way Catt does: the total loss of your civ's production & commerce for 4-7 turns. Basically, I look at Demo as a luxury. If I'm already ahead, I will probably switch, for the worker bonus and reduced corruption (I hate corruption). But if I'm in a dead heat or behind, forget it! I need those turns, and I'm probably not powerful enough to squash foes before WW rears its ugly head, so republic's lower WW is attractive.

-Arrian

True, but since all of the AI's switch to democracy and stay there until forced into communism will inevitably lead you to fall further behind (unless you attack a nation or two while they switch) WW can be managed even in Demo provided you pay attention to securing luxuries (a BIG variable in the decision to switch or not). And if your treasury is sufficient you should be able to make up any tech deficiencies in short order.

[Arrian]

MB,

I'm a luxury hog, and I'm all about fighting wars under Demo. So I know what you mean.

What I'm saying is that if I'm in a real struggle, I probably cannot afford the time lost in anarchy, and I probably will need to do some fighting, so republic's lower WW will be nice.

Let's take my last Emperor level PTW game as an example. Me China. Me strong, me lucky (multiple GLs early = Great Library and FP in a decent spot). Me have big strong neighbor with Pyramids (Mongols). Me major power, but not superpower. Me don't know why me talk like this.

I hit the Industrial Age *just* in front of the AI. I wanted to get Steam Power and start those RRs asap. Yeah, my industrious workers would be laying rail really really fast under Demo, but I'd have to suffer the anarchy first. I also knew I had to take down the Mongols, and move my Palace down towards their core in order to really ice the game.

As it turned out, the Mongols sneak attacked me and I ended up fighting a long, drawn out slugfest that ended in me exiling them to a small island (and taking them out 20 turns after that). This required more than 20 turns of fighting, because in the middle of the war they got infantry (which I had at the start), and I needed to roll up my stack of 20+ arty pieces and blast away for a turn or two to be able to capture cities with my Cav. Only after taking out Mongolia did I become a superpower. Then, if I'd wanted to, I could have switched. But at that point most of my rails were built, and I didn't want to deal with my cities starving during anarchy (dependent on the RR-boosted irrigation). Hence, the People's Republic lived on.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arrian (emphasis added)
Let's take my last Emperor level PTW game as an example. Me China. Me strong, me lucky (multiple GLs early = Great Library and FP in a decent spot). Me have big strong neighbor with Pyramids (Mongols). Me major power, but not superpower. Me don't know why me talk like this.

[GarP2]

Originally posted by Theseus
OMG!!

So, Turrosh Mak is not supposed to have a nice day??

TM, expect a bolt of lightning any minute now.

Ha! Good Eye, Theseus!


Also - Panag - I just cant leave this alone...

I believe TM was talking about # of turns of anarchy, as was I (although I didnt say it very clearly), but it sounds like you are talking about how long the difficulties from the transition last, not just strictly the # of turns of anarchy, right?

GarP2much

[Vince278]

Best gov depends entirely on what you are wanting to do at the time so the question is basically irrelevant.

[Arrian]

As I mentioned in another thread, I think that the Conquests version of Republic is actually a better late-game warmonger government than it was in PTW.

The reason for this is free unit support. 1 per town, 3 per city, 4 per metro, I believe. Granted, every unit above your allowed number will cost you 2gpt. That's the kicker, and can be a real problem in the ancient/early medieval. Being agricultural really helps with that, btw.

Anyway, with imagine that you have 20 cities (size 7-12). That's 60 free units.

Under Democracy, those units would each cost you 1gpt. You would also have a slightly higher income due to reduced corruption.

So in the above basic situation (20 cities), your army would need to be 120 units in order that the upkeep costs balance out between republic and demo.

Republic: 60 free, then 2gpt per after that. 60*2 = 120gpt for a 120 unit army.

Demo: 0 free, 1gpt. 120gpt for a 120 unit army.

Then factor in the anarchy period in order to switch.

In my current game I pondered that for all of two seconds and decided against a revolution. My unit upkeep costs would have increased, most likely cancelling out the corruption reduction. The only thing left is the worker bonus, and I decided I could live without it.

-Arrian

[vee4473]

it seems to me that panag just likes to yank peoples chains...

[Panag]

Originally posted by vee4473
it seems to me that panag just likes to yank peoples chains...

hi ,

what the heck , .......

sjee , .........

ever heard of email , .....

have a nice day