Money, and why I dont need it...

[Archmage]

I accidentally happened upon my new strategy that Im going to use a couple of times to test it out. When the game begins, I set my science rate to 100%. I then for the rest of the game on EVERY turn get the low treasury warning. But you never go into negative money, and unlike in CivII you never have to sell stuff off to make up money. Just like in real life, you can run governmental operations with trillion dollar deficits....
I know some people might use money to hurry city improvements. Too expensive. Some people use money in dilpomatic relations. Use my strategy and you can use scince advances instead, as you'll always be ahead in the science research area. Some people use money to upgrade units. I disband obsolete units or send them to the front to use as fodder.
I should add that I was a pretty good CivII player and this game has kind of thrown me for a loop. WITHOUT using the strategy I've detailed above, I cannot keep up in science. The only difficulty level I've played is the easiest (Chieftain,I believe?).
What's everyone's thoughts on my strategy? Would it be viable on harder difficulty levels? It appears to be quite effective on Chieftain so far BTW...

[saracen31]

I've had units disbanded when I've run into the red before. It's only happened a couple times, and in Democracy, so I just assumed it sold off units first, then started in on buildings.

[Archmage]

I always use Monarchy as soon as possible and then Communism whenever I happen to discover that. It worked well for me on CivII but Im starting to think I need to experiment with Democracy and Republic for better science output.

Under these government forms, units do NOT get disbanded. Im almost positive... Ill post later tonight when I finsih my first game...

[Stromprophet]

Re: Money, and why I dont need it...

Originally posted by Archmage
I accidentally happened upon my new strategy that Im going to use a couple of times to test it out. When the game begins, I set my science rate to 100%. I then for the rest of the game on EVERY turn get the low treasury warning. But you never go into negative money, and unlike in CivII you never have to sell stuff off to make up money. Just like in real life, you can run governmental operations with trillion dollar deficits....
I know some people might use money to hurry city improvements. Too expensive. Some people use money in dilpomatic relations. Use my strategy and you can use scince advances instead, as you'll always be ahead in the science research area. Some people use money to upgrade units. I disband obsolete units or send them to the front to use as fodder.
I should add that I was a pretty good CivII player and this game has kind of thrown me for a loop. WITHOUT using the strategy I've detailed above, I cannot keep up in science. The only difficulty level I've played is the easiest (Chieftain,I believe?).
What's everyone's thoughts on my strategy? Would it be viable on harder difficulty levels? It appears to be quite effective on Chieftain so far BTW...

Well, I've finally overcome the computer almost everytime on Prince. He's a bad, bad man. It al depends on position to, if you get screwed you have almost no chance in the long game with the comp.

Working on King level. Just REX, and it should work out. You have to build as quickly as you can to obtain land at the start in order to secure resources, then expand your culture. Warring is practically useless unless your culture can help you subdue the invaded people.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Archmage
I always use Monarchy as soon as possible and then Communism whenever I happen to discover that. It worked well for me on CivII but Im starting to think I need to experiment with Democracy and Republic for better science output.

Under these government forms, units do NOT get disbanded. Im almost positive... Ill post later tonight when I finsih my first game...

Yeah Democracy is the bad ass in this game. Communism has little chance, unless you are on par in technology, the only advantage to communism is the corruption rates are the same almost everywhere, and you can draft. They don't have the production advantage like in Civ II. Democracy actually says they produce more, and workers are more effective, plus have a stronger economy, and science. The only thing that could happen is a communist country might outlast a democratic one. Because of war weariness.

[Archmage]

By position, do you mean how lucky your map placement is in regard to other Civs and resources...?

That was true in Civ II also. If you started off on a small island, you basically had to restart. Of course, Im a wimp...

Im playing a game now where I started off on an island. It always feels like you have to fight the clock a little more than usual...

[Archmage]

Another advantage to Communism is that 4 units can brutally suprress the will of the people in each city. I'm sure they're not really all that happy but my secret police remove any dissenters.

It really helps with happiness.

And I do love to be at war. As I'm polishing off some Civ, i'm always deciding who's next...

hmmm..heh.....moooohhhhaaahahahaaaa!

[jmac87]

If I remember right, on Chieftan you cannot have negative gold total. This allows new players and people who suck, such as myself, to be able to continue playing without having to worry about gold as much.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Archmage
By position, do you mean how lucky your map placement is in regard to other Civs and resources...?

That was true in Civ II also. If you started off on a small island, you basically had to restart. Of course, Im a wimp...

Im playing a game now where I started off on an island. It always feels like you have to fight the clock a little more than usual...

Yeah, by position this can mean anything, from mountain difficulties, to getting resource screwed.

Hehe. Well, if you played with some of the people I played Civ II with being on an Island was never a sign you could win and they would lose.

Communism does have a suppresion factor, but this is of little gain on higher levels, becuase you have no money to produce all the military units needed to supress the people. I think they made democracy considerably stronger in this game. I used to be able to Challenge people who played republic, I would use monarchy and I could win, monarchy govs have litte to no shot against a good democracy player.

[Deathray]

Communism still has its advantages. War weariness can cause your empire to shut down if you go on the offensive, although if you have plenty of luxury resources or a high luxury rate or lots of entertainers it won't. Also, the high conscription rate in communism is nice. If you have a decent rail network, you can put 3 infantry per city at any point in your empire at any point during your turn. Not something to be done often as it reduces population heavily, but a very useful fighting force, and one that you will probably be supporting for free.

The way I see it, its best to use Democracy during peace and defence wars, and Communism during war. It is possible to use Democracy for offence, but going deep into enemy territory isn't really an option. Similarly, it is possible to use Communism for peace, but you will be dragged down a lot.