Democracy the only game in town

[McWatt]

Can anyone give me a good reason not to deviate from the despotism --> republic --> democracy route? Even the AI will follow closely along that path, regardless of civilization attributes.

In Civ II, every form of government had distinct advantages and disadvantages; I knew players that would never leave monarchy, and agressive players who swore by fundamentalism.

I can appreciate that Civ III makes you put more thought into picking your governments (long, difficult periods of anarchy and the new (but poorly implemented) corruption system, but there is little reason to suscribe to any other form of government.

Fundamentalism needs to come back, and monarchy and communism need to become more attractive.

Discuss amongst yourselves, I'm getting vklempft.

[fanatic civver]

Communism isnt that bad really. You use it when you have a huge, far flung empire. Unfortunately because corruption is bugged then it isnt much use.

[General Ludd]

What's wrong with communism? lower corruption in large empires, free units, high draft rate, and forced labor... what more could you ask for?

[VDmitry]

I run Despotism -> Republic only

I do not see why Democracy better than Republic?

150% Worker efficiency? It's nothing.
Corruption if changed but too small difference
Immune to bribery? It's only cool but I do not see any of example.

But Democracy have

Greater war impotence
And takes another period of Anarchy

[Magician]

Re: Democracy the only game in town

Originally posted by McWatt
Can anyone give me a good reason not to deviate from the despotism --> republic --> democracy route? Even the AI will follow closely along that path, regardless of civilization attributes.

If you are always in war....

despotism->monachy->communism is much better as they have free units supports and no war weariness.

[dexters]

Democracy is not better than republic, especially if you're playing a game where war is a real possibility. The war weariness will kill you, and with Republic you don't run the risk of your citiziens overthrowing your government.

[Kaesar]

In my last game my democracy went into anarchy automatically 3 times because i was trying to fight a war. I think next time i'll go into communism instead.

[Cian McGuire]

Yeah, I completely disagree with your assessment, McWatt- the tendency I've (and mostly everyone else...) noted is there are two paths- one for warmongers, and one for peacemongers.

I think the modability of the governments is lovely though- there's already a few mods running around with fascism and fundamentalism in, and I'm working out the kinks for a few more...

[Raleigh]

Actually I always thought Civ2's democracy was the best. I could wage enormous wars without fail b/c I generated so much money I could buy police stations left and right and then fund massive improvements even with 20% luxuries and a good science rating.

Here, I am playing of all things a monarchy and still kicking butt. I suspect communism would be better, but I didn't feel like turning the Aztec religious empire into a g-dless communistic one. Anyway, I generate gobs of money and my science is fair and my army/navy/airforce all industrial (infantry, battleships, tanks no riflemen, muskets, etc.) and about 150 strong (originally 8 civs, now 6, large map, prince).

All my enemies are democracies and we are all as advanced as each other. I know when the inevitable war hits (I have to drag them into war or someone will win the space race and Im not sure its me) I will stand the test of time b/c I won't have to worry about civ disobedience!

[Cian McGuire]

I just thought of how ironic it is that you can use the Religious attribute to switch to an atheistic society faster

[dexters]

The thing is I think there is really a trade off between Republic, Communism and Democracy, and it is not a superificial one.

I find the Republic to be the most balancedin terms of generating cash for my Civ, and balancing that with some war weariness, but not as bad as experience in a Democracy without the change of going into anarchy.

With communism, you may be able to support free units, but at the same time, you're not earning as much cash either. And the stadnardized corruption won't give you much of an advantage on most maps because your cities won't be far enough to give you that 1 shield production.

[jack_frost]

war weariness is a great concept, and is well implemented. But I don't think it stops democracies from waging very effective wars. Specially considering the inability of the AI to act as anything other then a punching bag.

The fact is, I can usually snag about 8 cities before it even begins to set in. And remove a civ from the game before it grows above 30% unhappyness.

Considering the ease at which you can have 6 or 7 luxuries floating around, war weariness really only ends up meaning WLTKD is cancelled in a handfull of cities. On the other hand, poorly managed warfare can lead to embargos against you, which leads to lost luxury / resource trade. And this can really hurt.

But unless I'm dumb, and I'm at war with more then 1 powerful civ, war weariness is never a real problem. And even then, it isn't so much war wearinesss as it is loss of luxury trade.

Democracy dominates. The increased trade and reduced corruption balances out unit costs and the annoyance of war weariness in a heartbeat.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by jack_frost
war weariness is a great concept, and is well implemented.
.

what bugs me is when aq forgien civ invades you and then refuses to ever talk to you again so a constant state of war exists and your people get war weariness from no fault of your own, and all of a sudden citys go into uproar.... a bit harsh @!!!

[Deathray]

Firstly, McWatt, corruption is fine. I and many other people haven't actually experienced this 1 shield, 1 commerce 99%corruption and waste state that so many people are talking about. I have had empires spanning continents with 40+ cities and no greater than 30% corruption. All I can say is that there must be something in the gameplay style.

Secondly, war weariness is well done, but it is possible to circumvent. I usually have 10% luxuries on my cities to keep as many as possible in WLTKD and as I don't like people entertaining when they could be working, which helps me hold off war weariness for a couple more turns. If you're under attack then I don't think war weariness is on (maybe if you're losing heavily). The deeper and the longer you drive into enemy territory, the more war weariness you will get. Bascially, as a Democracy, this rules out a war of attrition. However, it is still entirely possible to go on a conquering rampage simply by being quick about it. In my current game most of my offense pushes last less than 10 turns. One lasted about 15 turns, so I had to push up the luxuries another notch there, but that resulted in the destruction of the entire Greek empire and their annoying Hoplites.

Anyway, the point is, as a Democracy you can go on short offensives, or even hit and run. A prolonged war in enemy territory is just asking for trouble though, especially if you have nuclear power plants (found that one out in my second game).

[jack_frost]

but why would you want to / need to engage in a war that lasts longer then 20 turns?

Sure, communism might be better for a 50 turn war. But if you engage in a 50 turn war you aren't playing well enough to make a judgement in the matter. No offense, but issues like play balance shouldn't be decided by the lowest common denominator - since it really only matters to advanced players.