Republic or Democracy?

[Catt]

I'm in the process of completing my first game that gets all the way to the modern age without ever having converted my civ to a democracy -- in the past I had typically varied between Monarchy (for extended wars) and Democracy (for peace or shorter wars) -- stopping off in Republic only if Democracy and extended wars were both distant possibilities.

I am impressed with Republic as a viable form of government, even late into the game, but my lack of experience with it has me wondering if I'm missing anything. Are there any differences between Republic and Democracy othen than: (1) more corruption in Republic; (2) no worker efficiency bonus in Republic; and (3) less war weariness in Republic?

From my one experience of playing a republic this late in the game, corruption and waste have simply not been a problem (though I see how it could be); does anyone have any advice with respect to war weariness -- is it noticeably less troublesome than with a Democracy?

Catt

[Velociryx]

I usually make exactly one gov switch....from Despotism to Republic. War Weariness is too hateful to control easily in Democracy (better with Universal Sufferage, but still!), and Republic gets the job done well enough for me....I'm a believer!

-=Vel=-

[alva]

same here

if i'm using a religious civ, i might do a quick pit-stop on monarchy though. Afterall it is just one turn

[spy14]

I never got on with republic, usually go despot - monarchy - democracy. If I get Sistine Chapel in democracy then extended wars are no real prob, if not I hit em hard and short, and if there's no other way i'll go commie for a bit.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I usually make exactly one gov switch....from Despotism to Republic. War Weariness is too hateful to control easily in Democracy (better with Universal Sufferage, but still!), and Republic gets the job done well enough for me....I'm a believer!

Originally posted by alva848
same here

if i'm using a religious civ, i might do a quick pit-stop on monarchy though. Afterall it is just one turn

If I'm religious, I move between governments at will -- with just the one turn, I have nothing to fear. A 5 - 8 turn anarchy can be devilish however, especially if it is forced on you by war weariness.

I guess I've been lucky and/or still haven't experimented enough with non-religious civs -- I've generally found that I can start and end wars in a democracy quickly enough to avoid extensive WW, but the fear of widespread WW and the relatively little corruption / waste in a sprawling empire that must be close to the domination limit (through some pretty effective palace relocations) that I've encountered in this game has kept me in Republic -- and it seems to be working quite well.

Anyone know / have a good guess at the difference in WW rates between the two?

Catt

[Sean]

I switch to republic as soon as possible, then stay there. Very rarely I change to democracy, but only late in the game. Cause the anarchy period takes ages, and the war weariness is a killer.

[dexters]

I switch to Repulic as soon as possible and stay there as well. Democracies are tougher to handle, but perhaps more of an ideal for pacifists. Then again, when waging a defensive war, war weariness will still creep in no matter what.

[dnassman]

I go from despot to republic as soon as I can. Stay in republic for as long as needed to build reasonable infrastructure and military. Use military to destroy as many civ as I can that I didn't destroy as despot then eventually switch to democracy when most civs are very weak or gone. Big boost I believe to gold income in democracy if cites are well developed. But by then have huge army and looking a space victory too.

[Jethro83]

If I'm a non-religious civ, I'll be going Despotism->Monarchy->Democracy, or otherwise Republic in Monarchy's place, if I'm through with the early warmongering phase before my despotism is overthrown. At the point where I am more than twice the size and power of my largest and most powerful neighbour, I might switch to Democracy, due to the faster workers, and marginally less corruption than Republic. By the late game, I am able to control war weariness with the Suffrage and police stations.

However, if I'm religious, I'll just use whatever government suits the here-and-now. For example, in the early game, I'll go for a monarchy to maintain enough stability to fight the war indefinitely. Early game peacetime (if it ever happens) will see me using a Republic. However, since I don't start going peaceful and building up my infrastructure until the late medieval-early industrial time period, I'm more likely to use Democracy for my peacemongering then. If I find that a late game war is going to take much longer than anticipated, and my enemy have a strong culture, then I go for Communism.

[Catt]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
If I'm a non-religious civ, I'll be going Despotism->Monarchy->Democracy, or otherwise Republic in Monarchy's place, if I'm through with the early warmongering phase before my despotism is overthrown. At the point where I am more than twice the size and power of my largest and most powerful neighbour, I might switch to Democracy, due to the faster workers, and marginally less corruption than Republic. By the late game, I am able to control war weariness with the Suffrage and police stations.

However, if I'm religious, I'll just use whatever government suits the here-and-now. For example, in the early game, I'll go for a monarchy to maintain enough stability to fight the war indefinitely. Early game peacetime (if it ever happens) will see me using a Republic. However, since I don't start going peaceful and building up my infrastructure until the late medieval-early industrial time period, I'm more likely to use Democracy for my peacemongering then. If I find that a late game war is going to take much longer than anticipated, and my enemy have a strong culture, then I go for Communism.

I have been playing almost the exact same way as you describe -- with the one difference being I will rarely go communist but will usually drop back to Monarchy if needed due to a prolonged war. I used to play almost exclusively Egypt or Japan (both religious) which makes governement choices essentially no-brainers. Been playing a lot of "all random" games, and the non-religious civs don't provide the luxury of frequent government changes, of course. Hence the first ever (probably belated) experimentation with Republic through the entire game.

You mention "marginally less corruption than Republic" and the ability to "control war weariness with the Suffrage and police stations." Are the differences in corruption and war weariness definitely noticeable / severe?

In my game, I have seen way less corruption than I would have expected (always having gone to the "minimal" corruption of a Democracy), and my wars have been short enough to be unsure whether a Democracy would have needed a lot of extra handling -- if my experience with corruption is typical and a bunch of folks tell me that the war weariness is not meaningfully greater, than I will definitely increase my use of the Republic when playing a non-religious civ.

Catt

[Theseus]

I've only had problems with WW in Democracy when in really long, vicious wars. No revolts, but ugly.

Rel = flex
Non-Rel = Republic

[dunk]

Well, if you want to stay on a war footing, stay in Republic. If you are going for culture or SS victory, go to Democracy. You can even go into Democracy if you have 7 or 8 luxuries and even fight wars.

With a religious civ, any government switching worries are moot points as no anarchy results.

[Thrawn05]

I like Democracy. Since I'm not much of a warmonger... except when I'm attacked, and which I point I commet acts of genocied.

[Arrian]

If I'm playing my religious Japanese, I will often go Despot -> Monarchy -> Republic -> Democracy.

If I'm playing a non-religious civ (I've been experimenting with China), I will often go Despot -> Republic and leave it at that.

In my most recent game, however, I actually beelined for Monarchy and switched very early, and I've been a King ever since. It's now 1450AD, I'm building Hoover. I'm getting tech in 4 turns with a surplus. How? Well, Monarchy is actually a really good government. It's perfect for warmongering (I don't understand why anyone would pick Communism over Monarchy). I've basically been fighting since I put 3 archers together, taking small breaks to get my units across those annoying stretches of water.

My defenders give me military police bonuses, I'm pretty sure my entire military is free (I should check on that), I have destroyed 4 civs and 1/2 of a 5th, I've generated 8 GLs. Monarchy rocks - especially if you're playing a civ set up to reap the benifits. China is such a civ. They're industrious, so their workers (and slaves) are already pretty fast. They're militaristic, which obviously fits well with continuous warfare. They're not religious, which means government switches are big events. I have the tech for democracy. I have pondered switching. But I look at the box in the lower right hand corner, and it says things like:

Chinese Monarchy, 4124 gold
Replaceable Parts, 4 turns, +155 gold/turn
(these are made up from memory, but pretty close)

Why blow 5 turns in anarchy?

-Arrian

[jshelr]

I'm the wrong guy to answer Arrian's monarchy vs communism question but I think I remember someone answering that it depends on whether you have core cities that are great (Monarchy is best) or lots of great cities spread all over the map (Communism is best). (Communism eliminates corruption due to distance?)