About goverment differences

[Athitis]

I always have problems when I turn to Republic. My economy suffers greatly and thus I almost always avoid it. Only by the time I get Democracy my empire is able to compensate with the military cost. And I never have many units.....one Hoplite per city and a couple of warriors (usually). Needless to say that since i have democracy, I never turn my goverment to Republic ( i never attack Thus lower WW doesn't really matter for me).

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by Athitis
I always have problems when I turn to Republic. My economy suffers greatly and thus I almost always avoid it. Only by the time I get Democracy my empire is able to compensate with the military cost. And I never have many units.....one Hoplite per city and a couple of warriors (usually). Needless to say that since i have democracy, I never turn my goverment to Republic ( i never attack Thus lower WW doesn't really matter for me).

I often have trouble with Republic at first too, particularily if I get it before currency/construction. What I do is time my GA to hit just after I switch to Republic. You then have 20 turns to build marketplaces/aqueducts/courthouses in most if not all cities; these are the cornerstones to a stable republic able to support a strong defensive unit in every core city and two on border cities, a strong offensive force, and a large number of workers. Democracry only makes it sweeter, and like others have suggested, do your best to get luxuries, through war if need be. Once I get to demo., I stay there. I feel that if you can't take what territory/resources/luxuries you need with a relatively short, decisive conflict, then you have not planned it correctly.

[Boewulf]

Monarchy versus Communism

Several people have mentioned religeous, industrial civs etc... how do these help control war weariness? Since playing CivIII (graduating from CivII) I've only worried about choosing the Civ with the best unique unit. Am I missing something?

Personally I don't mind Communism for making war... it's better than Monarchy in so far as it has lower corruption probs for a big empire. However, the down side is not being able to hurry improvements with cash, but rather having to sacrifice population... not good when you want to quickly build an airport in your newly aquired 'beach-head' town (which only has a pop of 2 or 3 once you've attacked it) and airlift units in to take the rest of the continent . For this reason, Monarchy may be better.

I like Democracy when at peace, but my last game made me wait 7 goes in Anarchy when I decided to change to Communism because of the WW I was struggling to cope with. Does the style of Civ (religeous etc) effect the time spent in anarchy, does anyone know?

Good comments above on Republic.... I've always avoided it but will try it next game. Still... I say bring
back Fundamentalism .

[vondrack]

Re: Monarchy versus Communism

Originally posted by Boewulf
Several people have mentioned religeous, industrial civs etc... how do these help control war weariness? Since playing CivIII (graduating from CivII) I've only worried about choosing the Civ with the best unique unit. Am I missing something?

Civ traits do not affect war weariness in any way.

Originally posted by Boewulf
I like Democracy when at peace, but my last game made me wait 7 goes in Anarchy when I decided to change to Communism because of the WW I was struggling to cope with. Does the style of Civ (religeous etc) effect the time spent in anarchy, does anyone know?

With religious civs, you start the revolution on one turn and choose the new government on the very next turn. No anarchy at all...

Originally posted by Boewulf
Good comments above on Republic.... I've always avoided it but will try it next game. Still... I say bring
back Fundamentalism .

Oh, yeah, that's why it was taken out...

[Arrian]

Communism sucks in CivIII. Sure, there may be very specific circumstances were it would be useful, but most of the time Monarchy is superior.

A lot of it depends on how your empire is set up. I would encourage you to save the game, and then switch to communism. Have a good look around your empire, check the economic data from the F1 screen, etc. Then reload and switch to Monarchy. Do the same. I betcha Monarchy is better.

-Arrian

[WarpStorm]

This will be true if you built your empire on the principle of core cities. If you abandon the concept and develop all cities, I find that you can get a real boost out of Communism over Monarchy.

[Zero]

Communism and Monarchy is vastly different. And it's not just forced labor vs Rushing. But first let me clear up one thing so my explanation on two type of govt doesnt get slowed by my need to explain how corruption works.
Go to this thread for corruption anaylsis. It has been dissected so well.

So, you wonder, the difference between Monarchy VS Communism, Republic VS Democracy?

Communism uses forced labor to rush,
Monarchy uses golds to rush.

Monarchy has same corruption level as REPUBLIC
Communism runs under 30% flat ratio.

Communism also works in that forbidden palace doesnt provide a capitol, but a 100% increase in OCN (since communism doesnt need capitol to determine corruption)

Communism can draft more citizen.
Thats all I can spew out on my mind. Now for rep VS Demo,...

Republic has same corruption as Monarchy NOT DEMOCRACY.
Democracy has least corruption level of all govt.

Democratic workers work 150% faster as opposed to republic 100%.

I havent tested if Republic and democracy differ in the extremity of war weariness, though when I play I can't see any visible difference. It has always been the case that Civilization made democracy more appealing than Republic... It's a shame. But it has also been tradtionally that republic handles war weariness (troops away form home in I and II) better than democracy.

But who gives when you get more commerce out of more efficient corruption level and can maintain happiness by luxury? firaxis should balance the two more by making both govt appealing in its own way. Much like how they pulled off very well with communism vs monarchy in making them different enough. Unless Firaxis intend Republic to be a stepping stone to Democracy (just like how despotism is really a temporary govt).

[vmxa1]

Consider how many of the people here that I respect, take the perspective that communist is not a good choice (I agree), there must be a reason (productivity).

[Boewulf]

With religious civs, you start the revolution on one turn and choose the new government on the very next turn. No anarchy at all...

vondrack.... is this right? I'll have to try it. If it is... thanks. If not, I'll bill you some of my lost revenue
On a serious note though.. what is the balance.. I mean: if Religeous Civs get no anarchy, what do industrious, scientific, etc, Civs get... has anyone documented this, or have I just not read the manual

Er.. actually I think I did forget to do that!

Oh, yeah, that's why it was taken out...

Ohh, but wasn't it good? Made for a quick (if bloody) end game anyway!

But who gives when you get more commerce out of more efficient corruption level and can maintain happiness by luxury?

You hit the nail on the head there (Calc II).... I knew there was a sensible reason why a republic didn't work as well when you decide its time to be a warmongerer... to be honest, I never could work out why Sid made the distinction... Fundamentalism now, there's a distinction if there ever was one... sorry we've covered that haven't we!

Mind you...

Democracy has least corruption level of all govt

You mean Civilization doesn't reflect real life??????

Ohh! I'll have to re-evaluate my existence! ... either that or produce a mod- which would of course have fundamentalism (although I prefer the term "hegemonic") in it... but we won't go in to that

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Boewulf


vondrack.... is this right? I'll have to try it. If it is... thanks. If not, I'll bill you some of my lost revenue
On a serious note though.. what is the balance.. I mean: if Religeous Civs get no anarchy, what do industrious, scientific, etc, Civs get... has anyone documented this, or have I just not read the manual

Not no anarchy. One turn. You can wait till to the end of the turn hit F1 and start the revolution. Then you start the next turns build and money sequence in anarchy. After all the cities have finished you get to choose your goverment before you move your units. Thats one turn of income and shield production lost. However if you you get in the habit of changing governments frequently those single turns can add up.

[Boewulf]

Not no anarchy. One turn.

Ahh! Got it... thanks

Don't change that often.... but when I want to... I want to, if you get what I mean.

Still, though, do other Civ 'predispositions' have other effects (Scientific, industrious, expansionist, etc.)?

[Ethelred]

Well I could reply RTFM. It does help to that with some games.

However you might want to look at this thread:

Militaristic, Industrious, Religious are so far ahead of the other traits


There a LOT threads covering Civ traits.

[Boewulf]

Many Thanks

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not no anarchy. One turn. You can wait till to the end of the turn hit F1 and start the revolution. Then you start the next turns build and money sequence in anarchy. After all the cities have finished you get to choose your goverment before you move your units. Thats one turn of income and shield production lost. However if you you get in the habit of changing governments frequently those single turns can add up.

Yep, that's correct, I should have probably worded my response in a more precise way. The fact is that it is not even one full turn of anarchy. You lose just a part of one turn, if you do it like Ethelred says (start the revolution only after you've done everything else in the current turn).