Is it worth switching to democracy?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I know how democracy is different from republic: less corruption, more efficient workers, more war weariness. I like it as a gov't because I'm a builder; those 1st two traits arer great, and war weariness doesn't worry me since I try to avoid wars. But here's the question:

If I'm already in republic, and I'm not a religious civ, are the advantages gained by switching to democracy worth spending all those turns in anarchy? My initial thought would be "yes, as long as it's early enough in the game and you're not racing for a wonder." I'm wondering what others think, and what the basis forr your calculation is. TIA

[vmxa1]

As a non religous civ, I can not see any point in making more than one switch in the game. Despot to Republic is my choice, but you could do Monarch. I do not even research Demo. I will get it later. The lost of all that production is hard to make up and you do not need the boost from Demo at that point.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Yes thats true the loss in production is a sting, and rarely in a game is there an ideal time to change over. Always some problem to deal with of one kind or another. That said though there is no doubt that once you have got it the advantages are for all to see.

I suppose the best time to change is if you have a sizable tech lead of at least four or five and can afford to let the AI catch up a little. Also selling some tech beforehand can bring in extra revenues whilst this process takes place.

So I suppose in a round about way I agree with vmxa1.

EDIT The best way to aqquire Democracy is to demand it during peace negotiations while you concentrate on researching the best miliatary tech.

[alva]

It's not even worth it, as a religious civ IMO.
If war breaks out, you'r allmost guaranteed to have to switch back to republic or monarchy.

[The Mad Monk]

I tried Democracy. Once.

[Nor Me]

Yes. If your planning for an as peaceful as possible AC or diplo victory then as soon as possible.
I find that wars can easily be fought in democracy if you have enough luxuries. If you have 5 luxuries or can afford to buy them, I would switch to democracy even if I were aiming for a military victory.
The optimal time is when you are just about to get a tech lead. You can easily buy back an 8 turn tech lag.

[mrmitchell]

I usually switch to Democracy, but now I am turning to the dark side of warfare and find Demo less important on every game.

[vmxa1]

I would say that if I was to switch, it would be because I am behind and need the boost to catch up. If I already have a 4-5 tech lead, why do I need to bother with a switch? The game is a lock anyway. I guess if you want to jack up your score in dominate/conquest game. Maybe just to see what it is like, as a test or for fun, but not for a strategic reason.

[Mad Bomber]

To me the choice is largely one that relates to map size more than anything else. On standard sized maps or smaller, a change to demo can actually hurt rather than help because you simply do not see much of the corruption reducing aspects of demo. Also on standard or smaller maps, fast workers are not really needed. On a large map you begin to see some of the benefits that a democracy can bring a civ, but only on the huge maps does Democracy really shine as the best government in the game.

[Ijuin]

Given the high war weariness experienced by Democracy, I would say that a non-Religious Civ should not bother with using it unless you have the Universal Suffrage wonder, or at least Police Stations. Once you have this, the main disadvantage that Democracy has over Republic is reduced significantly.

[Datajack Franit]

I usually keep my govt on Monarchy while my democratic opponents lose all their production in anarchy

[Thrawn05]

I really don't mind Democracy. I'm a builder, and don't usualy don't make the first strike (Unless it's in the interest of Rome to do so).

Sure the switch is somewhat painfull, but since I do tend to have a rather large defensive army (about 4 defensive units per city, 1 of each is patroling the boarders), I don't need to worry a whole lot about being backstabbed.

[sabrewolf]

even losing those 4-7 turns on anarchy is mostly worth it to me, except for a wonder-race or short before a war.
a) less corruption makes production and commerce in powerhouses further away of the capital/FP much higher. you might need 100 turns to catch up for the losses, but then the next 250 turns it's worth it... at least as a builder or someone who likes short well prepared wars (cavalry and MA-wars (3 moves) on normal world sizes last 3-6 moves, enough time...)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Thanks for all the input. Looks like this will be the first game in which I don't switch to democracy; I'll see how I like it. Thanks again!

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Thanks for all the input. Looks like this will be the first game in which I don't switch to democracy; I'll see how I like it. Thanks again!

Hrm I guess I have a really weird playing style. I warmonger all the time, but I can't remember the last time I didn't have a Democracy when I could. Of course I always build Univ. Suffrage, Police Stations, and Courthouses. But the improvement in one's economy/income from Republic to Democracy is definitely noticeable.