Government Type (question)

[Hakeem928]

I remember when I used to play Civ2 a fair bit, one of my first goals was always to get out of despotism and become a monarchy. My early runs through Civ3 proceeded the same way, but I noticed that it wasn't really advantageous to even switch! Is this correct, or is it just me?

Should I ever become a Monarchy?

[KLIN-TONN]

It's nice to be able to pop-rush improvements as you can in despotism, but you lose some corruption, make more money, and advance faster with monarchy. Some games, though, I'll bypass monarchy in favor of republic. Kinda depends on the game.

[vmxa1]

I no longer go to monarchy, I wait for republic. They can both be gotten with the same effort. Too bad, as the Civ2 way of big impacts and longer path to aquire made it seem like an accomplisment, now it is sort of ho hum. Non religous Civs can not really aford to switch more than once, very painful.

[player1]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I no longer go to monarchy, I wait for republic. They can both be gotten with the same effort. Too bad, as the Civ2 way of big impacts and longer path to aquire made it seem like an accomplisment, now it is sort of ho hum. Non religous Civs can not really aford to switch more than once, very painful.

If there is no more then 1-2 luxuriex on your map, and you had a great army, which you don't use anymore, Monarchy is better option.

Then build up your empire until you reach critical point on with Republic pays off.

This works great for RELIGIOUS civs.

[Arathorn]

Like a lot of things, in Civ3, what government to be in really depends on your situation.

If you have a large empire, know monarchy, are religious, and republic is a long ways off, wars look unlikely in the near future, I'd sure switch.

Personally, I also use Monarchy a fair bit for late-game wars when religious. The corruption of Communism is different enough that it requires special times/places to really want, in my opinion.

OTOH, I sure don't beeline for it like I did in Civ2. Monarchy has its place, as do Republic, Democracy, Despotism, and Communism. It's not too hard to envision scenarios where one is superior to all of the others. Look at their strengths and weaknesses and the game situation to decide which you should be in.

You are right, though, that I typically stay in despotism a LOT longer in Civ3 than in earlier Civ incarnations. It's just so darn efficient for some things. And Republic is so much better than it was in Civ2 that I often try to wait for it.

As with all things, YMMV.

Arathorn

[Archaetus]

Is it just me or is it alot easier to keep your citizens happy in Civ III? It's made the difference in my choosing Republic over Monarchy. Hell, I've waged full-scale war with a large army and was able to maintain not only a happy Democracy, but also a lucrative one with plenty of ease, whereas in the other Civs, I had to do some tweaking once switching over to Republic or Democracy.

[Thrawn05]

First I rush for iron works, then I head for republic. Once I advance to the next age, I head straight for democracy.

I to have waged war against other civs as repub and democ. But I think it was because I already made wonders like hangin gardens and the chapel. My most unhappy cities I build shak's theater.

[Worthingtons]

As with many things in the game, its circumstancial, things depend on your game,style of play ect

I nearly always find Monarchy has it's place, I like a big army in the field (Rep has no unit support!!) , and Its IMPERITIVE for me to have squares workers up to thier potential, especially When you have some wonderfully hilly (hence productive) cities that need to take advantage of the few IRRIGATED grassland tiles.

I like Monarchy, and use it in nearly every game.

[Willem]

Re: Government Type (question)

Originally posted by Hakeem928
I remember when I used to play Civ2 a fair bit, one of my first goals was always to get out of despotism and become a monarchy. My early runs through Civ3 proceeded the same way, but I noticed that it wasn't really advantageous to even switch! Is this correct, or is it just me?

Should I ever become a Monarchy?

One advantage of Monarchy is that you can have 3 military police, as opposed to 2 with despot. It allows the highest number in the game. This can really help when you're expanding your empire at the beginning. Plus you don't have to divert as much of your treasury towards Luxuries, leaving more available for Science. You can also put off building a Temple for a bit longer.

Also, Despotism has a tile restriction when it comes to irrigation and shield production. So your city population will increase more quickly once you change, and you will be able to produce units/improvements faster.

[Worthingtons]

I use Monarchy for the Tile thing, and Unit support.

I dont rate the 3 Military Police too much, It's importnat to Build Temples early ANYWAY for Culture means, and a reliance on Military Police will leave you with a hell of a lot of work to do when Switching Govts...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Rothy
I use Monarchy for the Tile thing, and Unit support.

I dont rate the 3 Military Police too much, It's importnat to Build Temples early ANYWAY for Culture means, and a reliance on Military Police will leave you with a hell of a lot of work to do when Switching Govts...

True, but it does buy you some time if you need it. I usually don't have anymore than two units in my cities anyway, so I rarely use this ability, but I can see in some situations it might come in handy.