Communism

[Shadowlord]

I'm currently playing a standard map size, but I have cities in all the far corners of the world.

As a democracy, only the cities on my home island were of any use production-wise, the others were so bogged down by corruption that they were useless (Although others have stated that taxing them or using them for science works well.).

However, I switched to Communism a while back, and those "useless" cities suddenly became much better. I had slightly higher corruption on my home island, but I think the price was well worth it given how spread out my empire is. I haven't changed governments since, mainly because only Communism has the flat corruption rate.

I'm wondering how many other people prefer Communism over Democracy, in a spread-out empire. (I'm playing the English. Imagine if the British Empire, at its height of power, turned Communist in real life :P.) Or do you stay in other governments and levy huge taxes on tea and stamps in your colonies.

[Tuberski]

Most of the people I've talked to on these boards and myself also prefer communism, because it makes corruption tolerable.

And no war weariness is also a big bonus.

[Fake Boris]

Bahahaha!
Communism rules! Boris will get you and drink lots of vodka!

[Inverse Icarus]

communism would work in the real world if the capitialistic democracies didnt give them the cold shoulder.

[notyoueither]

Communism would work in the real world if their own workers weren't drunk.

Wait a minute. I'm drunk.

Nevermind.

[dikwhit]

i would have to say that communisim is the government of choice in certain situations
1) the bigger the map
2) the tech tree is way advanced or done
3)the bigger the empire
4)wartime

with a religios civ its even better as 1 turn switches mean if you dont like the low cash generation of communisim you can switch off it occasionaly and only lose 1 turn production

[Thrawn05]

I tend to have a small tight civilization. So democracy works well, since the wrost city is like one or two shields currupt. I guess if I have a very large empire, communism would be the way to go.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

I've NEVER switched to communism before. I prefer to buy improvements instead of rushing population. However, the concept of divided/partially corruption seems appealing, so does the lack of war weariness.

Questions:

1) how many corruption roughly in capital and core cities?
2) how's science progress rate in comparison to rep and demo?
3) how's tax income in comparison to rep and demo?

Main question: is it possible in communism to compete with rep. and demo. civs when not warring?

AJ

I still dislike the corruption settings, however they could just become perfect if we were allowed to build -or better: capture an enemy capital- a third one !!

PLEASE FIRAXIS

[Hmmm]

I always use communism. Mainly for the corruption benefits, but also because I like to have a very large army - although only ever for defence, as well as suppresing unhappy citizens...Since you can't supress unhappiness with troops in Republics and Democracies, and no matter how peacefull you are the enormous amount of garrisons and workers you have often take a very large chunk out of your gold in those two governments. Monarchy also has to suffice for the middle ages and renaisance. But to put down corruption, I usually build the forbidden palace in a city that is in a more central location, because the capital is almost always in an extreme of the island/continent that I start on. Courthouses are good too...but, ironically, it usually takes ages to build them in cities strife with corruption.

[GarethDaragon]

i'm still not convinced that courthouses do a thing... i usually rush to republic and then democracy and play out the rest of the game with democracy no matter what the war weariness factor. once you reach the critical mass point and past it, your new cities no matter what their production potentional (15 for example), they only produce 1 shield. no biggie, you rush a courthouse looking for that 20% change and guess what, you're still only producing one shield. rush build a police station... still only one shield.

yes i'm playing with the 1.17 patch. i agree that corruption is a huge pain, but it's part of the game. my only beef is that if there is a builiding whose SOLE purpose is to decrease corruption. it SHOULD actually decrease it.

maybe i'm asking for too much.

p.s. i would be completely content if i could at least get to two shields... that's all i'm asking for.

[notyoueither]

Distance can be a real killer.

If the city is losing 130% to corruption and you build a CH you may not notice a difference.

CH only reduces corruption about 20%. Same with Police Station.

Want to see what CH does? Sell one in a city about 15 tiles from your capitol.

[KateUK]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Most of the people I've talked to on these boards and myself also prefer communism, because it makes corruption tolerable.

And no war weariness is also a big bonus.

In Civ II I used to play Communism all the time, I liked the lack of corruption and the use of spies.
In Civ III the spy options don't seem to work so well, I can't have all that fun building loads of spies and doing all sorts of mean things with them. But as I rather like huge worlds, huge far flung empires and total world domination the only workable governments for me now are Monarchy or Communism.

I'm upset that the choices of governments are so limited in Civ III.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by UberKruX
communism would work in the real world if the capitialistic democracies didnt give them the cold shoulder.

That's not true. Communism has several failings, the foremost of which is a fundamental lack of the incentives that make capitalism work.

[DrSpike]

Further on the commie debate:

There are 2 questions here. The first is how does communism fare against a representative govt for a predominantly builder game with diplo/spaceship as victory targets?

The 2nd is how does communism fare versus monarchy for a domination/conquest game?

Communism will never be best in the first case, even with some weird location of cities favouring the lack of courruption from distance.

Monarchy is better than communism in 1.17f for a domination game. More money, more shields overall.

[GarethDaragon]

as for communism in the "real world"... i've always believed that it is the one truly perfect idealized government. think star trek where there is no money and no one wants for a thing....

unfortunately as long as ONE corrupt person exists (and there is always at least one ) the system is doomed to crumble as that one corrupt influence slowly works his poison on others.

of course i'm also an anarchist that doesn't trust people to govern themselves... try to resolve that governmental position...