Goverment Questions

[TigToad]

I must say I gave up on this game too quickly the first time... I've gone back to playing it again, and I'm totally obsessed, almost as bad as I was with Alpha Centauri.

My question is, I am having a hard time deciding which forms of government to use, when. I'm a big fan of Monarchy, but I can't decide if Communism is better or not.

Republic and Democracy's lack of support for military units seems crippling... war exhaustion isn't my friend either. I tend toward hybrid builder/war strategies.

If there is an old thread about this, let me know and I'll go read it, but I couldn't find it when I looked.

Thanks...

[Arrian]

I prefer republic/demo, and I'd call myself a hybrid warmonger/builder - I destroy that I may build

I do a lot of fighting - typically a lot in the ancient age as a despot, but even as a republic as well, until war weariness kicks in. It's not *that* difficult, however, to take 20-turn breaks in your warfare.

While rep/demo have to pay unit support, they also get a commerce bonus, a corruption reduction (in the case of demo anyway, rep & monarchy are equal), and in the case of demo, the worker speed bonus.

A few large cities with marketplaces can pump out a TON of money for unit upkeep if you're a republic. If you have a few different luxury types that help keep your people happy without the use of military police, then I'd say republic/demo is the best, warmonger or not.

If, however, you are lacking in the luxury department, and expect to need to fight nearly constantly over a long period of time, then Monarchy is indeed the government for you.

Communism... well, I haven't seen it's effects in a long time. I checked it out a long time ago (pre-play the world) and decided it sucked, and I'd rather be a Monarchy. Monarchy is superior if you have good Palace/Forbidden Palace placement. If not, however, communism is probably best for a large, sprawling empire.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Get your wars over quickly, and let the AI start them to reduce war-weariness in Republic.

I'm about to finish a Standard Pangea conquest (as India) all in Republic.

I'd 3 Mongol cities left to eat when China declared war. So I made peace with Mongolia, pulling them into an alliance against China as the price. China took a Mongol city (which I then took - no resistance) and after a while China made made peace with Mongolia and allied them against me. When Mongolia redeclared I got a happiness boost. I eventually fought about 40 turns of war, taking all of Mongolia and China with only a drop of WW at the end - because they had declared against me.

I took a breather to research MA and build some tanks for the final putcsh, which should be just a few turns taking one more civ which should trigger domination.

[joncnunn]

Agreed with Arrian and Cort Haus, fight a series of short wars against an AI where you take one - three cities and if your not getting anywhere after that (perhaps because you used the rope-a-dope AI empty city trick to get their army out of your way.) when they'll willing to pay you to stop fighting, take their money and take a 20 turn break, and use it to get ready to attack them again and take more cities when the 20 turn is up.

[Theseus]

Republic is generally considered the best all-around government.

Communism, in my experience, is best for big, sprawling civs and big IC wars... commie drafting is a warmonger's best friend. But get the heck back to Republic as soon as you can!

[Paddy]

Thanks for some of the ideas here... interesting reading.

[Mountain Sage]

Just bear in mind that sometimes you have to stay in Monarchy for the whole game, even if you would have prefered to switch government.
In Theseus' game (posted on my 'Emperor level' thread), I had a military of about 190 units (I usually have a dozen or so...), due to some hyper-aggressive neighbours.
In Republic/Democracy, this would have costed me 190 gold/turn as upkeeping, and would have severly hampered my research.
Therefore, if you can switch from Monarchy, do it. If not, you can still win on higher levels and stay level on the tech race.

[Catt]

Keep in mind that even with very large standing armies, Republic or Democracy may be more economically efficient than Monarchy or Communism (putting aside war weariness for a moment). If you have a well-developed empire with two solid cores and a bevy of city improvements, a Republic supporting a large army may take in more commerce than a Monarchy with the same army.

Look even to MS's example of a 190-unit army -- since Republic gives one extra gold per tile that already produces one, a Republic supporting 190 units (and paying 190 gold per turn) would need 190 extra gold per turn to "break even" with a Monarchy (assuming all 190 units are free of upkeep in Monarchy). A large, well-developed empire can easily net an extra 190 gold per turn as a Republic versus a Monarchy, even after taking into account corruption. For example, if I can produce 12 extra gold in Republic from a size 12 city in my core, that 12 extra gold may equate to 24 extra depending on the mix of improvements (markets, banks, libraries & universities). I don't need a whole lot of these low-corruption cities to reach the 190 gold target pretty quickly if the cities are large and well-developed. And if I have a 190-unit army, I fully expect to control enough luxuries to make the effect of military police superfluous, meaning no need for luxury spending under the representative governements.

In short, I've found even very large standing armies don't always dictate a more "unit-maintenance-friendly" government.

War weariness is another issue, however. . .

Catt

[MrWhereItsAt]

Communism's greatest effect is to make one type of corruption/waste in all your cities the same. Thus, if you have a civ sentred around your Palace and Forbidden Palace, do not do Communism, as it will ultimately cost you production and commerce in cities near your Palace/FP that would be extremely productive in any other government type. If however you need shields in far-spread cities more, COmmunism may be worth checking out.

Careful: I have never even researched Communism, let alone tried it, so I am just going by what the formulae say!

[Theseus]

WIA:

You are, of course, correct from an economic / game mechanics standpoint re corruption / waste... but that is not all, nor the point.

What is not conveyed... and I want to make this VERY CLEAR... is that what we have to work with is not Communism, but rather Stalinism.

In RL, one of the ugliest forms of government, if it can be called that, ever. My entire family is of Russian descent, and I in fact visited my home town while the Soviet was still in power.

So I can say this, acknowledging RL... in Civ3, Communism is about the whip.

(Man, I hated writing that, but it's true)

[zorbop]

i use republic and sometimes communism.
i use republic whenever possible, but in the inustrial age when those damn MPP's make you at war with every other civ, communism can be usefull.
i find i gennerally can ignore republic war weariness, it takes a lot for it to kick in... i have used monarchy and democracy, but niether seem to compare to republic. the big bonus of communism is pop-sacking (something to do with those millions of workers you enslave) and for absurdly long wars.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Theseus
...what we have to work with is not Communism, but rather Stalinism.

So I can say this, acknowledging RL... in Civ3, Communism is about the whip.

I have read your full post Theseus, but I do have to ask about this part: in the game "Communism" is basically Monarchy with a flat corruption/waste (there may be a few more parts to it that I am not remembering). If this in RL is Stalinism, what would be a Civ3 version of RL Communism? I understand there are several varieties of Communism, both ideologically and those put into practice (the Soviet vs China forms), but let us take the general form of Communism without the differences particular to different dictators and regions - what would that be like in Civ3 different to how Communism is in the game already?

[Arrian]

In short, I've found even very large standing armies don't always dictate a more "unit-maintenance-friendly" government.

Quite true. I've had ~400 units as a democracy without breaking a sweat (standard map). That was late-game, with stock exchanges & commercial docks added to my full developed cores, and I was Rome, a commercial civ. My empire in that game could probably have supported double the army I had. That's an extreme example, of course, but I often find I'm able to support relatively large armies as a republic, once I've got these city improvements down: courthouses, marketplaces, libraries. The key is high pop core cities with the right improvements. If you don't have that, Monarchy is best for a largish army.

-Arrian

[Ragnar_84]

I agree with most of the above, never had a problem with builder/warmonger in Rep/Dem. I may also suggest trading for or aquiring luxuries during wartime and building wonders such as Sistine, J.S. Bach's and Universal Sufferage.
I do have a separate question. I am in Republic, just finished TOE, researched up to replacable parts/corporation, plan on remaining fairly peaceful (playing on a map with med. to small islands) do you think it's worth losing the 5-6 turns on anarchy to make the change to democracy??

[bongo]

Depends on your empire size, your empire needs to be of some size to benefit from a change to democray. If you have a large undeveloped empire it may be worth it for the more efficent worker alone(150% )