Monarchy vs. Republic

[conquistadore]

Well, it seems that in the modern era, the AI will either be using democracy, if they are in peace-time, or communism, in war time. But the answer is rather obvious, isnt it?

But i'm glad that the AI is much improved in civ3.

[jack_frost]

monarchy and communism seem pretty worthless.

Cash flow shouldn't be a problem if your trading in tech. Especially at higher levels (monarch/emp - haven't touched diety) where all the other civs actually have money to buy.

Since paying the (really tiny) costs for upkeep shouldn't be a problem, the small monarchy bonus isn't worth while. Martial law is not really as useful in this game since luxuries are easy to get in mass (again, with aggressive diplomacy).

I usually have more luxuries then I need and keep my cities in perpetual I love the king day for reduced corruption - which means - when I go to war it dosn't hurt in terms of happyness.

The real trick is realizing that in actuality, the increased commerce of republic is still better for war then monarchy (and not to mention less wasted shields due to corruption is huge). You can pay for the units you need, you can still research tech fast, AND you don't have to waste production time on units your just using to keep your cities from revolting.

Once you come to the inevitable conclusion that republic is better then monarchy EVEN AT WAR. You really can't justify ever using anything other then republic/democracy.

[Jason]

Quite. The thing is, I've waged aggressive wars to clear a whole continent (well, one civ off it) and stayed Republic the whole time. What's more, when I wasn't rush-building too many units, I could keep my tax rate at 100% science and still make money (I sell tech for per turn wealth from all other peaceable civs).

This is on regent. War weariness just wasn't too much of a problem. That's the only reason I hesitate to switch to communism. I mean, if I can wage war AND still research at a high level, why not? And rushing units with cash is a lot less painful than with population, at least in home cities.

[vmxa1]

I suspect that it is not a case of Monarch is bad and republic is good. It is more a function of the civ you play. I just finished as Egyptians and they prefer Monarch and do not like republic. I tried to switch rep or dem (forgot which) and I ended up with more unhappy citizens and lower production. I reloaded and did not switch. I got this straight from the rules with Civedit. I did not try other forms as I was winning anyway.

[jack_frost]

the biggest problem I've had with communism is the dispersed corruption. It seems similar to the republic corrption waste rate, only instead of it being focused in a few frontier cities the waste is spread everywhere.

Although communism is probably similar in effiency to republic, you could just switch to democracy many techs earlier. The reduced corruption and worker speed just makes communism sort of pointless.

[jack_frost]

i think the preferred gov type is just for the AI. IE: an AI controlled civ is more likely to switch to their preferred type.

If it affected happy points and stuff then the prefferred gov would be listed in the civlopedia entry for that civ if nothing else.

[Kriton]

Monarchy is good when:
-you are playing at a tougher level
-your cities are size 7 & up
-you are in a prolonged war
-you are not a religious civ

When you are playing Emp/Deity, you have unhappy citizens. If you are not religious, temples/cathedrals are expensive. Monarchy makes 3 content using martial law. Each city suports 4 units. Corruption isn't that much worse than republic. And no war weariness. What you lose in commerce/tech, you gain in power and the ability to bend the will of your opponents.