I'm playing with fully updated conquests and I find that Democracy just isn't worth it. When I switch I find myself going back to Republic since I earn far more GPT and get faster production. Maybe Fascism or Communism would be better but they seem more obscure and risky to me then the the others. Otherwise I fail to see the benefit of Democracy over Republic.

I don't see the benefit either.

Faster workers, supposedly less corruption, immune to propaganda. That's the only bennifits. Republic's benifits are some free unit support, early on gov, less WW.

Don't know as I never use it.

For me it's about the same as republic, just a bit more peaceful in style. I always switch to republic ASAP, and I don't want to research two useless techs and go through 9 turns of anarchy just to switch to democracy.

If you have market places and banks, Democracy works much better than republic, and if you have a long war, just ramp the luxury slider up to 3 or 4 (on monarch or emperor) and your people will be just fine. The only thing that really sucks is the lack of unit support, but if you have enough marketplaces and banks, (esp. with Adam Smith's) Democracy more than makes up for that with lower corruption.

Marketplaces and banks work the same in Democracy and Republic. I don't know what you are talking about. If you have a long war in Republic the few notches on your luxury slider that you save makes up for any tiny decrease in corruption.

The worst thing about Democracy is that it comes way too late.

There is one thing u all are forgetting.In democracy u get extremly high production.Helps a ton, but with the big WW, its not worth it

I used to say Democracy wasn't worth it, but the succession game Whoknows02 showed me how powerful Democracy can be. I was even able to run a war while keeping lux to 20%, and getting 4-turn research in the modern age.

There is one thing u all are forgetting.In democracy u get extremly high production.Helps a ton, but with the big WW, its not worth itWhat extremely high production?

The practical benefits are small - marginal reduction in corruption, faster workers (you should have loads anyway), propaganda immunity (hardly an issue). The problems are much bigger - two otherwise redundant techs to research, turns wasted anarchy, crippling WW unless you win fast - or go back into anarchy agian. Demo is too bigger risk unless the game is already in the bag.

In a multiplayer game with other human players, I could see the benefits of democracy. Approximately the same economical benefits(lower corruption almost as good as small unit support) but then you have the immunity to propaganda, and a slightly better chance of retaining cities that are under a flip risk. I'm pretty sure it is something like a 10% increase in keeping your cities over republic for one part of the calculations, but I'm not sure. I haven't looked at in a while.

But regardless, I'd say republic is always going to be better in any normal circumstance.

I see. So what government do you guys use? I would guess it's mostly Republic? But Communism and Fascism certainly have their benefits (although I'm not all certain as to when they are most beneficial)? What about Monarchy, or *shiver* Feudalism?

NEVER use communism. Let the AI use it. They are stupid. This is the best way to have them falling down the tech tree, and you gaining power.

I had almost been talked into using communism, but it has one huge draw back. You have to pop rush. Also I do not have the luxury of a second switch as a non religious civ.

I can see no use for Fascism and I won't research it anyway.

I never used Fascism and Communism that much, and try to stick to Republic for any wars in the modern and industrial ages. For middle ages I like feudalism because I like the large unit support for towns, and that's because I never build aqueducts.

I rather stick with Monarchy, Republic, or Communism than just wasting 9 turns of Anarchy revolting to Democracy.

Come to think of it, I rarely use Republic only if I choose a peaceful path instead of being a warmongrol throughout the whole game.

I used Fascism once, and the faster workers weren't worth losing the commerce bonus (which commie doesn't have, either) and the rule about needing to have a majority of your citizens in the town to earn culture wasn't to pleasant for me either. It was interesting, but I didn't see the advantages of it.

I remember in my first couple of Civ 3 games I was eagerly waiting for democracy because I thought it would lower the corruption. I never got any noticeable decrease! After that, I never went the democracy route again. One thing is war in Republic is much more manageable than in a democracy. For example in my last game I had one luxury. I got into a domino war with the rest of the world (they started it!) lost the other luxuries I got from the rest of the world and yet in Republic I could still maintain unrest for practically the rest of the game (the war started at the beginning of the Modern Age. I eventually won by Spaceship).

In short: Demo is 90% useless if you're not a religious civ (it's too prone to falling into anarchy if you don't have enough luxuries to keep your moaning citizens happy).

HOWEVER! I find Democracy is HUGELY useful when playing with a religious civ and I'm falling behind in techs. Here are the immediate benefits I can think of and I pretty much always use them:

- Workers work faster: I will often switch to Dem. quickly just to get my railroad built across a vast continent much quicker. The more effecient democratic citizens are excellent at completing a railroad in record time. And railroads are the best defense you can have.

- The reduced corruption can vastly increase your research or treasury but you have to massage this with a) lots of commerce improvements (and science ones cos they help your treasury topo) and b) good micro-management to make sure you're using the high commerce tiles.

This means democ. is a great choice for a space race victory or generally racing ahead / catching up in techs.

- Like Republic and Monarchy, you don't have to axe your population to rush things.

- Don't be afraid of the war weariness. Starvation is a viable means of keeping people happy. Yup, they are not unhappy if they've starved to death. So get with the entertainers (rather than the slider initially) to keep 'em happy in the first place.

I found I was disenchanted with Democ. for a while until I learnt to really massage my economy and the importance of getting at least one of each kind of lux.

Also making sure that your wars are conducted by sneak-attack (you coax them into declaring war not vice versa) is essential with this type of govt.

I see. So what government do you guys use? I would guess it's mostly Republic? But Communism and Fascism certainly have their benefits (although I'm not all certain as to when they are most beneficial)? What about Monarchy, or *shiver* Feudalism?

Yep, shiver away. I use Feudalism. In fact, it is often my one and only government change.

There is one and only one reason to use Feudalism, for the unit support when you have many cities of size 6 or lower and a big military. This is true for my games and compared to Monarchy the difference is usually 100 GPT or more in my games (on Emperor, large map). I used to like the Republic as much as the next guy back when I built OCP but since I changed to xoox, I simply cannot afford it most of the time.

NEVER use communism. Let the AI use it. They are stupid. This is the best way to have them falling down the tech tree, and you gaining power.

You are referring to Vanilla/PtW, I hope.

For C3C, Communism is a valid choice. Fascism is for the AI.

Demo is almost pointless. Used it in 20k games (since here, you will head for Free Artistry anyway), and in GLib capture games (since you will be in Monarchy often here, and learn Demo from the GLib).
In a regular game, I will stick to Republic. Unless I need to fight a long, ugly war and aim for domination (commie).

I believe democracy has its uses. It's not for every game, but there are situations where it's desirable.

If I am a religious civ I switch to democracy, but if i don't i rarely use democracy. It comes to late and the time during anarchy is way to long without a religious civ.

I'm with Rambuchan. I rarely use Democracy; but with a religious Civ, I get there maybe 20% of the time and maybe 10% without.

With a religious Civ, I find it can be better than republic if I can trade for the 2 techs and I've just gotten the railroad ability. The ability to get those railroads, and connect all cities by rail, I find to be huge. I rest much better when those cities are connected ....

With a non-religious civ, I would use it only in cases where I was on Monarchy or Feudalism when I got the tech. Again, I would use it only if I can trade for it.

However, these factors occur only when I am playing 'down' a level, like a game of the month. On higher levels, its rare I can easily trade for the techs.

I almost always use Communism when I get a large empire. One great aspect of communism is that it makes less corruption in captured cities, making it possible to build courthosues, temples, or libraries, so that I can get culture where I need it.

Breunor

yep for short:

Monarchy: Only for Always war games or people who are agressive but actually suck at warmongering (losing too many units, not being able to make peace when they want to) :)

Communism: supposedly usefull in specific cases, i do not really know when, and i think these cases are limmited to midium sized empires.

Republic: everything else. :p

lately I always go despo --> monarchy --> commie

I am a warmonger so this heavily influences my choices

I haven't used democracy in a while mainly because of the atrocious WW

I have been a democracy player ever since the days of Civ1. It is quite simply unbeatable.

Higher commerce, less corruption = more $$$ to pay for troops and improvements. Yes, you even end up with more $$$/turn than with Republic's small free military support.

Workers work harder, therefore all your railroads, irrigation, roads, etc and pollution cleaning are done way faster! Which means even more $$$$ and production!

Yes, you need factories, courthouses, police stations, temples, collosseums AND cathedrals for the happiness, markets, banks, stock exchanges and power plants. And yet with all these improvements to pay for, you make even MORE money! Just imagine how richer you can be if you manage to build Adam Smith's in addition.

With a stable democracy (and yes, it's even stable through all but the hardest wars), you can out-research, out-produce and out-rich (ok that's not a verb) all except the largest communist empires that a human player can produce.

It's just the best.

I think the worker bonus and propaganda immunity 'can' be useful, especially in MP games where you could be more inclined to do overexhaustive forestry operations or be exposed to propaganda attempts more.

Communism is fine in C3C -- with a large enough army, you come out ahead of Republic provided you've prepared properly. It's only in PTW/vanilla that it's the fast track to doom and destruction.

Renata

whats the difference between commie in vanilla/ptw and commie in conquests?

I use commi often. pop-rush is not an issue , at least i can rush in newly conquered cities without gold

whats the difference between commie in vanilla/ptw and commie in conquests?

much lower corruption in conquests.

this also has much to do with why i never use democracy in conquests. even with the 2-turn anarchy of a religious civ i find it painful to revolt into democracy at a time when communism seems to be right around the corner. but keep in mind my playstyle is warlike in the late game. i love domination victories and big maps so im going to go communist almost no matter what.

whats the difference between commie in vanilla/ptw and commie in conquests?

I use commi often. pop-rush is not an issue , at least i can rush in newly conquered cities without gold

See, and that's why I don't like commie, because I'd rather not deal with the unhappiness from whipping, and by the time I can switch to commie, goldrushing is not a problem.

The communal corruption is a problem for me too. I like the idea of my outer cities being more productive, but don't like my core not being as productive.

On [ptw] Regent or Monarch I always go for democracy. I love the low corruption and turbo workers. The "useless" techs I trade to the AI for techs or GPT. However, you might not be able to beat the AI to Printing press or Democracy on higher levels.

Good points. A couple of you mentioned Feudalism and how you....use it? Or something?

Explain yourselves!

The communal corruption is a problem for me too. I like the idea of my outer cities being more productive, but don't like my core not being as productive.
You should really try a C3C commie game. With a medium-sized empire (~3-4x OCN; SPHQ built), CH, PS, and WltKD (the later is the really crucial thing, it largely increases the power of the second corruption reducer), you will have an empire without any substantial waste. Use a Taxman if there's any left in cities before the get a PS up.

See, and that's why I don't like commie, because I'd rather not deal with the unhappiness from whipping, and by the time I can switch to commie, goldrushing is not a problem.

The communal corruption is a problem for me too. I like the idea of my outer cities being more productive, but don't like my core not being as productive.

by the time when i can switch to communism i dont need to rush because i have factories and railroads everywhere and can build almost any unit in 2-7 turns. thats enough for me. i only need to rush in newly conquered cities because there i need culture or a rax.

i also build many cities and have only 2 tiles between them. if i use republik i get lower gpt as i do in communism. and democracy sucks because of the high ww and the high upkeep cost if u have many units .

Communism is great for a spread out Empire, although I still prefer republic.

Welcome to CFC soloiscool and cheesejoff! :)

I have used Democracy in games when I have a small empire and aim for a peaceful win, viz <5CC Culture or Space, so that my Unit Support will not be so bad.

In C3C, Communism is useful for conquering and keeping AI cities. You can whip the natives away, build the city back up with your people and then enjoy an already developed productive city. Still, I don't bother changing unless religious.

Welcome to CFC soloiscool and cheesejoff! :)

I have used Democracy in games when I have a small empire
When you have a small empire Republic is good enough in terms of corruuption.

Yes but it can be cheaper in Democracy if you want to have enough military to stave off an attack.

I readd about the first 10 replies in the thread, but stopped after that, so forgive me if its redunddant.

Republic got boosted with the free unit support in C3C. In vanilla Civ3, Democracy vs. Republic for me matters if, 1) I'm going for a peaceful game, 2) The AI already researched the useless techs, 3) I'm a religious civ. Otherwise, I findd myself in Republic alot.

How can poeple win witjh communism? It is so bad! If you stay on rep or switch to demo, you can beat the AI by declaring war on them, so they will switch to communism, and slow down there production, so you outresearch them easily. Explain me. I don't understand.

Democracy is not worthwile in C3C. I never use it. The diadvantages outweigh by far its potential advantages (providing you won't have wars, which is highly unlikely in a normal game, to say the least ...).

So, let me make a conclusion:
C3C -> Communism
Civ3/PTW -> Democracy

Republic is good in all version, and the best in most cases.

But if IIRC the secret police HQ in Communism was broken and actually INCREASED corruption. So Communism is powerful in C3C providing you don't build the secret police HQ me thinks.

Um, no. SPHQ acts as another FP in C3C, increasing OCN. Since corruption is spread around in Communism without regards to distance, increasing OCN helps every city.

How can poeple win witjh communism? It is so bad! If you stay on rep or switch to demo, you can beat the AI by declaring war on them, so they will switch to communism, and slow down there production, so you outresearch them easily. Explain me. I don't understand.

I often leave between cities only 2 tiles space
So my cities dont go over size 12 ( i dont build hospitals either) and i have many cities.
If i have communism on the waste is only 2-3 shields or 4-5 commerce per cityand that doesnt matter with 30 cities. But the unitsupport is 6 in every city size. So i can build many units.
With this units i declare war and conquer all its that easy. If i have 30 tanks it doesnt matter if the ai has 5 modern armor.
And even in communism i could research in 6 turns which is faster than the ai in fachism can research.
But i only play monarch....so maybe this dont work in higher difficulties.

e: edited to sound a bit less german :D

Communism is useful if you have a big war on another continent and want to use the corrupted shields and pop rushing in conquered cities.

I hardly ever use Monarchy, preferring Republic in the middlegame. I'll go to Democracy if I have time to research the techs, though otherwise will stick with Republic for a while. I've been a Communist only once, mainly because my far-flung Democratic empire was getting agitatingly unstable during a long war, and switched back after the war ended. It worked, but I can see how people would shy away from either one.

i find commie to be excellent, but what gov i end up using is quite random.
i've foundthat somtimes i feel like be a republic, others a monarchy and when im lagging on research skip them an d go to feudalism. and whether i leave monarch/repub/feudal is whether i can be bothered going to another government. im pretty lazy :sleep:

Communism is absolutely devastating if you've managed to conquer a good to large-sized empire (say, your entire starting continent). If you combine it with the FP, SPHQ, and Courthouses here and there, and toss in a couple of policemen, it's a production powerhouse. It's true that you can't rush without killing pop, but you get such massive troop allotments and you can conscript enough each turn that it shouldn't matter - you're the freight train, once you build up enough production momentum, you're just going to overwhelm everybody.

Cash rushing isn't terribly effective for combat units in the entire Civ3 line in my experience either, everything's terribly expensive until the last few turns unless you have huge coffers.

Plus, since you don't need cash for rushing (only upgrading) you can jack up Science and Lux as much as needed to stay competitive. Communism is a very powerful tool for the warmonger - in C3C at least, in the others it's garbage.

Um, no. SPHQ acts as another FP in C3C, increasing OCN. Since corruption is spread around in Communism without regards to distance, increasing OCN helps every city.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=68415&page=1&pp=20

This is a post of november 2.003. I'm not sure if they fixed the broken SPHQ in patch v.1.22:

"Corruption issues by Alexman:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just got my copy of Conquests, and finished some tests to see if anything related to corruption has changed. Did it ever!

FP rank bug is fixed. Cities closer to the FP than to the Palace no longer use the Palace's set of cities to determine OCN corruption.
There is now a penalty instead of a bonus for RCP.

They 'fixed' RCP by giving equidistant cities the worst rank, instead of the best, as was the case in PTW. So now you get penalized for building two or more cities the same distance from the Palace or FP. Note that distances are still rounded down, so a city at distance 4 is considered the same distance as a city at 4.5, and they would get penalized for their RCP positioning.

The FP increases the rank of all your cities. More specifically, when you build a FP far from your capital, all cities near your capital have their corruption increased because the rank of all cities is increased to 2(r-1), where r is their old rank without the FP. So building a FP may or may not increase your overall corruption, because you get a whole new ring of cities where the rank starts from 1, but the rank within each ring goes up by increments of 2 instead of increments of 1. Building a FP (and SPHQ) in Communism always increases your corruption"

The only version of C3C that had the FP bug was the original release. It was fixed in the first patch. Communism is almost bugged in the players favor now with almost no corruption anywhere no matter how large your empire is once the SPHQ is built. The AI still self destructs under it because it whips too much although it does do better than VC3 or PTW with it. The human can control himself more.

Ummm, ok. it's just that in agame i played in september (and I believe I had it patched) building the SPHQ actually turned my income negative due to the increased corruption. But if it works fine for everybody now, it must be me then :blush:

What extremely high production?

I mean commerce.The production is okay(not a high as communism) but the commerce because of free trade is high. Or at least thats what the civlopedia says. :cry:

Republic has the same "free trade". ;)

I'm always in debt in Republic and always have tons of gold in Democracy and have never been bothered with war weariness even in what I consider a long war. Of course I'm only playin at chieftan level, for now.