This is an informational poll to determine when and if we should consider entering Democracy.

Democracy will give us:

1. Large drop in corruption
2. Increased worker speed(50%).
3. More commerce per tile.
4. Protection from propaganda.
5. A chance to stay in the tech race.

On the downside, it will:

1. Introduce war weariness
2. Force us to support our entire military with our treasury.
3. End martial law city bonus(happiness).

We have all 8 luxuries so happiness should be easy to regulate at the outset of Democracy. We also have Adam Smith's Trading Co. pays for maintenance of Markets, Banks and Harbors. We are also a scientific civ, meaning that we can build Libraries and Universities more cheaply. This could allow us to gain parity in the tech race.

There are a whole host of options that could be presented here(Republic, Communism), but to get the best idea I decided to keep it simple.


That said, should we:

1. Enter Democracy NOW
2. Enter Democracy within 10-20 turns
3. Never enter Democracy.
4. Abstain



Please vote your conscience. This poll will stay open for 72 hours.

I don't think we should ever enter Democracy. Increased worker rate is nice but we have supplemented with many captured workers. More commerce per tile and researching our own tech go hand in hand and both fall short of the efficiency of purchasing our own techs. Protection from propaganda is pretty meaningless. Mostly, Democracy introduces heavy war weariness. This will almost absolutely prevent us from our conquest of the world.

Millitaristic Fanatika cannot afford a trip in democracy. It would cost about 8 turns of anarchy (just a guess) and another 8 turns to go back to Monarchy/Communism when the war weariness will be too high, and this will happen. We should never enter democracy, unless we eliminate everyone exept the Zulu…

Originally posted by Fier Canadien
Millitaristic Fanatika cannot afford a trip in democracy. It would cost about 8 turns of anarchy (just a guess) and another 8 turns to go back to Monarchy/Communism when the war weariness will be too high, and this will happen. We should never enter democracy, unless we eliminate everyone exept the Zulu…

Unlucky for us.... That's not an option as the Zulu are elimnating themselves.

I think a switch to democracy is a must. Increased worker rate.... more commerace.... Democracy is good with big civilizations with lots of commerace already. We would be counted within that group.... We need the better worker rate to build railroads. Last time I checked we still had cities that weren't even connected to our trade route.

Strider - I think you need to download the latest save and take a really good look. :)

I also vote that we never enter Democracy. I fear it would be a mis-step that could very well cost us the game since at this level war weariness can be crippling even to a civ that possesses all the luxuries in creation, and our recent experiences should have made it abundantly clear that we cannot rely on our neighbours to maintain peaceful relations. I do not believe that the planet will ever see lasting peace until such time as we have succeeded in imposing a "Pax Fanatikanus" upon it via the conquest of every other nation - Monarchy being the government best suited to that aim.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I also vote that we never enter Democracy. I fear it would be a mis-step that could very well cost us the game since at this level war weariness can be crippling even to a civ that possesses all the luxuries in creation, and our recent experiences should have made it abundantly clear that we cannot rely on our neighbours to maintain peaceful relations. I do not believe that the planet will ever see lasting peace until such time as we have succeeded in imposing a "Pax Fanatikanus" via the conquest of every other nation - Monarchy being the government best suited to that aim.

We are close to getting communism.... Or Police Stations for this matter..... War weariness would not be as bad with Police Stations.

How about the option of going to Republic? Shouldn't that be on the list?

Originally posted by Strider


We are close to getting communism.... Or Police Stations for this matter..... War weariness would not be as bad with Police Stations.
Police stations would improve matters slightly, but they will not have a sufficiently powerful effect to warrant the withdrawal of the "crippling" epithet.

I think its just for democracy Feodor, other wise we would have Communism and Despotism on there too.

Anyways, I think we should never enter democracy. We have set domination or conquest as our goal and I am afraid that a trip to democarcy could be a fatal blow to our efforts to win. We need the military support of the militaristic governments. Also, in Communism (which I think we need soon) we can get a communal amount of corruption and waste, which could have a good or bad effect on us. Communism/monarchy also allows a high level of military activity and the spy benefits under Communism are something we could use.

Are we really militaristic? Haven't two nations attacked us in recent centuries because our army wasn't big enough? Aren't we in an era of big navies without a single artillery piece to protect our harbors?

Let's go to Democracy ASAP so we can buy some new toys. We have enough luxuries to stay happy and we can make up the rest by ponying up for some temples and cathedrals.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Strider - I think you need to download the latest save and take a really good look. :)

I would, but my network crashed and I can't get on any of my PC's and my PDA isn't strong enough to run Civ3. I'll have to wait awhile when I'm not to sick to move for I can fix it.

Never, Fanatika just is not in a position to be peaceful right now...

Never, Fanatika just is not in a position to be peaceful right now...

Er . . . why not? Who do we have to be scared of? My assessment of our potential enemies (posted elsewhere) is that none of them have that much potential. The only things we have to worry about, as I see it:

(a) a grand alliance against us, which can only happen if we antagonize everyone by fighting them constantly.

(b) A large country gets a serious technological edge on us. This means, in this case, what if the Persians get tanks or nukes before we do.

Making guns instead of butter doesn't protect us against either of those scenarios.

I would also point out that two different nations have attacked us recently, true enough, but any threat they posed to our survival was handily dealt with within a single turn. Primarily by shrewd diplomacy, I might add. The rest of the wars were spent cleaning up the mess, retaking lost ground, and going on the offensive.

Yrs,
Feodor, DFAM, GC, RG :cooool:

Originally posted by Feodor Ardent
Er . . . two different nations have attacked us recently, true enough, but any threat they posed to our survival was handily dealt with within a single turn. Primarily by shrewd diplomacy, I might add. The rest of the wars were spent cleaning up the mess, retaking lost ground, and going on the offensive.

Yrs,
Feodor, DFAM, GC, RG :cooool:

It was not the FA Ministry that fought and occupied Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, Chittagong, Delhi, Ganges, Jaipur and Lahore. It was our military units that did that. ;) We also pulled off that trick by buying techs and getting to cavalry once we were attacked by India. That's not something we can do everytime we get attacked. Witness the Babylonian war.

It was not the FA Ministry that fought and occupied Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, Chittagong, Delhi, Ganges, Jaipur and Lahore. It was our military units that did that.

Uh . . . okay, but this doesn't actually contradict anything I said. None of those cities were taken until after the decisive battles were fought.

Securing techs, as you note in your next paragraph, and the alliances secured at the same time, guaranteed the destruction of India. Later, against Babylon, a rapid diplomatic response crippled their offensive power in the west immediately and caused their eastern army (as I had predicted) to evaporate before it got across our border.

Nowhere did I claim that the army was not involved. In fact, as the TC record shows, I was there leading the Guild Volunteers in person, urged the generals to strike harder blows, and collecting exotic and occasionally gory souveniers for my nephews and neices.

Also several dictionaries, as I recall. Strange, that.

Feodor
Deputy FA Minister
Steward, Bavaria VFW

Originally posted by donsig


It was not the FA Ministry that fought and occupied Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, Chittagong, Delhi, Ganges, Jaipur and Lahore. It was our military units that did that. ;) We also pulled off that trick by buying techs and getting to cavalry once we were attacked by India. That's not something we can do everytime we get attacked. Witness the Babylonian war.

As well as any other war we actively immerse ourselves into during the first half of this era, donsig.

We mowed through India so quickly because they were one of three civs scientifically inferior to us. They were defending against our cavalry with pikes and spearmen. We will not catch any more breaks like that from this point on.

Without Democracy, we will have our hand out scientifically for the remainder of the game. It is a sad day indeed when our main hope(as a scientific nation, don't forget) is that we can get Theory of Evolution to "catch up" with the other civs. ToE should be about us leaving everyone in the dust.

Why do I even bother putting my effort into the Size 12 Plan, which goes hand in hand with having a Democratic government, if no one wants to enjoy the benefit of what that plan would provide?

Why even have Adam Smith if we don't have any desire whatsoever to build the Markets and Banks maintenance-free and use them to their full potential under the right government? Do I even bother to lay out plans for Wall Street?

Judging by the results of this poll to date, our methods should be:

Shoot, retreat, shoot, retreat, shoot, shoot, capture city of no value to us, build courthouse, repeat.

Hey, has anybody seen the remote?


People, I am willing to put my reputation on the line that Democracy will work. I would be proud to oversee a domestic agenda where each one of our cities is maximized to the point where we are competitive in all aspects of the game.

Let's make Fanatika something to be proud of, at least for a little while. I'll dust off my uniform when we get Panzers.

Before considering the path of attack, I seriously question the ability of our current military technolgy to actually capture anything. We are entering an age where the main offensive and defensive units have equal strength, with fortification, cities, and the draft giving more power to the latter. I would much rather agressively research and purchase techs up til replaceable parts and motorized transport, when we'll have considerably more offensive and defensive strength than the current moment.

I do not necesarily advocate Democracy. All I am saying is that we should get out of this confounded monarchy in favor of a permanent switch to either the Republic or Communism, with the possibility of a small amount of time in democracy.

Originally posted by Feodor Ardent
Let's go to Democracy ASAP so we can buy some new toys. We have enough luxuries to stay happy and we can make up the rest by ponying up for some temples and cathedrals.


We can't afford to support a large military under democracy. If we revolt to democracy, we will have to cut back on our military, which would lead to our nation becoming more vulnerable.

(Not in relation to Feodor's quote)

We need to switch straight to Communism, especially since we are playing as a Militaristic civ.
We cannot afford to go to Democracy. We must exploit our advantages as much as possible. Democracy will simply not work for our nation at this time.

I reloaded my GOTM 15 save to see if I could get an idea of the effects of different governments on the treasury. The save I loaded was after the game had been won by a space ship launch. My country was a republic. I recorded the income, corruption, etc. then went into anarchy, switched to monarchy and recorded the data. Reloaded the save and went into anarchy and switched to democracy and recorded the data. The anarchy periods were 5 or 6 turns long. This is not a true test but offered as a rule of thumb. Here is the data:


Item Monarchy Republic Democracy

From cities 1087g 1854g 1826g
corruption 281g 454g 436g
entertainment 20% 90g 149g 148g
science 30% 209g 537g 535g

I think democracy is lower than republic due to the anrachy period where starvation occured in some cities which reduced commerce. The numbers for monarchy should be considered low for the same reason.

Using this data it seems that democracy increases commerce by two-thirds over monarchy. It also appears that the corruption rate is one-third less under democracy. Applying these rough figures to Fanatika (and factoring in the known units costs under the two governments) we get:


Item Monarchy Democracy

From cities 615g 923g
corruption 230g 205g
military cost 7g 180g
entertainment 0% 0g 0g
science 0% 0g 0g

net 378g 538g

Note that maintainence also must come out of the net figures above. Even without knowing the maintainence amounts we can see that (according to these estimates) a switch to democracy would add 160gpt to our bottom line. Given our current surplus of about 240gpt, we'd have 400gpt to spend on science research and entertainment (luxury rate). Even assumming a lux rate of 0% we would only be increasing our research spending by two-thirds over what we can spend now. (400gpt versus 240gpt.) It's late and I'm tired but it seems as though this will only reduce our research time by a third. Being 24 turns away from steam power would allow us to knock off 8 turns. Throw in a six turn anarchy and we've gained two turns, assuming the anarchy doesn't starve our large cities down too much!

And in democracy even a phony war is costly. Having to spend more on entertainers (or turning laborers into entertainers) would eat away at our science rate.

I do not see a Fanatikan democracy as being beneficial.

I also honestly don't think Fanatika should become a democracy ever.Peace is NOT the answer in these dark world,so we shouldn't introduce democracy ever.

I'm sorry DZ, but the people don't want Democracy. Even I voted no a while ago.

I abstained. While I don't think we should never consider it, I think that within the next 20 turns is certainly too early to do so. I'm thinking more like after we get whatever we can get from our Panzers.

I am not too sure we are going to get Panzers before our enemies have Mechanized Infantry if we remain a monarchy. We will fall further and further behind, and then someone is going to build the UN, and we are suddenly going to lose even though we are the strongest civ on the planet. Industrial and Modern age techs are only given as reparations at the end of a war if the losing civ is down to only a couple cities. This is because of the huge price tag on these technologies. If we are going to base our technological progress on what we can get by fighting others, we are going to become a very backwards civ.

Whoa! I see donsig has returned to his DG1 level of statistical reporting. Great work donsig. I might want to debate a couple of points, but it looks like Military costs will definitely nullify Science expenditures. One thing your report (which I like) doesn't show, is war weariness or the shield production and budget costs to counter it. That's a heavy thumb on the scale.

I'm guessing that option #2 in the poll means more than 10 turns but less than 20 turns. I'm not sure by the wording (can we be more precise on the next poll, DZ?). But in guessing that, I voted for option #2, as this situation may change drastically by then and may require another look.

Quoting Donovan Zoi:
Why do I even bother putting my effort into the Size 12 Plan, which goes hand in hand with having a Democratic government, if no one wants to enjoy the benefit of what that plan would provide?
____________________________________________
Please don't feel this way. Your efforts are very much needed to move us forward to a point where a Democracy can be realized. We definitely need size twelve or higher cities and your plan can help us get there. True, we would enjoy the benefits of a Democracy much more with the fuition of your plan, but we need the fruition of your plan to achieve Democracy. Keep your chin up.

I would like to see a Republic formed. It has nothing to do with me being Republican. It doesn't have the war weariness of Democracy. It's (The republic) war weariness is far smaller.

I'd also like to discuss Republic as an alternative to Democracy. I personally don't think we're ready for Republic either but it has more going for it than Democracy (for our game style and objectives).

I'd really like to see a DFZ analysis of Republic in the style of the Democracy one.

It's late and I'm tired but it seems as though this will only reduce our research time by a third. Being 24 turns away from steam power would allow us to knock off 8 turns. Throw in a six turn anarchy and we've gained two turns, assuming the anarchy doesn't starve our large cities down too much!

Hmmm . . . a noble effort, but unconvincing. I can't find any point in my gaming memory where I was (as a Republic) stuck in the Industrial Age getting a tech every 16 turns. Usually it is anywhere from 2 turns to 7.

Nor can I ever recall a game in which the Change didn't give an immediate and obvious (within a dozen turns) improvement in my fiscal and cultural progress.

As for War Weariness, I recall it being a nuisance on occasion, but I general take this as being a good sign that the war is running on way too long.

If someone can provide a good statistical counter-argument to this I would be very intereseted. My time is limited this weekend, as I am making a 20g upgrade to my kitchen. I'm told the new stove will light itself.

Feodor
(setting up a new household in Bavaria with his Indian wife.)

Well here is my last plea. Maybe I am trying to do too much at once, but we have the tools right now to improve our situation almost overnight.

I am currently offering all the ideas of Democracy and the Size 12 Plan because they are meant to work in tandem.

Democracy would help the Size 12 cities(with emphasis on commerce-heavy harbor towns) grow our treasury to the point we could raise the science rate, which will allow us to once again become competitive in the tech race.

Democracy increases the efficiency of our workers to build rails to other civs. faster, to build fortresses faster, to put much-needed mines in hills faster so our cities can build units and improvements faster.

Democracy lowers corruption across the board to allow our far-reaching cities to build units faster, improvements faster, and add more money to the treasury than they can right now. Those cities and any others we conquer will be practically useless without Democracy.

Democracy will enjoy a smooth transition due to eight luxuries we have....all eight! With an emphasis on markets and a Domestic Leader that pledges to keep an eye it, war weariness will be kept well in check.

All we have to do is endure 4-6 turns of anarchy and then watch Fanatika grow:

-Watch Fanatika get to Panzers before anyone has tanks.

-Watch Fanatika build and expansive rail network in no time flat.

-Watch Fanatika's treasury grow to the point where we could consider rushing factories.

-Watch Fanatika react confidently to any threat becuase it has the production and treasury to back it up.


War is possible under Democracy, folks. We have the tools in place to benefit from it and kick butt at the same time. I will consider this term a personal disappointment if I am not allowed the opportunity to prove that to you.

I do not like the idea of becoming a republic. While the war weariness is somewhat lower, the other benefits are lost. Normally, in my games, the increased worker production doesn't really matter at this point, but this would significantly help our nationl, as would the decrease in corruption.

Exactly, eyrei.....

Republic still has all the military penalties Democracy has(no martial law, per turn maintenance for all units, more mild war weariness) with more corruption and a less efficient workforce.

Is the only drawback a larger case of war weariness? We have eight luxuries, most of them under our control, which will more than offset that issue.

So hop in, Republicans, if that's the only problem. There's room on the Democracy train for all of you and more!

For the record, my vote was for "within 10-20 turns" as we still need to prepare somewhat.

I agree with DZ.... The only strong reason for not switching to democracy is the large number of military units we have. With that though... We also have a large number of cities, otherwise we wouldn't be able to support our military right now. The normal effects I see in democracy is a sligiht decrease at the begining, but with the added worker rate and lower corruption the bank account starts to zoom up in no time flat.