What government is the best?

[Petrus Octavian]

Originally Posted by BMacklin

I always found myself sticking with Despotism. I don't know why. Usually late in the game when I was ready to change I was already mired in wars, and switching to other governments caused population unhappiness.

20-30% luxuries is usually needed under Democary and Replublic, but for a well developed (lots of roads and railroads) civ the net income in still much more than under despotism.

[nickthehun]

Despostism is great for early game expansion and warfare. Cities aren't penalized for units until they exceed city size, settlers cost 1 food, units may leave home cities for as long as they want. I expand with my settlers whilst sending out my chariots to conquer and settle my island/continent, whilst only building granaries and temples, using a 60/40 tax rate. My capital city has the Colossus to bring in plenty trade (and if possible Copernicus Observatory in the same city). Each new city builds 2 or 3 settlers, 1st 2 immediately build more cities, 3rd develops squares.
I generally switch to republic as soon as my island/continent is secure. The extra trade is awesome, warfare is still possible as the away units only cause one unhappy citizen which can be offset by luxury rate of 20 or 30 (JS Bach Cathedral also helps). The resource cost of units is annoying, but the extra resource from mines and special squares offsets this if you limit your army to 3/4 units per city. I can still conduct war under Republic, Democracy just puts red tape around military campaigns. Railroad enhances everything for republic, the capital city with colossus & copernicus & railroads pumps out technology. Womans Suffrage changes things for me. I now consider Democracy to be viable, where as before the 2 unhappy citizen penalty per away unit would hamstring my expansion. with this wonder, Democracy is Republic without corruption.
I view monarchy and communism as pointless, the increased resource output is nullified unless you have 1/2 units per city. NO EXTRA TRADE, which for me is massive. You do have increased food output but Republic/Democracy offers the same plus double the trade.
I know everyone has different styles and opinions, but we all find what works for us after a while.

[serega071079]

The plan of my regular game:
Start with despotism. Put taxes to 0% science to 100%. Till the new era (0). Then turn to democracy (if learned). From this time I collect buildings and science. When ready to start a war - turn to communism. By means of this scheme of the game I start an armor production by 1600-1620.

[nickthehun]

100% science helps (especially if you find a few 50 shield villages). But why communism for war?

[Theov]

Originally Posted by nickthehun

100% science helps (especially if you find a few 50 shield villages). But why communism for war?

in democracy you must always accept peace treaties in talks and you cannot declare war on someone.
The only (?) way to get into a war in Demo is when someone declares war on you. (or if you are in war before you went into democracy)

[Whelkman]

You can still declare war in Democracy. You just can't talk to anybody. Refusing an audience will make them declare war against you. The real downside is 2 unhappy people per deployed unit. A democracy needs an advanced infrastructure to effectively deal with that.

[Theov]

Originally Posted by Whelkman

You can still declare war in Democracy. You just can't talk to anybody. Refusing an audience will make them declare war against you. The real downside is 2 unhappy people per deployed unit. A democracy needs an advanced infrastructure to effectively deal with that.

DO you mean that you can attack while you haven't met someone yet. Yeah that's possible. But when you're in peace, you can't declare war - that will be overturned by the senate.
Am I missing something?

[Whelkman]

Nope, that's it.

[nickthehun]

What about using your diplomat to incite a revolt in a city? Doesn't that break the peace treaty even in democracy? It is a lot more costly than changing government though. But the extra trade from democracy should help cover the costs.

[Moosgruber]

I republic, then you can fight without having trouble to change the goverment

[InnateGamer]

Democracy is always the best, and then keep expanding. Grow your cities to size 3, and then increase your luxuries for a few turns, that's the easiest way to grow cities. Growing your cities with food takes way too long time.

[loopinaloop]

It took me many years before I've dared to play republic or democracy. Used to Civ2 I also disliked monarchy but in truth every gov is playable, useful and can be exploited by skilful player. It's true what you all say about despotism, republic, communism and democracy but I there are only few people endorsing monarchy with no explanation.

Monarchy is great but you need to have improved tiles and lots of special resources inside your borders. Despotism is crippling when it comes to bonuses like coal or gems. I like it that this game allows player to chose whatever government they wish. Even sticking to despotism can be seen as the best option available. Without all those forced balancing that came with later version, Civ1 works out surprisingly well. All you need is adjusting to pros and cons of a given government.

I'm an anarchist so I would like to see playable anarchy. Hmm... maybe I'll try it with constant revolutions? Diplomats and conquest for the techs. It's nice to see that Anarchy actually has an advantage over other govs. Thing unseen in later games. Man, Civ1 was better in so many ways.

[asker2008]

I always used Monarchy but after reading this thread I tried Communism. I do not like the looks of the cabinet they look like Frankenstein.

[loopinaloop]

Originally Posted by asker2008

I always used Monarchy but after reading this thread I tried Communism. I do not like the looks of the cabinet they look like Frankenstein.

Does Monarchy have ANY advantage over Communism? Republic have compared to Democracy.

In Civ2 government influences diplomacy. Except for the more peaceful Republic & Democracy, is it the case in Civ1?

[Mize]

Monarchy's advantage is that, unlike Communism, there is no corruption in the capital and also less corruption in cities near it, which usually are your best cities for the better part of the game. Having f. ex. the Collossus and Copernicus Observatory in your capital or a nearby large trade city is therefore much more profitable under Monarchy than under Communism.

[Whelkman]

Two more advantages of Monarchy over Communism:

• Available much earlier at far lower technology investment
• Does not obsolete wonders (Pyramids, Michelangelo's Chapel)

[ChiefSparkY]

Originally Posted by loopinaloop

In Civ2 government influences diplomacy. Except for the more peaceful Republic & Democracy, is it the case in Civ1?

I'd be interested to know the answer to this question - I think it may be the case that it has no influence?

[Vanadis]

Originally Posted by kelevra_slevin

Always, DEMOCRACY!
No peace with other CIVILITATIONS, so you can attack them.

Build Diplomats, make money and buy all enemy units and cities.
Change tax and luxuries rate, so you can have more happy people in city.

Good luck.

I do exactly the same thing, moreover technologies are acquired more quickly, providing a significant advantage over the AI.
It's also perfect for building boomtowns.

[wujinlong]

Monarchy government is the best

[Theov]

I went commie with large empires. When you start taking over capitals and such of the enemy, then commie is a good gov.
I still do this in 3. I go commie instead of republic.