Civic Combinations.

[kairob]

I thought I would ask what your favourite civic combinations are as well as post mine.

1) Peaceful 'Builder' Middle Age Kingdom
Hereditary Rule
Bureaucracy
Serfdom
Decentralization
Organised Religion

2) Aggressive 'Military' Middle Age Kingdom
Hereditary Rule
Vassalage
Slavery
Decentralisation
Theocracy

3) European Absolute Monarchy
Hereditary Rule
Nationhood
Caste System
Mercantalism
Theocracy

4) Colonial Empire
Representation
Nationhood
Caste System
Mercantalism
Organised Religion

5) Liberal Democracy
Universal Suffrage
Free Speech
Emancipation
Free Market
Free Religion
Commonwealth

6) Communism
Police State
Nationhood
Slavery
State Property
Occupation

7) Fascism
Police State
Nationhood
Slavery
Free Market
Occupation

Discussion of my list is welcome.

[AnotherPacifist]

I almost never have your combinations.

Here are my 3 combinations (I NEVER use police state or occupation, and despite numerous attempts to use state property, I've never had the heart to swallow all those free trade routes or extra health)

1) Peaceful 'Builder' Medieval Kingdom
Hereditary Rule
Bureaucracy (vassalage only if I can squeeze it in)
Serfdom/Slavery (usually the former first, then slavery to whip the population)
Decentralization/Mercantilism ASAP
Organized Religion/Pacifism (Theocracy if some AI really wants me like Spain)

2) Liberal/Commercial Republic
Representation
Bureaucracy (if I have a good capital) or Free Speech
Emancipation
Free Market
Pacifism (if I have a religion)
Commonwealth/Resettlement

3) Late game, advanced limited democracy/environmentalist republic
Representation (only switching to US if I have Cristo Redentor, and only for limited time while building up small cities or wonders)
Free Speech
Emancipation
Environmentalism
Free religion (>20 moves for a great person, IMHO, is not worth the 10% extra science)
Commonwealth

The first combination maximizes building/infrastructure while maintaining happiness.

The second combination emphasizes commerce and science (partly done by great people). The race to get first techs makes this of more priority than production.

The third combination grows the population to maximum (health) while emphasizing culture and production. By this time my economy should prosper without the extra trade routes (when corporation is known).


As in real life, there are no ideal government types except in theory.

[AnotherPacifist]

Maybe your communism should have viceroyalty instead of occupation (like the satellite states of Eastern Europe).

Also for fascism, caste system may be more correct (Nietzsche).

[say1988]

I don't normally use any truly set combinations (probably should, but don't).
My civic usually go:
HR until Rep is available.
Slavery until I start taking stability/happiness hits, then Emancipation.
Mercantilism/Free Market, depending on how many people hate me.
OR for builder/Theocracy for warmongers.

The Stability civic, I don't make a single consistent choice, it truly depends on the civ and style I am playing.

My other fairly commonly used civics:
Serfdom for large empires with lots of improvements.
US if I have cottages, or lots of gold income.
State Property for large colonial empires (I haven't really to into corporations).

I don't normally play late enough into the game for the bottom four, though.

[Lone Wolf]

If I have a Huge Colonial Empire in the Industrual Age, I run Mercantilism+Representation+Free Religion to keep my science rate in the norm.

[kairob]

The stability one I use does change in each game genorally. As fascism I do kinda have two that one and one the same but with Mercantalism and Caste System. But thats kinda of a Fascism/Colonial hybrid....

In the colonial empire I do sometimes switch it for free religion depending on how many religions I have in my borders. I also sometimes use Theocracy as spain. Like the Absolute Monarchy. (Theocracy+Drafting=Drafted units with a promotion!)

[Talkie_Toaster]

Hmm, Communism's not a very good name, maybe you were thinking of Stalinism?

(sorry to nitpick)

[kairob]

Your right it is Stalinism but the term Communism is normally applied to Stalinism so I wanted to use the more well known term.

[Panopticon]

HR and Slavery for life. Other than that very little is needed until mid-game.

[onedreamer]

Government: Hereditary Rule then Representation. Nothing else.
Legal: Vassalage then Freedom of Speech. Nothing else.
Labor: Slavery then Caste System. If I play 600 AD starts, I often choose Serfdom for initial land improvement. Emancipation if I am forced to.
Economy: "Nothing real matters" here...
Religion: Organized; or Theocracy if I need to make a lot of wars and if I have a religious goal.


I may choose Bureaucracy if I play a small civ that relies much on its capital (there are a few).
I may choose Free Religion when playing an Asian civ since these normally have several religions available.

[AnotherPacifist]

Onedreamer and others: how come you don't list Pacifism in your choices, especially since you use caste system (I presume to maximize great merchants or scientists for bulbing techs)? I've almost stopped using organized religion in my recent games since I feel that if I can't whip a building it's not worth building with or without the 25% bonus.

[onedreamer]

Three reasons: 1) you will cripple your economy initially unnecessarily, since you can get a high amount of GP anyways in RFC. Pacifism is effective on a long run only IMO 2) The AI will not like Pacifism, except maybe Ghandi, which will love you anyways whatever civic you adopt. I'm not saying Pacifism, or Nationhood are useless civics, it's just that compared to others they aren't generally worth IMO. 3) There should be very special conditions to lead me think I need any of the civics I didn't list, especially those that come later, because adopting them means a stability hit. Pacifism comes almost always later than Organized Religion and Theocracy, so I would have to switch away from these. And I just can't convice myself that it's worth the stability hit.

edit: forgot to say, Caste System for me is very good because of the production bonus. You can have a production 5 in a plains plot without resources before railroad... better than a plains mine, and equal to with a railroad.

[say1988]

I don't use it because I simply under-utilize GP. This is something I can't get used to in Civ IV.
Also, I like big cities, which is in opposition to whipping, though I am getting to do it more and more. This is a hold-over from Civ II, where my goal is always as many cities as possible, and get them as big as possible, then worry about everything else. So I like OR.
If I am I highly militaristic civ, I will go theocracy ASAP (and pacifism cost me an arm and a leg, preventing me from hacking other people's off).

That said, I normally pick OR/Theocracy early, and avoid changing as much as possible (unless I am India, or late game with Christo Redentor).
I hate anarchy, my last game, as Maya, Anarchy nearly killed me when I suddenly needed theo/vassalage (French found me with a galleon and I got religion off the bat) as the Euros were coming Combined with a horrible economy rating (regular pillaging by Euros for a century or two and me (voluntarily) confined to central America, with 3 cities) I was collapsing when I got a lucky GP and popped a (second) GP (odds were overwhelmingly in favour of the same type as my first one) golden age 8 turns from the finish, any more anarchy and I likely would have lost.
Then I realised I was playing the release version and could have changed during my 3 golden ages with no anarchy .
But my point remains, I like the others, and don't like switching. And I don't mind not using it, sine I wouldn't use it effectively anyways.

[AnotherPacifist]

Large cities are for late game--the early infrastructure should be built ASAP and the benefits in the long run are substantial. The fact that the damn plague will hit you at least 2-3 times means that if you whipped early you would not have lost the pop that would have died from the plague but they would have contributed hammers. Put in another way, buildings don't get sick and die. I whip as soon as I can (to minimize the unhappiness) but not enough to hinder my growth. I usually switch from organized religion to pacifism when I have another civic I can switch to (e.g. bureaucracy, commonwealth, mercantilism, emancipation) so I can do both. (some civs like Arabia and Mongolia for some reason need 2 moves for 2-civic changes...)

[say1988]

For city size, I know, I just hate to kill off people. I have stated to do it at the happy cap fairly well, but I still play enough civ II to be stuck in that mindset.

One thing I forgot to mention:
I am a warmonger at heart, if that is a viable strategy, I go for it.
My Spanish strategy, right off the bat was to collapse France and England (in Warlords), I even sent a raiding expedition to Scandinavia to make sure they didn't found a city.
Knowing I could pretty much take the Incas/Aztecs with one caravel, my entire game was about taking Western Europe.
Same with the US, if it wasn't too slow to play.
And if I play for fun, it is ALWAYS bloody.

So large armies generally make pacifism too expensive (along with lost xp and slowed infrastructure in new cities).
BTW: does OR affect the amount of hammers from whipping?

[onedreamer]

uhm, Pacifism without Vassalage is suicide for me.

[AnotherPacifist]

Just reread the article in the wiki about stability. I've been more stable in my recent games and couldn't figure out why, and this is probably the reason: Pacifism and Free religion do not take hits when you have nonstate religions in your cities, as opposed to OR and Theocracy.

[say1988]

I knew free religion, but not pacifism............

[onedreamer]

until when being "more stable" doesn't give any advantage on being "stable" or "unstable", Pacifism will still have too high of a cost for its benefits.

[Rod]

I would entirely change the following :

6) Communism

a)Hereditary Rule (in a sense not of Monarchy but of Autocracy, think of One Party instead of One King, moreover the Communist System all over Easter Europe were also kept in line by numerous Russian Tanks, which is the effect of Hereditary Rule )

b)Bureocracy (The USSR and its Satellites States were not much about nationalism, but all about Bureocracy. In fact the Communist System systematically surpressed Nationalism and thought of it as a threat. Just think of all the National and Ethnic Conflicts in the former USSR (Central Asia, Caucasus) or in Yugoslawia that broke loose AFTER the communist system failed.)

c)Emancipation (this is for sure, Slavery is not fitting at all for Communism, Gender equality and the absence of statemade discrimination of races or classes was a reality in communism and think of the rapid urbanization in all Communist States - Emancipation is best fitting in terms of mechanics and idea - you might confuse emancipation with free speech - free speech did not exists in communism)

d)State Property

e)Pacifism (At foundation the USSR was not meant to be aggressive but they only took up arms when Germany assaulted them and then they initially liberated Eastern Europe which only later turned into an occupation or better into a System or better into a System of Satellites States quite like the Persian Satrapes. In general all Communist States did not engage in any open war, except when dragged into conflicts. And philosophy-wise Pacifism is best fitting. Last but not least the Communist USSR was breeding a huge chunk of 'Great People' so the mechanism is best fitting as well)

f)Viceroyalty (Satellites States , no doubt)