governments

[phoenix_night]

i was just wondering about the governments in civ3. i usually play republic and switch to democracy if i'm at peace or aiming for a diplomatic victory (though i never get democracy 'til really late on - i'm new to civ). but it seems democracy is by far the strongest government, war weariness being it's only weakness. but i think it has an unfair advantage over the rest. as oppose to having individual governments to suit different styles of play (admittedly this is the case, people changing gov's and that, but i still think it's wrong), it just seems ti be researching better more modern governments. starting with despotism and finishing with the 'super advanced' democracy.

i think they should be on a more level playing field, with more to think about when it comes to choosing a government. i don't like being pushed towards democracy every time i play.

has anyone modded anything to with governments, or have any thoughts on the current system of governments? for example, i don't see why a republic produces more corruption than a democracy (taking into account the other factors and forms of government).

and also, where there more (or different) governments in civ2, i heard there were, what were they and how did they work?

[sabo]

I've tried Dem twice and twice I immediately switched to something else, I can't seem to avoid wars and the WW kills me. I know how to minimize WW but it just gets rediculous with Democracy. I suppose if I was on a continent by myself it "could" be feasable to use Democracy, but fighting battles on your own territory will kill you with WW.

[Unregister]

For goverments i almost always switch to democracy. Republic and Monarchy are different. It depends on the amount of luxuries i have and the amount of guys i can garrison.

[DS_CL]

I find it interesting that civ3 nations that usually upgrade to democracy tend to switch to Communism only if war weariness is too much to handle. Thus they start as Democracy and switch to Communism if they are at war, when in reality it is the exact opposite. Democracy is replacing Communism.

[Carbon_Copy]

Republic is almost always the best government for almost any purpose (the exception being when fighting wars that drag on forever). It's easy enough to get your enemies to declare war on you when you want them to (to invoke the extra war weariness resistance that Republic gets) and even running 30% lux or so to fight off weariness you'll end up raking in more cash than you would in Monarchy.

Democracy is only marginally better than Republic, and unless your civ is religious, it will cost you more shields and gold to undergo the anarchy period than you will get back from the reduced corruption. So unless you are religious, it's almost always best to go from Despotism to Republic and stay in Republic as long as you can (you can always make peace when the WW gets too bad and resume hostilities 20 turns later to get back to zero weariness)

[Gothmog]

CC: It turns out that you can get negative war weariness even in monarchy, just FYI.

Republic is a great all purpose government no doubt but I still like Democracy, IMO you will make back your initial anarchy investment most of the time (unless you are in a situation where you have already won the game). The distance corruption factor is reduced by 2/9, assuming you are near the OCN this is your largest corruption factor. So you reduce corruption by 22.222_%. In addition you get faster workers which means more improvements (esp railroads) quicker. This is a cumulative factor, since more improvements means quicker builds means higher production. In my estimation for a civ with corruption of about 20% in Republic you should make back an average anarchy within 50 turns. For me, if I am in republic and winning a game handily I will often stay there (unless religious). No reason not to at that point. If the game is in serious doubt I will go for democracy. Often I will try to skip republic alltogether. I have learned to deal with WW and by the time I am forced to drop out of democracy due to WW I either have, or have been, crushed.

[BiatchGuy]

I usually go from Despotism to Monarchy, and then keep that for a while, switching to either Communism or Democracy depending on whether I'm on a warlike path or a peaceful one.

I don't even think I've ever used Republic....


and, why's Fundamentalism gone? Though admittedly it would be a terrible form of government in Civ3 where there's a lot more ephasis on research.


I think it'd be cool if the governments in Civ3 were kind of.. weighed... like, if you're a Despotism in the modern age nobody would want to trade with you and if you're really bad, a few democracies might team up and invade you

it's already sort of like that, in determining propaganda effects and stuff, but it'd be cool if there was even more of it.

[Pembroke]

I would like them to be more balanced instead. Like each of them having a definite advantage in some area and a terrific disadvantage in some other so that you couldn't really say that one government is definitely a better choice than some other. That each government choice would always be a trade off of somekind.

Currently the governments do have advantages and drawbacks each, but in my opinion some of them don't have enough. You still can rank them: desp -> mon -> com -> rep -> dem

Oh, I can hear the counterarguments coming defending the monarchy and communism especially if you favor a warmongering style. But hear me out first: While it is true that monarchy and communism have their good points in warfare, in my opinion they are not good enough. That's really my point: they are not good enough. They are not as good as they ought to be to make them a good alternative.

To really counter the bonuses of the republics and democracies the mon/com governments ought to be more powerful or the reps and dems made less so. Because even if I play a warmongering style of a game I still choose republic over monarchy/communism. I can wield a larger and technologically more advanced military under a republic. The commercial bonus, fully utilized through terrain and city improvements is really tremendous. They add up really big. 1 gpt unit maintenance cost is piece of cake in that context.

War weariness? Drawback. But not enough. Not enough. You can have a succesful long term war strategy under democracy. If your wars last too long you are doing something wrong. Succesful warmongering under democracy is possible. (There are good strategic articles about this in the archives.) Most war weariness problems can even be managed with just applying brute force in your wars to keep them short. And if it doesn't help you are obviously not using enough!

However, I think that it shouldn't really be this way. It ought to be so, that your decision of playing style, like builder vs. warmonger, should affect your choice of "best government". That each playing style had a good government to go with it that would be the "natural" choice to a human seeking the best option and that different style decisions lead to different "best" governments.

[Rabid Pop Tart]

I don't use democracy very often. I'll either go with monarchy or communism, cause they support my generally large army quite well. I always end up losing money with democracy.

[Gothmog]

Woah, you don't like democracy because you *lose money*. That is a bit strange. Try building a some markets, banks, and stock markets (heck even roads). The gain in income from an extra commerse from each worked square and the reduction in corruption should compensate for even a very large army (relative to your population size of course). But, each to his own I guess.

[Buckets]

I always thought governments were implemented kinda backwards in civ3. What i mean is that instead of first choosing your government and then reaping the effects, the reverse should be the case. For example, if you build lots of churches, you're a theocracy. If you build lots of banks you're a capitalism. And the Governments should be affected by a slider similar to the science/luxury sliders - on one end socialism, on the other capitalism - giving appropriate benefits (ie - more shields/ more gold). And there should be several sliders for the different aspects of politics.... But that's really something for civ4.

As for modding the game, i'm actually in the midst of adding a little government flavour. It's a 'light' mod, meaning it's not some new space scenario or is loaded with new units or graphics. It's just my own personal 'patch' to a game i think is already great. Here's some government changes i'm working on:
Monarchy -only to build Cathedral, Sistine Chapel
Republic - only to build Colosseum(adds to lux?)
Democracy - only to build Bank(adds to luxury), Universal Sufferage
Communism -only to Build teamster's Office(+25-50% production)

I probably won't get to finish it until next week, but i'll post it if anyone's interested.

[stormbind]

I go straight for Monarchy and grab a couple of wonders on the way. This has served me well.

I don't bother to investigate Republic or Communism (just wait until they are common and get them chucked in with a deal involving oil or something )

As for democracy, it's worthwhile swapping to this but until it's peace time. I don't swap between governments for war/peace.

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Buckets
Here's some government changes i'm working on:
Monarchy -only to build Cathedral, Sistine Chapel
Republic - only to build Colosseum(adds to lux?)
Democracy - only to build Bank(adds to luxury), Universal Sufferage
Communism -only to Build teamster's Office(+25-50% production)

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of these, just adding my opinion.

Monarchy are ussually associated with temples and cathedrals because they depend on the "power invested by God" to get the respect needed to rule.

Republics improve healthcare and farming practices. The people get a voice from landowners who want farming to be more productive.

Democracy is hardest. What is a democracy? This has been discussed in other threads and there was no clear answer.

Communism works provided there is tons of public money. I think that the size of the treasury should have a direct impact on the success of Communist states. Corruption should be high but it needs to be ballanced.

Edit: I would be tempted to replace Democracy with Commusim, and Communism with Written Constitution. A constitution is not essential to democracy and a debate might be needed to find a use for it.. but that's still what I think

[Clown2TheLeft]

I've run a few republics and found them less than optimal for my style of play. I usually go despot=>monarchy=>democracy, and am careful when I hit the switch to initiate the tribute to the Beatles--unless I'm playing a religious Civ. Then I jump around as I see fit and research all forms of government...

Later!

--The Clown to the Left

[Hellfire]

The only problem with Democracy is that whole extended war thing causing your democracy to go into anarchy. 9 times out of 10 I can control the war, especially on smaller maps. However, be very careful about waging war on a huge map with only 8 civs. The production is massive and you may not be able kill off the civ, especially in the modern era.

Also Anarchy late in the game can absolutely destroy your economy. Anarchy and despotism cause production penalties, squares produce 1 less food/shield/commerce than before if they produce 3 or more. You know, food, that thing you use to keep your SPECIALISTS ALIVE. When specialists die off, you suddenly lose all that tax revenue they were generating, or perhaps science, or happiness which was keeping the WLTK day going.

My bet is that warmongers set their maps up to specifically cause a great deal of warmongering to go on and play in such a way to make war more challenging. On a huge map with less than 16 civs on emperor or deity I'm starting to believe that Democracy is not viable if you are a warmonger.

I'm a builder first, however, so I usually win the game and then pick a fight after I win it just to see all the nukes fly