gmaharriet
Ancient Crone
Unless I'm going to play AW and need Monarchy, I always go for Republic.
Best Government
- Thread starter Himalia
- Start date
Though Republic is fairly consistent, and I've had some successful games using almost nothing but, some of my FAVOURITE games have been using monarchy for a long time. One involving the Mongols on a totally random game springs to mind. ATE the Chinese.
I disagree. Republic get some troops for free depending on city sizes etc but actually has to pay more per troop after that than a Democracey does. So its only better if you have a realatively small army. But i mus tsay i often go for The Republic before i get Democracey usually as my free advance if i get Philosphey first.
madviking
north american scum
Despot-> Republic -> Demo -> Conny or Facism
Bartleby
Remembers laughter
@madviking: For a crazy moment I thought you were ranking them in order of preference! 
farting bob
ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.
Im a peaceful kind of empire, so i like democracy, and my govt sequence usually goes like this: Despot > repub > democracy, i find repub is fine for most of my wars, unless it drags on a bit, in which case i'll consider monarchy or one of the other warmongering options.
I'm kinda stuck on republic. With the lux slider I make through most wars. I find that if I can take a lux in my first wave of attack I don't have to use the slider much.
Demo is great but repub works and it's hard to go through that anarchy if what you have isn't broken. I'm going to try commie for the first time this game though. Branch out.
Demo is great but repub works and it's hard to go through that anarchy if what you have isn't broken. I'm going to try commie for the first time this game though. Branch out.
Im a Democracey man myself i usually have the luxery bar at 10% to keep my peeps happy. The same with Republic as a rule sometimes 20%. What do you usually put your luxry bar on ? regardless of which government you are.
SJ Frank
Spamalot Co-court
Himalia said:
If you did a little analysis on Republic unit support, you'll see that Republic pay less for unit support under almost all circumstances. (see chart)
Code:
Unit Support Cost (per city)
------------------------+---------------------------------------
# of Units per City | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
------------------------+---------------------------------------
Republic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 |10 |12 |
------------------------+---------------------------------------
Democracy | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
By the time Democracy is available, almost all cities should be size 7+ already. With size 7+ cities, Republic pay less unit support than Democracy as long as you average less than 6 units per city.
6 units per city!
When was the last time you had 6 units per city and hadn't started using some of them?
But wait, it gets better. Why would anybody want to build so many troops? To go to war of couse
Going to war under Republic or Democracy means war weariness, and Republic deals better with war weariness than Democracy. Not only will Republic never collapse under WW, WW level will also advance slower in Republic than Democracy. In other word, with the same amount of WW points accumulated, Republic will have less unhappy citizens than Democracy. Therefore, the above chart is for peace time only, once you start using those units, Republic becomes even better.Were unit support under Republic does hurt, is not when it's compared to Democracy, but when it's compared to earlier governments like Monarchy, Feudalism and Despotism. Earlier in the game, there are very few size 7+ cities. With only 1 free unit per size <6 town, early Republics do have to pay a lot more in unit support. Also, early in the game, you should have a lot more workers than later in the game. Around 1.5 to 2 workers per city is a decent number. So where only roughly 1 of the 3 free unit support is eaten up by none-combat unit in Late Middle Age, workers should probably take up all of the free unit support early in a Republic.
Ive never had a Democracey full due to war in Civ III. Happened sometimes in Civ II tho. I always seem to do so much better in games that i stick to Democracey with, i also tend to have pretty large armies. Heard the expression if you want peace then prepare for war. I guess its all down to personal prefrence again i expected The Republic to win this poll but as we can see Democracey is doing pretty well. But to be fair your points are valid ones which most of the time would be true i guess i was comparing it all with what i do myself in a game, but then again thats the point Democracy suits me best. A final factor to keep in mind about these free units that The Republic have is that it only pays off under a Democracey with a very big army but also a Democracey should have a bigger income due to the lower corruption it has which i would say more than compensates for greater expense lower down your chart and only gets better the further up it you go.
SJ Frank
Spamalot Co-court
Himalia said:
Another factor to consider is that since you're playing a heavily moded version of the game, is your experience affected by your mod at all.
The mods will have an effect on the game but for the purposes of this argument i assume that a totally unmoded version of the game is being used. The governments in the mods i use have not been changed a great deal mostly new ones added i think Democracey on the mod i use the cost of troop upkeep has actually gone up but thats irrelevant as we are talking about standard rules. I assume you voted for The Republic ?
Hmm i thought Communisem would of got a few more votes.
Hmm i thought Communisem would of got a few more votes.
biggamer132
King
My only reason for not using Communism for every single game is the fact that I can't pay to rush improvements/units when I have a ton of cash on hand. Therefore, (since my campaigns are all usually either very long or very short) I like building up the army beforehand and then switching to Communism before the attack. Besides, even without rushing, communist industry still manages to create enough reinforcements to sustain a war.
Himalia said:
I've seen this myth written quit a bit.
Here are the corruption formulas
ALL credit goes to ALEXMAN
Rank
Nopt = max(OCN * (L/100 * (1 + c + Gr + Gp*Nwe) + 0.25*Ni), 1)
where
OCN is the optimal number of cities for the map size,
as found in the editor
L is the percentage of optimal cities for the current
difficulty level, as given in the editor
Nwe is the number of active Wonders in the empire with
the reduces corruption ability
(Forbidden Palace, SPHQ)
c = 0.25 for a commercial civilization,
0 otherwise
Gr = 0.1 for minimal or nuisance corruption
2 for communal corruption
0 otherwise
Gp = 3/8 non-communal corruption
Cr = R / (2 * Nopt), if R < Nopt
(2 * R Nopt) / (2 * Nopt) otherwise
So where is this HUGE corruption improvement?
Many players from Civ2 that come over to C3C start off with the habit of Depotism-Monarch-Democracy. After the realization that Democracy is bad in C3C many will convert over to Depotism - Republic or Monarch.
Edit ti add T-Hawk's
Rewriting the formula in a bit more English and ignoring Communism:
Modified OCN = base OCN * (1 - 10% per difficulty over Regent + 25% if commercial + 10% if Republic/Democracy/Fascism + 37.5% per active FP/SPHQ + 25% per courthouse/police/WLKTD[shields only] )
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
There is one situation where Democracy is greater than Republic, and I find myself in it very often for some reason.
After a point, usually very late in the game, we all know that Rep support is greater than Dem support, with a large army. Now one may ask, "Why do you have a large army?" My answer? "Because if I don't, the nasty Facist AI on my doorstep will attack.
My most recent game illustrates this perfectly. I (the Ottomans) was facing Babylon across a very long border. He had a huge army, left over from when he annihilated the Romans some time earlier, and was Facist. Though he had used Tanks and Infantry to kill off the Romans, an empire of the size he had, with some of the world's largest cities in it, including the world's largest (Antium, 45), generated massive wealth and his army was fully upgraded. I built up my military frantically, because I was certain that I was next on his list for the chopping block. Throughout this, I was a Republic. I built up to the point where my army made everyone else's look like trash in comparison--except the Babylonians, who still outnumbered my Mech Infantry two to one, my nukes five to two, my navy eight to one (he had a LOOOONG coastline, I had all of five cities with harbors, only three of which were any use at all militarily), and matched both my airforce and my Modern Armor exactly. So I expected that I was doomed, yet I did not wish to involve myself in war. So I figured, "at this point, I have enough troops to discourage the Babs from attacking, and stave off any attack that does occur. So I'll stop here." And at that time I wondered if I was paying too much for my army. I pulled out a pencil and paper, plus my calculator, and found that yes, I was. A Democracy would serve my purposes! Surprise! So I switched, aware of the fact that Republic would be preferable if Hammurabi ever did end up attacking.
After a point, usually very late in the game, we all know that Rep support is greater than Dem support, with a large army. Now one may ask, "Why do you have a large army?" My answer? "Because if I don't, the nasty Facist AI on my doorstep will attack.
My most recent game illustrates this perfectly. I (the Ottomans) was facing Babylon across a very long border. He had a huge army, left over from when he annihilated the Romans some time earlier, and was Facist. Though he had used Tanks and Infantry to kill off the Romans, an empire of the size he had, with some of the world's largest cities in it, including the world's largest (Antium, 45), generated massive wealth and his army was fully upgraded. I built up my military frantically, because I was certain that I was next on his list for the chopping block. Throughout this, I was a Republic. I built up to the point where my army made everyone else's look like trash in comparison--except the Babylonians, who still outnumbered my Mech Infantry two to one, my nukes five to two, my navy eight to one (he had a LOOOONG coastline, I had all of five cities with harbors, only three of which were any use at all militarily), and matched both my airforce and my Modern Armor exactly. So I expected that I was doomed, yet I did not wish to involve myself in war. So I figured, "at this point, I have enough troops to discourage the Babs from attacking, and stave off any attack that does occur. So I'll stop here." And at that time I wondered if I was paying too much for my army. I pulled out a pencil and paper, plus my calculator, and found that yes, I was. A Democracy would serve my purposes! Surprise! So I switched, aware of the fact that Republic would be preferable if Hammurabi ever did end up attacking.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
island007 said:
In short, rank corruption for Republic, Democracy and Fascism are completely identical.
It's only the (much less important) distance corruption where Democracy gets a 25% bonus.
But distance corruption really doesn't matter with CxxC spacing - while it is noticable for OCP.
And who tends to use OCP? Players on low to mid levels. Of course, they'll notice a difference if they'd build their pattern with Republic instead.
However, OCP won't work above Emperor anyway.
Monarchy all the way best for me Warmounger. Besides why would someone have republic in a war? Spending half the money on luxurities and entertaining population in every city... Unless someone is lucky enough to get 6 lux goods or somethin on his territory....
Invisible Rhino
Prince
Democracy. Better production and worker speed than Republic. If I go to war I'll switch to Communism, but I prefer not to be in long wars, so Democracy it is.
nightmares
Chieftain
just an off-topic question, if no one minds.
why people are saying Monarchy is the best for a WA(always war) strategy?
why people are saying Monarchy is the best for a WA(always war) strategy?
