Autocracy: What the heck do I do with it?

[Licinia Eudoxia]

I am not a pro player at all, so if I'm missing something, please point it out.

Alright, I've played a lot of games with a lot of different civilizations, all the different map sizes, with all the victories, and all the difficulties except Deity (still working on it!) I am not a pro player really, just persistent.

But until now, I'd never used the Autocracy Social Policy.

I finally made a game as Askia against four AI on Emperor, and decided to focus the game on the goal of trying out Autocracy.

Rambling Game Summary:

Spoiler :

I got off to an early start, found Siam settled like right next to me, and wiped him out early, taking the capital and razing two baby cities. And then right next to him, I wiped out Ghandi, who had kindly already built a couple of wonders for me when I'd taken his capital.

Those were the only two on my landmass (Small Continents), and that left Washington and Hiowatha, which meant that most of my early game combat was over and I could focus on culture to actually get Autocracy.

I ended up getting it and wiping out Hiowatha and Washington without much trouble mostly because my army was 1 or two eras ahead of theirs.

But I didn't really feel Autocracy helped all that much.

So what do people think? Is Autocracy just not that good? I mean, let's look at it:

• You have to give up on Liberty and Freedom, which are two trees that I feel are useful in just about every game. If I don't get one, I almost always get the other. Sometimes I even get both.
• You can't access it until the Industrial Age. Order also isn't available until then, but Order is one of the most solid trees, in my opinion. The three policies down the middle are pretty universally useful to some degree, and the two optional policies on the side aren't shabby at all.
• Order has three policies down the middle, as mentioned above, with two tangential first tier policies. Autocracy is the opposite, with two branches that must be fulfilled to get the fifth branch.

And then we have the abilities themselves:

• Autocracy (Entry) - Gives -33% to Gold maintenance for Military Units. This is pretty solid, very nice for large armies. I like this one.
  
• Militarism (First Tier) - Gold Cost of purchasing units reduced by 33%. This is pretty nice too. Purchasing units is very, very nice for having units when and where you need them, and rolling out armies quickly. So good on that. As a side note, it stacks with Big Ben's bonus and the Commerce reduction in purchasing, and you can end up getting Work Boats for 60 gold. Just kinda funny.
  
• Populism (First Tier) - Wounded military units deal 25% more damage. Again, pretty solid. I dislike that it doesn't help with first strikes at all, and being wounded means you already deal less damage, so it's sort of like a poor man's Bushido. Although I'm assuming it stacks with Bushido, so that could be nice.
  
• Police State (Second Tier, from Militarism) - Reduces unhappiness in Occupied Cities by 50%. This is probably my least favorite. I can see the idea. I think the idea is that since Puppets can't produce military units, you could capture enemy cities, annex them, and pump out troops without scrambling for a courthouse. But in practice, I didn't find this to be very useful. I very rarely wanted to produce more troops from a city I just captured and more often than not just had them streaming in at a steady pace from the homeland. For anything else though, you could just keep them a puppet or build a courthouse.
  
• Fascism (Second Tier, from Militarism AND Populism) - Quantity of Strategic Resources increased by 100%. This could be nice. Sometimes. Maybe. But it comes so late in the game that it's useless unless you're REALLY struggling for Aluminum or Oil. I've never had a huge amount of trouble with those, especially not if I'm conquering other civilizations. If you got some sort of bonus for having excess strategic resources, it might be better, but even pumping out tons of units, I was drowning in strategic resources from all my conquered territories.
  
• Total War (Last Tier, requires all) - All your troops get +33% Strength for 20 turns. Well, this is it. The last policy of a late game tree that requires all preceding policies. It's really good, don't get me wrong. But you have to be sure that you activate it at the right time, and use those turns efficiently. It can make a very powerful blitz. But overall, I'm not a fan of having a time-limited social policy as the crowning jewel of the tree. Regardless. By the time you've maxed out Autocracy, you should be ready to end the game anyway, I think, so this is really just for a last push, I guess. That, and it's a little dull. I guess. Just a flat strength increase across the board. If it gave +1 movement and less strength, like Darius' UA, that would be nice and it would reinforce that 'blitzkrieg' idea that the 20 turn limit is trying to suggest. Or maybe give +2 health regeneration each turn, like the Mongolian ability, so that you army can keep rolling forward.

Again, just kind of a lackluster tree for late game, harder to get for militaristic civilizations. It seems like it would be really good if you'd been a cultural or economic Civ most of the game, then needed to wipe out someone. The gold purchasing ability would work there because you'd have lots of gold, and the culture would basically be necessary to be timely about getting the policies.

Bushido works well with Populism, I think. Askia's River Warlord gives you triple money from capturing cities, so again, you could use that money with Police State to buy units from freshly captured cities, but I don't know. Darius' Golden Age + Total War would be really, really nice, and should basically end the game if you time it right, I'd guess.

Summary: But overall, Autocracy simply seems way too difficult to make great use of. You have to give up so much and wait so long to get it. If you've been a raider or conquest for most of the game, getting the policies just takes a bit too long.

I dunno, anyone else have opinions or suggestions or anything?

 

[Lanstro]

I've also messed around a lot with different types of games. I've found autocracy to come a bit too late for the average war-centric game. As you summarised, the policies that shine in the tree are the first three: autocracy, militarism and populism. But how often are you going to be able to generate the culture for three social policies come industrial in a war game?

I find the commerce tree to be better at doing what Autocracy and Militarism do. Commerce itself gets your capital +25% commerce, then there's the reduced road maintenance for more money, and Mercanilism for -25% purchase cost. It's not as focused as Autocracy but comes much much earlier in the game and remains useful if you do switch away from domination victory.

I've had 2 games where I've used autocracy 'successfully'. One was in the middle of an exhausting war-based game where I had to maintain a pretty sizeable standing army to keep up with the AIs. Sinking just one point into Autocracy helped out my economy immensely - in the order of 50 GPT or so.

The other was me experimenting with autocracy, and I had saved up social policies to sink into it. It turned out pretty well but then again, if you're in a position where you can comfortably save up 2-3 social policies, you're probably playing at too low a difficulty.

p.s As for not being able to get Liberty or Freedom: I don't think that's such a big deal. I don't tend to ICS so Liberty is just a waste of culture. Freedom is nice but in the average war game, the only policies in that tree which are good for the strategy are the entry level (half unhappiness from specialists) and the half specialist food consumption policy. They're nice but nothing you can't live without (their effects can be approximated by befriending extra city states, especially maritimes).

 

[Zenstrive]

Autocracy is when you are going war crazy with Montezuma on Pangaea. Really, kill everyone in sight so that your culture go up and up and up and finally, TOTAL WAR!

 

[aimlessgun]

I agree with pretty much all of the OP. I like the ideas for total war: increases moves and HP regen would be sweet.

 

[Slowpoke]

Really the only good policy from autocracy is the opening one. Which is a bit weird since most social policy trees are only good with investments. I think ironically order is better for warfare than autocracy, due to the +5 production.

 

[Soronery]

IMO, Autocracy needs to be removed or reworked completely.

 

[kossmikman]

Fascist Russia = infinite GDR = win.

 

[Callonia]

No, the opening policy for autocracy should be kept, it lets you actually even the ground against ICS Siam with nothing but metropolises and bazillions of units cranked out every turn and attacking you everywhere.

 

[pi-r8]

I've always thought that Militarism + Big Ben + commerce purchase policy would make for an extremely good combination. You'd only have to pay, what, 17% of the normal cost of a unit? and lower maintence too. That's like having each trading post produce 10 gold!

However, like you said, the problem is GETTING these policies. Liberty and freedom are probably the two most useful branches right now, in almost any game. And they come much sooner. I don't want to give up a major benefit early on, just for the chance of a benefit later.

Also, having large numbers of units isn't really all that good in this game, because most of them get stuck behind the front line, unable to do anything. A small number of good units is always way better.

Populism could actually be pretty good. Unit's only get a 5% penalty to damage for each point of HP they're lost, so a unit that's just wounded a little would actually be doing MORE damage with populism than it would normally. I think this is actually much better than Bushido. Still not worth taking autocracy, though.

Total War is a joke. I mean, really, it's the hardest policy to get in the entire game. You have to basically plan your entire game strategy around getting that policy. By the time you've reached the late game, you've probably got a lot of other bonuses, so 33% isn't all that huge. And then it expires after just 20 turns! Oligarchy or Nationalism are much better.

 

[pi-r8]

Fascist Russia = infinite GDR = win.

that is true, the only strategic resource that seems really limited is uranium.
oil is limited too, but... it's suprisingly useless. None of the most advanced units require oil! Somehow everything runs on aluminum.

 

[pickle]

because the maintenance at that stage is so expensive cutting a third off it will be a good amount of gold even with a modest military

 

[stealth_nsk]

Police state is cool as hell, IMHO - it's like any conquered city already has a courthouse.
You don't need to raze and rebuild, you don't need to build courthouses. Just conquer and use.

For intercontinental wars it's a gem. You take just one city and it's your military base, full of units with Militarism.

 

[Bibor]

@OP:

I think you're misreading and misinterpreting some parts of the tree. Lets take a look at Commerce: left part of the tree is sea-oriented, the right parts is commerce-oriented. What that tells us that players are encouraged to use either one of part of commerce or both, depending on what the player needs.

With Autocracy, it's a bit different but the idea is similar. The top part of the tree presumes you want to finish your game with a late game domination, while the bottom part of the tree helps if you're starting to loose that war. Which could be the case, especially in multiplayer (PBEM for example).

The top four policies are designed to ease the burden of a winning a (long and large) war, while the bottom of the tree is designed to help you out in a prolonged stalemate or incoming defeat.

In most you vs. AI games you won't need full Autocracy, maybe you'll just want the initial policy and then proceed to Order. But take it to multiplayer and suddenly "the big civ on the other continent" won't watch so idly you buying out all the maritime city-states and building the UN or finishing your spaceship parts.

Loss of a border (or ally) city with a strategic resource like oil or aluminum can be such a strong blow that it makes Fascism almost mandatory. Having your core army fighting at half strength is a very bad idea.

 

[Slowpoke]

@OP:

I think you're misreading and misinterpreting some parts of the tree. Lets take a look at Commerce: left part of the tree is sea-oriented, the right parts is commerce-oriented. What that tells us that players are encouraged to use either one of part of commerce or both, depending on what the player needs.

With Autocracy, it's a bit different but the idea is similar. The top part of the tree presumes you want to finish your game with a late game domination, while the bottom part of the tree helps if you're starting to loose that war. Which could be the case, especially in multiplayer (PBEM for example).

The top four policies are designed to ease the burden of a winning a (long and large) war, while the bottom of the tree is designed to help you out in a prolonged stalemate or incoming defeat.

In most you vs. AI games you won't need full Autocracy, maybe you'll just want the initial policy and then proceed to Order. But take it to multiplayer and suddenly "the big civ on the other continent" won't watch so idly you buying out all the maritime city-states and building the UN or finishing your spaceship parts.

Loss of a border (or ally) city with a strategic resource like oil or aluminum can be such a strong blow that it makes Fascism almost mandatory. Having your core army fighting at half strength is a very bad idea.

What people are annoyed about, is that in order to fully utilize auto, you really need to save policies. And they just aren't worth saving for interesting but not awesome abilities.

 

[Bibor]

What people are annoyed about, is that in order to fully utilize auto, you really need to save policies. And they just aren't worth saving for interesting but not awesome abilities.

This is completely true. Except if the game drags on for long enough (which it might).

 

[troytheface]

Tradition, autocracy, commerce

these are the superior

the evidence is clear

 

[Bibor]

Tradition, autocracy, commerce

these are the superior

the evidence is clear

If it's not, I'll ask these nice gentlemen in black coats to escort you to our briefing room.

 

[Wurlf]

Somebody said earlier that freedom and egality are too of the most usefull, which I agree. Then, Autocracy cannot be used with these correct?

Honestly, I never bothered to try Autocracy because I was using and abusing of the other two. How does it work if you decide to become autocrat nonetheless... You're loosing your bonuses of the other tress I suppose?

Can it be reverted, like the switch of doctrins in Civ IV?

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Can it be reverted, like the switch of doctrins in Civ IV?

You get a turn of anarchy, yes, and I think it wipes out the points you've spent in that policy, pretty sure.

I've never actually changed during play. But yeah:
Autocracy <--> Liberty, Freedom
Piety <--> Rationalism

Those are the two categories of exclusion

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I wasn't sure if I was just missing something.

@Bibor:
That's a good way to look at it I guess. I've never been in a losing late-game war (I've lost earlier game wars though), so I hadn't really thought of it that way. Still, that requires really planning for Autocracy.

Another thought: The Liberty policies actually work really nicely for a rapid conquest empire, because of all the bonuses you get for having lots and lots of cities. Autocracy and Liberty would be a nice pairing, unfortunately the game excludes that. Police State for better annexing along with the Liberty bonuses would make it more worthwhile to annex those conquered cities, beyond the "I need a forward base for my military."

But all in all, I dunno, I really just don't see Autocracy as being that viable currently. You really, really have to play specifically for it. It could use some serious tweaking.

 

[alpaca]

@OP:

I think you're misreading and misinterpreting some parts of the tree. Lets take a look at Commerce: left part of the tree is sea-oriented, the right parts is commerce-oriented. What that tells us that players are encouraged to use either one of part of commerce or both, depending on what the player needs.

With Autocracy, it's a bit different but the idea is similar. The top part of the tree presumes you want to finish your game with a late game domination, while the bottom part of the tree helps if you're starting to loose that war. Which could be the case, especially in multiplayer (PBEM for example).

The top four policies are designed to ease the burden of a winning a (long and large) war, while the bottom of the tree is designed to help you out in a prolonged stalemate or incoming defeat.

In most you vs. AI games you won't need full Autocracy, maybe you'll just want the initial policy and then proceed to Order. But take it to multiplayer and suddenly "the big civ on the other continent" won't watch so idly you buying out all the maritime city-states and building the UN or finishing your spaceship parts.

Loss of a border (or ally) city with a strategic resource like oil or aluminum can be such a strong blow that it makes Fascism almost mandatory. Having your core army fighting at half strength is a very bad idea.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. Unfortunately I doubt many people play losing wars - I've only done it in MP so far (Civ4 with friends, haven't played MP Civ5 so far)