CCM2 Epic Mod

[Fiasom]

Halfway through my first play through on this rule set, and THANKS. This is really well done.

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I couldn't find an answer elsewhere.

Is it possible to play custom made maps that I download on this forum with the CCM2.5 ruleset? E.g. I want to play Volman.me's Monstrosity map, or TETurkhan's world map, but with CCM2.5 or perhaps RARR rules. I imagine this would take the shape of either copy pasting the map into a blank one with CCM rules (on the C3C editor?), or copy pasting the text files to some specific location in the folders. At least, I imagine it not being a matter of recreating the entire ruleset or the entire map from scratch and layering one on to the other on the map editor? Perhaps I could simply enter a seed code to "randomly generate" specific maps (though I'd like to be able to make a few further edits to any map - especially for TETurkhan's civ balance)?

Many thanks.

 

[Civinator]

Fiasom, thank you very much for your kind words about CCM.

For importing a map to the CCM or RARR biq, the following post and the additional links in that post can be helpful:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ccm2-epic-mod.625812/page-57#post-16481445

It is easy to import a map to CCM, but the most difficult problem in my eyes is to handle the resources of CCM in the imported map, as the resources with the same names could be stored in different slots in the editor or are not contained in the imported map. Especially here a lot of additional manual work frequently is needed. Easier to fix or to locate are the starting locations of the civs.

Unfortunately seed codes are not working with fixed maps.

 

[Jersey Joe]

continued from LK169 topic:

Many of those civs didn´t participate in WW2. When looking at the miserable performance in Greece and in North Africa (before Rommel), I think the stats for that Italian unit are o.k. - and it should not be forgotten, that Italy/Rome with the legionary and the praetorian has some early powerful units in the game.

I am not disputing that the Italian army's performance should not be reflected in the infantry unit's stats. I am saying that Italy is not the only civilization with an army that performed miserably.
However, I am assuming that the Italian infantry were equipted with weapons similair to the German infantry.

The Scandinavian countries plus Poland, France, and Belgium got conquered so fast it is hard to believe they should not be in tier 2 with Italy.
Spain's army was a joke during the Napoleonic Wars and probably has not improved since then. Also, as a result of the Spanish Civil War, and General Franco taking power Spain was "non-belligerent". Hard to believe that if Spain had a good army they would not have joined the Axis powers. So I think the should be in tier 2 with Italy.

from wikipedia: Brazil was the only Ally from S. American to provide troops (about 25, 000 men). They fought in the Italian Campaign as a division of the US 5th Army. At the Battle of Collecchio they defeated the German 148th Division and the Italian Monte Rosa, San Marco and Italia Divisions. I believe this qualifies them as tier 1 troops.
As for the other South American countries, they did not prove they had tier 1 troops. Therefore, they should be relegated to tier 2 status with the Italians.

I do not know enough about Asian troops to make a determination on if any of the civilizations deserve tier 2 status.

edit: corrected typo

 

[Elephantium]

However, I am assuming that the Italian infantry were equipted with weapons similair to the German infantry.

My gut reaction is "No way", but I'd have to look this up in more detail to say more.

The Scandinavian countries plus Poland, France, and Belgium got conquered so fast it is hard to believe they should not be in tier 2 with Italy.

Hey, you've got to consider the Winter War, too. Finland had a very respectable showing.

As for the others, were they conquered quickly because they had awful infantry, because they were massively outnumbered, or because of the blitzkrieg? Combined arms matters a lot -- even the best infantry will fall without any air and armor support.

Spain's army was a joke during the Napoleonic Wars and probably has not improved since then. Also, as a result of the Spanish Civil War, and General Franco taking power Spain was "non-belligerent". Hard to believe that if Spain had a good army they would not have joined the Axis powers. So I think the should be in tier 2 with Italy.

I think you're confusing political decisions for army quality, tbh.

 

[timerover51]

continued from LK169 topic:

I am not disputing that the Italian army's performance should not be reflected in the infantry unit's stats. I am saying that Italy is not the only civilization with an army that performed miserably.
However, I am assuming that the Italian infantry were equipted with weapons similair to the German infantry.

For a detailed look at Italian military equipment, you cannot do better than the TM E 30-420 Handbook on the Italian Military Forces 1943 by United States. War Department. Military Intelligence Service, which was published on August 2, 1943, just a month before Italy surrendered to the Allies. You can find it here: https://archive.org/details/TME30-420. Yes, I did the review of the manual. The equipment quality varied, the Beretta submachine gun was on par with the best in the world, but some of the other infantry equipment was so so.

For the mid-war German equipment, check out TM-E 30-451 Handbook on German Military Forces 1943, published September 1, 1943, and can be found here: https://archive.org/details/TM-E30-451 Yours truly reviewed that as well. For near the end of war data on the Germans, see the TM-E 30-451 Handbook on German Military Forces 1945, published March 15, 1945, and can be found here: https://archive.org/details/TME-30-4511945.

One problem the Italian Army did have is that just prior to World War 2, the division size changed from having 3 regiments to a division to having only 2, reducing the combat power of the division by more than a third. Then there is this.

"One of the first things to remember about the Italian soldier is that he entered this war without any strong
personal conviction that it was necessary. Italy had no Pearl Harbor to unite her people and fill them with a
relentless determination to win. A private belief of this kind can go a long way toward helping men to
withstand the heavy psychological strain of combat. The American soldier has it; the Italian does not. As a result, a question commonly asked by American troops—"Is the Italian a good or bad fighter?"—cannot be answered in a single word. The Italian knows how to fight well. What offsets this is the fact that his moods are anything but predictable. Sometimes, when a flood of propaganda temporarily convinces him that the battle is above all for the sake of his homeland, and that there is a fair opportunity for success, he fights with great courage, skill, and imagination. On the other hand, military reverses often have a decided effect
on his morale, and can change his attitude from one of bright optimism to one of complete pessimism. It
should never be said that his reactions will always be thus-and-so; only tendencies can be pointed out. It is
certainly true that as the failure of Fascism becomes increasingly clear in spite of the propaganda, and as
events indicate the manner in which Italy is being handed over to Hitler, the Italian soldier shows a tendency to put up a halfhearted fight and then surrender.

The Italian soldier has good reason to be dissatisfied. Italy has been in a practically continuous state of war since 1935—a strange circumstance for an unaggressive and naturally happy people who long had been accustomed to a simple, easygoing existence. Moreover, the Italian soldier is an individualist."

The above quote is taken from the Intelligence Bulletin, Vol.1 No. 4, published in December of 1942 by the Military Intelligence Service, U.S. Army War Department.

Then you have the Ciano’s Diplomatic Papers by Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister and Mussolini's son-in-law, which show how questionable Italy's commitment to Germany was. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.505345

For a more detailed look at German and Japanese equipment, check out the Catalog Of Enemy Ordnance Materiel, published by the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, U.S. Army on March 1, 1945, which can be found here: https://archive.org/details/CatalogOfEnemyOrdnanceMateriel

I have a better and more complete copy of the catalog for German material in hard copy, that I need to scan in so it can be posted.

There are a couple of other enemy handbooks worth looking at. One is TM E 30-480 Handbook On Japanese Military Forces, 1944, published on October 1, 1944. https://archive.org/details/TME30-480 By then, we had captured quite a lot of Japanese equipment. The other is FM-E 101-10 Staff Officers' Field Manual, Enemy Forces, Organization, Technical, and Logistical Data, published Oct0ber 1, 1942, and covering the information as known of the German, Japanese, and Italian forces. It can be found here: https://archive.org/details/FM-E101-10-nsia

If you have more questions, let me know.

Also, as a result of the Spanish Civil War, and General Franco taking power Spain was "non-belligerent". Hard to believe that if Spain had a good army they would not have joined the Axis powers. So I think the should be in tier 2 with Italy.

The major problem for Spain following the Spanish Civil War is that the country was totally exhausted, and not totally loyal to Franco. There is a nice collection of Spanish-German diplomatic documents online showing how Germany worked to include Spain. One major sticking point was Franco's demand for Germany to supply 500,000 to 700,000 tons of wheat annually to feed the populace. Germany did not have that and Franco knew that. He also knew that he could get the necessary wheat from the U.S., along with desperately need gasoline and fuel oil. Spain was in no condition to get involved in another major war. Spain did send the divisional-sized Blue Legion to the Eastern Front to fight the Russians. They did not come back, ridding Franco of some major headaches. Spain also desperately needed modern military equipment, which again Franco knew that Germany could not supply. Franco was one of the few people to get the better of good old Adolph.

 

[Ozymandias]

Insofar as detailed info goes, @timerover51 =

 

[Jersey Joe]

Please note, I am questioning why it is only 1 nation, that for a brief period of time, has infantry that is inferior to all other nations. If 1 nation is inferior then why are there not more?

Hey, you've got to consider the Winter War, too. Finland had a very respectable showing.

However, should you rank all of Scandinavia based on Finland's performance? What about Sweden, Norway and Denmark? Did their armies have comparable results?
I see a similar problem with how to evaluate Australia/Oceania. The Australian Army was well equipped and fought well, but the Philippine army was equipped with old Enfield and Springfield rifles. Plus many of the Filipino units had never fired a weapon before going into battle. However, they did do a decent job at fighting a guerilla war.

Here is another question, while the Italian army did not fair well vs the Greek Army, the Greek army did not dominate the Italians. Maybe the Greeks (who also had ancient age advantages) should be ranked the same as the Italians.

Also, it seems that it is only during a breif period in history does 1 nation get singled out and given below par troops. What about after WW2? At least, the Maghreb, Egypt, and Arab nations have demonstrated that their troops are not the equal to Israel. Why do they get first line troops? To be historicaly acurate should they not have their troops downgraded?

 

[timerover51]

Please note, I am questioning why it is only 1 nation, that for a brief period of time, has infantry that is inferior to all other nations. If 1 nation is inferior then why are there not more?

You are asking a question that has bedeviled military historians for a century or so, and there is no easy answer.

However, should you rank all of Scandinavia based on Finland's performance? What about Sweden, Norway and Denmark? Did their armies have comparable results?

The problem there is you only had two armies that actually engaged in combat during World War 2, those being the Finns and the Norwegians. The Norwegians were both surprised by the German attack and had a pro-German faction led by Vidkun Quisling, who had served as Minister of Defense. Their major achievement was the sinking of the German heavy cruiser Blucher during the initial attack on Oslo. Quite simply, the Norwegians were not ready to fight, either mentally or equipment wise. As for Sweden, there is not basis to make a judgement during the modern period. The Gustavus Adolphus Vasa and Charles the 12th, the Swedes were one of the finest forces in Europe. I would rate the Danes are second-tier at best.

I see a similar problem with how to evaluate Australia/Oceania. The Australian Army was well equipped and fought well, but the Philippine army was equipped with old Enfield and Springfield rifles. Plus many of the Filipino units had never fired a weapon before going into battle. However, they did do a decent job at fighting a guerilla war.

With the Filipinos, you have to distinguish between the long-service Philippine Scouts and the new units raised just prior to the war. The Scouts were excellent troops, the new units were green in the fullest sense of the word. You need to remember that a large number of units in the U.S. Army were still equipped with Springfields and Enfields in 1941. The 1st Marine Division on Guadalcanal was carrying Springfields for the entire campaign.

Here is another question, while the Italian army did not fair well vs the Greek Army, the Greek army did not dominate the Italians. Maybe the Greeks (who also had ancient age advantages) should be ranked the same as the Italians.

Fighting in defense of your country typically helps your troops morale and willingness to fight. Fighting in mountainous terrain as the Greeks did against the Italians also helps. I would rate the Greeks on par with the Italians for World War 2.

Also, it seems that it is only during a breif period in history does 1 nation get singled out and given below par troops. What about after WW2? At least, the Maghreb, Egypt, and Arab nations have demonstrated that their troops are not the equal to Israel. Why do they get first line troops? To be historically accurate should they not have their troops downgraded?

Trevor Dupuy, in his book, Numbers, Predictions and War, attempted to quantify troop performance based on weaponry and organization. It really did not work well. He does compare the Israelis with the various Arab armies, and comes up with the Israelis being superior by a factor of 2 to 3 for the most part. The Jordanian Army was Israel's toughest opponent in the 1967 War, and should be on par with Israel. For the rest, the Arabs should be second -tier troops, at best. In 1967 and 1973, in some cases the Arabs had superior equipment, which proved not to help them a lot. However, I would put the Israelis in a somewhat unique category, as they know if they loose, their country dies. They are fighting for their existence.

Note, I had waded through Dupuy's book (waded being a deliberate choice of word), and my copy is fairly highlighted. I have reservations about his numbers for ground weapons, and really have problems with his concept of aerial warfare. He does not really mention naval warfare at all, fortunately. The problem is trying to quantify the human factor, which is where his ideas break down.

Note 2: With respect to the current German Army, they should not even rank as a second-tier country. They have been starved for funds for so long that their training in minuscule and they have virtually no ammunition for sustained combat.

 

[Jooody]

The Antal Patch does not seem to work for me.
I'm playing on Steam, and did all the installation steps as instructed on the main post. I did a backup of the Art, Sounds and Text folders, and a backup of the conquests.biq file on the Main Conquests Folder as instructed, and substituted the original folders for the mod's folders (keeping the original folders with the original C3C files).

When I try to open the Antal Patch, the only thing that happens is a black screen that is permanently loading and leads to nowehere. It gives me no errors, it just does not start the game, it does not start the 2K intro. Trying to click the black screen to bypass the intro only leads to a crash to desktop with no error prompts. I tried to wait on the black screen for 10 minutes, but to no avail.

Opening the game through the standard C3C exe seems to work just fine, though. But I am afraid that I will lose important mod features if I try to start the game through the vanilla .exe file.
What can I do to fix this?

 

[tjs282]

Ignore the Antal patch, and instead mod your Steam-provided conquests.exe using the Flintlock patch.

 

[Civinator]

The Antal Patch does not seem to work for me.
I'm playing on Steam, and did all the installation steps as instructed on the main post. I did a backup of the Art, Sounds and Text folders, and a backup of the conquests.biq file on the Main Conquests Folder as instructed, and substituted the original folders for the mod's folders (keeping the original folders with the original C3C files).

When I try to open the Antal Patch, the only thing that happens is a black screen that is permanently loading and leads to nowehere. It gives me no errors, it just does not start the game, it does not start the 2K intro. Trying to click the black screen to bypass the intro only leads to a crash to desktop with no error prompts. I tried to wait on the black screen for 10 minutes, but to no avail.

Opening the game through the standard C3C exe seems to work just fine, though. But I am afraid that I will lose important mod features if I try to start the game through the vanilla .exe file.
What can I do to fix this?

Joody, with more than 5,300 downloads of CCM 2.5, this is the first time that such a problem is reported. As you made a post in the CCM 2.5 thread about two years ago, did the Antal exe work for you in the past ? I don´t have the steam version of Civ 3 Complete, so I cannot test, if the Antal exe is still working for the steam version of Civ 3 Complete. Have you placed the Antal exe in the C3C mainfolder, too ?

As tjs282 posted, to play the game with the Flintlock mod, could be a very good solution to fix this problem. The Flintlock mod includes the components of the Antal exe, but has a lot of additional benefits for playing C3C, among them the fix of the submarine bug and the houseboat bug and should also work for the steam version of Civ 3 Complete. The Flintlock mod can be downloaded here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...bug-fixes-stack-bombard-and-much-more.666881/

I posted a default.c3x_config file for the newest version of the Flintlock mod R16, optimized for CCM 2.5 to replace the standard c3x_config file of the Flintlock mod, in the succession game forum of CFC. It can be found here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/lk169-italy-ccm-2-5-awm.683485/page-23#post-16509397

 

[Jooody]

Joody, with more than 5,300 downloads of CCM 2.5, this is the first time that such a problem is reported. As you made a post in the CCM 2.5 thread about two years ago, did the Antal exe work for you in the past ? I don´t have the steam version of Civ 3 Complete, so I cannot test, if the Antal exe is still working for the steam version of Civ 3 Complete. Have you placed the Antal exe in the C3C mainfolder, too ?

As tjs282 posted, to play the game with the Flintlock mod, could be a very good solution to fix this problem. The Flintlock mod includes the components of the Antal exe, but has a lot of additional benefits for playing C3C, among them the fix of the submarine bug and the houseboat bug and should also work for the steam version of Civ 3 Complete. The Flintlock mod can be downloaded here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...bug-fixes-stack-bombard-and-much-more.666881/

I posted a default.c3x_config file for the newest version of the Flintlock mod R16, optimized for CCM 2.5 to replace the standard c3x_config file of the Flintlock mod, in the succession game forum of CFC. It can be found here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/lk169-italy-ccm-2-5-awm.683485/page-23#post-16509397

Hello, it did end up working for me in the past, but I do not know what I did different from the last time I posted, hah.
This seems to be a weird occurrance because it feels like the game only works when it wants to, with a mind of it's own!

The last time I posted, I was having the labels issue. After many attempts, nothing really worked, and so I got frustrated with all the failed attempts and just decided to try playing something else and left it at that. Some time later, I felt like playing Civ 3 again, and reinstalled everything. I did not do anything different from when I had the labels issue, but for some reason, everything worked just fine.

Then, some time later, I uninstalled everything and did a fresh Civ 3 install so that I could play another mod (CoMM3) and everything worked just fine, too.
But after some time, I felt like going back for some more RARR. I don't trust my file management skills so I uninstalled the game from steam (as far as deleting the Civ 3 folder on Steam itself for a full fresh uninstall) and tried installing CCM2.5 again. But now, I am having this issue (however, opening the game through the vanille .exe does not give me the labels issue after deleting the old labels file and renaming the labels-steampatch to just labels). I did a full reinstall two or three times just to be sure I wasn't missing anything, but yet to not avail.

I am not sure if this is of any use, but I tried to execute the Antal patch directly from the CCM2.50.zip file (I just double clicked the patch from the .zip menu screen), and it gave me a couple of errors:
**The execution of the code could not continue because binkw32.dll was not found. Reinstalling the program to correct the problem.** which then led to:
**The execution of the code could not continue because ifc23.dll was not found. Reinstalling the program to correct the problem.** which then led to nothing, the Antal patch still only leads to a black screen.
Regarding these two errors:
I looked at both the Conquests Mainfolder and the Civ 3 folder (the one that leads to the Conquests Mainfolder), and the file binkw32.dll exists on both folders. However, the file ifc23.dll does not exist on the Civ 3 folder, and it only exists on the Conquests Mainfolder as IFC23.dll (I am not sure if the fact that is on uppercase makes a difference).
I don't know if reporting this will help with anything, but since I am very unknowledgeable on Civ 3 modding and how the game works on a coding level, I guess any kind of bug report could be helpful for you guys.

I will definitely try the Flintlock patch just to be sure!

 

[Civinator]

This all sounds strange. Have you deleted all the CoMM3 files in the C3C mainfolder, too ?

The unzipped Antal-exe must be in the C3C mainfolder. My IFC23.dll is in the the C3C mainfolder, too. May be you have a copy of the old CoMM3 biq in the Virtual Store of your computer. If this happens, that old biq will overwrite the CCM 2.5 biq in the C3C mainfolder.

In this situation I would clean up the Virtual Store of the computer and delete all remnants from the CoMM3 installation and than I would try to run the Antal exe to start CCM 2.5.

If there are some problems caused by the steam version of Civ 3 Complete, I cannot help you here, as I don´t have that version of Civ 3 Complete. At present the GOG version of Civ 3 Complete is on sale at GOG for only € 1,29. The GOG version doesn´t have the labels problem of the steam version and the Flintlock mod was developed with the GOG version of Civ 3 Complete.

 

[Elephantium]

This seems to be a weird occurrance because it feels like the game only works when it wants to, with a mind of it's own!

...
I am not sure if this is of any use, but I tried to execute the Antal patch directly from the CCM2.50.zip file (I just double clicked the patch from the .zip menu screen), and it gave me a couple of errors:

Trying to run the patch from inside the zip file def sounds like a mistake to me. It's been a long while since I installed the Antal patch, but I recall it being critical to make sure I ran it in the right location.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Hi,

I'm intrigued and now shaping my playstyle actively around the Enslaver threat.

Though I'm more often reacting to them than building my own, as it seems the human enslavers can't capture cities and attack units in cities like the AI ones. I think that's a bit unfair, but then, perhaps I should care less about them and just build more units.

I also have a question: I think the mod would benefit a lot from better flavor text. Not just wikpedia cuts. But I want to know under which circumstances the "tile penalty" govts, like City State and Theocracy, are better than Monarchy or Republic.

I just beeline to Republic as usual. But perhaps somebody could enlighten me as to the uses of these two govts, and I know Monarchy is just better for straight out warmongering.

 

[Civinator]

Though I'm more often reacting to them than building my own, as it seems the human enslavers can't capture cities and attack units in cities like the AI ones. I think that's a bit unfair, but then, perhaps I should care less about them and just build more units.

You should take care a lot about those enslavers! Undefended worker stacks and cities are a good way to loose the game. To organize a good defense against them needs a deeper understanding of the map with its choke points, terrains that have movement handicaps or restrictions for enslavers, the feature that workers can see them over two tiles (knowing the rumors about their greatest enemies), roads and at least a fast unit to kill them.

I think the mod would benefit a lot from better flavor text. Not just wikpedia cuts.

You can try to write such texts in Civ 3 standards for thousands of units and other objects - and normally you soon will see, why it was done in the way it was done.

But I want to know under which circumstances the "tile penalty" govts, like City State and Theocracy, are better than Monarchy or Republic. I just beeline to Republic as usual. But perhaps somebody could enlighten me as to the uses of these two govts, and I know Monarchy is just better for straight out warmongering.

Here most parts you can see yourself, when comparing the different governments in the civilopedia:

The government City State:

Besides it is by far the earliest government to change from the starting government Despotism, it not only has very efficient workers, but also allows to rush buildings and units by gold. Additionally it has an early SW, the Acropolis, boosting the capital significantly. It mostly is a good government in the very early game.

The government Theocracy:

So this government also has a tile penalty, it receives the trade bonus and with the monastery it has a strong building that allows the "barracks function" and a boost in science, that can be built in every city. Government specific barracks are another feature of CCM compared to most other mods. From the early governments, allowed with era 1, the only other government, that allows buildings with the "barracks function" in every city is Monarchy with its castles.

The government Republic:

It is true, that it is the early economic powerhouse, but it suffers from having no military buildings with the barracks function, that can be built in every city. The support costs for its military are twice as high as those of most other early governments and there is no military police bonus for providing happiness to a city. To change too early to government Republic mostly is not the best idea in the game. The location of the few additional SWs, that provide the "barracks function" for the government Republic, must be planned carefully.

The government Monarchy:

This is the other early government, that can build buildings with the "barracks function" in every city: The expensive castles, that provide cities with a slightly better defense value, too. As in government Republic, the support cost for units is twice as high as the costs in other early governments. So Monarchy has no tile penalty, it also has no trade bonus and no building to boost science in every city. Even corruption in Monarchy is higher than in Theocracy and Republic and the castles become obsolete earlier than the monasteries.

Switching governments more often than in normal C3C should be taken into consideration, as the phase in Anarchy only lasts two turns in the game. A problem stays the loss in population when switching governments.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Hi,

Yeah I know writing a lot of flavor text is expensive. But I think some stuff is really high priority, as in, in-game explanation of Governments.

I'm using up my free time liberally to play this mod. I think I know what City-State is for, I fired up a Japan game and so far built the Acropolis, Slavery and other boni, then built three major wonders for settler/culture/happiness/other boni. Circus Maximus, Oracle, Colossus. Also built in a lot of improvements. Acropolis production boni is a major boost.

I think you said it all. City-State is good for early pre-Republic boost, beelining to Philo then Republic as usual, then once tiles and cities are reasonably developed switch to Republic. Sounds also historically accurate.

I also like the fact that rulers change with eras.

Yeah btw nice mod. Still makes it worthwhile to play C3C in 2023, and it's a major improvement over vanilla.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I could actually help with that, AFAIK, with Government Descriptions. They aren't supposed to be that hard, just stick to objective facts and practicity.

I see Republic as the strongest early all around government, City-State as a bridge between Despo and Republic, Monarchy as a warmonger government designed for tackling multiple neighbors at once. Theocracy to me looks like an enhanced or perhaps alternate warmonger choice, as in, for somebody who wants to stick for RP purposes with a government that allows a strong well trained army while not falling far behind in economy and science.

However from my own exp. on higher levels on C3C, I scaled myself down and am now playing only on Regent. WW on Republic is still manageable with luxury slider, also extra gold means more units can be rushed, which means Monarchy/Theocracy boni are still relative unless of course the player will stick out at war permanently since early on. Only specific and outstanding boni is Theocracy has the easier path towards all-Veteran army.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Here's my own contribution:

CITY STATE​

You rule over a more or less loose, decentralized confederation of city-states, with your capital representing the leading power and decision making seat of this confederate state. Due to a lack of a mature, effective bureaucracy, administration is often left in the hand of local elected magistrates and officers who are often controlled by and motivated by purely local interests and votes, and also have no real interest in the bigger picture, thus corruption is rampant and must be mitigated by building administrative buildings that represent a bigger, better rein over the local authorities.

City-states, while often led diplomatically by you and contributing as a whole to the national treasury with their efforts, retain a significant degree of autonomy and self-government. Their own authorities also retain a significant share of local economic productivity, thus impacting production negatively (tile penalty) as only a relatively smaller share of productivity is granted as a tribute to the confederacy leader.

HISTORY: This government was very frequently seen in ancient history, for instance with the historic Achaean, Dorian leagues in Greece, formed due to outside hostile pressure to otherwise fragmented and bickering cities. In ancient Italy, the Samnite Confederacy and the Etruscans could also be considered as “city states”, in the sense that they were first and foremost independent cities tied by a loose confederacy against outsider threats and interests. Such cities would retain complete self-governance and autonomy, but in the event of war or diplomatic disputes, would band together as a whole against external threats. The Latin League, led by Rome, is another instance of such primitive confederacy, as the Romans sought to counter Etruscan, Samnite and Greek interests in Italy by leading their own confederate league of cities in the core Roman region of Latium.

Overall, this government represents a “critical early mass” of league cities, from which more powerful, centralized and solid nations often grew and matured from.

STRATEGY: This early government is a significant step up from Despotism. With increased worker efficiency, your workers can now do tasks significantly faster; unit support is significant, while the Acropolis wonders grants the capital a significant productivity and happiness bonus.

It is often recommended as an early game transitional government for developing empires, in which they can be strenghtened significantly while more powerful governments are not researched or implemented yet. Afterwards, it begins to lose efficiency significantly as your empire expands, due to high levels of corruption and tile penalties.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

DESPOTISM​

You rule with absolute authority over your own subjects, as a head of a tribal organization or simply as the undisputed power in your realm. This government represents all sorts of “primitive”, but also more or less ancient forms of dynastic or military dictatorship in which the ruling personality ruled unilaterally over a collection of dominated subjects – often without any mature real identity or self-interest.

While internal institutions exist, these are more often ceremonial, “rubber stamp”, and lack any sort of real authority or power to contest your decisions. There is no real bureaucracy to speak of, but only a primitive band of strongmen – selected mostly for loyalty and not for competence – who collect taxes and apply laws throughout the realm. Corruption is very problematic, as the lack of a real body of regulations and a competent bureaucracy, together with the demotivation and lack of identity of your subjects who perceive themselves as being merely a fragmented, loose whole living a hand to mouth existence and paying taxes merely out of coerced obligation all affect negatively the internal cohesion and economic output of your nation (tile penalty).

HISTORY: This government is the earliest, most readily available, and it represents the sort of government in which more often than not a petty king or tribal strongman would rise above and control a tribe. Some earlier forms of Oriental monarchy also fall into this category, as they still lacked regulations, laws and cohesion and relied too much on loyalty to a deified central authority, as opposed to more mature forms of bureaucratic self-rule.