Civ Old Timer Has Questions About Civ3... Answer Them Please!

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Hello all!

My first time into Civ was with Civ2 back in 1999. I was like 8 years old, but loved the game. When Civ3 came, I ordered it many times, because I managed to lose the CD . I was a teen, born and living in Brazil, now I'm living and working in Europe, but I sitll have fond memories of buying it in a computer store and carrying the CD with me back home. I was like 15 years old.

My PC can run Civ6 but I never tried. I got hooked briefly back into Civ3 in 2016, but thanks to work and college and other committments had to ditch it.

For sentimental reasons, Civ3 is the Civ for me. I loved the Industrial Age ambience, music and graphics for all civs. I keep coming back to Civ3 because it elicits me such memories, which no other Civ does except for Civ2 but Civ2 is too primitive and dated IMHO.While Civ3 still got me hooked for years as a teenager. In fact, that's why I keep coming back to it, while the other Civs - I tried 4 - aren't that great IMHO. But promised I will try Civ6 when time allows.

So I bought it again at Gamersgate, and downloaded it. I still remember most of the stuff, and managed to kick a nice Mongolian Empire at Regent with Continents map, but some questions remain.

1 - How do you manage to outsmart and beat the AI to a prized wonder at all ages at Monarch and above. In Regent, due to a number of factors, the AI still beats me to a lot of wonders. I know you'll all say, but "prebuild, prebuid, prebuild", but hey I want your tactics. It's important because disbanding units doesn't work anymore, tell me everything you know.

2 - City spacing. I've found since long that CxxxC is the best, 4 tiles to above is only ever good after they beat the 12 mark and that's only later in the game, still it doesn't mean a CxxxC will stop growing early, many of them grow to 20 or above in my games. But hey what's your opinion?? Is 4 tiles better? Or perhaps 2 tiles. Sometimes, my city spacing is two tiles, I often don't raze AI cities too close to me, and it isn't that much of a handicap but 3 tiles seem optimal for early expansion.

3 - Best civ traits: played as the Mongols in my first game, the Scout was very useful and I got a lot of gold and tech from huts. But some say it's the most worthless civ trait; what's the best combination and the best traits?

4 - What wonders to build if you're steamrolling or just trying to be large and competitive into post Industrial Age? What are the best early wonders?

5 - Cannon: do you use them, or do you wait for arty?? I found it safer to wait for arty, that's when Infantry comes and Cavalry becomes obsolete. Only arty does the job before the tanks come rolling in.

6 - Are some civs more aggressive than others? I say this because Germans, Aztecs, Romans always DOW me, but some other civs never DOW me at normal aggression.

That's all, maybe I'll come up with other stuff later. But nice to have some free time and get back into this.

 

[need my speed]

Generally, you should invest your production in units, not in wonders. Especially because those units can conquer those wonders for you.

CxC is the best, because think about it; how can a normal terrain tile ever produce more than a city?
Realistically, you will have a mix of CxxC and CxC, and maybe some CxxxC I suppose.

Any kind of siege unit is good, and you can never have enough of them. If you beeline Military Tradition, Cavalry is very powerful on its own though.

Yes, you can check the editor to see the Aggression levels of civilisations. Or on the Wiki, e.g. the Germans (who indeed have an Aggression rating of 5/5 and thus are the most aggressive possible - but both Romans and Aztecs only have 4/5).

 

[Spoonwood]

How do you manage to outsmart and beat the AI to a prized wonder at all ages at Monarch and above.

First off, as a rule of thumb, don't build wonders. Unless you play for a 20k victory, investments get made better elsewhere. Copernicus's Observatory and Newton's University in a spaceship or diplomatic game make for exceptions. And The United Nations to win a diplomatic victory or prevent elections.

If you don't have an SGL, Wonders should only get built in inner ring cities. That means in the 4 or so cities nearest to the capital or the capital. To build wonders from behind the AIs even, it can accomplished by prebuilding. Usually the best pre-build for wonders is the palace, which increases in costs depending on how many cities you have in your empire. Also, trading or stealing for technologies can help keep or push ahead. Having a good expansion phase also helps with things usually, because then you have bigger cities earlier, while the AIs haven't had as much time to grow.

City spacing. I've found since long that CxxxC is the best,

Found cities based on terrain first. Found on RIVERS, on hills, jam cities into coastal areas to maximize sea squares for population and commerce. CxxxC can be alright, but then cities will need culture. With CxxC spacing there won't exist a need for a cultural border expansion. Biggest tip comes as to make sure that all of the squares in your cultural borders can get used by some citizen at some point. If you have tiles within your cultural borders that no citizen can work, then you need another city with it's fat X cross having those tile(s) in it's radius to work.

Best civ traits

It depends heavily on desired victory condition. But, agricultural, industrious, and commercial. Scientific has strong uses too.

What wonders to build if you're steamrolling or just trying to be large and competitive into post Industrial Age? What are the best early wonders?

None. A 200 shield wonder makes for the equivalent of 6 swordsmen. A 400 shield wonder makes for the equivalent of about 13 swordsmen or horsemen. Leo's comes as about the only worth considering IF you're disconnecting your iron and/or saltpeter constantly, reconnecting, and upgrading on the inter-turn by zooming to cities. But, 600 shields makes for about 8 knights. 8 knights makes for pretty close, if not actually, a capture of a city. If you get an SGL on the other hand though (or MGL if playing PtW), then wonders can be worth it.

Cannon: do you use them, or do you wait for arty??

Yes. Often my first war involves some combined arms stack used heavily, since there's not even an army yet at the start and not many, if any, during most of that first war. If it's always war (or a variant I call "always battle"), that means some stack with I'll use catapults combined with a defender or two and attackers. Or it's trebuchets, and cannons. It's probably a bit more powerful than you need, but here's one example of such a stack I had a long time ago.

If you beeline Military Tradition, Cavalry is very powerful on its own though.

It depends what the cavalry attack. If they attack pikeman, spears, cavlary, knights, swordsmen, archers, and longbowman, then yes, absolutely. They don't need cannon or trebuchet support. If the AIs have muskets though, muskets fortified in medieval cities likely win, so you start to need a larger number of attackers. Large stacks of cavalry can defeat cities with riflemen, but when I've done that, then especially I feel like loss number gets too large, and I would have done better to wait for cannon support OR cavalry armies.

Are some civs more aggressive than others?

Militaristic civs have a flag that causes them to build units more often than infrastructure. Consequently, they will often end up more aggressive than non-militaristic civs.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I'm a much less skilled player than Spoonwood; I play at Regent Level, so bear that in mind. Most of my games are spaceship victories, while I change it up to seek Domination to keep my warfighting skills from getting rusty.

1. The first wonder I usually build is Knights Templar. If I get the Philosophy slingshot, and my expansion is going well with no aggressive neighbors, I may try for the Great Library; no big deal if I miss it. Most games I start a palace prebuild for Copernicus about 2 or 3 techs before researching Astronomy. When it finishes, I start another prebuild for Newtons in the same city. I definitely use start a prebuild for the UN (again 2 or 3 techs left in Industrial Age) so that no one snatches a Diplo win while I'm building my spaceship. For any other ancient or middle ages wonders, I will probably end up with them if I conquer them.

2. I always use CxxC for my core cities, trying to put them on rivers. Once I build roads, I can quickly move a garrison from town to town in one turn. I have been surprised by barb uprisings when I settle too far away, to grab a resource. Probably just my bias... I hate being surprised. Growth will take care of itself, all the tiles will be worked, and few cities grow much larger than 15 over the whole game anyway.

3. I've won games with all the tribes. The traits influence the kind of victory to pursue. If I have cheap barracks, I will produce more veteran troops and go stomp someone. If I have cheap libraries, I will build them nearly everywhere (to get the culture radius pop). If I have cheap temples, I am likely to go for a 100K culture victory. Nothing stands out to me as best.

4. See my answer to part 1. The key to building a large empire is *expansion*, rapid settling of cities to fill up your fertile land. Make sure that you have a source of iron and horses. Once you have a solid core, enough cities to qualify for the Forbidden Palace, then size up a neighbor to invade to grab their land. Food and resources are the key to steamrolling. If I start near ivory, I might try for the Temple of Zeus for the free units. Most games I do go for the Knights Templar (free units again), to help grab land from a neighbor.

5. Yes! I build a few catapults, a few trebuchets, as well as cannons when they unlock. I'm a fan of upgrading cats and trebs to cannons, though several high-level players discourage that. Including these units in my stack has never hurt my war efforts. They're always part of a big stack with at least 2 defenders. If I get a very early army -- say, archers or swords -- they become the main defender for my siege units. No, these units don't get lethal bombard. Yes, they have to be right next to the city. And yes, any HP that they take off a city defender means less work for my attackers.

6. Yes! Some additional information about AI traits is found in this older strategy article https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/your-ai-opponent-by-ision.92917/

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Well thanks for the tips.

I see that even after 20 years, there's still a lot of folks around playing this. Very good!

Yeah, I'm not going to comment this now, but rather just take the lessons. Some wonders, one or two perhaps, might be worth building because of goals or because of culture. Great Library = a LOT of culture. But snatching them seems better otherwise.

 

[justanick]

Any kind of siege unit is good, and you can never have enough of them.

But you can have too many. As a republic any unit above free unit support cost 2 gtp. This means that you tend to be less limited by your ability to build cannons and cavalry than your ability to simply maintain them. Hence mitigating the numbers of cannons in favour of cavalry can make sense in a significant number of instances.

For more warlike government types it is a bit different, but republic is usually by far the best and therefore obvious choice. Leaving despotism in favour of republic is a top priority in the early game.

5 - Cannon: do you use them, or do you wait for arty?? I found it safer to wait for arty, that's when Infantry comes and Cavalry becomes obsolete. Only arty does the job before the tanks come rolling in.

Even with infantry you still want to use cavalry. The speed of cavalry and and range of artillery mix well. That really is a standard tactic. In war you donnot want to waste turns on slow moving units, not after cavalry has become available. Before it can be different, because resources are more limited. That can favour MedInfs over knights.

2 - City spacing. I've found since long that CxxxC is the best, 4 tiles to above is only ever good after they beat the 12 mark and that's only later in the game, still it doesn't mean a CxxxC will stop growing early, many of them grow to 20 or above in my games. But hey what's your opinion?? Is 4 tiles better? Or perhaps 2 tiles. Sometimes, my city spacing is two tiles, I often don't raze AI cities too close to me, and it isn't that much of a handicap but 3 tiles seem optimal for early expansion.

Well, thare are important tradeoffs to consider.

In the long run you want all tiles to be used, but by as few cities as reasonably possible. Depending on the exact geography that means something between 15 und 18 tiles per metropolis. Any increase in the amount of metropolises compared to that long term optimimum means (significantly) higher corruption, significantly higher maintenance for buildings and of course also having to build those buildings in the first place.

In the short run you also want as many tiles as reasonably possible to be used, but by as few cities as reasonably possible. But due to the lack of aqueducts and due to low growth and due to free units support this means more like 7 or less tiles per settlement.

This changes once the permanent cities of your republic reach size 7 or more. That is a time when it becomes convenient to abandon most of your temporary cities. Once hospitals are only a few turns away you may abandon the rest of your temporary cities.

Of course not everyone likes this mixed approach of permanent and nonpermanent cities. The lazy alternative to it is to aim at 12+1 tiles per city in the first place. That is optimal for the mid game. By the time hospitals open up new possibilities your victory may already be sure, so you donnot need the extra advantage available with hospitals.

 

[Spoonwood]

But you can have too many.

Not if they are captured artillery type units.

As a republic any unit above free unit support cost 2 gtp.

Only if you made them. If the AIs made the unit, or the settler doesn't have your nations nationality, then you don't pay upkeep.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I would like to say some words.

Yes, CxxC works fine. But for some reason, since I like to stick to the Industrial Age and beyond, I'm sticking with CxxxC as it seems the best payoff even when they become metros.

Best government ever: Communism. Always use it in my games. Always. Because of course I always like to beat up my neighbours and conquer like at least 30% of the earthly landmass and more, in my last game as Monarch level Japan Communism saved my life because 50% of my empire was so corrupt under Monarchy and Republic, luckily Japan is Religious which means low transition time, I immediately switched to Communism and was able to build Forbidden Palace, but didn't build Secret Police HQ in anticipation of a major, late industrial war against my neighbor Russia which DOW'ed me some 2 times, but settled for an uneasy peace since 1600 or so.

Monarch is significantly more difficult. The AI is always more technologically advanced. Stealing techs, blackmailing, and trading with underdog, smaller and less advanced civs is a must. I forged good ties with Arabia, trading techs and goodies with them, because they were rather small and insignificant compared to the other great powers that hated me to the guts.

I still need a major war to erase my bitter rivals from the map, true.

=============

As for Cav and Cannon, well, under Communism and Fascism, it's not a big deal. Really. Unit support is always very high, besides you always pay 1gp and when you're swimming in cash by the time arty comes it's a no brainer: build, build, build.

Cav is really good earlier, but after Infantry comes, it's no good at all. In my two previous games, Regent and Monarch level, the Cav seems simply unable to stand against entrenched and fortified infantry. I suffered like 60% casualties in my earlier Mongol game, with my Roman enemy fielding infantry. They also counterattacked with Cav against my entrenched infantry, and lost all of it, enough be said. Yet earlier, my Keshiks and Cavalry dominated the battlefield, running roughshod over the enemy without the need for any artillery at all.

That said, after the enemy researches Replaceable Parts, you'll need the arty to pound them as much as possible, and switch to a slower, grinding, Verdun style attritional campaign with a combined arms INF + Arty advance.

The game seems to model this well, I mean, this part of military history. The sort of transitional period, from trapdoor Springfield and Gras, to infantry armed with bolt-action Arisakas, Mausers, Lebels, mortars and heavy machine guns (which INF is supposed to represent anyway). By this time, most of the General Staff thinkers all across Europe and Asia still thought in primitive, Napoleonic terms, about masses of infantry and horse cavalry as some sort of mobile spearhead. This was like, the period from 1885, thru the Boer War, up to 1917 and the Great War, when cavalry was completely outmatched and removed, and massed infantry assaults were no match for the sort of defensive, trench warfare that ensued.

It's not until Tanks appear that this stalemate is broken and the battlefield becomes mobile again, both IRL and in game terms. But arty retains its usefulness, anyway.

 

[Spoonwood]

That said, after the enemy researches Replaceable Parts, you'll need the arty to pound them as much as possible, and switch to a slower, grinding, Verdun style attritional campaign with a combined arms INF + Arty advance.

I find wars after learning Replacable Parts quicker, because I can attack as soon as I have settlers in place to attack, and artillery proper to shell out a target. Moonsinger had a good article on how to use settlers to destroy AI cultural borders so that artillery proper can move into position to attack (4 infantry as she recommends isn't always needed).

 

[justanick]

Best government ever: Communism.

Almost never. If you tribe is religious, it can be a reasonably choice and if you have taken 60% of all available land and have properly improved it and build up your cities, then and only then it can equal a peacetime republic in terms of research output. But at only 30% of land area a republic is still way ahead in terms of research output. Communism will allow a mildly higher production, but in my eyes this is the wrong prioritization. Before the industrial age production is scarce, but railroads, hospitals, factories and power plants lead to an abundance of shields anyway. Having a tech like replaceable parts 10 turns earlier is way more important than that.

Researching communism can still make sense due to police stations. Unlike courthouses they are of limited value in communism itself, but of quite some value in a republic. Courthouse + police station means that corruption will never exceed 70%. This is still a lot. But on a standard size 100x100 map you can have about 40 cities with less than that once you have the forbidden palace, Courthouses and police stations.

Cav is really good earlier, but after Infantry comes, it's no good at all.

This is wrong. Both units have the same attack value. Therefore infantry has no advantage over cavalry in attacking at all.

But cavalry is slightly cheaper and a lot faster. The later is what matters. You can attack any enemy redlined by your artillery. One can argue that with artillery cavalry becomes most useful in civ3 because before artillery the cavalry is either slowed down by cannons or by having to attack without artillery support. If we compare a 1/4 infantry and a 4/4 muskets the later will have better chances of fending off a 4/4 cavalry.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Hi, I understand that if you're Religious, then you can have many gains by switching to Republic early. But in Republic, Delhi which was the city I had taken for Forbidden Palace was way too corrupt, FP was taking 80-100 turns to finish, and I didn't have enough leaders to hurry it. Tough luck for me.

Republic seems good if you're peaceful, and it's better for teching. But in my industrial Monarch Japan game, I was swimming in cash, taking in 200+ cash per turn, with research going at a speed of 8-9 turns per tech. Afte I switched to Commie and built FP the improvement was considerable, and I had like 48% of the total landmass. Communism pays out if you're large, indeed.

The other problem was, I spent like the entire time from 200BC to 950 AD at war, then had a major war with the Indians and other civs who built a coalition against me from 1500 to 1640 AD. I crushed the Indians, and partitioned with neighbours who also dogpiled on them, but after so much war I would kinda fear what sort of problems with war weariness I would have if I decided to switch to Republic instead of staying with Monarchy.

Point is, if you need a huge army, and fight epic wars, the Despotism - Feudalism/Monarchy - Communism/Fascism line is much much better. In my current situation I had like a 200 unit support limit under Communism, and keeping a 180 INF army was relatively cheap.

ALSO, I don't like using settler rush or "outposts" and temporary settlements in a war as I think it's too gamey, really. Way too gamey. Might be an use if playing on Deity/Sid levels, and against very strong AI, but I rather take the fight for myself on other terms, with overwhelming force, etc... but not that.

Besides that, I play Civ3 Complete BTW, and I always noticed that in these two games so far where I always went up Industrial and later with success the AI switches to Republic, goes to Monarchy if facing protracted war, then switches to Fascism almost unilaterally after Industrial Age starts. Fascism is their favourite gov, and it affords them a lot of unit support with their nascent metros.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

"Researching communism can still make sense due to police stations. Unlike courthouses they are of limited value in communism itself, but of quite some value in a republic. Courthouse + police station means that corruption will never exceed 70%. This is still a lot. But on a standard size 100x100 map you can have about 40 cities with less than that once you have the forbidden palace, Courthouses and police stations."

Also, I would like to add, I love playing on Large and Huge maps. That makes all the difference, I mean, more settlers to build, longer wars, lots and lots of extra corruption. So even if you just hit the 30% world landmass, Communism still makes a lot of a difference because of map size. Getting these big 8-12 AI cities you just captured to fall bellow 30% corruption level for free is a big big bonus.

 

[justanick]

"Researching communism can still make sense due to police stations. Unlike courthouses they are of limited value in communism itself, but of quite some value in a republic. Courthouse + police station means that corruption will never exceed 70%. This is still a lot. But on a standard size 100x100 map you can have about 40 cities with less than that once you have the forbidden palace, Courthouses and police stations."

Also, I would like to add, I love playing on Large and Huge maps. That makes all the difference, I mean, more settlers to build, longer wars, lots and lots of extra corruption. So even if you just hit the 30% world landmass, Communism still makes a lot of a difference because of map size.

If you play your cards right, then the difference is somewhat small. Distance corruption will be slightly smaller, but rank corruption will be slightly larger in relative terms. At monarch and huge a fully developed republic can have 64 cities with less than 50% rank corruption if your tribe is not commercial and 71 if it is commercial.

You will still need more than 50% of area for communism to catch up to republic in terms of research output.

Hi, I understand that if you're Religious, then you can have many gains by switching to Republic early.

No. Being religious does not matter for that. Leaving despotism ASAP is a standard procedure. Whether any additional anarchy is worth it, does however depend on being religious. Else the cost of anarchy is too huge. If however you have pre-decided for one anarchy period only, then a religious tribe is weaker than a tribe with better traits.

But in Republic, Delhi which was the city I had taken for Forbidden Palace was way too corrupt, FP was taking 80-100 turns to finish, and I didn't have enough leaders to hurry it. Tough luck for me.

In C3C 1.22 the forbidden palace should be built near your capital. Having it in the first, second or on huge maps the third ring is the smart choice because the location is not what matters most, timing is what matters most.

Point is, if you need a huge army, and fight epic wars, the Despotism - Feudalism/Monarchy - Communism/Fascism line is much much better.

Sure, but the point is that you should not fight overlengthy wars and need an oversized army. As a republic it is easier to shape the diplomatic landscape in your favour and being more advanced in tech also helps to fight wars in a more economical way. A good war does not last many turns and is ended by eliminating the enemy.

Besides that, I play Civ3 Complete BTW, and I always noticed that in these two games so far where I always went up Industrial and later with success the AI switches to Republic, goes to Monarchy if facing protracted war, then switches to Fascism almost unilaterally after Industrial Age starts. Fascism is their favourite gov, and it affords them a lot of unit support with their nascent metros.

I do however advice against taking behavior of the AI as advice.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I tried switching to Communism a few times, after having spent a chunk of the Ancient Age and all of the Middle Ages in Republic. I usually play on large continents maps, not huge.

Plus: Yes, I suddenly found all of my far-flung conquered cities would produce more than 1 or 2 shields per turn. Since I like to build some buildings -- even on the frontier -- that was welcome. It's not consistent with Justanick's and Lanzelot's advice, meaning it's not optimal play, but it's fun. I build one culture building (for the border pop) and a Marketplace (for the happiness multiplier). If the conquered city is on the coast, it gets a harbor to maximize trade routes.

Minus: I suddenly found that my carefully constructed core cities, right next to my capital or Forbidden Palace city, now had some corruption! Every city gets the same corruption in Communism. I found that disconcerting. I didn't try to do the math, to see if the shields I gained in the "near core" made up for the shields I lost in the core. It just felt less fun.

Ever since, I stick with Republic for the increased commerce. By doing the "slider down with one turn to go" tactic on each tech, I usually have enough gold to cash-rush the buildings that I really *need* in the corrupt cities. For the buildings that I *want*, I just let the corrupt towns build them... slowly. It's not like they have much else to do, except act as staging areas for troops or planes.

 

[need my speed]

It's not like they have much else to do, except act as staging areas for troops or planes.

They can employ Scientists.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I know I need a bit better sampling, but I've fired up so far two games on Monarch level, one as a perpetual warmonger Japan, the other an attempt at a peaceful Republican Russia. All of these played at Continents 60% water.

So far, my observations and conclusions: at higher levels the AI just never ever seems to lose the tech race. WW from Republic is crippling.

Anyway, the issue here being, at higher levels the AI will build wonders and tech too quickly, they'll also build huge armies if they're large enough. I've had far more success as a warmongering Japan, going first from Monarchy to Communism, then as a peaceful Russia.

Under these circumstances, I think it's just better to smash, bully, conquer my way into the top anyway. Why research techs if you can steal them from the AI at the negotiation table? Why bother with 2gp maintenance if I can get a huge army from Monarchy to Commie, and using that army as 1) deterrent against AI aggression (I got backstabbed by my powerful Chinese neighbor as Republican Russia, and they did quite a lot of damage before I was able to send in the Cossacks to expel them), 2) weapon to conquer even more, getting me tons of corruption free production trade and science under Commie that would be far more significant than relying on my core metros as a Republic??

Measuring success too, as a warmongering Japan, despite lagging a bit behind in the tech race, I had a 220 unit army, 200+ cash pouring in, techs coming in at 7-8 turns, 42% of the world's landmass. I didn't get enough such success as a Republican Russia, besides, the war weariness was killing me every time even if I was just defending myself. Lots of sad faces, income declining every turn - no such problem with Commie Japan.

My verdict: Commie beats Republic. Every time. Esp. when you got powerful neighbors ready to backstab you. No WW is also a big bonus. The AI also knows it better when it's the law of the jungle, the law of the sword, and the like; they'll not dare to attack you if you have a large enough army and even if they do, they won't really survive to tell the story.

 

[Spoonwood]

Why research techs if you can steal them from the AI at the negotiation table?

Because you can sell techs for gold per turn and their lump sums and military alliances. I have a feeling that you don't trade much and tend to pick techs that the AIs tend to research also. At Monarch outresearching the AIs ends up very feasible with trading of technologies.

War weariness from republic depends on how the war gets conducted. At Monarch level, I can't imagine it ever being an issue, unless I literally fight everyone at once.

There's plenty of evidence from the Hall of Fame, and Game/Conquest of the Month competitions that Republic can work as more powerful in human hands than other governments.

220 unit army?! If that doesn't include workers, even on a Sid Huge map, that can work out as enough to kill off AIs and end wars quickly. Why do I have a feeling that you defend every city, including ones that will never get attacked?

The AIs also won't likely attack you if you have military alliances for wars. Having a tech lead, or extra gold, or extra gold per turn can pay for such alliances.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Well, I put one military unit in a "backwater" town, to act as police and garrison. The rest I just send to the borders and hotspots to defend them as much as possible. It helps because if an AI backstabs me, or tries to land on my back, I have at least one garrison to keep them at bay.

Lack of military police is also a big disadvantadge. Lemme conclude. Having to spend at least 10% of the slide in luxuries to offset lack of military police is kinda bad.

I know there are a lot of people who can make a Republic work. Still, I think my own experience taught me otherwise, if anything, keep Republic only until Industrial Age.

Also AI's don't like me and don't trade with me because I keep starting wars.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Anyway, thank you for your input! Now it's off for me to keep working on a Germany Monarch game.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Besides, I would like to add, if you're dodging Republic for the sake of warmongering or for whatever, when you're so big, IMO, your sheer size and the FP kinda offset the lack of a trade bonus. You'll still keeping milking cash from a lot of well placed towns, and this increases significantly under Commie, also added bonus is that your unit support will be so high you won't spend a dime supporting workers or an army. In my current Monarch Germany game I was lucky to have two settler factories, then crushed the Netherlands, I have a lot of room just for myself, lots of luxuries and goodies, and I also have a 110 army support limit under Despotism and Monarchy.

I've played Paradox Games, and Civ. One thing that never really fails to prove me right, is this intuition that in Civ, you have to be big to be competitive. Being big is the difference between life and death. When you're so big, you can outpace anybody regardless of whatever boni your rivals have. That's why, IMO, warmongering becomes important in the higher levels, because it's a way to assert your supremacy by sheer size, the rest just comes off naturally.