Communism - is it worth it?

[pompeynunn]

In Civ 1 & 2 I used to get to Communism as quickly as possible if I was attempting a world conquest strategy.

However, I find that in Civ 3, Monarchy is actually better than Communism for fighting wars - in my latest game, switching to Communism actually reduced my income by over 50 gold/turn, and seriously dented my production too. I am assuming that the effect of the Forbidden Palace was helping me a lot in reducing corruption under Monarchy.

So my question is, in what situations would Communism be the preferrred form of government, and has anybody actually found it beneficial using this form of government?

 

[loki]

If you go for a long war, it's the best government. Two words : pop rushing.
It's incredibly useful in newly conquered cities, when the resisters have been quelled. You can pop rush temples, libraries etc... This way you reduce the local population, add culture to newly added cities : all this combined to a much lower risk of cultural reversion (as it was explained by firaxis)
The only war gvt you can compare it to is despotism really.

loki

 

[pompeynunn]

I hadn't really appreciated the pop rushing aspect of Communism, but I'm still not sure it is enough of a bonus compared to the loss of production and revenue I experienced compared to Monarchy in my current game.

I could see that on a huge map, with lots of islands, that Communism could maybe the best form of Government for a war.

 

[chiefpaco]

To me, so far, it's all about centralization. Perhaps someone else can describe better the art of Communism pop rushing or an economic or scientific view.

The big problem of Communism is no matter what government you have before switching to it, you probably have that productive city radius because that's how all the other gov'ts are structured. You lose that.

I find I have to change my building strategy. Instead of having my core cities with research labs and banks (i.e. the advanced structures), every city gets a library and marketplace. You probably don't have them in your distant outposts yet & that's probably why you won't see a huge benefit right away.

To me, the big factors in the decision are the # of cities I have and the placement of my palace & FP. If I can gain a lot of productive "outposts", then it's worth it. If not, I stick with Monarchy. With a FP in a good location, I find the corruption of Monarchy bearable and losing a turns in anarchy may not be worth it.

Come wartime, instead of 8 cities producing infantry every 5 turns, you could have 12 producing every 8 (for example). With some patience, I think a large Communist empire could out-produce a Democracy. Science & gold are other matters...

 

[loki]

Let's not forget this is all about (long) war government.

Concerning production rate, it shouldn't be so much of a problem. As I go for communism when I'm in modern ages, I don't have much else to build than army units. My core cities are able to crank units very fast due to huge size and factories : these 6 or 8 shields I will lose with communism won't slow me in a 40+ shields cities.
Of course, if you have to build late time improvements, wonders, nukes ...etc it could be a problem. But you shouldn't be building this type of thing when you plan on going for a long war now, shall you?

loki

 

[BillChin]

Like a lot of questions, the answer depends on difficulty level and map size. In general, I agree that Monarchy is the better war time government. Maybe on easy difficulty levels the blanket corruption of Communism isn't so bad, but on Emperor difficulty, it is about 50% with a courthouse and 65% with courthouse and police station. That 33% is a huge hit to take for my core cities. Producing police stations in every production city also takes a good long time.

The other benefits of Communism are tiny compared to that huge production hit. So a border city can produce a few shields and I can pop rush. In the late game, I usually bombard so much that pop rushing is not useful. I am much more likely to use gold to rush a project, easier and more flexible. I do not want to pop rush in my own cities, so Communism shuts off project rushing there. Again, maybe on a lower difficulty Communism is a decent government, but not for the way I play on Emperor.

 

[LayZMan]

If you don't mind not being able to build wonders toward the end game, then going Commie isn't so bad. Crack the whip if infrastructure projects are slow, crack the whip on new cities to get rid of foreigners, the outer cities can actually build something on their own under Communism...but like stated before, your Civ's core takes a HUGE production hit. Instead of that one city cranking units by the turn, you'll have to wait awhile like the Mid Ages for more unit support to show up. I haven't played Commie in awhile, I once liked it since I war often. But imo, in the age of rails and riflemen, I find that having the city core helps more than havintg everyone pitch in since I can have my core cities produce a corp or infantry and artillery, band them together within couple turns and send them off as a army. That's another thing, good luck pumping out armies and high cost building other than wonders as well.

PS-Monarchy is my fav government now, too bad that now I just starve foreigners out my cities instead of having them die for my infrastructure.

 

[Greadius]

Communism can outproduce democracies in an expansive empire.

My Empire now covers the entire western hemisphere on Marla's Map, there is NO WAY I'd get any production out of half my cities if not for the blanket corruption. Its allowed my 'core cities' to expand, now I'm up to the point where I've got 15 cities producing 60+ shields a turn, and that is growing. The result: I can produce masses of military hardware in 2-3 turns.

Also, it allows me to build population increasing improvements in the rest of my cities so I can get the scientific bonuses. My population is so large I can outproduce the major democratic nations in science by having specialized scientists.

I suppose the key to having a powerful communist empire is to grab as much territory as possible. Its fairly easy without war weariness.

 

[Selous]

also gold is MUCH less important under communism because u can use your population to rush things, and if u dont like to population rush and u still say communism is bad .... that would be like using democracy and setting your science rate REAL low ... that is a strength of communism and if u dont use a governemts strenghts then off corse it will suck. Communism is for large sprawling empires. if u play on small maps then u are not going to have a sprawling empire, on a large continants map or archelpligo then communism is invaluable as u can actually produce from those newly aquired islands/continants without having to have a great leader to rush a forbidden palace, and then u can rush corruption building to make then even better

communism is so different to democracy and requires different style of play. a good communist would be at war for long periods of time with short stints at peace (mebey) rather than a democracy that has long periods of peace followed by short stints at war. if the world u are on has a few communist players then the democracys will lose. they cannot sustain a long war ... even if there is no fighting

 

[Greadius]

Its funny how true it is that democracies crumble in warfare. There is so much warfare in my game over the last 100 years. Out of the 8 major civs left (Ignoring the minor ones who are still hanging in there), 7 of them were Democracies and I was the only Communist one. After a century of warfare, 5 of the 8 are Communist, and 1 is now a monarchy.

 

[infanta]

granary, irrigated grasslands and railroads means pop gain each turn which translates into 40 production each turn, this aspect ain't effected by corruption

3 turns and wham, you got 120 shields equivalent

considering communism allows you do this anywhere its a massive effect if all you ever do is crank out military units

the abiltiy to spawn something like 20+ units a turn allows you to totally steam roller everything

sure you give up gold and tech but if you max food production then you can get 4 food per tile (railroad/ irrigated grasslands) for 80 food production (max assuming optimum conditions) for a total city population of 40 giving you 20 specialists unaffected by corruption. Make em all taxmen and use the cash to fund propaganda and tech stealing (or make em scientists and have lots of these cities around)

the ability to mass produce armies anywhere and expand like mad can't be beaten other governments

theres no way anything else can compete for unit production (wonders/ improvements/ science a different matter)

communism is for one purpose, all out total war, its takes commitment but its totally unstoppable once it get momentum, your oppenents only real chance is to win by another method fore you direct your attention to em or destroy you fore you get a large number of cities into play

with communism its not shields but population you use for production (and this includes your core cities to some extent)

 

[History_Buff]

As far As I see it, its no good unless you use total war strategies, or your empire is unbelievably far spread. This may be usefull for dom ination victory.