Communism

[kb2tvl]

Commy is good in certain conditions. If your building up captured cities, force building is an incredible powerful tool. I have used it so much I have a whole collection of whips that are worn out!

As mentioned previously, changing between commy/demo can provide lots of buildings and lots of production. I play japaneese and I war quite a bit. I fall behind on roads and such.

So, I need to catch up and I use demo for its 150% build advantage. Also, switching between commy and demo every 20 turns, ensures a building being build in every city every 20 turns or so.

Commy rocks in wars. You can draft 2 mech inf per turn per city, down to a size 8 and at size 7 you can draft one. Your pop does not increase as fast, your knowledge does not increase, your production does not proceed as fast but you dont build buildings, you build mil units. I draft defenders like riflemen or infantry or mech inf and build tanks. This combination with a granry is an incredible combination.

Also, in despot, monarchy and commy, your allowed so many units without having to pay. If your in commy and have less than those allowed units, your better off in rep or demo IF your at peace...

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by MadScot


One useful trait of communism, even to someone who really prefers the other governments, is the "no corruption due to distance" thing. . .

That's what ticks me off about Communism.

Let's say it is 1985. There is still a Soviet Union. Vladivostok in Siberia is thousands of miles from the capital, Moscow. In Hawaii, Oahu is thousands of milles from Washington, DC.

Which do you think had more corruption. Vladivostok or Oahu? Obviously, the former.

Communism in the game has corruption wrong. It may have been good for centralized CONTROL of a population especially at war (no War Weariness either), but that's it.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Zouave
Let's say it is 1985. There is still a Soviet Union. Vladivostok in Siberia is thousands of miles from the capital, Moscow. In Hawaii, Oahu is thousands of milles from Washington, DC.

Which do you think had more corruption. Vladivostok or Oahu? Obviously, the former.

Not so obvious to me, actually. Since the production 'wasted' due to corruption could be interpreted as being people (in a democracy) doing their own thing - doing unplanned things like buying cars, washing machines, clothes. While the citizens of Vladivostok are working on what I want - not very efficiently perhaps, but at least they do what I want.

That's my rationale for it, anyway - some of the 'corruption' is due to the population doing 'other things' than what the central govt wants. If you think of distant cities as 'satellites' rather than part of one country it does kind of work. IMHO.

 

[bobgote]

Communism in the game is obviously far different from the idea of communism. It's been abstracted so far as to be unrecognizably communist, but we must deal with what we have, and this is what they've given us with the label of "communism" on it.

 

[Arrian]

I have never found myself in a situation where communism would be worthwhile.

MadScot, your idea for using Communism to get a FP area up and running is good, except for one thing: if I've got communism but not a FP, I've done something wrong. The game is almost over at that point.

It's all about getting your Palace and FP nicely centered with rings of productive cities around each. Do that, and you win. I do it by being a psychotic warmonger. Using militaristic civs, you can be pretty certain of getting some great leaders, one of which is designated "Forbidden Palace" and perhaps another for "Palace Move." Of course it's easiest to have a good palace location from the start, and rush an optimally placed FP in the late ancient/early medieval era. But sometimes things aren't so easy. In my most recent game (testing out the changes to commercial by using the Romans), I had a poor capitol location corruption-wise: ocean to the east and south, large desert to the north. So I build the FP two cities over to the west of Rome and later moved my Palace to former Zululand with a leader.

If I played archipelago maps, perhaps there would be a situation where communism would make sense. Thus far, however, I haven't seen it. Monarchy is the best wartime goverment (unless, of course, you can sustain a long war as a republic). I played a Monarch level game as China where I switched to Monarchy early on and never switched again. I fought the whole way through, gaining 12 great leaders. My Palace & FP were just about perfectly placed on a continent that did vaguely resemble a barbell. Consequently, even though I was way over the optimal # of cities, I had roughly 25% corruption, running a Monarchy (courthouses/police stations everywhere of course). I didn't wait more than 5 turns for any tech after my Golden Age (mid-medieval). Communism would have instantly crippled that empire.

-Arrian

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Arrian
MadScot, your idea for using Communism to get a FP area up and running is good, except for one thing: if I've got communism but not a FP, I've done something wrong. The game is almost over at that point.

Since I've never had anything like the number of GLs you quote either I am unlucky with GLs or I fight many fewer wars than you do; I strongly suspect the latter. I rarely have the luxury of being able to rush the FP with a GL. In those circumstances the communism trick is the only card in my hand ( a rather dreadful mixed metaphor )

I also seem to end up fighting most of the wars I do fight about the time communism becomes available anyway (or even later). So it's no great pain to be in communism at that point, regardless of whether a GL does appear.

 

[bobgote]

MadScot, which civ do you play as? This has a bearing on your warmongering.

 

[MadScot]

I don't have a favourite as such. I prefer religious I guess, and don't like expansionist (psychologically, I hate having my scout find a prime city location only for the AI to nab it first).

But I guess I am very reluctant to start wars in the early ages - it seems to me to be very easy for a few "warrior beat my swordsman" results to really screw up the game. So I prefer to be an appeaser until later in the game - with the generally larger forces then available I feel less offended by a bad 'die roll'.

Which is why, never mind the additional $50 , I shall not be buying PTW

 

[Tassadar]

If you know genetics engenering than you can built longevity, which increase population size by 2 insted of 1, so communist can sacrify geneticaly modified citizen to pop. rush anything. in modern era. You can also do anything tou want while in war.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by MadScot

But I guess I am very reluctant to start wars in the early ages - it seems to me to be very easy for a few "warrior beat my swordsman" results to really screw up the game. So I prefer to be an appeaser until later in the game - with the generally larger forces then available I feel less offended by a bad 'die roll'.

Just build a bigger ancient military. Stay a despot for unit support. Try to kill off one civ early for the power and respect.

 

[bobgote]

OK everyone. The game i'm playing right now, i went to communism (from democracy) after i had hospitals/police stations in most of my cities, and had just built the hoover dam. It was all completely railroaded too. The switch was the best decision i ever made. I'm playing the role of an expanding builder civ, so my empire is not centralized. i placed the FP as best i could, but in the end it wasn't that effective (but couldn't have been better).

Now i had many big cities on my main continent, but some of them were too far away from the palace, FP to be viable. Now, the majority are great. The biggest advantage comes in those captured cities on other islands. Whereas in democracy, you usually get a completely corrupt little town, in communism they are instantly a viable town. A temple is built in 5-10, a library after in 5. They develop quickly (except for one, i don't know why) and as soon as you build a courthouse, it is contributing to the rest of the empire. All of my cities are productive. My science rate is slower, but not too bad. 10 turns instead of prolly 7. I'm willing to exchange production for science.

Also, when i made the switch, i found i was 80 units short of the supported unit total. I have easily the strongest military now. In this situation, communism is easily the best government. I recommend that all builders give it a go.

 

[bobgote]

here's the save game for anyone who's interested.

 

[kb2tvl]

I wanted to add, commies dont use money per se. They force build and they use cash to maintain what they have. With commie, you want a nice cash horde and wall street wonder. The benefits of having a fat wallet come in handy when you need to buy tech or allies or luxuries or all three... I aim for 10k before i set research to something other than 90% tax. Dont bother building research buildings unless they are cheap for you to build... focus on markets/banks. If your militaristic and in commie, sell off baraks during peace time and set build to wealth after a major war.... This will help build up your cash reserves. dont go more than 10 turns doing this, The comp will start exceeding your military.

 

[Tassadar]

i just upgrade from 1.16 to 1.29 a few day ago, i played a game, regent level, std map size. I built 24 city, reach modern era, built all improvement( nuclear plant, reaserch lab, masstransit, recycling...). Then i switch commi ( was demo) and i was surprize, lower corruption then before, i think corruption fighting ability of police station have been increase and comunist overall.

most of my city were able to produce modern armor in 2 turn ( 2 city in 1 turn) if i set 0 science 0 lux with 4 mp i got a wlkd everywhere and earn about 1000 gold per turn, i have about 230 units and i pay only about 40-50 gold per turn. I can do what i want, send troop into a.i cultural border without war weariness and so on. A newly built city on the other side of the world already give some shield.

Communist rock better than ever.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by MadScot


Not so obvious to me, actually. Since the production 'wasted' due to corruption could be interpreted as being people (in a democracy) doing their own thing - doing unplanned things like buying cars, washing machines, clothes. While the citizens of Vladivostok are working on what I want - not very efficiently perhaps, but at least they do what I want.

I agree. Real life Communism never proved to be terribly efficient as to waste or corruption, but in the *game*(it is a game after all), the premise is that the governors and party members are spread thru out the empire, thus evening out corruption.

That is, at least superficially, the Vlad. gov shares party ideals with you, whereas the Hawaii gov could have his own agenda (ie butter instead of bombs).

As for the impact of Communism on VLEs (Very Large Empires), making wase and corruption communal doesnt mean there is less, just more uniformly distributed. Those small distant cities might be more productive, but it comes at the expense of the closer production powerhouses being less so.

That can be a *good* thing if you want more production on the outskirts, now.