Democracy VS Communism?

Democracy emphasises unique districts while Communism is raw population. It would suggest that one is more about mines and farms and other improvements while the other is district spam. So, if you're doing the latter, go for Democracy. Communism sounds good for 1-2 districts and then mostly industrial zones and campuses.

That may have been what they were going for. In practice, high population seems to go hand-in-hand with number of districts, based on my play style. Others may have a different experience. I'd be curious to see if someone has built an empire where Communism's bonus was clearly better?
 
Well, in practice Communism advanced the well-being of the masses by providing good and free education (including higher one), specialised industries and affordable housing. A good thing to note is that even almost 30 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, about 80 to 90 % of the adult population own 1 or more homes in ex-communist countries. Compare that with even the Scandinavian well-fare system where you will be hard pressed to go over 50-60 % of home ownership.

A better idea would be to remove the housing bonus from Democracy and give it to Communism. Massive housing projects were the norm back in the day. China today serves as a good example what a communist state can achieve when trying to build more homes.
 
Well, in practice Communism advanced the well-being of the masses by providing good and free education (including higher one), specialised industries and affordable housing. A good thing to note is that even almost 30 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, about 80 to 90 % of the adult population own 1 or more homes in ex-communist countries. Compare that with even the Scandinavian well-fare system where you will be hard pressed to go over 50-60 % of home ownership.

A better idea would be to remove the housing bonus from Democracy and give it to Communism. Massive housing projects were the norm back in the day. China today serves as a good example what a communist state can achieve when trying to build more homes.
That's where the monarchic legacy bonus might come in. Anyways, the Kremlin looks like Renaissance walls.
 
I personally think that the +2 production was meant to be a flat +2 per city, not per district. It just doesn't make sense right now.
 
Communism is better if you have an underdeveloped empire, whether through lagging behind, war, or through conquering other undeveloped civs. It's also good if you are fighting limited war in the modern era, going for a science victory but still conquering on your borders, Fascism hurts your economy too much and the 3 military slots are essential.

Democracy is better for science victory in most situations and essential for cultural victory though. The last makes sense I guess, cultural victory is about tourism and in fascist/communist societies people aren't allowed to travel freely.

I would definitely like to see a different bonus than just 2 production bonuses for Communism though. It seems like there should be more of a difference between communism and democracy, structuring my whole society completely differently than just a minor production/housing/gold boost.
 
I would change them like so :
Democracy :
+ 1 adjacency bonus per district;
+ 1 amenities in each city;
25% discount on all gold purchases
Legacy card :
+ 1 adjacency bonus per district;
+ 1 amenities in each city;

Thus, if you want to combine it with the legacy card, you will get some very good adjacency results (+2 per district). Combine that with other cards, depending on the districts, as well as the population being Ecstatic, and you will get some eye-watering culture, gold and science output.

Communism :
+ 0,5 production per pop (a slight buff) in cities with governor;
+ 1 Housing per each City center building;
+ 10% overall production;
Legacy :
+ 0,5 production per pop (a slight buff) in cities with governor;
+ 1 Housing per each City center building;

With the legacy card running along, you will get some very good Housing boost, but you will need to work for it. Also 1 production per pop will allow to build up those buildings and extra Neighbourhoods.

Democracy should be more focused on developing your speciality districts and boosting your own population by making them happy. Communism on the other hand will be better to allow you to build up a wide empire and provide for a population surge in the future, if you use some of the economic cards that give extra food to certain trade routes for example.
 
Communism build space projects slightly faster, so it just provides what you need. While Democracy's bonus is distributed and although having a fair amount, don't make a lot of sense in late game when you only focus on your goal.

The production in spaceport cities are valuable so that you don't have that much extra to build extra districts, but you can build a lot of farms to boost up its population using builders produced by other cities' production.
 
Neoliberalism (Reagan) is horrible in theory and practise, but is still widely advocated and used.

But yeah, they need to balance the governments better.

Neoliberalism as a term in the American context has quite a different meaning than Reagan. Reagan's economics would fall under Liberalism or Neoclassical, but not Neoliberal. Neoliberal, in the American context, is using free market principles to promote more progressive policies. So, a Neoliberal policy would be a pollution tax or a cap and trade regime because it's designed to use the free market to incentive better environmental practices. That wouldn't be Reagan's first instinct.

That's not really an economic system, though, nor a government. Arguably it's an ideology. It wouldn't really make that much sense beyond a policy card, though.
 
Communism build space projects slightly faster, so it just provides what you need. While Democracy's bonus is distributed and although having a fair amount, don't make a lot of sense in late game when you only focus on your goal.

The production in spaceport cities are valuable so that you don't have that much extra to build extra districts, but you can build a lot of farms to boost up its population using builders produced by other cities' production.

I forgot that the 10% production boost applies to chops. That alone tips the balance to Communism for speed of victory (science).

Boosting the population through farms/internal trade routes, then switching to mines, without building any districts (or just an Industrial Zone) would indeed create a Spaceport city that benefits more from Communism.

Is a single Spaceport city still the fastest route to victory, or are three Spaceport cities now faster? If the latter, is this approach feasible to build up three new Spaceport cities, given the number of builders required? If not, does that put Democracy back in the running, assuming one or two of the Spaceport cities are older cities with districts, now being re-purposed for Spaceports? Likely the 10% chop bonus keeps Communism ahead regardless.
 
Communism build space projects slightly faster, so it just provides what you need. While Democracy's bonus is distributed and although having a fair amount, don't make a lot of sense in late game when you only focus on your goal.

The production in spaceport cities are valuable so that you don't have that much extra to build extra districts, but you can build a lot of farms to boost up its population using builders produced by other cities' production.

That's the thing, though- in theory it would work like this. But in practice, the numbers as we have them are just too heavily favoring democracy. You will almost never have a high production, high population spaceport city that doesn't have a handful of districts up solely because 3 provide production, a CH/harbor for the trade route, and you need the spaceport itself- plus a likely campus to help push out those techs faster. As I tried to show earlier, it is almost impossible to achieve the in-game cities where communism would be superior because it takes a long time to grow a big city, and in that time, you'll have built districts because they make you win faster. Plus you'd need neighborhoods under communism. And you're still limited to governors, which can be neutralized, needed for loyalty on your borders, Amani securing that clutch CS, etc.

Likely the 10% chop bonus keeps Communism ahead regardless.
What's a late game forest? 200 production? So you're raking in 40 extra hammers per chop under magnus... But then Democracy is giving you more raw production in almost all cases, plus you're getting more hammers in every city, plus you're getting that 25% gold discount. And you get much more flexible cards. Democracy has some serious benefits.

I would much prefer they swap it around so Communism has the wide, broad effects and democracy has that boost that makes your core specialized centers into powerhouses.
 
I forgot that the 10% production boost applies to chops. That alone tips the balance to Communism for speed of victory (science).

Boosting the population through farms/internal trade routes, then switching to mines, without building any districts (or just an Industrial Zone) would indeed create a Spaceport city that benefits more from Communism.

Is a single Spaceport city still the fastest route to victory, or are three Spaceport cities now faster? If the latter, is this approach feasible to build up three new Spaceport cities, given the number of builders required? If not, does that put Democracy back in the running, assuming one or two of the Spaceport cities are older cities with districts, now being re-purposed for Spaceports? Likely the 10% chop bonus keeps Communism ahead regardless.
I think the 10% production boost doesn't apply to chops, like Australia bonus
 
Neoliberalism as a term in the American context has quite a different meaning than Reagan. Reagan's economics would fall under Liberalism or Neoclassical, but not Neoliberal. Neoliberal, in the American context, is using free market principles to promote more progressive policies. So, a Neoliberal policy would be a pollution tax or a cap and trade regime because it's designed to use the free market to incentive better environmental practices. That wouldn't be Reagan's first instinct.

That's not really an economic system, though, nor a government. Arguably it's an ideology. It wouldn't really make that much sense beyond a policy card, though.

That is most definitely not what neoliberalism means under the US context. Reagan is the poster child for Neoliberalism.
 
Top Bottom