Forced Government

[Old n Slow]

If you were forced to play a game with one and only one government (forced at the outset) what would it be? We’ve played a couple of Games of the Month as Fundy all the way, would Democracy be easier or more difficult? Early Democracy without the infrastructure has some challenges, including settlers eating a lot and especially early warfare, but…those extra arrows…no corruption…

I’m thinking of whetting the good Duke’s appetite for a future GOTM -- one might be a variation of the Fundy only game -- another could be a comparison game (similar to the great ‘Start with a Wonder’ GOTM), whereby everyone could pick a government (would anyone pick Despotism for a competitive score? Maybe for the personal challenge -- maybe we could offer one time only bonus points for Despots who make it to AC) but would be forced to stick with that choice throughout the game.

 

[cliff]

I would choose Democracy.

The main problem with Democracy is unhappiness from units not in cities. You can manage without warriors or horsemen exploring but triremes are often important early in the game.

My solution is simply to build a big SSC with Shakespeare's Theater which supports all triremes. I would start with the "early landing approach", building only a handful cities, build temples in all cities and then research medicine as fast as possible and build Shake's with caravans. When MC and JSB are built later on I will expand as usual.

 

[Smash]

Communism.No question for me.Super Monarchy with some key cities celebrating we love days and you are all set for any eventuality.

 

[Hawkster]

Monarchy for me - too many early problems with Demo which would be my other choice.

 

[Imperial-Markus]

Yup Monarchy for me too. Rep and Demo are to troublesome. The senate always overrule my war decisions and signs peace treaties behind my back while I'm conquering the world. Monarchy is the perfect government for warmongers like me.
All hail Emperor Markus I.

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by Hawkster
Monarchy for me - too many early problems with Demo which would be my other choice.

I always thought communism was the same as monarchy but better in every way, so why should I cjoose monarchy before communism?

 

[ElephantU]

Perhaps a nuance might make a difference: Old n Slow, do you mean we are already "in" the government type at the start, or that we are given the tech and can switch to it from Despotism whenever we want? In the first situation we would have settlers demanding two food, which will hamstring early city multiplication and terrain improvements. In the second situation we can use Despotism to do our early work and switch once we have the improvements we need. This would make Democracy a more viable option than trying to explore, multiply and work with it from the start.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by funxus

I always thought communism was the same as monarchy but better in every way, so why should I cjoose monarchy before communism?

This is a tough question. Power democracies and republics are very strong economically and militarily, but in the beginning of the game, it's difficult to build the foundations of democracy as a democraxy. Fundamentalism is not good at the start because of the science penalty at a time when science is vital in the game. (Remember, fanatics can't be built until Fundy is researched) The problem with Communism as an early government is that settlers need two food for support, hampering important early growth of the cities. Monarchy is the best government in the start of the game, but Communism can be just as good because you can skip building courthouses and not worry about corruption and waste later on.

 

[funxus]

The problem with Communism as an early government is that settlers need two food for support, hampering important early growth of the cities.

Ok, thanks
I haven't played communism for a long time...

 

[Ren]

Fundy would be OK to start with, just overrun the opposition early in the game - even if your units are a little obsolete the numbers should compensate...

 

[Old n Slow]

Elephant -- one government, no switch. Start that way, stay that way. I’m kind of curious from a comparison point of view as well as a process point of view -- Yes, Monarchy is a good government to start out in, but will it get us to AC? If we knew that it was going to be a blood lust game going in, would we opt for a Power D? We’ve had a couple of GOTMs with Fundy at start (great, enjoyed them) -- how would everyone react if we saw a GOTM with D+1 & forced Commy? Or a Deity forced Commy with Barbarian Wraith?

On the other hand, a King level, start King, stay King would also provide amusement -- especially if there were a larger AC bonus dangled for us…

 

[ElephantU]

Early cities grow pretty slowly when trying to support two-food settlers with unimproved terrain. Instead of building settlers to found cities we'd have to be irrigating and building roads. After making a settler a city will take a lot longer to grow back to size 2. At least in Fundy or Commie the shield support is absorbed; in Rep or Dem that is an added burden.

Another thought is that at King level you can celebrate to get Rep-like extra trade, but you still have the greater corruption and lower number of cities before first unhappy. Seeing early Fundy in a GOTM was of interest, but the two-food settlers was the main problem. I think I'd stay away from D+1 or Barb Wraith; newbies would be roasted.

A "chose your govmt and when to revolt" might make Rep or Dem attractive; otherwise, I think I'd go for Commie. Worth a try...

 

[ElephantU]

Originally posted by Old n Slow
Monarchy is a good government to start out in, but will it get us to AC?

Add to the Stupid Human list - yes, I've done AC in Monarchy, way back when - I was too afraid of Rep or Dem early on to risk them. I think it was Prince or King level...

 

[Ace]

The key point here is that you have to play the WHOLE game in one goverment!! So far, all the discussions have been about one part of the game, not the whole game. I pick Democracy with Commie a not so close second. (Monarchy is good to start, but real bad for mid and late game play)

Reason: yes, settlers cost two food, But, as soon as your city hits 3 citizens, Boost the Lux and celebrate to size 8, regroup, and as soon as aqueducts are in place, boost lux again and all cities are size 12. Food used to support settlers is not a big problem here if you manage your cities correctly. And as the trade flows in, buy everything in sight (oops, are all the AI civs forced to use demo too?) No problem, the AI cannot handle early democracy anyway.


A GOTM with either commie or democracy sounds like fun.

 

[Ace]

Democracy, on diety, will be tricky, but with the proper use of happiness generating improvements and wonders, along with a generous use of Elvii and luxuries, can be handled. And, as an extra bonus, remember that at democracy, you can set the tax rate as high as %100 if you want.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by Ace
Reason: yes, settlers cost two food, But, as soon as your city hits 3 citizens, Boost the Lux and celebrate to size 8, regroup, and as soon as aqueducts are in place, boost lux again and all cities are size 12. Food used to support settlers is not a big problem here if you manage your cities correctly. And as the trade flows in, buy everything in sight (oops, are all the AI civs forced to use demo too?) No problem, the AI cannot handle early democracy anyway.


A GOTM with either commie or democracy sounds like fun.

And how do you plan to build all this out of nothing. With shield production in the early game stage so low, you can't have a military and build wonders and improvements at the same time. Temples, courthouses, barracks, libraries, marketplaces, they all add up to hundreds of shields, and you need to take workers off squares for luxuries.

Ok, you can fend off invaders from the cities, but you can't mount a counterattack without troop unhappiness. Not a good thing, unless you're on a island continent all by yourself.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

I'd probably lean more towards Communism, just because of its flexibility and the ability to achieve "near-democracy" trade and science with celebrations.

However, a thought just occurred to me: if there was a Gold mountain with Ocean access.... Hmmm.... Maybe Democracy would be good after all.)

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Dark Ascendant
And how do you plan to build all this out of nothing. With shield production in the early game stage so low, you can't have a military and build wonders and improvements at the same time. Temples, courthouses, barracks, libraries, marketplaces, they all add up to hundreds of shields, and you need to take workers off squares for luxuries.

Ok, you can fend off invaders from the cities, but you can't mount a counterattack without troop unhappiness. Not a good thing, unless you're on a island continent all by yourself.

Shield production wouldn't be any worse than a normal game. It all takes time to build. I think an increased luxury rate would be better than taking workers off of squares. And, once you get a couple key cities going, you should be generating enough cash to help rush buy the city improvements. Once you get the base established you could jump up your cities very quickly using WLTLD.

I'm sure that if Democracy was chosen, people would be builing Shakes Theatre a lot more to allow them to wage war easier.

I don't think the AI woud stay in any form of government we give them. They didn't even stay in Monarchy from the start of the game the last time it was tried.

 

[ElephantU]

I've experimented a bit with "giving" the AI techs like the government ones and they do not like to use them. There seems to be some sort of built in AI engine that tries to research things in a certain order, Militaristic toward Monarchy, Civilized toward Republic. I have given Republic to the Spanish and seen them wait a thousand years to finish researching Monarchy on their own. I did not try giving them the pre-reqs and letting them finish the research themselves, though...

 

[Old n Slow]

After I posted the poll I went back & tried a sample set -- went through a bunch of turns -- despot, monarch, republic, stopped & did a status check around 1AD or so. Then I went back -- Fundy, Dem, Commy. Granted there were lessons learned, but the biggest was that the sample size was too small relative to the random factors with the learning curve, a few hut results, & visits. I’ve never really played Commy more than three turns’ worth so it was very refreshing to see it side by side with Fundy & Democracy.

Biggest adjustment was the fat settlers, of course. Postponing search in Dem wasn’t too much of a hassle as the dips came as the second advance (why push for Monarchy with a forced government?). I’m a little slow at getting my early cities out with the normal development path, -- Fundy, Dem, & Commy were all on track by 1 AD in terms of number of cities & controllable terrain. I’m going to have to agree with Smash -- Commy looks to be the way to go -- most flexibility, fewest flaws in the early game, and certainly viable in the later stages. (I’ve always avoided Commy by toggling between the other two advanced governments as needed -- only nowadays, I toggle very infrequently)

I’m kind of surprised about the lack of comment about the thee republic votes to date…