I *prefer* Democracy. But usually the cost (in Anarchy) is too great, so I stay in Republic. 
Goverments
- Thread starter Desert-Storm
- Start date
Smartsquid399
Warlord
I only use Democracy when I'm not at war with anyone, but I always have the whole world at war with me before I get a chance to research it. 
I usually use Monarchy 
, but I don't have C3C which is why I don't use Fascism. (I would've though) 
I usually use Monarchy , but I don't have C3C which is why I don't use Fascism. (I would've though) 
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
Typically, I go from Despotism to Feudalism (or MOnarchy, if it's painlessly available,) then to Republic, and I often just stay in Republic....unless I'm at peace for a while *AND* I get my hands on Women's Suffrage.
As much as I love Republic, here in the last two games I've gone monarchy first. Much better to have your infrastructure set up before going to republic....
Still not a huge fan of Democrazy....but the biggest turn off to get to it is the anarcy period that's usually no less than 6 turns.
Still not a huge fan of Democrazy....but the biggest turn off to get to it is the anarcy period that's usually no less than 6 turns.
Turner_727 said:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't seem to get much success out of monarchy. At the time I develop it, I have mostly towns (size 6 or less), so the unit support costs outweigh any gains I see. Republic on the other hand can give me some great gains, even before I get to construction and start adding aqueducts to my towns. Of course, I usually play an industrial civ, so this probably makes me ready for Republic much sooner than otherwise.
As for the late game, I'm usually in a Democracy since I usually go for either a culture or SS win. If I need to fight a war, for resources or to make my borders more manageable, I do a lot of advance planning and try to make it so devastating to my enemy that they surrender after 2-3 turns and empty out their treasury for me. Being able to build a railroad with one worker in one turn is awfully nice for this.
Communism does seem like a nice gov for those far-flung empires with lots of totally corrupt cities. I've dipped my toes into it a couple of times and found it generally pleasing. The only real downsides seem to be an overall decrease in revenue (slower tech advancement) and the core super-producing cities becoming a little less super.
Well, Republic is a breaker if you go to it to early. You really need luxs, marketplaces and lots of roads for it to work well. Monarchy isn't necessarily better, but it is a good choice while waiting to get your infrastructure down. I really don't like going thru anarchy more than once or twice. So if my infrastructure is lacking, to monarch I go.
Lumbergh
Chieftain
Since i usually go for a culture/diplomatic win, the lower corruption and high work rate help maximize my gold to build improvements/ gain diplo. support
I dont think any of the goverments, at least on a conqest game, can beat fascism. It gives you power and makes it easy to attack and maintain enemy cities. Corruption is low, workers are productive, enemy citizens can be worked to death, only Germans, or any other goverment you play with, would survive, you get higher police limit, and more content citizens (from fear). You cannot get that with other goverments. You become overpowering and end up winning much faster. I found that i moved up 2 difficulties with the expansion. That goverment gave me the things i needed to make my empires win.
siberian_wolf
Chieftain
I prefer Monarchy!!! Call me weird, but Monarchy really works for me!
The only downside is the corruption that new, far cities have, but in a little while, this problem is solved, thanks to the "We love the ________ Day" and Courthouses that are built.
The military police is great, and Monarchy doesn't have war weariness. What more can I ask for?
The only downside is the corruption that new, far cities have, but in a little while, this problem is solved, thanks to the "We love the ________ Day" and Courthouses that are built.
The military police is great, and Monarchy doesn't have war weariness. What more can I ask for?
gunkulator
Emperor
Fascism is inferior to Communism for war mongers.
First you lose all that population for switching. Then when you go conquering, you'll find you can't grow your borders because you can't produce any culture until you eliminate the native population and then grow your own. Sure the unit support and mililtary police are nice in Fascism, but Communism gives 6/6/6 support with 4 MPs. Good enough for anyone. And because you have to starve down the population, you'll only get 4 units of support for your new towns in Fascism instead of 6. Fast workers are good but they come at a time you don't need them much. You should already have a legion of workers left over from building your rail network. Also, Replaceable Parts is right there anyway and that also doubles your worker speed.
Finally there's corruption, and here is where Communism really shines. Pretty much every city, that's right, _every_ city you own and conquer will be productive and wealth producing (with SPHQ). You can just simply crank out more units much faster with Communism while researching faster too.
First you lose all that population for switching. Then when you go conquering, you'll find you can't grow your borders because you can't produce any culture until you eliminate the native population and then grow your own. Sure the unit support and mililtary police are nice in Fascism, but Communism gives 6/6/6 support with 4 MPs. Good enough for anyone. And because you have to starve down the population, you'll only get 4 units of support for your new towns in Fascism instead of 6. Fast workers are good but they come at a time you don't need them much. You should already have a legion of workers left over from building your rail network. Also, Replaceable Parts is right there anyway and that also doubles your worker speed.
Finally there's corruption, and here is where Communism really shines. Pretty much every city, that's right, _every_ city you own and conquer will be productive and wealth producing (with SPHQ). You can just simply crank out more units much faster with Communism while researching faster too.
Thriller4ever
Chieftain
democracy is good on lower level and medium size map, but on higher level and bigger continent i use communism.
The only down side of communism is the rush building by killing people (when you consider you make a lot of money and cannot pay for anything !!!)
The only down side of communism is the rush building by killing people (when you consider you make a lot of money and cannot pay for anything !!!)
dreamvirus
Tai Chi Master 1(1).12.1
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Messages
- 201
I have totally stopped bothering with Democracy. If I am playing a game depending on total warmongering strategy (e.g. Deity level, small map, Chinese) I will go to Monarchy and stay there, the game is usually over before the choice of Communism/Fascism arises. If I'm not warmongering, then I go straight from Despotism to Republic and stay there. If you have plenty of luxuries, then you have a lot of freedom in Republic to make many short, limited-objective wars, e.g. if you really need a resource or to quickly cripple a nearby civ. Eventually, if you are continually at war, your will have to push the lux slider up so high that your science rate will be crippled, and that's the point at which you really need to consider if you should switch to a more warlike government. However, I almost never get to that point. Republic gives you a lot of leeway for warmaking as long as you are careful not to do silly things that kick up the war weariness unnecessarily (having lots of units all the time in enemy territory, losing cities, losing lots of units, always being the aggressor, etc). Science and income in Republic are so close to Democracy that there's not much to choose. The worst thing about Republic is the worker speed. Answer? Build/capture more workers.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
Must agree 100% with dreamvirus. The only exception, of course, is a REL Civ. Here, Demo is worth it compared to Republic when your Army exceeds the Republic support, and Communism when the warmonger's game isn't over by that time (which IMHO happens not too rarely; I quite often face a run-away Civ I cannot take out without Ari/Inf).
dreamvirus
Tai Chi Master 1(1).12.1
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Messages
- 201
Yes, I may have exaggerated when I said that a high-level game is "usually" over before Communism is available, it does quite often happen that you have to get yourself industrialized and wait for artillery to take out a civ that has streaked ahead in tech. Strangely enough, I have actually not played a Communist game since C3C came out because I have been so curious about the benfits/drawbacks of Fascism that whenever the opportunity has arisen I have switched into it to see what happens. Losing 2 population from every city is a bit of a blow, and science doesn't seem particularly good. The worker speed is fantastic, and I think that's the main benefit, but probably not enough to outweigh the pop loss and the culture slowdown in captured cities.
sparhawk_59
Chieftain
T-Money said:
I use Fascism frequently, I'm a warmonger obviously! It's major drawbacks are - 1. can stifle your science;2. culture problems as noted by others; solutions :- have the correct infrastructure in place when you switch, i don't switch until i am the culture king of the game and have the right infrastructure for commerce/science.
with your infrastructure right it is awrsome for warmongers!!
ok , i only play at regent or monarch [ it,s a bit harder to get the most from at monarch]
as everything is very different depending on difficulty level could people specify the difficulty level they usually play on when asking / answering questions. the answers would surely be more useful for all then
I used to think Monarchy beat everything, because you got no war weariness and the ability to cash rush buildings. I still think Monarchy is the best government on the lowest levels, but on towards Deity corruption stops being a minor irritation and instead becomes my biggest enemy. I've also taken to playing Agricultural Civs, so with high city populations, I don't mind pop-rushing cities. Sometimes I even prefer it. Thefore, I usually go with Communism, because for corruption I don't think it can be beat. I also like its balance- I've won all sorts of victory conditions on Communism, but Democracy inhibits warmongering and Fascism inhibits research. Besides, though Fascism is good for initial warmongering, I find it difficult to foster growth in conquered regions.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,762
Rush to republic and stay there for the rest of the game.
FreeTheSlaves
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 53
Fascism is a last ditch govt for the small to mid-sized empire. You starve captured cities and add your workers to ethnically repopulate or simply raze.
I haven't yet but will use Fascism for a war of extermination against a rival, better make sure you think you can win completely because it will generate a lot of ill will doing all that razing.
My personal favs are Monarchy & Commie. Fascism/Feudalism are very particular govt types that need to be chosen with a bit more thought, in that respect I like them.
I haven't yet but will use Fascism for a war of extermination against a rival, better make sure you think you can win completely because it will generate a lot of ill will doing all that razing.
My personal favs are Monarchy & Commie. Fascism/Feudalism are very particular govt types that need to be chosen with a bit more thought, in that respect I like them.
Similar threads
