Government Type

[Drifter]

Hey! recently installed c3c again, forgot what a fun little way this was to kill time

But anyhow, i'm in a predicament atm: would you recommend a republic or a monarchy government? Or.. feudalism?

Basically, i started a game; i think monarch or regent level, playing as Persia. It's random map, and it looks like 2 for sure, maybe 3 continents. On my continent, America thought they were tough, and declared when i was expanding so i lost a few cities. This slightly edge me so I decided to make sure they know what immortals are - they are now reduced to a 1 city civ i felt nice.. let them live in agony.

The other civ on my continent is the Incas. Well, I should say *was the Incas*.. they no longer exist. So basically im in the middle ages still is despotism

To sum it up.. I have about 40 cities right now, 162 military units and im leaning towards Monarchy cause of unit costs. My only other contacts, French and Iroquois im slightly behind tech wise. Iroquois have the closest score to me.. and they eliminated Aztecs so im assuming they are my competition.

Anyways, im looking forward to learning this thing again.

 

[civverguy]

Feudalism isn't very useful because the unit support is backwards. If you want to have a lot of small cities, then go for Cultural Victory.
You might try republic if you have the highest score. It would mean that you would not wage war much. You do have a lot of units, but you can disband some that won't be of use and build a lot of roads.

 

[MAS]

Go for republic, its good for the long run.
Disband the regular warriors you used as MP so far.
If you want to stay peaceful, then only keep a mobile defensive force around. (horseman and later knights) but units pay for themselves if you use them for conquest.

The thought process: "I have a lot of unit support so lets chose a government that can help here" is reactive. Why do you have a lot of units in the first place? Chose a government that helps reach the future goals, and build units/city-improvements for the same reason.

And I don't believe your unit upkeep is all that high.
40 cities can support 120 units for free, so you only pay 84 gpt for the remaining 42 units. The commerce bonus most likely amounts to more than that, especially with multiplier buildings.

 

[Ondskan]

I'd go for democracy because of the work efficiency. Use your units to strike the enemy, kill them that way rather than disbanding them. Keep a large naval force to defend your continent instead when your army is either killed or peace has been made in favourable terms for you.

But that's a bit radical


While waiting for for republic as ^ said.

 

[NubianMercenary]

For war - Communism (Large, close nit empire)
- Monarchy
- Facism (Small, spread cities {more than five squares difference})

 

[iambenben]

i would go republic

 

[Empiremaker]

While Monarchy can be tempting, the commerce bonus almost always makes up for an increase in unit support costs. Don't forget that unit support in Monarchy isn't that high: 2/4/8 compared to 1/3/4 (2 gpt per unit over limit) in republic. Thus you can still be paying a lot in monarchy.

 

[ALA Gator]

In all things Civ, it depends. If you intend to conquer then go with Monarchy or Fuedalism. If you aren't going to fight for a while go with republic.

Be careful leaving one city. It could cause one of your captured cities to flip...

Download CivAssist II and you can see what type of effect changing govts would have and look at the flip probabilities too.

 

[Nergal]

Its worth looking at the happiness factor and whether you might be opting for that Civs shunned goverment.

 

[Skibatized]

If you have 40 cities go with monarchy.. feudalism is for the beginning of the game where you have a few cities under 6 pop. as for republic. it sux

 

[Mao Zendog]

I would not fret over the different unit support between governments; the real things that you should take into consideration when deciding between governments are war werriness and commernce bonus. Sure Republic may give a little bit of unit support and some commernce bonus, but if you are a player that is constantly at war, then you may be spending all that extra commernce at the lux slider. For me Republic and Democracy never work. My citizens will tend to spend their time complaining about the war rather than fighting in it. Plus most of your forty citys will be too corrupt to enjoy the commernce bonus, so the extra unit support you get per city in a monarchy will do you more good.

On the other hand, if you are a peacefull player, and you happen to control a good sized continent, then a republic or democracy are much better choices than a monarchy.

 

[Empiremaker]

Republic's WW is minimal if you know how to wage war. For detailed information, read the article in the war academy. Generally, to minimize WW, don't let the AI attack your units, and don't lose cities. Vary the civs you attack, and stay on the offensive. The very good players will use republic in almost any situation other than the Always War variant.

When switching into republic, try to have a couple of cities (7-12 pop), some markets and libs, and have every worked tile roaded. Also, don't be afraid to use the lux slider.

 

[Nergal]

Its impossible to have markets and libs if you use the Philosophy jump to Republic .. Unless you are playing on Settler level or something. The AIs dont have Lit or Currency until later and wouldnt trade it if they did. Even managing 70 or 80 cities the WW is a pain every turn. Republic is fine for peace and very short term wars. But I dont do short term wars unless forced my my goverment. Democracy has the same drawback, its an excellent building and researching gov, I'd say superior to Republic but the WW is diabolical. For top warfare performance I'd recommend Communism, preferably with the Russians who love it. You can constantly war, unit support is amazing and corruption isnt an issue either. There does seem to be a reasonable balance between the govs, depending on the situation. Without a lot of luxuries the lux slider has to up so far that there isnt the funding available for research, so the bonuses from Rep and Dem are wasted. With a large Civ a huge amount goes on corruption, even managing every city individually. Unless the map is extremely favourable, and when does that happen, the only way to get lots of luxuries is to expand your territory through another Civ. I'd call it pointy stick expansionism, its like scouting only a lot more violent. Civ Assist is an excellent tool for pointing out problems and comparing govs. I can manage a Republic but once the Civ grows too large or I get into a prolonged conflict then its time to change.

 

[MAS]

Its impossible to have markets and libs if you use the Philosophy jump to Republic ..

True, I start my republic before my cities are fully developed. But my first priority is usually to get away from despotism in the first place, to get rid of the tile penalty and get reduced corruption. I go straight to republic to avoid having to switch a second time, and when your cities are small and undeveloped, monarchy isn't going to be much better either. (the unit support in towns is 2 in monarchy, vs 4 in despotism)

The AIs dont have Lit or Currency until later and wouldnt trade it if they did.

So?


And they would trade BTW, cause republic is worth more than those tech. And Civ3 AI will always trade as long as you offer enough. (unlike Civ4)

Even managing 70 or 80 cities the WW is a pain every turn. Republic is fine for peace and very short term wars.

I've been in long active wars in republic, without much problems. And specialist farms are usually small, a handful of lux is all it takes to keep the land working citizens hapy, and the specialist are always content, no matter what.

Democracy has the same drawback, its an excellent building and researching gov, I'd say superior to Republic

For peace or war, I'd say republic is superior to demo

For top warfare performance I'd recommend Communism,

True, if you only make a direct 1 on 1 comparison, and set up your city layout preferable for communism. (OCP metro's) But communism comes very late, and then you still need to make sure your previously corrupted cities get developed... Its easier to set up specialist farms.

preferably with the Russians who love it.

I don't see how the civ you use has any influence on it.
Is this the same as the other guy who claimed the Zulu become happy from a state of war?

There does seem to be a reasonable balance between the govs, depending on the situation. Without a lot of luxuries the lux slider has to up so far that there isnt the funding available for research, so the bonuses from Rep and Dem are wasted.

One of your priorities is to use war to get those lux resources! And I rarely move my LUX slider over 30%. In fact, I rarely even move my lux slider to compensate for WW. Its just that much of a nuance.

And I'm talking about monarch/empire difficulty.

I can manage a Republic but once the Civ grows too large or I get into a prolonged conflict then its time to change.

The larger your civ becomes, the easier it is to run a republic, (or any government for that matter) exactly because of the reasons you already mentioned: You'll get more lux. Whats more, you'll get more free unit upkeep, and even more: you'll need less units per city to get the same offensive power. So larger empires can get away with smaller military relative to their size.
And even more: you'll have to defend less borders relative to the amount of land behind the borders.

 

[Nergal]

As I've said before MAS its down to the map and the Civ ... If you check the Civs out using the Edit rule function in the Editor each Civ has a preferred and shunned goverment. That has a direct bearing on how the population respond to different goverments. I'm not sure on the actual figures but its a loss of at least one smiley face. And that contributes to WW making it worse. I dont know about the Zulu going happy over war, thats probably just War Happiness but their preferred gov is Despotism. I think Republic is a cop out. It may look expensive, but its cheap if you slingshot it. Therefore for many people its the quickest gov to get. After that its just a lazy style of play, and they dont even consider changing govs, or even pursuing a different gov from the start. I play random games so I end up playing a lot of different Civs and each one plays differently and CA shows the optimum gov. If I'm playing a religious Civ then change is only one turn of anarchy, maybe a bit of starvation but it works. Thats why the AIs constantly shift goverments between war and peace states. I've yet to see an AI go for Feudalism though.

 

[Skibatized]

As I've said before MAS its down to the map and the Civ ... If you check the Civs out using the Edit rule function in the Editor each Civ has a preferred and shunned goverment. That has a direct bearing on how the population respond to different goverments. I'm not sure on the actual figures but its a loss of at least one smiley face. And that contributes to WW making it worse. I dont know about the Zulu going happy over war, thats probably just War Happiness but their preferred gov is Despotism. I think Republic is a cop out. It may look expensive, but its cheap if you slingshot it. Therefore for many people its the quickest gov to get. After that its just a lazy style of play, and they dont even consider changing govs, or even pursuing a different gov from the start. I play random games so I end up playing a lot of different Civs and each one plays differently and CA shows the optimum gov. If I'm playing a religious Civ then change is only one turn of anarchy, maybe a bit of starvation but it works. Thats why the AIs constantly shift goverments between war and peace states. I've yet to see an AI go for Feudalism though.

In the game I posted in general discussions, atleast 4-5 Civs had a feudalism goverment in the early to mid medieval era

 

[Nergal]

Oh cool Skib .. I've never seen it, not that I go looking up peoples goverments all the time, that would be rude ... Fascism and Communism are common enough for war. I've seen a 56 gpt profit under Republic go to a -418 gpt loss under Feudalism so I never bothered.

 

[Skibatized]

Oh cool Skib .. I've never seen it, not that I go looking up peoples goverments all the time, that would be rude ... Fascism and Communism are common enough for war. I've seen a 56 gpt profit under Republic go to a -418 gpt loss under Feudalism so I never bothered.

eww republic.. yuk..

 

[Nergal]

Like I said all govs have their uses. I have a perfect example at the moment though. Playing the Ottomans, whose Fave Gov is Republic. Unfortunately there isnt a single luxury within range, and nobody has any worked in to trade. The Inca, who block me off from the rest of the continent, havent got anything worthwhile having and will attack if I lower my military strength. I've just gone to Republic, which took 6 turns, got plenty of roads, all the stuff I can work is worked in. THe Inca will not trade Construction for Republic because its their tech lead. I've offered up to 450 which is my entire treasury and they still dont want it. Nobody else has anything to trade. I'm at 30% on the lux slider because its the only way to keep people happy. At least with Monarchy I'd get happy faces from MP. So the best I can manage is a 3gpt loss and Currency in 43 turns or so. Its not an unusual situation, its a better than average terrain, plenty of food, in fact too much the towns wont stop growing. I've got Iron and Horses and Machu Pichu already flipped to me on culture. In Monarchy or Despotism I would do a swordsman rush and wipe the Inca out. That would potentially give me 30 or so towns and possibly some lux, I think there are furs towards the lower edge of the Inca area. As it stands its a lost game in Republic.

 

[Empiremaker]

. If you check the Civs out using the Edit rule function in the Editor each Civ has a preferred and shunned goverment. That has a direct bearing on how the population respond to different goverments. I'm not sure on the actual figures but its a loss of at least one smiley face. And that contributes to WW making it worse.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. The preferred/shunned govt's only matter in the AI's attitude towards you.

Also in republic, you may have a lower science slider, but because you generate so much more commerce, you will actually generate more science. Ex. If you were at 100 commerce, 80% science in despotism, you would generate 80 beakers per turn. In a republic, there might be 180 commerce, but only 60% science, which would generate 108 beakers per turn.