Governments

Eric, that's exactly what I do. Capture a city, quell the resistors, and pop-rush anything and everything. If the city is still rather large, say size 10, and starving to death, you might as well rush a barracks ( or unit or whatever) right off the bat to cut down the poplutation. If said city has a special food bonus, rush a granary (optional in my opinion - cost vs. return is debateable), temple, barracks, and then units. Works like a charm.

Yes, you can pop-rush units in Communism, but I'll probably never use Communism as a gov't. I'd rather drop to Despotism during war if I need/want to pop-rush. Communism simply shuts down production in my core cities. And I really don't see the reason to drop to Monarchy from Republic during war considering the war weariness in Republic isn't that bad unless you're at war for 100 turns in a row... but you shouldn't let that be the case.
 
how many luxuries would you say you need to be alright in a republic? in my current game i have three in my borders (four if i can get those gems back...damn japanese). what kind of city improvements are necessary for repulic to work for up to say size 12 cities. MAYBE i'll give it a shot again seeing as how everyone seems to LOVE republic so much. im still not sold on completely giving up on communism though. it reduces production SOME in your core cities but reduces corruption and waste alot in your outer cities. its really not a bad gov for a large civ. i usually end up getting pissed at someone and taking all their land so that kind of thing is good for me.

You have been banished
Your land is gone
And given me
And here I will spread my wings
Yes I will call this home
.....Oh I'll drink the water baby!
 
Eric, I'd say you need 3-4 luxuries with Marketplaces in all of your large cities. Temples and Libraries are a given. And Cathedrals as soon as possible.

It all really comes down to how much pop-rushing you've done. The cities that haven't pop-rushed extensively should be fine with the above conditions. However, anywhere that has been used to whore out units is going to have problems when it gets larger. That's why you should designate your Slave Camps from the beginning. Either disband them when you switch to a representative gov't or let them grow in anticipation of wartime. Just don't be surprised if you've rushed a bunch of units in your Capital and are having problems with unhappiness in Republic.

Also, don't be in a hurry to switch out of Despotism. It's a great gov't, especially in wartime. I don't switch out until after my rush with Knights; and after building the Forbidden Palace.
 
oh, i'm not done with the questions. kind of off-topic here but, how do i alter my little profile here so that it will automatically end a message with some kind of signature phrase? i wanna be cool like everyone else here. can i?
 
I played a game recently which nicely illustrated the advantages and disadvantages of communism and democracy.

I was the Chinese on a large continent with the Persians and French. The French were slightly smaller and the Persians were about half my size. There were three other civilizations on another continent and we were all at peace.

My current form of government was democracy and I had a slight technology lead on world. I had a large military, far superior to the Persians and about equal the French.

At that point, I estimated I could take the entire continent with a sustained effort and reasoned that communism would best suite this. I switched to communism and began my glorious campaign.

Right off, communism was disappointing. I needed to build police stations and courthouses in my main cities to get their production to a reasonable level. Although communism supported my entire military for free and I could reduce luxuries to near zero, those savings were more than eaten up by the reduction in income.

However, once the conquest ball got rolling, the advantages were nice. I had a large amount of captured workers that were very useful for population rushing those first few improvements in my conquered cites. The war lasted quite long and war weariness was never a problem.

Once I polished off the Persians and moved on to the French I had used up all my 'surplus' workers. Fortunately, the French cities were large and provided ample population to sacrifice for those key improvements.

Towards the end of the conquest, the lack of income became problematic. The cost of all of those new police stations and courthouses plus the cost of all the improvements in the new cities really started to add up. The only thing keeping me from bankruptcy was the gold my troops were pillaging from the conquered French cities.

The French had brought all other civilizations in the world against me so trading with anyone was impossible. By the end of my conquest I had lost my technology lead and was broke. Perhaps this was a diplomatic error on my part. I ignored the other continent since they were not a threat militarily. Although they never were a threat, I could have used the extra income from selling resources or technology.

Once the French were defeated, I switched back to democracy and was able to make peace with the other civilizations shortly thereafter. The increased size of my empire put me in a position to easily win the game.

Communism proved to be a real advantage in a long late game military campaign. This campaign left me in a position to win any type of victory. Had I remained in democracy, the campaign would have gone on in fits and starts and dragged out much longer. Cities flipping back would have been a real problem and my new cities would have had few improvements in them.

On the other hand, once the continent was taken, democracy was a real advantage. With all the added cities, income was sky high, which translated into easily regaining the technology lead. I could sit back and win by culture (big help from all those new temples and libraries), win the space race, or plan a monstrous invasion of the other continent.
 
I suppose in the end it depends how you play and what you need. I use Democracy pretty much all the time as soon as I can get it. I try and get a lot of luxurkes, so War Weariness isn't that much of a problem. The only time it does become one is when a Nation doesn't want to stop fighting. However, due to this thread I may try Comunism to try and take them out. I'm fighting the Egyptians right now, so it may be useful... *evil grin*
 
Originally posted by Eric The Fish
despotism is kind of a waste isnt it? i mean your not getting all you can out of your mines and stuff.

Pop-rushing units is king in the early game. The ability to rush improvements and units while you conquer the opposition greatly outweighs the benifits of Monarchy. The minimal production you're losing from mined hills is nothing compared to the ability to rush units. Also, the third food you're not getting from irrigated grassland is not important either. Your inner cities should be hitting 12 regardless - you shouldn't be using your core to produce settlers/workers.

My Civ II tendency to run out of Despotism was hard to let go... but believe me, staying in Despotism while conquering those first 2-3 opponents is the way to go.


Communism would be a great gov't if all of your cities were about the same size; however, in reality this is rarely the case, at least in my games. My core cities will be large (read: maxed at size 12) while my fartherflung or recently conquered cities are very small. What's the point in keeping them large with crippling corruption? I'd rather pop rush in distant cities while maintaining production in my core. Communism allows you to pop rush, but also cripples your core cities' production.

I'm sure Communism has its place, but not in my games. :)
 
Originally posted by Hawkx9


Communism would be a great gov't if all of your cities were about the same size; however, in reality this is rarely the case, at least in my games. My core cities will be large (read: maxed at size 12) while my fartherflung or recently conquered cities are very small. What's the point in keeping them large with crippling corruption? I'd rather pop rush in distant cities while maintaining production in my core. Communism allows you to pop rush, but also cripples your core cities' production.


That's a good point on the difference between communism and despotism. My tendency is also to get out of despotism as soon as possible. Probably a civ 2 hangover.

In my plight described above, despotism may have worked better. I wouldn't have had to build so many police stations and courthouses plus the production bonus in far flung cities was not used anyway.
 
Hi, interesting discussion on governments, personally I always go for democracy, as the fear of getting behind in the technology race is too great. It also allows a huge standing army (advanced), so you can defend against an attack. Question I have to ask is theoretical. I personally was pretty disappointed with espionage, as by the time it comes, everyone is immune to propaganda, as well as the fact that the costs are evil. The question I must ask is a theoretical scenario (and I guess everyone has thought of this at some time or other). Your country is in a democracy and you want to subvert other nations. Unfortunately everyone is in democracy. You pick a strong nation and turn everyone against them. You fend off their early attacks and then precede to seek peace. After a while, as the war with the other nations drag on, the state will hopefully change governments and then you can espionage them to death, turning city, seeking peace, turning city, seeking peace etc. The Q is is this a viable plan for a slow attrition of a state and the taking of several useful (but not key) cities.:scan:
 
Originally posted by DonkeyWan
Hi, interesting discussion on governments, personally I always go for democracy, as the fear of getting behind in the technology race is too great. It also allows a huge standing army (advanced), so you can defend against an attack. Question I have to ask is theoretical. I personally was pretty disappointed with espionage, as by the time it comes, everyone is immune to propaganda, as well as the fact that the costs are evil. The question I must ask is a theoretical scenario (and I guess everyone has thought of this at some time or other). Your country is in a democracy and you want to subvert other nations. Unfortunately everyone is in democracy. You pick a strong nation and turn everyone against them. You fend off their early attacks and then precede to seek peace. After a while, as the war with the other nations drag on, the state will hopefully change governments and then you can espionage them to death, turning city, seeking peace, turning city, seeking peace etc. The Q is is this a viable plan for a slow attrition of a state and the taking of several useful (but not key) cities.:scan:

This is possible, but not with democracy. Try republic, it is nearly as good for research, and war weariness is not nearly as bad. By the time the other civs have to switch governments, if you are in democracy, you will likely have to switch as well. It would actually be easier to just declare war and take those cities, but it would be interesting to see if this strategy would work.
 
I usually like to conquer early with despotism and monarchy to get a slight lead in civ size. Then I switch to republic or democracy and build up a military much larger than anyone else and start quick decisive wars that last about ten turns or less against the small civilizations. I usually take over about half their empire before making peace. Then I just leave the other civs alone and win culturally, space race, or diplomatic. The democracy and republic help me get slightly ahead in tech race or get lots of cash so I get a head start on the space race or use cash to bribe for the other civs vote.
This is what works on regent I don't know about tougher difficulty levels.
 
I just LOVE democracy, but it's really only useful on lower difficulty levels. The emphasis is on combat the higher you go, so a peaceful democracy becomes more and more difficult to maintain. A demo is also much easier to hang on to on a larger world with plenty of room, and if you can get a big, Civ2/AC-style tech lead, so much the better.
 
Originally posted by Eric The Fish
oh, i'm not done with the questions. kind of off-topic here but, how do i alter my little profile here so that it will automatically end a message with some kind of signature phrase? i wanna be cool like everyone else here. can i?

Click the "User cp" button at the top of the page, then "Edit Profile" and enter a signature - I assume this is how, anyways

What's it gonna be? Some oblique reference to Halibut !?
(I didn't like the others, they were all too flat...) :D
 
I don't like switching to republic early on cause i don't have enough cities to get an income and i start to go bankrupt. I also don't switch to monarch early on untill i get cities not towns cause a town is only 2 support in monarchy, and 4 in despotism. so i don't switch until most of my towns become cities.
 
I like Monarchy on a Tiny/ Small World when I'm tring for a domination victory. However I have now made my own government - AI Regime. It has a bit less income then Democracy but less war weariness. I have tried to make it a balanced government.

I know it sounds like The Republic but it isn't.
 
Does anybody know of any new governments in Play the World? They should bring back Fundamentalism, although not very practical, it was fun.
 
Play a religious civ. When u're at peace, be democracy. Switch over to commies in war. Whoops ass every time.
 
i am now in a game as Egypt with 8 cities on my own island, nice fertile land tht can get me good production, and I'm a republic. I have a Marketplace in almost every city and only have one lux: gems. I also have temples and cathedrals and colleseums in almost every city too. I also have the Hanging Gardens which helps alot and the commerce bonus helps me bring in the doe even though i have to support my militarty. Being industrious and religious also helps as i can test a government in the blink of an eye. all in all, republic is a good government once you get around size 7-12 cities.
 
hem excuse me for asking such stupid questions but why do people may prefer republic over democracy? both produce more comerce BUT democracy lowers corruption AND the workers get a speed bonus...??
 
Back
Top Bottom