1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Governments

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by wgauld, Aug 16, 2006.

  1. wgauld

    wgauld Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    I have been reviewing my gameplay and in the heat of a C3C game my use of government is limited, I would first move towards republic and then on towards democracy, flipping between the two as needs be. In some early games I may move to monarchy but lately I have not been bothering with that. I completely ignore communism and fascism is this the norm?
     
  2. Turner

    Turner Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    28,169
    Location:
    Randomistan
    Maybe for a relgious civ. Most non-religious games I'll beeline to Republic and stay there for the whole game.

    Communism has it's uses, as well as Fascism. But I don't use either. Republic works just fine for me.
     
  3. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    Fascism has no uses, except for the AI's entering suicide mode.

    Commie is a good government if you have a lot of land, and are planning more wars, but is virtually obsoleted by the fact that you are already in a great position to win by the time it is more profitable than republic.

    Democracy isnt worth the second anarchy.

    Feudalism just plain sucks, unless you are aiming for 100k culture.

    Monarchy is a good warmonger government, but Republic is normally better

    I'll let someone else say republic is best.
     
  4. Turner

    Turner Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    28,169
    Location:
    Randomistan
    200% worker speed can be useful at times.

    Although I think you're penalized too much for switching over.
     
  5. IronJeff

    IronJeff War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    149
    Maybe Im weird, but I've been staying in despotism for the last 5 or 6 games. I poprush units fast and I dont worry about sheid production outside of my core. My workers have less to do, just make roads and maximise food. Cities build barracks, settlers, workers and whatever the top offensive unit is. nothing else. When I need troops the corrupt noncore cities are able to poprush vet troops (its better than drafting)
     
  6. Virtual Alex

    Virtual Alex King

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Well I would argue that this isn't a very good gameplan. There are plenty of other governments you can poprush in, and the despotic penalty is a horrible disadvantage. Not to mention the terrible corruption. The 5 turns of anarchy is worth it to get out of despotism to matter what you switch too.
     
  7. Tone

    Tone Deity Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Location:
    Singapore
    @IronJeff: Have you tried Feudalism? Let me make it quite clear that I'm not speaking from experience here as I'm a firm believer in Republic apart from a few rare and extreme circumstances; I've only used it for 100K games (and they're few and far between for me) but surely food is important when pop rushing and so, as Alex says, all that grass is useless under the despot penalty.

    Not even the AIs stay in Despotism. ;)
     
  8. guare

    guare Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Bras-damn-zil.
    my lines consists in:

    despotism, until i conquer my neighboors. when i finish doing that, i change to monarchy since i got too stressed to deal with war weariness. i just dont think that mountains of money are necessary in middle ages. when i fully conquered my neighboors and completed my two cores (one with palace and another with forb. palace), i go to democracy or republic (depending on how many enemies i have.).
     
  9. The Shepherd

    The Shepherd Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Bronx, Ney York
    It's too bad rebublic is so overwhelingly wonderful in civ III. i always tend to avoid it. I go from despotism to monarchy, to fascism. No democracy, and no communism (except maybe to get a secret police station built even if it has no benifits afterword [I just like to have it.]).

    I like <imput thunderbolt effect>ABSOLUTE POWER<imput second thunderbolt effect> In Civ II though, it was fundamentalism that I took instead of fascism. Too bad that's gone now.
     
  10. greekguy

    greekguy Missed the Boat

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    4,386
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    if i'm going for an AA rush, i'll go for Monarchy. if i'm going for conquest or domination victory, i'll mostly go Monarchy-> Communism. if i'm going for spaceship, UN, or culture, republic all the way.
     
  11. IronJeff

    IronJeff War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    149
    Sure Republic for culture, UN or spaceship win, but who has time for those? I like to fight. Next game if it goes long enough I might try communism
     
  12. Thorvald of Lym

    Thorvald of Lym A Little Sketchy

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    8,425
    Location:
    A Palace north of Oslo
    As usual, ditch despotism ASAP, or you'll find yourself lagging behind.

    Now as for feudalism, it's a strategic choice. If you can't/don't/won't take the time to grow large cities, or if you're so caught up in a war with a close neighbour that city growth is at a standstill, then you might find the wide unit support for small settlements very useful. If you've got a large, booming empire, ditch it.

    Communism is more of a hindrance than a help. Its communal corruption effect will only benefit the most far-flung communities, while pointlessly bogging down the more prosperous cities. Couple this with Civ3's atrocious handling of corruption to get an obnoxiously inefficient government.

    Fascism is under-rated. Compared to other militaristic gov'ts, it is easy on the economy while still supporting hordes of soldiers. Forced resettlement is only a concern once you switch, and if you can conquer your opponnent fast enough, xenophobia won't be a worry.

    However, Republic is pretty much the best. Low corruption and low war-weariness equals a high output and relatively long wars, as well as a trade boost to keep the cash rolling in.
     
  13. AutomatedTeller

    AutomatedTeller Frequent poster

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,540
    Location:
    Medford, MA
    I'm confused - why is CivIII atrocious at handling corruption? It's annoying, but I think it's a pretty elegant, if complex, solution.

    Just because humans expand in such a way that makes for a lot of corrupt cities doesn't mean the handling is bad...

    Personally, I think the corruption model adds a lot to the game.
     
  14. gunkulator

    gunkulator Emperor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    NH, USA
    Communism has far far less corruption than any other government. The tradeoff with Communism is that you are losing the extra commerce of Republic. Typically only core cities have markets, libraries and unis so the net effect of Communism is almost always less commerce. The big gain, however is in production. Pretty much all cities, even far away ones, will be productive. Net total shields increases dramatically under Communism.

    For war, Communism supports 6/6/6 which means even a small crappy city you own contributes quite a lot. Almost every city you conquer will be productive and you can pop rush a temple for pushing out the borders and then starve the city down to size 1 to lower the flip risk - and even then the city will support 6 units. Like Fascism, you get 4 MPs however there is no silly population loss or culture penalty.

    Civ3's corruption model is there to counter ICS and steamroll type strategies. No matter how big you get, you only get a fixed number of useful cities. In previous games, if you could get a small advantage in the number of cities you had, you could leverage it into winning wars by simple attrition. As you gained more cities, your advantage snowballed until you just steamrolled over everyone.
     
  15. Virtual Alex

    Virtual Alex King

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Communism is an excellent government. The commerce bonus of Rep and Demo is huge, but when at war, the shield bonus and support of commie is excellent. Facsism can't compare. Sure there is good army support, but corruption, and losing 1-2 pops off each city is horrible.

    I don't beleive a case can be made for staying in Despotism, ever. 5-8 turns of anarchy are worth it to have that extra food, commerce and production for the rest of the game. Unless maybe your playing on a tiny world and have an amazingly fast conquest going.

    The Shepard:
    You aren't makeing any sense to me. Are you saying you switch to communism, build the Secret Police and then switch to Fascism? Why would you do that?
     
  16. Thorvald of Lym

    Thorvald of Lym A Little Sketchy

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    8,425
    Location:
    A Palace north of Oslo
    My mistake. :sad:

    Call me crass; eventually all those red shields just seem overwhelming.
    I must confess, I do use communism quite actively on large maps. Thanks, you guys, for calling my bluff.

    Oh, and AutomatedTeller:
    Civ3's handling of corruption is atrocious because there is always a shockingly high ratio*, no matter which gov't a leader chooses, and building a courthouse barely alleviates the problem. In some ways this does reflect the realities of the world, but when very small nations with a few closeknit communities are suffering similar effects to widespread ones, it can start to frustrate a person.

    *subject to further discussion
     
  17. Little Corporal

    Little Corporal fromage

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Los Angeles,CA,USA
    I just stay as a republic till demcracy(I like the lower corruption and faster workers.)
    I like to war too, but there is no reason to use monarchy (except in an AW game) Republic gives you the $ necessary to research and maintain a technologically advanced army that can destroy enemies with a minimum of casualties, minimizing the effects of war weariness.
     
  18. Tone

    Tone Deity Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Location:
    Singapore
    Unless you are talking AW, Republic is still better (assuming you fight smart).
     
  19. Keroro

    Keroro Dororo: Ninja Frog

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,789
    Location:
    The Hinata Residence
    I usually stay in Republic for most of the game, but communism is fantastic for the late game. You can easily use enough policemen in Metros to give your core cities 0 waste, and your outer cities are productive too. The major downside is that you can't pay to hurry improvements. The choice between communism and the republic (for me at least) comes down to how big the map is and how big a proportion of it I'm occupying. TBH I very rarely use any of the other governments.
     
  20. Virtual Alex

    Virtual Alex King

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Yeah I always hit republic, and then usually switch to communism when I get tanks if I want to show a Civ a thing or two. Once you get tanks tech isn't importiant anymore because you will kill the whole world before Mech inf, or mod armor is discovered. So thats what I generally do. Lay low and have a few small wars in republic, and if I choose I have some massive wars with Cavalry, or Tanks in communism.
     

Share This Page