governments

[waaagh]

It seems to me like democracy is the only viable government. What do the experts think about this?

Maybe the removal of "no corruption" was an effort to cripple it a bit but the addition of 150% productivity made it even more unbalanced. At least some other governments should be more suitable for war, like monarchy.

I mean, ok in monarchy the cost of 50 units is paid by your cities but what good is it if in democracy your income increases by 150 gold? Not to mention enormous science and productivity.

(No, +50% productivity bonus is never comparable to the occasional entertainer you use for war weariness. Instead of 15 production you get 14, but in another government w/out the production bonus you only get 10. )

The whole point is, other governments should be more suitable for certain environments, like communism for large countries (equal corruption should be experienced by all cities but that's just on paper. It's no different than the other governments.)


Ok, despotism may not be a choice after some time but how many people don't directly tech to republic asap, and when the age comes, to democracy asap?


Long post. I hope someone gives some thought..

 

[sealman]

I am a republic man myself... why... just because.

 

[Steve Winer]

If you like war, stick with despotism or communism.
If you like productivity, go with Republic or Democracy.

 

[sealman]

In my latest game, I have been in a war for over 180 years, with democracy and most of my cities celebrating wltk days.

 

[DaDoo]

Depending on the situation you are in really. Democracy is great for researching, as you have pointed out, but it isn't exactly the ideal government to be in when waging a very long war. There are ways to delay war weariness but they all hit eventually. When the need comes to waging long wars, governments like Monarchy and Communism would be more appropriate since they do not experience WW.

Oh yeah.. the corruption IS roughly equal across all cities in communism. There might be slight differences between cities due to rounding and the presence of courthouses/police station.

 

[mad_stork]

If your in democracy and you get sneak-attacked by a larger, more powerfull foe, you may slip into anarchy rather quickly. I got burned by this pretty badly one time because I wasn't ready for an attack and within about 5 turns I was in anarchy, which meant ~5 more turns of no production

Of course, If I'm the most powerful, I love Democracy.

 

[MSGT John Drew]

Except for special circumstances (e.g. Religious trait, OCC games) using Democracy for no-reload games is generally a bad idea. I found that out the hard way. There is no telling when you will become embroiled in a huge conflict and having to have to change governments in the middle of that is a pain. If you decide to stick to it, you will be forced to:

1. Forget about alliances and avoid the rep hit. Be warned though that whoever you are not allied with may eventually ally with your enemy against youi.
2a. Or go for Alliances and eventually change governments midstream.
2b. Go for Alliances and break treaties (and your rep - ouch!) as you go along.

- choices I find generally bad.

So rather I go for Republic. You're workers will not work that much faster but the bonus commerce is there and war-weariness is almost non-existent.

 

[warpstorm]

Democracy is great when you are winning a war. If you lose a couple of cities it goes downhill fast.

 

[Kemal]

Democracy is probably the best government and I almost always finish the game in democracy, whether with domination/conquest or peaceful victory, however unfortunately the 150% productivity only applies to worker jobs and not to shield output.

edit: fixed typo

 

[Gen]

For peace time, republic. For war time... republic If I play non-religious civ I switch to republic as fast as possible and stay there. In other cases switching to democracy is worthwhile.

 

[Evincar]

Gen has got a point on that. If your wars are not too bloody/long, Republic is Ok. You get little WW as long as you don't use many units, and the reduced corruption and increased work rate in Demo is generally not a big deal. There are exceptions, though. If you are going on a "crash them all and bury their bones" conquest, Republic will fall quickly. On the other hand, if you are very peaceful and have a military strong enough to force peace quickly, consider Demo.

 

[sabo]

I usually play Republic, unless I'm in a war then I'll go Monarch. If I'm a religous Civ though I might go through ALL governments by the end of the game, I hate anarchy

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

It all depends a lot on the resources you have (will you be able to fight offensive wars?), the luxuries you have (can you afford NOT to use military police?) and the development of your empire. I usually try to switch only twice, despo --> Monarchy/Republic --> Demo unless I'm religious. The Monarchy/Republic thing is decided by happiness issues and empire 'spread', and it streches sometimes far into Modern Times - if I fear constant war that I cannot quickly and decisively win.