How am I doing
- Thread starter Kione
- Start date
MAS
Deity
I'm quoting you from this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203464
I assume you miss-posted there and wanted to post your question here here.
Once your initial expansion face is over and your core and semi-core is starting to develop, any government is better than despotism.
Communism and fascism are late game governments, if you switch from despotism straight to one of these two governments, then you spend the most important half of your game in the worst government type in the game. (I'm not counting anarchism of course..)
It is recommended that you switch away from despotism (your starting government) as soon as possible. And it is also recommended that you switch government as few times as possible during the course of the game.
So the choice is between republic, and monarchy. Communism and fascism, and even democracy make themself irrelevant simply because they come to late.
Monarchy:
free units support per city: 2/4/8 (town/city/metropolis)
upkeep cost per unit above the free support limit: 1 gold per turn
Military police limit: 3
Corruption: better than despotism, worse than republic.
Currency bonus: None
War wariness: no effect.
Republic:
free units support per city: 1/3/4
upkeep cost per unit above the free support limit: 2 gold per turn
Military police limit: 0
corruption: even better than monarchy.
Currency bonus: every tile producing at least one commerce produce 1 more
War wariness: unhappiness if you lose units, mayor unhappiness if you lose cities. But the government will remain stable, unlike democracy.
The currency bonus is such huge, it completely compensates the relative weaknesses of republic over monarchy. Basically, you get 2 times as much commerce.
You will have enough currency to spend on lux, to temporary compensate for any war wariness, easily pay the upkeep of 2 gpt of units above the free support limit, and then still have more commerce left to invest in science than in monarchy.
Provided of course, that you manage your empire efficiently, and that is often the main problem for players who are new to the game.
I assume you miss-posted there and wanted to post your question here here.
Once your initial expansion face is over and your core and semi-core is starting to develop, any government is better than despotism.
Communism and fascism are late game governments, if you switch from despotism straight to one of these two governments, then you spend the most important half of your game in the worst government type in the game. (I'm not counting anarchism of course..)
It is recommended that you switch away from despotism (your starting government) as soon as possible. And it is also recommended that you switch government as few times as possible during the course of the game.
So the choice is between republic, and monarchy. Communism and fascism, and even democracy make themself irrelevant simply because they come to late.
Monarchy:
free units support per city: 2/4/8 (town/city/metropolis)
upkeep cost per unit above the free support limit: 1 gold per turn
Military police limit: 3
Corruption: better than despotism, worse than republic.
Currency bonus: None
War wariness: no effect.
Republic:
free units support per city: 1/3/4
upkeep cost per unit above the free support limit: 2 gold per turn
Military police limit: 0
corruption: even better than monarchy.
Currency bonus: every tile producing at least one commerce produce 1 more
War wariness: unhappiness if you lose units, mayor unhappiness if you lose cities. But the government will remain stable, unlike democracy.
The currency bonus is such huge, it completely compensates the relative weaknesses of republic over monarchy. Basically, you get 2 times as much commerce.
You will have enough currency to spend on lux, to temporary compensate for any war wariness, easily pay the upkeep of 2 gpt of units above the free support limit, and then still have more commerce left to invest in science than in monarchy.
Provided of course, that you manage your empire efficiently, and that is often the main problem for players who are new to the game.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
yes.
In general, if you are stronger than an AI, take them down.
If you are equal to an AI, you can take them down.
If you are not as strong as an AI, you can still take them down, but you need some skills/luck to do to.
In general, if you are stronger than an AI, take them down.
If you are equal to an AI, you can take them down.
If you are not as strong as an AI, you can still take them down, but you need some skills/luck to do to.
I would say the first thing you should consider is to not play on maps with so few civs. It distorts the game. Use at least 6, better all 8. At least until you are more familiar with the way things play out.
First town I looked at is one of the things you should stop. That is you are building a uni in a size 2 town and it already has a market, lib and wall. This is costing you money and wasting shields.
It is not even growing. It is not connected and has no improved tiles. It could have made a few workers and been growing by now, especially if you were not in depotism.
A number of places are not growing, big no no early in the game.
One of the problems with only 3 rivials is that you have so much open land to filll and no contacts to trade with or conquer.
You also end up having a decent reason to not gets Chiv and delay MT. So you have no useful attackers and are making defenders. At thsi level you do not need much in the way of defenders.
You have many towns and few workers, so many citizens are working on tiles that need improvements. Many others are not even connected to the empire.
The capitol has swamps tiles still, this is what you see from the AI.
So 260AD or whatever it is, is not early enough to have a chance to correct these oversights. 10AD or earlier is better. That gives you a chance to get on track without getting too far off track.
First town I looked at is one of the things you should stop. That is you are building a uni in a size 2 town and it already has a market, lib and wall. This is costing you money and wasting shields.
It is not even growing. It is not connected and has no improved tiles. It could have made a few workers and been growing by now, especially if you were not in depotism.
A number of places are not growing, big no no early in the game.
One of the problems with only 3 rivials is that you have so much open land to filll and no contacts to trade with or conquer.
You also end up having a decent reason to not gets Chiv and delay MT. So you have no useful attackers and are making defenders. At thsi level you do not need much in the way of defenders.
You have many towns and few workers, so many citizens are working on tiles that need improvements. Many others are not even connected to the empire.
The capitol has swamps tiles still, this is what you see from the AI.
So 260AD or whatever it is, is not early enough to have a chance to correct these oversights. 10AD or earlier is better. That gives you a chance to get on track without getting too far off track.
You are building Sistine in a town, should be in a city, it has all jungle. It has no market. So that means, in this case, you have issues with happiness. It is best to put up a market and even a temple in any wonder town to allow keeping the citizen at work.
You want to have all the tiles to be worked mined, at least those that you can and still have enough food. You want to be able to grow larger to produce more shields to speed up the build.
None of this is present in that town. Yes you may still get this wonder, but it is a bad habit to develop.
You want to have all the tiles to be worked mined, at least those that you can and still have enough food. You want to be able to grow larger to produce more shields to speed up the build.
None of this is present in that town. Yes you may still get this wonder, but it is a bad habit to develop.
You should prepare to get MT and take the horse from Detroit to make cavs. You also need to annex some Az land to get more lux. Another reason to get to MT and to get those roads up.
pol1
kayaking physicist
why build temples and caths when You can build more units and get those luxes?
and why don't give up building any wonders untill You are sure of winning? in my case - it improved my gameplay drastically - and what is _more_ important it also made my gameplay funnier.
It fine to do that sort of thing at low levels, but it is a bad habit. First you will find that it will be very hard to build things like Sistines and still do all the things you need in tougher games.
Secondly Sistines is not of any value if you do not build cath and you should probably be building very few of them. They come at an important point in the game, where you need to be taking land from the AI.
This is not true in low level games, where you can do anything you want and still cruise.
