Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
T'is an opinion
Long war-- commie or Monarchy?
- Thread starter planetfall
- Start date
T'is an opinion
Definitely monarchy. Since it'll allow for the lesser corruption in your best cities, while communism simply spread the corruption everywhere and effectively cripple your best cities...
darious001
Chieftain
It would be kind of nice if Democracy and Communism were both used in their true form. To bad no government has been truly either. If there were a true democracy in game, there would be no curruption anywhere. If there were a true communism in game, they could easily keep up scientifically, while not letting their economy go straight to hell, such as Germany in WWII. To bad implementing either would cause a severe game balance.
planetfall
Emperor
Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
hmmmm, I'd take Monarchy then, because if you then land troops every now and then in different spots, the AI will rush and draft there. This will slow them down even if you don't make any progress. Then, tkae and raze their biggest culture producer.
Kamikazee invasions. Great idea.
Too late in this game with other continent RR'ed and AI has 40 tanks and 140 inf..but next time...
-- PF
planetfall
Emperor
My understanding of culture win is whenever either of the following occur:
A- culture is 2x second best,
{no worries on that score}, or
B- culture score => 100000
-- PF
Hellfire
Prince
Dumb question,
Why would one want to be involved in a long war?
Sometimes you can't avoid it, but a lot of times you can. By the time you reach democracy and Communism, your civ should be firing on all of its proverbial cyclinders with regards to production. You have mobilization and should be able to crank out a lot of good units.
What is worth running a war for more than 20 turns late in the game? Just curious. Thanks!
Why would one want to be involved in a long war?
Sometimes you can't avoid it, but a lot of times you can. By the time you reach democracy and Communism, your civ should be firing on all of its proverbial cyclinders with regards to production. You have mobilization and should be able to crank out a lot of good units.
What is worth running a war for more than 20 turns late in the game? Just curious. Thanks!
I was trying to point out that by that point in the game you should have enough production to whip up on anybody attacking you in just a few turns. You should be able to avoid long wars by using a proper mix of diplomacy, treaties, alliances and warfare. There are times when I will have to stop science output and bump luxeries up for a few turns but I have found I almost never need to change goverments from demo once I hit the indust era. The only time I have a "long" war is when it is my choice, you should never get in a situation where the AI can drag wars out for centuries.
Sometimes you just cant stop a war that quick guys. In one of my recent games, I was playing as the Babylonians, on a Huge map, with 8 other civs, at Regent difficulty. The Americans, Chinese, and Japanese shared a continent with me. In the early to mid Middle Ages, an American city that was inside my cultural borders flipped to me. It was too close to my other cities, so I abandoned it.
The next turn, China and America signed an alliance against me, and attacked. I went to Japan, and signed an alliance with them against China and America. That helped me out a lot, because the Americans and Chinese immediately went for Japan, allowing me time to build up my army. We went back and forth for a little while, until after a few turns I signed peace treaties with both of them.
Now, after I was in the modern age, several turns later, I had a huge army of MA, bombers, etc. America declares war on China for some reason, and starts to send huge stacks of military through my territory, on the way to China. We didnt have a RoP, so I politely told Lincoln to get his troops da $#%* out of my territory. He declared war on me. I went to the Chinese, and signed an alliance with them against the Americans, heh. I then proceeded to blitzkrieg the Americans, and took like 8+ cities the first turn. Now, I razed about half the American cities, and kept the other half for myself. This made everyone in the world hate me.
America got alliances against me with the Persians and Aztecs, and the Persians signed an alliance against me with the Japanese, which made me mad, cause I had just given them back 2 cities that had belonged to them earlier that I had taken back from the Americans.
Anyways, the moral of this story is, I could not make peace with the Americans no matter how hard I tried. They refused to acknowledge my envoy. They wouldnt talk to me at all. They wouldnt even talk to me some 20+ turns later when I finally drove up to their last city waaaaaaaaay far away on the other side of the world. However, after I wiped the Americans & the Japs, the rest of the world I was at war with wanted to talk the very next turn. Of course, after the first 10 or so turn of war, my Democracy fell. I had US and a police station in every city, but it still wasnt enough to stop the protests...... and I couldnt end the wars no matter how hard I tried: simply no one would talk to me. So I went Commy.
Now, people here are saying that Communism causes a ton of corruption in ALL your cities, but that wasnt the case for me. I was playing on a Huge map, and I had probably 70 cities or more, and corruption in my core wasnt really an issue under Communism. The only thing I didnt like, was that I still had unhappiness in my size 20+ cities, even with 4 military units in them. Corruption however, was minimal. I really liked it too cause I could pop rush all the stuff I needed in the American cities I decided to keep, which let me get improvements in quick AND thin the population at the same time. I didnt need to rush anything in my core cities (by core I mean basically all my non-American cities at this point, cause they all were pumping out like 70+ shields a turn. I was putting out like 3500 megatons of stuff heh.. 3500 shields) because they were all putting out modern armor and stuff in 2-3 turns. I wasnt even mobilized either, so as you can see, waste and corruption were negligible. The only thing that did suffer, was that I went from getting an advance every 5-7 turns, to like 11-12 turns. But I made sure the rest of the world was at war too, so no one else was a Democracy either.
Soooo, what would you do if you got into a huge war and they just downright refuse to acknowledge your envoy. If you want to see times when you just CANT get out of a war no matter what you do, play on Huge maps. It takes a while to send units around to different places, and sometimes the AI can be just downright pigheaded.
The next turn, China and America signed an alliance against me, and attacked. I went to Japan, and signed an alliance with them against China and America. That helped me out a lot, because the Americans and Chinese immediately went for Japan, allowing me time to build up my army. We went back and forth for a little while, until after a few turns I signed peace treaties with both of them.
Now, after I was in the modern age, several turns later, I had a huge army of MA, bombers, etc. America declares war on China for some reason, and starts to send huge stacks of military through my territory, on the way to China. We didnt have a RoP, so I politely told Lincoln to get his troops da $#%* out of my territory. He declared war on me. I went to the Chinese, and signed an alliance with them against the Americans, heh. I then proceeded to blitzkrieg the Americans, and took like 8+ cities the first turn. Now, I razed about half the American cities, and kept the other half for myself. This made everyone in the world hate me.
America got alliances against me with the Persians and Aztecs, and the Persians signed an alliance against me with the Japanese, which made me mad, cause I had just given them back 2 cities that had belonged to them earlier that I had taken back from the Americans.
Anyways, the moral of this story is, I could not make peace with the Americans no matter how hard I tried. They refused to acknowledge my envoy. They wouldnt talk to me at all. They wouldnt even talk to me some 20+ turns later when I finally drove up to their last city waaaaaaaaay far away on the other side of the world. However, after I wiped the Americans & the Japs, the rest of the world I was at war with wanted to talk the very next turn.
Of course, after the first 10 or so turn of war, my Democracy fell. I had US and a police station in every city, but it still wasnt enough to stop the protests...... and I couldnt end the wars no matter how hard I tried: simply no one would talk to me. So I went Commy.Now, people here are saying that Communism causes a ton of corruption in ALL your cities, but that wasnt the case for me. I was playing on a Huge map, and I had probably 70 cities or more, and corruption in my core wasnt really an issue under Communism. The only thing I didnt like, was that I still had unhappiness in my size 20+ cities, even with 4 military units in them. Corruption however, was minimal. I really liked it too cause I could pop rush all the stuff I needed in the American cities I decided to keep, which let me get improvements in quick AND thin the population at the same time. I didnt need to rush anything in my core cities (by core I mean basically all my non-American cities at this point, cause they all were pumping out like 70+ shields a turn. I was putting out like 3500 megatons of stuff heh.. 3500 shields) because they were all putting out modern armor and stuff in 2-3 turns. I wasnt even mobilized either, so as you can see, waste and corruption were negligible. The only thing that did suffer, was that I went from getting an advance every 5-7 turns, to like 11-12 turns. But I made sure the rest of the world was at war too, so no one else was a Democracy either.
Soooo, what would you do if you got into a huge war and they just downright refuse to acknowledge your envoy. If you want to see times when you just CANT get out of a war no matter what you do, play on Huge maps. It takes a while to send units around to different places, and sometimes the AI can be just downright pigheaded.
To agree with DaveMcW: Communism sucks.
Actually, the fact that corruption is the same in all your cities seems to be a drawback for me. I never intend building outlying and productive cities. My most productive cities are in the heart of my empire, close to mountains or hills, and the others are simply outposts allowing fast recovery of wounded units, airstrikes and so on. So, that's the first reason why I prefer monarchy.
Second, rush building costs population. Monarchy costs money. If you set your tax to 100% or get lots of gold from other civs, you can build up a strong army quite fast.
Adofl Lundgren
Chieftain
Planetfall: Single most important issue here IMHO is the number of cities you have outside radius 15 from Palace/FP. Communist gov't type will allow the far off cities to be at least marginally productive while decreasing the productivity of the core cities only marginally. (1 or 2 turns for tank/MI). Also, every Couthouse/Police Station built will play a part (albeit tiny) part in reducing waste/corruption in all cities.
In the end, it's 100% a situatiuonal issue. Go with your gut.
I always stick to democracy.
Sometimes I have had to make peace because of warwariness but sometimes I have had very long wars under democracy.
Providing you have few casualities, few enemy troops inside your cultural borders and you have few 'enemy' foriegn nationals as citizens you will have little war wariness.
I generally starve my captured cities down to 1, build temples, catherals and collossiums, as well as many of those wonders that improve happiness. I also have fortified outposts inside enemy territory from which attack. Generally my luxury rate is set at 20% and I own or import most luxuries. I have had at least 1 game at regent level where I have been at war under democracy from when I reseached democracy to winning (a cultural win) some individual cities did have riots but nothing unmanageable.
Sometimes I have had to make peace because of warwariness but sometimes I have had very long wars under democracy.
Providing you have few casualities, few enemy troops inside your cultural borders and you have few 'enemy' foriegn nationals as citizens you will have little war wariness.
I generally starve my captured cities down to 1, build temples, catherals and collossiums, as well as many of those wonders that improve happiness. I also have fortified outposts inside enemy territory from which attack. Generally my luxury rate is set at 20% and I own or import most luxuries. I have had at least 1 game at regent level where I have been at war under democracy from when I reseached democracy to winning (a cultural win) some individual cities did have riots but nothing unmanageable.
BillChin
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 494
My opinion: 90% of the time Monarchy is clearly better. The 10% for Communism is a far flung empire with a poorly centered Palace and Forbidden Palace.
Difficulty level also is a factor. On higher dificulty levels, Communism might mean a 40% hit to the capital in terms of shields and gold. That translates into slower wonder construction. Slower wonder construction is enough of a factor to make Communism a poor choice in a competitive game. If the game is already clearly won, Communism makes prettying up the empire a bit easier by allowing construction in outlying cities.
Difficulty level also is a factor. On higher dificulty levels, Communism might mean a 40% hit to the capital in terms of shields and gold. That translates into slower wonder construction. Slower wonder construction is enough of a factor to make Communism a poor choice in a competitive game. If the game is already clearly won, Communism makes prettying up the empire a bit easier by allowing construction in outlying cities.
For such a late tech (early industrial), Communism sucks the big one. If they made the corruption/waste much less (say 10%) across the board, THEN it might be worth using in massive warmonging empires. Once you hit Democracy, there's really no reason to go to Communism. Maybe Monarchy if WW is really getting you down, but I'd even go to Republic first, especially if I see peace on the horizon.
Yup and that's the biggest disadvantage in comparison to Civ2.
Corruption in all cities the same? - Wonderful! It's so great to lose perhaps 25% of the production and trade in all the cities. Cities founded late in the game usually aren't very strong, both in population and in production/trade. It's not so stupid to head for some productive core cities.
If I want to wage a war, my top 5 cities produce 1 modern armour per turn - wait 15 turns and get 75 modern armours. Plus, 5 armours per turn. If production in these cities gets worse, perhaps even losing four of five shields, each of them produces a modern armour in 2 turns - twice as slow. The most important thing in a war is IMHO a strong economy. You can try stacking heaps of units if you wait long enough and then go to war, but if you don't succeed, your only thing you have - your strong military - has vanished, and all you have is your weak economy.
Corruption in all cities the same? - Wonderful! It's so great to lose perhaps 25% of the production and trade in all the cities. Cities founded late in the game usually aren't very strong, both in population and in production/trade. It's not so stupid to head for some productive core cities.
If I want to wage a war, my top 5 cities produce 1 modern armour per turn - wait 15 turns and get 75 modern armours. Plus, 5 armours per turn. If production in these cities gets worse, perhaps even losing four of five shields, each of them produces a modern armour in 2 turns - twice as slow. The most important thing in a war is IMHO a strong economy. You can try stacking heaps of units if you wait long enough and then go to war, but if you don't succeed, your only thing you have - your strong military - has vanished, and all you have is your weak economy.
Bismarck
The Iron Chancellor
[deleted]
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Isn't the point about corruption in communism that only the distance from your Capital/FP is constant?
IIRC, you still suffer from the # of cities, and that will never change. I remember well the first time I had lots of unproductive cities and changed to communism only to find they were still 95% unproductive.
IIRC, you still suffer from the # of cities, and that will never change. I remember well the first time I had lots of unproductive cities and changed to communism only to find they were still 95% unproductive.
Charis
Realms Beyond
There are a few things that need to be pointed out here...
> Is culture win when EITHER of these things happen:
> A- culture is 2x second best, {no worries on that score}, or
> B- culture score => 100000
No. Culture win occurs when:
1. 20,000 culture in one city. Period.
2. >100,000 culture *AND* total culture > 2*second best
> Communist gov't type will allow the far off cities to be at least
> marginally productive while decreasing the productivity of the
> core cities only marginally.
Not really, the *percent* increase in productivity in far flung cities will go WAY up, while the corruption in your best towns may drop greatly, but that depends on total number of cities.
Unless you plan for it and are building an empire suitable for communism, your civ's total shield output goes down a fair amount, and the cash is likely to plummet.
> Isn't the point about corruption in communism that only the
> distance from your Capital/FP is constant?
> IIRC, you still suffer from the # of cities, and that will never change.
No, the point about communism is that corruption is shared equally around the empire, and only the number of cities (compared to the optimal number) matters.
The *WAY* you suffer from # cities varies greatly. For other govts, the effect of number of cities is that corruption depends on the number of cities closer than a given city, divided by the OCN, is key in determining corruption. So beyond a certain distance (not a fixed distance, but really, beyond a given number of cities closer) you get 'ultracorrupt' 1 sheild cities. Inside that distance adding more cities has virtually no impact on core productivity. Going on a conquest just adds to the number of 1 shield cities and doesn't effect the core.
In communinsm however, the corruption is determined by the total number of cities divided by OCN (courthouses and PS help of course). So your core cities with 100spt might see 50% corruption down to 50spt, while your furthest small cities will go from 1spt out of 10 to 5spt out of 10. So you lose a ton of total shields doing this. Also, as you continue the conquest, your core production (overall corruption rate) keeps on going down. Your income goes in the tank, and soon it can't even sustain itself. The system goes to a grinding halt, and any thought of research goes to 40 turns. Why do you think that when the AI's all go into communism the tech rate slows to a crawl?
If you play a normal game, building up a strong core with a reasonable number of cities, and then go out on a conquest and capture a lot more, Communism is HIDEOUS. If you don't believe me try it - you might go from +500gpt income in democracy to +460 in Republic to +80 in Monarchy to -10gpt in Despotism to -150gpt in Communism, if there are many small cities. (I made and saw such a switch once and was appalled. I kept with it though, and when I switched back to Democracy when war was over it was like my civ was reborn)
The only way Communism can work is if you strictly limit the number of cities you build/capture, keeping it somewhere between OCN and 2*OCN. On a huge map, that's still a lot of cities, as one of the other posters noted. On a standard or small map, that's not much. You also do well to irrigate far cities heavily pre-communism to get them to a good size.
So as far as being in Rep/Democ and wanting to switch for wartime, Monarchy totally dominates Communism. (Actually, if you work it right, Republic is probably best, but that's covered in another thread in this forum
)
Charis
> Is culture win when EITHER of these things happen:
> A- culture is 2x second best, {no worries on that score}, or
> B- culture score => 100000
No. Culture win occurs when:
1. 20,000 culture in one city. Period.
2. >100,000 culture *AND* total culture > 2*second best
> Communist gov't type will allow the far off cities to be at least
> marginally productive while decreasing the productivity of the
> core cities only marginally.
Not really, the *percent* increase in productivity in far flung cities will go WAY up, while the corruption in your best towns may drop greatly, but that depends on total number of cities.
Unless you plan for it and are building an empire suitable for communism, your civ's total shield output goes down a fair amount, and the cash is likely to plummet.
> Isn't the point about corruption in communism that only the
> distance from your Capital/FP is constant?
> IIRC, you still suffer from the # of cities, and that will never change.
No, the point about communism is that corruption is shared equally around the empire, and only the number of cities (compared to the optimal number) matters.
The *WAY* you suffer from # cities varies greatly. For other govts, the effect of number of cities is that corruption depends on the number of cities closer than a given city, divided by the OCN, is key in determining corruption. So beyond a certain distance (not a fixed distance, but really, beyond a given number of cities closer) you get 'ultracorrupt' 1 sheild cities. Inside that distance adding more cities has virtually no impact on core productivity. Going on a conquest just adds to the number of 1 shield cities and doesn't effect the core.
In communinsm however, the corruption is determined by the total number of cities divided by OCN (courthouses and PS help of course). So your core cities with 100spt might see 50% corruption down to 50spt, while your furthest small cities will go from 1spt out of 10 to 5spt out of 10. So you lose a ton of total shields doing this. Also, as you continue the conquest, your core production (overall corruption rate) keeps on going down. Your income goes in the tank, and soon it can't even sustain itself. The system goes to a grinding halt, and any thought of research goes to 40 turns. Why do you think that when the AI's all go into communism the tech rate slows to a crawl?
If you play a normal game, building up a strong core with a reasonable number of cities, and then go out on a conquest and capture a lot more, Communism is HIDEOUS. If you don't believe me try it - you might go from +500gpt income in democracy to +460 in Republic to +80 in Monarchy to -10gpt in Despotism to -150gpt in Communism, if there are many small cities. (I made and saw such a switch once and was appalled. I kept with it though, and when I switched back to Democracy when war was over it was like my civ was reborn)
The only way Communism can work is if you strictly limit the number of cities you build/capture, keeping it somewhere between OCN and 2*OCN. On a huge map, that's still a lot of cities, as one of the other posters noted. On a standard or small map, that's not much. You also do well to irrigate far cities heavily pre-communism to get them to a good size.
So as far as being in Rep/Democ and wanting to switch for wartime, Monarchy totally dominates Communism. (Actually, if you work it right, Republic is probably best, but that's covered in another thread in this forum
)Charis
Nessa
Chieftain
The advantage of commmunism is that you can have a wide spread empire with some distance between your cities, since corruption is equal and not affected by the distance to your capital. But a clue is to connect all your cities to a good railroad-system, so that in case of war you might centralize your military strenght in one specific area in no time...
