Make Govts Useful

[garric]

I have Civ 3, Conquests, and Play the World. There are several governments in the game. There is Republic, Democracy, Fascism, Tribal Council, etc.

But except for Republic, and Communism, all of them are pretty useless. I realized this after I kept losing on Regent. I always picked Monarchy because I figured that I was an offensive person and wanted to wage war, and that Republic wasn't worth it because of war weariness. So I lost about 5 games with zee Germans trying to take over the world, but ending in the same way: I ran out of gold, and lost in the tech race to civilizations with Republic.

So I tried one game with Republic after reading a thread on the forums, everyone was saying that pretty much every govt besides Republic is useless. And when I think about it, they are right. Democracy gives you alot of cash but the war weariness is unmanageable. Facism, Feudalism, and Tribal Council are TOTALLY useless for obvious reasons. Monarchy doesn't give you enough gold, meaning not enough research, and you can't rush units. Communism is good because it reduces corruption for cities, but doesn't get enough gold and doesn't let you rush things. It all pretty much comes down to the gold: without enough gold you can't fund scientific research, buy stuff, rush stuff, or trade for anything worthful.

Now I'm in the middle of the game I started with trying Republic, and I'm totally owning everything. Republic is an easy solution to everything. You get it pretty early in the game, it gives enough gold and has a war weariness you can take care of, and pretty good military strength. Everything else isn't worth it, because Republic is one of those govts that have the best of everything and very little drawbacks (The only major drawback is war weariness which you can easily pay off with the luxury slider.).

I'd understand if Republic was one of those cool techs that you can get pretty late in the game that make you better, but you get it so much earlier and it's better than anything else you get. Facism and Feudalism, Democracy and Communism, they are all useless compared it. And if you want to risk it, you still have to switch to the deadly Anarchy period.

So please, nerf Republic or make it a tech pretty late in the game, because all of the other govts are useless and only in the game for historical flavour (What would a REAL civ game be without Feudalism? I mean, that was in real history, even though it sucks! )

 

[elementgoo]

There needs to be another way to make the other governments useful, like special bonusses or something.

 

[Darwin420]

SMAC-style social engineering. 'nuff said.

 

[Rambuchan]

I agree. Fascism, Tribal Council, Feudalism (some ppl do use this I think) are all TOTALLY USELESS. Something should be done about it. Catholic and Protestant Monarchies worked well in the Age of Discovery scenario.

And Mohit WTH???

 

[dh_epic]

Looks like Mohit needs to have his post deleted and needs to be banned.

Other than that, I agree with this thread. There needs to be more than two useful governments. Heck, I practically feel like there's only one useful government, and that's Communism for War.

I think the problem comes back to the fact that there's really only one way to win the game in Civ. If there's only one way to win, you're going to pick the Government that promotes that particular style of play, thus ensuring that only one Government is viable.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Good post. My problem is much more concerned by the way different civs can take and the way we can take through different games. (which is an extend of your problem: "there is only one governement usefull") Republic was used by the Greeks in ancient ages, but most of middle age countries never used it. Why? Particularly because of their attachement of Power I believe. I think this should be reflected in the game. I think Monarchy should be important for a certain type of victory, like Cultural: Monarchy should give more culture and it makes sense: by the name of God, monarchs want to rule over their people to assure their integrity and over other nations. It makes sense as Culture would be a more important part of Civ4 particularly with Religion, so players should be able to make a general choice between, for example, Money/Science and (or) Culture/Religion in order to win.

 

[Idylwyld]

Seems to me the problem you're having in Monarchy is that you're not building enough workers. You should have at least 1.5 roaded tiles per unit you're trying to support. Don't be surprised that you can't support large militaries after the switch to rep/mon if you haven't started working your tiles. Every city should have at least one worker as soon as it can to start working the tiles and you should have a few doing nothing but roading to the fringe. No goverment structure, except despotism, is worth a damn if you don't build your infrastructure.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You should have at least 1.5 roaded tiles per unit you're trying to support.

Impressive, really.

Just try Republic.

 

[Princeps]

What about making the governments completely, radically different from each other like this…

Dynastic governments like monarchy.

Dynastic governments would be sort of a gamble: You would have these dynasties or ruling families that could change sometimes in dynastic civil wars, coups, or if the family line just dies.
Now every dynasty would be different… For example if you’re playing the Americans you could have the uh, *picks up a name* …Tucker dynasty that would be problematically corrupt, but very warlike so it would have a lot of unit support. But, when you would be in a peace for long time the warlike Tucker incompetent peace dynasty, would change to the more democratic Winston dynasty in a palace-coup (or civil war). This would make monarchy much different (and sometimes better) government then the republic.

Feudalism:

In feudalism you would have barons and other feudal-lords that would help you to govern the empire, but if you would not respect your wishes and they would not respect you some of them (or all) could revolt taking some armies with them.

Oligarchic governments such as republic, oligarchy, and tribal council

In tribal council every time you would declare war, the council would vote on that issue, so it would be sort of a early democratic government. Oligarchy or a merchant council you would get enormous extra capitol, and the government would be very profit uh, searching, so sometimes the oligarchs could demand almost anything like building better infrastructure or declaring war or signing a peace treaty. Republic would have a senate; it would have the same powers as the oligarchs in oligarchy, and it also could make concrete actions like moving units, or canceling building or taking control of a city’s management, of course very rarely.

Totalitarian governments

Fascism could have peace weariness, more powerful xenophobia that would mean that all foreign citizens would automatically turn it to resistors, and population would continue decline sometimes.
hmm… I don’t know about communism, but it should not have communal corruption…

 

[Che Guava]

I just think you should have more lattitude to modify things within each ogvernment type. I mean, there's a difference between the 'democracy' of the US and that of Sweden, so how do you create a socialist or capitalist leaning system? It also kind of bothered me the names they used for governments: e.g. communism and facism are not forms of government, just a theory you apply to a republic.

I just think you should be able to choose a type of government (lets say, despotism, monarchy and republic) and have the choice add concepts to them as you discover them (a constitution, legislative bodies, universial suffrage, universal healthcare, nationalism, state religions) each with thier own advantages and drawbacks...

or would that just be making the game needlessly complicated for someone who just wants to go out and take over the world?

 

[Portuguese]

Facism, Feudalism, and Tribal Council are TOTALLY useless for obvious reasons.

Considering I only use Feudalisma dn Fascism and I play always in Monarch* level I consider this a funny comment.

PS: I am always at war, so WW is just unberable to me...

*I hate the idea of AI stealing, so I play Monarch, even though it already steals a bit Regent is just tooooo easy.

EDIT: I edited the game to half the corruption, as I consider it to be a bug. Particularly in the maps I like to play: in a 160x160 map 200 cities is a normal number... specially when you target for domination.

 

[Portuguese]

What about making the governments completely, radically different from each other like this…
Fascism could have peace weariness, more powerful xenophobia that would mean that all foreign citizens would automatically turn it to resistors, and population would continue decline sometimes.

Wasn't your idea to make Fascism a better gov?!?

 

[garric]

You are the only person I've heard of that actually uses Feudalism and Facism. Sorry to hear that.

 

[Portuguese]

You are the only person I've heard of that actually uses Feudalism and Facism. Sorry to hear that.

Sorry to hear that? In Civ I don't mind using fascism, kill people to rush things like an Pharaoh or eliminate all other cultures in the map. Course in real life I hate the persons who think aby of this things is good, but this is just a game and nobody dyes really.

Or is it due to your bad opinion on those regimes in game?
If yes, why is that?

 

[Princeps]

Wasn't your idea to make Fascism a better gov?!?

Yeah so...

But also more powerful penualties...

Minimal corruption perhaps, too...

 

[covenant]

Considering I only use Feudalisma dn Fascism and I play always in Monarch* level I consider this a funny comment.

PS: I am always at war, so WW is just unberable to me...

*I hate the idea of AI stealing, so I play Monarch, even though it already steals a bit Regent is just tooooo easy.

EDIT: I edited the game to half the corruption, as I consider it to be a bug. Particularly in the maps I like to play: in a 160x160 map 200 cities is a normal number... specially when you target for domination.

How do i make the edit for corruption? I find the game almost unplayable because of the absurd implementation of corruption.

 

[LMR]

i reckon that some governments should really hate each other, like in the Cold War. For example, the Americans and French in a democracy can never be polite towards Communist Russia or China. also, they can never have mutual protection pacts or rights of passage, although military alliances and trade embargoes would still be able to be negotiated. this would make nations with the same political ideologies work better together.