bobgote
Trousers
hint to users of communism: wait until you have built courthouses and police stations in most towns before switching. also the military advantages only come after you cities are over size 12.
Monarchy vs. Communism in a war, the stats are finally in folks!!
- Thread starter sabo
- Start date
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
I don't know why people say Communism is so cool and it is the 'best' in theory. Any government/economic system where you can't even own property is a thief of a horrid degree.
Communism never was efficent and never will be. People have to be motivated to work and not be threats. I would put my $ on a market economy over another type. Zouve appears to be correct on his analysis of Communism's ineffectivness.
On topic now:
Once when I using Communism in a game I was losing -1010 GOLD A TURN!!!!
I think that is HEINOUS, considering I controlled 50% of the world at the time. I seemed to noticed that every time you capture a city.... it hurts you in communism, since it redistributes producitivy from producing cities to tiny 1 shield cities.
This is important: When a city produces 1 sheild due to corruption even if you use communism it will still produce 1 sheild, since the game seems to think it has to have a minium one shield it doesn't tell you about the "hidden" corruption it has to remove.
Conclusion: I think Monarchy is much better if you build the Forbidden Palace in the right spot. Once I heard that someone made 7 times the amount of cash during a Monarcy than a communism. Monarchy>Communism, plus Monarchy and Republic are the coolest governments in Civ 3.
Communism never was efficent and never will be. People have to be motivated to work and not be threats. I would put my $ on a market economy over another type. Zouve appears to be correct on his analysis of Communism's ineffectivness.
On topic now:
Once when I using Communism in a game I was losing -1010 GOLD A TURN!!!!
I think that is HEINOUS, considering I controlled 50% of the world at the time. I seemed to noticed that every time you capture a city.... it hurts you in communism, since it redistributes producitivy from producing cities to tiny 1 shield cities.
This is important: When a city produces 1 sheild due to corruption even if you use communism it will still produce 1 sheild, since the game seems to think it has to have a minium one shield it doesn't tell you about the "hidden" corruption it has to remove.
Conclusion: I think Monarchy is much better if you build the Forbidden Palace in the right spot. Once I heard that someone made 7 times the amount of cash during a Monarcy than a communism. Monarchy>Communism, plus Monarchy and Republic are the coolest governments in Civ 3.
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
So all you really have to do in Communism is abandon the cities if they're going to cost you too much in productivity. Monarchy works a bit better sometimes, but not in all cases.
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
Monarchy and communism are too similiar perhaps.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
Unless of course you RAZE those cities...
I can't imagine anyone wanting to hang on to a one shield city in communism that's in danger of being flipped every turn anyway. Like I stated in my first post. It all depends on your playing style. That's part of the fun of this game because you have to come up with a different style of playing and different strategies for each Government. The people who state "I'll NEVER use communism" or "I'll never build THAT usless wonder" are the people who aren't willing to try new things and probably get bored with the game alot faster than any of us...
I can't imagine anyone wanting to hang on to a one shield city in communism that's in danger of being flipped every turn anyway. Like I stated in my first post. It all depends on your playing style. That's part of the fun of this game because you have to come up with a different style of playing and different strategies for each Government. The people who state "I'll NEVER use communism" or "I'll never build THAT usless wonder" are the people who aren't willing to try new things and probably get bored with the game alot faster than any of us...
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
The reason I hung onto the cities is: I had to win by domination.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Socialism is the best (in theory)! Everyone owns equal things and has equal status, and there is no leader. Communism is a cheap imitiation of Socialism, because Socialism will NEVER work in real life, because of basic human greed. Seriously. You want to know why Communism didn't work? Picture this. You're a really rich Russian, and suddenly there is a revolution and the gov't says "We're taking half you're money to give to poor people." Honestly, who would want to do that?
Zachriel
Kaiser
Originally posted by sabo10
That's part of the fun of this game because you have to come up with a different style of playing and different strategies for each Government. The people who state "I'll NEVER use communism" or "I'll never build THAT usless wonder" are the people who aren't willing to try new things and probably get bored with the game alot faster than any of us...
In any case, everyone needs to play communism if only to study its weaknesses. One may not prefer communism, but other Civs may use it against you.
Klasanov
Catz!!!
I love Communism. No core, so I can use conquered cities in far-off continents to some drgree. I can also use more cities to produce units as well. The veteran spy thing helps with conquest a little. Although without a core, the capital city gets corruption as well, as do "core" cities.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
The AI players most likely will use it if they get into a Industrial or Modern age war that lasts more than about 15 turns (unless it is a "shunned" gov't for them). It is useful to know its strengths and weaknesses from experience so as to best exploit this.
Shabbaman
rebuffing the rebels
What's that got to do with it? Ever tried socialism in civ3?
Zachriel is right. I never ever give it a try (did a lot in civ2 though!) but I might for large empires and domination.
It could be useful in combination with the religious treat. You can switch to upgrade your outer, corrupted, cities, and switch back again. Nice? Don't know. Teach me.
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
I find it loathsome that socialism lack property rights. And you cannot make agreements among people to found any sort of private operation.
Governments all seem to be balanced in Civ 3 unlike Civ 2. I find that Democracy, Republic, Monarchy seem to work the best overall, then sometimes Communism(which the AI loves to use), and then Despostism which is nearly useless after the early stages due to the fact it is almost entierly cons, with little pros.
I think Republic is the coolest, in Civ 3(interesting stats)
Governments all seem to be balanced in Civ 3 unlike Civ 2. I find that Democracy, Republic, Monarchy seem to work the best overall, then sometimes Communism(which the AI loves to use), and then Despostism which is nearly useless after the early stages due to the fact it is almost entierly cons, with little pros.
I think Republic is the coolest, in Civ 3(interesting stats)
bobgote
Trousers
may i say 'Stupidest quote ever?"Ok, lets see how i go here:
socialism is a good idea, and communism is a further refinement of that idea. To go from capitalism to socialism requires a huge re-think of the way we do things. Socialism is better for the masses, but it will be hard to make the change. In the US for example, being a republic the power lies in the hands of the few, the wealthy. For the government to change, they'd have to want it to change. Not gonna happen. I don't think there's any question over which would be best for the people tho.
But let's not get political about this.
I think the main thing about use of communism in civ3 is that you need to have the right structure to make a communist government. You need to have a good courthouse/police station setup before you think about switching. You need hospitals too. You need to play the game with communism in mind if you want to change.
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
The key phrase: "unless it is a 'shunned' gov't for them"
Tell you this, the AI will raze a size 24 city under communism if it is so far away it will cause corruption. The Iroquois did this in their war against Persia. They took kept the small cities, but razed the large ones. I never razed a Persian city. Perhaps this is why Xerses helped me win the game. "You know, I hated you less than most."I have nations using their so-called "shunned" governments all the time. That toggle just doesn't work. The AI will choose what will produce the most beans. Egypt has used Monarchy (shunned), even though their favorite is Despotism. Russia has used Democracy (shunned) and never changed to Communism. In my most recent game as France, I just switched to Republic (favored form), and when we got Monarchy I get a message, "Our people yearn for a change to Monarchy" (shunned). The glove doesn't fit.
With Communism it is also essential you have Marketplaces and Banks in EVERY city, along with Smiths and Wall Street. It doesn't make sense ideologically, but it also helps a lot with the corruption factor. I played it without any police stations in a very large (1/3 of a huge map) empire. The only time it is useful is during a war when the furthest part of your empire is under attack. Then you can at least get some production out of those cities.
Oh and a side note. After reading about the Worldcom debacle, Enron, insider trading allegations against Martha Stewart. I've changed my tune about corruption under Democracy. It is fine in the game. Corruption apparently doesn't mean only government corruption. Here it means corruption by private industry. Solution? More government regulation of business practices, which means more inefficiency, hence wasted shields. I found just putting a few basic cultural things in large distant cities ,then switch them to wealth and make a lot of tax collectors in those cities does the trick.
The only one I could forgive here is Martha. If someone (i.e., your at at cocktail party and talking with your broker) tells you that the company you've got a lot invested in is about to nosedive, you'd be stupid to hang on to the stock, even if that isn't public knowledge. Anyway, it looks like I've got to switch to Sprint long distance.
Anyway if this post doesn't make sense, it was hot last night, I didn't sleep, and when it got cool enough to sleep, the phone started ringing -- damn telemarketers.
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
An interesting thing about the 'AI': It will always use the government witht he most "developmental" advantages during peace, however during war it will go for the government with the higest draft rate. For example: If you add a government with a high draft rate it will almost always switch to it during a major war.
bobgate, that wasn't the right quote you used. I was speaking about the game in that quote. It is a proven statistic that the communal corruption of communism is not an effective one. In one game I was losing -1000 gold a turn!! In addition to that I had over 50% corruption in ALL except for about 2 cities(one being the capital the other the one with the FP small wonder). I tried most of the tricks with Police Stations and Courthouses to no avail. And all this while holding at least 50% of the world's land. Also personal attacks are futile.
All because some demogague says socialism is better for the masses doesn't make it so. I don't want any government telling anyone that they cannot hire people who want to work and build a succesful operation which thrives on competiton, compared to the everyone shares everything mentailty which lacks the vital competition factor. Competiton=motivation. Sharing everything=no one really cares about anything. Capitialism, unlike socialism is very skilled at removing companies and organizations that are inefficent and corrupt, while else would those companies go down? Capitalism is a natural condition that occurs without any government dictating what happens. What about the people that don't want to fund the government run operations? Do they have to pay for it at a gun point?
bobgate, that wasn't the right quote you used. I was speaking about the game in that quote. It is a proven statistic that the communal corruption of communism is not an effective one. In one game I was losing -1000 gold a turn!! In addition to that I had over 50% corruption in ALL except for about 2 cities(one being the capital the other the one with the FP small wonder). I tried most of the tricks with Police Stations and Courthouses to no avail. And all this while holding at least 50% of the world's land. Also personal attacks are futile.
All because some demogague says socialism is better for the masses doesn't make it so. I don't want any government telling anyone that they cannot hire people who want to work and build a succesful operation which thrives on competiton, compared to the everyone shares everything mentailty which lacks the vital competition factor. Competiton=motivation. Sharing everything=no one really cares about anything. Capitialism, unlike socialism is very skilled at removing companies and organizations that are inefficent and corrupt, while else would those companies go down? Capitalism is a natural condition that occurs without any government dictating what happens. What about the people that don't want to fund the government run operations? Do they have to pay for it at a gun point?
bobgote
Trousers
Free Enterprise: ......
Had a bit of difficulty reading your post. Not your fault, i just have a very low level of concentration. I don't want to make this into a political thread so I won't take the thread down that path.
Now, with communism in the game, I'm experimenting now, so I'll get back to you. I will say that I did switch too early, (as soon as I got communism). This meant that I didn't have either police stations or hospitals. Big mistake to say the least.
But I will say that i'm going ok for cash. breaking even at 4.6.0. and most/all my citizens are either happy or content. Science does seem to take longer, but i seem to be keeping up with others without buying techs. And since I have a better military, I can crush those who seek to oppress me
. Now I'm building hospitals so I get more unit support, therefore more cash. This is handy because I'm always at war, due to my MPP's (grr).
I will say one thing to you Free Enterprise: There are threads out there that talk politics on these governments. Have a look, and you might understand the other side better.
Had a bit of difficulty reading your post. Not your fault, i just have a very low level of concentration. I don't want to make this into a political thread so I won't take the thread down that path.
Now, with communism in the game, I'm experimenting now, so I'll get back to you. I will say that I did switch too early, (as soon as I got communism). This meant that I didn't have either police stations or hospitals. Big mistake to say the least.
But I will say that i'm going ok for cash. breaking even at 4.6.0. and most/all my citizens are either happy or content. Science does seem to take longer, but i seem to be keeping up with others without buying techs. And since I have a better military, I can crush those who seek to oppress me
. Now I'm building hospitals so I get more unit support, therefore more cash. This is handy because I'm always at war, due to my MPP's (grr).I will say one thing to you Free Enterprise: There are threads out there that talk politics on these governments. Have a look, and you might understand the other side better.
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
What difficulty are these experiments on?
I was on Regent(first game of Civ 3) when I lost 1000 gold a turn.
Also: Does the FP really help Communism that much? The game where I tried Communism I
errr, em, didn't put FP in a good spot so I wasn't able to test the effects very much.
I would only recommend Monarchy, Communism, or Despotism on the 2 hardest difficulties since military rushing and extortion seem to work effectively.
Hopefully this doesn't sound like rambling.
P.S. Currently I am testing out Republic(Monarch difficulty, not a religious civ though. Doesn't seem much better at development than monarchy.
I was on Regent(first game of Civ 3) when I lost 1000 gold a turn.
Also: Does the FP really help Communism that much? The game where I tried Communism I
errr, em, didn't put FP in a good spot so I wasn't able to test the effects very much. I would only recommend Monarchy, Communism, or Despotism on the 2 hardest difficulties since military rushing and extortion seem to work effectively.
Hopefully this doesn't sound like rambling.
P.S. Currently I am testing out Republic(Monarch difficulty, not a religious civ though. Doesn't seem much better at development than monarchy.
Klasanov
Catz!!!
Okay. Look, I am goijg to turn this into a political thread. Sorry.
Anyway, let's see. Communism, in theory, is perfect. Of course, so is everything else. You see, in theory, in communism, everything shares everything, making for a crime-less, blissful utpoia. In practice, in Russia at least (I imagine other communist countries as well. But you see, the only thing I think I can make a judgemnt on and know what I am taling about is Russian communism since that's what I studied), it was quite the opposite. Everything was backwards. Cities were judged on a hierchial level, from their importance. So, basically, when goods came were shipped, say, food, the supermarkets located in the biggest and most important cities got the stuff first. Those lower on the list were left out. People shopped by waiting in lines, and ordering stuff if they were out of it, so that they'd get it sooner next time the shipment came in. What I mean is say you were tenth in line. You needed potatoes, they were out for the day. You reached the fifth place in the line, so the next day you got a tab to remember your place to resume tomorrow, if another shipment came in that day.
Needless to say, they were quite a bit of shortages.
Everyone lived in apartments, or at least, were supposed to. There were housing shortages because the Communist regime was spending too much money on military funding rather than the civil, which was in dire need of more apartments. Most people were on a waiting list to get an apartment, sometimes the wait was as bad as 30 years. Not that it'd matter, most of them were of quite shoddy make. A good example being the case with Lt. Belenko, (the Russian pilot who flew a mig-29(?) from Russia to Japan, which was later shipped to america (I think, or did they disassemble it in Japan) and then shipped back to Russia in a bunch of pieces) had an apartment that had a big metal I-beam sticking through the middle of it. He made good use of it though, using it as a chin-up bar for his exercises. here weren't many windows either, on account that the paper-thin crap they usually installed broke whenever they put it in.
There was also no crime in Russia, according to the papers. But an old Russian joke in Russia is "The truth isn't news, and the news isn't truth". Quite true concerning all the propaganda the bureaucrats constantly spewed (For the record, crime existed in russia, it exists in every country).
On the whole aspect of Capitalism being better than Communism, well, Russia almost passed the U.S. in steel production, despite having a lot more steel workers than America had. I do wonder about the quality of that steel though (Probably as bad as their glass. Heh), too. It seems to be a quantity vs. quality issue.
In terms of research, they were lagging, and usually lifted stuff from American companies. Robert Kaiser commented on how when he was visiting a person in Russia, he noticed there was a walkman (Or something. I forget the device) that resembled one made by Sony. I think that was the case, I frogot some stuff. I have a book report on it all though, which has an example of shoddy concrete production.
Whether Communism wants you to believe it or not, there were classes in the system. Mainly from the higher ups and such, I think. Most everyone else had apartments or were homeless.
Oh yeah, some farmers owned their own land, too. Most of the farmers were in kolkhozes, or collective farms. Ironically, the 5% of farm land that was privately owned produced I think, 30% of the nation's food.
My stance on Communism is that it could have surpassed Capitalism if the regulation was better. Cutting through the bull of "well you produced 5 million cubic feet of glass last year, the quota was 3 million, so we're raising your standard to 5 million cubic feet. Oh, and since you had stockiples of materials, which you are not supposed to have, we're shutting you down (or something else. I forgot what they did in that case), and then giving you less resources because other factories came first, or we're out of materials to distribute), and setting regulations causing goods, such as glass, to be so thick so that it didn't break. Someone looking over the domestic production (like with military production), definitely wouldn't have hurt, either.
But I'm with you, free enterprise. Capitilism is the greatest! Although it isn't without it's faults, either. Overall, I believe Communism could have been good, but the bureaucracy, stupidity in handling things, and corruption of power screwed everything up.
And, communism is far from being good for the masses. Most of the people in Russia were quite poor. If it was for the masses it wouldn't be like that.
You need to look at both sides of the issue.
Anyway, let's see. Communism, in theory, is perfect. Of course, so is everything else. You see, in theory, in communism, everything shares everything, making for a crime-less, blissful utpoia. In practice, in Russia at least (I imagine other communist countries as well. But you see, the only thing I think I can make a judgemnt on and know what I am taling about is Russian communism since that's what I studied), it was quite the opposite. Everything was backwards. Cities were judged on a hierchial level, from their importance. So, basically, when goods came were shipped, say, food, the supermarkets located in the biggest and most important cities got the stuff first. Those lower on the list were left out. People shopped by waiting in lines, and ordering stuff if they were out of it, so that they'd get it sooner next time the shipment came in. What I mean is say you were tenth in line. You needed potatoes, they were out for the day. You reached the fifth place in the line, so the next day you got a tab to remember your place to resume tomorrow, if another shipment came in that day.
Needless to say, they were quite a bit of shortages.
Everyone lived in apartments, or at least, were supposed to. There were housing shortages because the Communist regime was spending too much money on military funding rather than the civil, which was in dire need of more apartments. Most people were on a waiting list to get an apartment, sometimes the wait was as bad as 30 years. Not that it'd matter, most of them were of quite shoddy make. A good example being the case with Lt. Belenko, (the Russian pilot who flew a mig-29(?) from Russia to Japan, which was later shipped to america (I think, or did they disassemble it in Japan) and then shipped back to Russia in a bunch of pieces) had an apartment that had a big metal I-beam sticking through the middle of it. He made good use of it though, using it as a chin-up bar for his exercises. here weren't many windows either, on account that the paper-thin crap they usually installed broke whenever they put it in.
There was also no crime in Russia, according to the papers. But an old Russian joke in Russia is "The truth isn't news, and the news isn't truth". Quite true concerning all the propaganda the bureaucrats constantly spewed (For the record, crime existed in russia, it exists in every country).
On the whole aspect of Capitalism being better than Communism, well, Russia almost passed the U.S. in steel production, despite having a lot more steel workers than America had. I do wonder about the quality of that steel though (Probably as bad as their glass. Heh), too. It seems to be a quantity vs. quality issue.
In terms of research, they were lagging, and usually lifted stuff from American companies. Robert Kaiser commented on how when he was visiting a person in Russia, he noticed there was a walkman (Or something. I forget the device) that resembled one made by Sony. I think that was the case, I frogot some stuff. I have a book report on it all though, which has an example of shoddy concrete production.
Whether Communism wants you to believe it or not, there were classes in the system. Mainly from the higher ups and such, I think. Most everyone else had apartments or were homeless.
Oh yeah, some farmers owned their own land, too. Most of the farmers were in kolkhozes, or collective farms. Ironically, the 5% of farm land that was privately owned produced I think, 30% of the nation's food.
My stance on Communism is that it could have surpassed Capitalism if the regulation was better. Cutting through the bull of "well you produced 5 million cubic feet of glass last year, the quota was 3 million, so we're raising your standard to 5 million cubic feet. Oh, and since you had stockiples of materials, which you are not supposed to have, we're shutting you down (or something else. I forgot what they did in that case), and then giving you less resources because other factories came first, or we're out of materials to distribute), and setting regulations causing goods, such as glass, to be so thick so that it didn't break. Someone looking over the domestic production (like with military production), definitely wouldn't have hurt, either.
But I'm with you, free enterprise. Capitilism is the greatest! Although it isn't without it's faults, either. Overall, I believe Communism could have been good, but the bureaucracy, stupidity in handling things, and corruption of power screwed everything up.
And, communism is far from being good for the masses. Most of the people in Russia were quite poor. If it was for the masses it wouldn't be like that.
You need to look at both sides of the issue.
MirandaCore
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2002
- Messages
- 53
I like Fundamentalism in civ II . Hundreds of perfectly productive cities mass producing armor and bombers. Gaining science advances every 2 turns and still making like 900 bucks per turn. But I'm rather glad they got rid of that government in civ III. Fundy was toooo cheap even by my standards.
. Hundreds of perfectly productive cities mass producing armor and bombers. Gaining science advances every 2 turns and still making like 900 bucks per turn. But I'm rather glad they got rid of that government in civ III. Fundy was toooo cheap even by my standards.
bobgote
Trousers
OK. Firstly, I am experimenting with communism on regent level, as it's a level playing field and I can see how it works without struggling to survive. OK, you may not get as much money (but i'm not losing 1000 a turn, just remember tho that at no point do you need to increase luxuries.) but most things appear to be cheaper too, ie espionage (as well as more expensive).
And to Klasanov:
I didn't want to make this into a political thread (or did but tried to restrain myself). If you're gonna post political stuff, please contribute to the topic of conversation too so we don't get closed down or moved off topic, k?
I think that we could make a much better assessment of communism if it were used a) according to what it's actually supposed to be, rather than a dictators crude modification of it
and b) used in somewhere comparable to what is considered a successful government in the first place. ie if the US became communist (lol) we could see just how well it works. I would be interested in the results. Hopefully we see a new world superpower arise, using communism as it's government.
And to Klasanov:
I didn't want to make this into a political thread (or did but tried to restrain myself). If you're gonna post political stuff, please contribute to the topic of conversation too so we don't get closed down or moved off topic, k?
I think that we could make a much better assessment of communism if it were used a) according to what it's actually supposed to be, rather than a dictators crude modification of it
and b) used in somewhere comparable to what is considered a successful government in the first place. ie if the US became communist (lol) we could see just how well it works. I would be interested in the results. Hopefully we see a new world superpower arise, using communism as it's government.
