Sven
Chieftain
Which is your preferred wartime government and why?
Preferred wartime government?
- Thread starter Sven
- Start date
Like a lot of things in Civ, it depends.
A prolonged military campaign to conquer territory communism is unbeatable IMO, or a long defensive fight. Works best when conquest is only victory condition.
A short war with a land grab or fire fight, Democracy rules given the advantages in useful production.
The early governments, monarchy/republic the same general dichotomy holds.
A prolonged military campaign to conquer territory communism is unbeatable IMO, or a long defensive fight. Works best when conquest is only victory condition.
A short war with a land grab or fire fight, Democracy rules given the advantages in useful production.
The early governments, monarchy/republic the same general dichotomy holds.
Daaraa
King
I stay with Republic for all of the game after I switch to it.
I don't play religious civs so I really don't like anarchy.
Republic is also managable under a big war if you play it right. (Lots of luxury resources, marketplaces, lux rate at say 2 and women's suffrage.)
I've also not noticed much diffrence in corruption between democracy and republic. (The main reason to switch to demo. after capturing hordes of enemy workers who are free-upkeep)
I don't play religious civs so I really don't like anarchy.
Republic is also managable under a big war if you play it right. (Lots of luxury resources, marketplaces, lux rate at say 2 and women's suffrage.)
I've also not noticed much diffrence in corruption between democracy and republic. (The main reason to switch to demo. after capturing hordes of enemy workers who are free-upkeep)
Depends on the war.
In my last game, as the Persians on a large map, I was involved in four wars, being the aggressor in three of them.
In the first war, against the English, I was a Monarchy. No war weariness there.
In the second and third wars, against the Iroquois and the Americans, I was successfully waging wars of aggression as a Democracy. This worked mainly because 1) the game was at Warlord level, 2) I had access to luxury resources all over the world, 3) I had developed temples, cathedrals, marketplaces, etc., 4) the wars were SHORT. I only went after specific cities that were comparatively close to my capital and some distance from theirs. 5), and perhaps most importantly, I made multiple alliances against my opponent early in the war. When you have 5 civs allied against you, you stand little long-term chance of survival, even if the original aggressor brokers a peace treaty.
The fourth war was initiated by the Aztecs. After the Americans had been eliminated, much of their former land was unclaimed. I immediately sent settlers along with a few military units, only to have the Aztecs decide they wanted that land -really bad-. They wiped out 3 of my fledgling distant cities in 1 turn. The French soon piggybacked aboard against me, and I had no choice but to enter a major World War. After a few turns of this, I switched to Communism due to good old war weariness. The war was still ongoing, much to the detriment of France, when I was elected U.N. Secretary-General by the Babylonians and Zulus, the only two civs still on the map that I had never waged war against.
In my last game, as the Persians on a large map, I was involved in four wars, being the aggressor in three of them.
In the first war, against the English, I was a Monarchy. No war weariness there.
In the second and third wars, against the Iroquois and the Americans, I was successfully waging wars of aggression as a Democracy. This worked mainly because 1) the game was at Warlord level, 2) I had access to luxury resources all over the world, 3) I had developed temples, cathedrals, marketplaces, etc., 4) the wars were SHORT. I only went after specific cities that were comparatively close to my capital and some distance from theirs. 5), and perhaps most importantly, I made multiple alliances against my opponent early in the war. When you have 5 civs allied against you, you stand little long-term chance of survival, even if the original aggressor brokers a peace treaty.
The fourth war was initiated by the Aztecs. After the Americans had been eliminated, much of their former land was unclaimed. I immediately sent settlers along with a few military units, only to have the Aztecs decide they wanted that land -really bad-. They wiped out 3 of my fledgling distant cities in 1 turn. The French soon piggybacked aboard against me, and I had no choice but to enter a major World War. After a few turns of this, I switched to Communism due to good old war weariness. The war was still ongoing, much to the detriment of France, when I was elected U.N. Secretary-General by the Babylonians and Zulus, the only two civs still on the map that I had never waged war against.
I actually prefer monarchy to communism in the event of a prolonged war. ALthough rush building with population in conquered cities is very useful to reduce the number of foreigners, this is not a good idea in your major cities. Monarchy works for me because you get a lot of unit upkeep, and you can use the money you save to buy more units very quickly. I usually stay in Monarchy until the mid-industrial age when I can be pretty certain my military is large enough to keep other civs from even trying to attack me. Sure, you will lag behind a little in tech, but you will catch up very quickly once you switch to democracy.
Similar threads
