Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Turner, Apr 23, 2009.
WW? What Worries .
If you don't care about WW, then i'm fine with it. But it has consequences. That kind of consequences that players, usually, aren't happy with.
No wars without war weariness.
Don't have to be happy... I just live with it.
Anyway, not here to argue. Just to help some with newer players asking questions.
Everyone doesn't play the same or get the same fun out of the same situations.
Peace will only last for 20 turns... sorry :O
Ehh... it's not a war, but i'll accept your peace treaty anyway. Just give me Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, your world maps and 250 gold
Seriously, i wouldn't have anything to say if we weren't in the thread where newbs seek advice. But since we are, i think they need to be given the whole picture. As you describe it, your strategy leads to an inevitable WW buildup turn after turn, because for every turn you have units in enemy territory you get 1 WW penalty regardless of any other consideration.
You may not care, but others may care and may want to avoid that.
If you keep your army behind your borders, and give the AS a defenseless target to attack, but not close enough to let them capture it, they will flow, in some cases already weakened by the army's zone of control. At this point, you bomb them to redline and finish them off with some unit.
Supposing they weren't able to attack or capture anything *and* you win the fight, you get no WW penalty at all.
I've used this trick in some GotMs where you are required to win by a specific victory condition and do not want to cross the Domination limit, therefore you can't gain further territory. Actually, it's a very effective way to fish for elites and leaders. They come and die, and you get free promotions
was playing the current game with 100% luxury , then ı finally got the Golden Age . Took the slider down to 60% , but ı had a Cultural loss anyhow .
Is there a world record for science output from a single city? I got to 300 or so in the Korean capital just recently but, as usual, I bet this turns out to be about a third of what's possible.
I find communism a good government for warring a lot. The AI seems to like Fascism which I have never tried (nor Feudalism neither).
Question(s): what are the pros and cons of these two government types - Feudalism and Fascism?
300 seems pretty good! The "theoretical maximum" can be calculated somewhat like this:
A city can work 21 tiles. Lets assume all these tiles are jungle with a gem resource (gems can appear on mountain and jungle tiles!) next to a river. You chop all the jungles to get grassland with gem on it for a base commerce of 4 (gem) + 1 (river) + 1 (road) + 1(being Republic/Democracy) + 1(being in Golden Age) = 8. (Unfortunately we can't build the Colossus as we are not on the coast. But if we want a Research Lab and SETI, the Colossus would be expired by that time anyway...)
If we are Commercial, the city center gets an additional 6 commerce. So we have as base commerce: 21 x 8 + 6 = 174.
Then we can build a number of Wonders that act as "Tourist Attraction". These are: Pyramids, Oracle, Hanging Gardens, Great Wall, Statue of Zeus, Artemis, Mausoleum, Great Library, Sistine Chapel, Leonardo, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Newton, Bach's Cathedral, Hoover Dam and United Nations. (And also Colossus and Great Lighthouse, but we can't build those.) Assume that we get enough SGLs so that we can rush all these wonders early enough so that they are now 2501 years or older. (Ok, I guess for Hoover and UN this is impossible, so let's disregard these two...) Then each wonder gives an additional 14 commerce from "tourist income" for a total of 14 x 14 = 196.
Total commerce now is 174 + 196 = 370
Now we add the multipliers:
Research Lab: 50%
So we add 450% to get 370 x 5.5 = 2035 beakers
If all grasslands are irrigated and railed, this metropolis would produce 2 + 20 x 4 = 82 food. This would support 41 citizens, 20 of which are working in the fields and 21 can work as scientists, producing another 63 beakers.
So the "world record" would be 2035 + 63 = 2098 beakers!
(Now go home and run your map generator until you get a map with a BFC of 21 gems...! And try to build all these tourist atractions before 500 BC...)
Ok, I guess it is "highly unlikely" to get all these gem tiles and all these tourist attractions in a "real" game. Let's assume we are lucky to get like 5 commerce resources (gems, gold, silk, whatever) and 3 tourist attractions, and lets say half our tiles are on the river, then the maximum would be 21 x 3.5 + 5 x 4 + 6 = 99.5 for commerce from tiles, 3 x 14 = 42 for tourist income and 63 from scientists for a total of
(99 + 42) x 5.5 + 63 = 838 beakers
Feudalism is good for fast 100K victories, where you just ICS the map until shortly before domination limit and then poprush temples & libraries like crazy in all those towns. (That way converting food, which is not subject to corruption, into culture.)
Fascism I have never tried, but it seems like crap to me: losing two citizens in every city (on top of possibly 9 turns anarchy and extra starving during that time!) looks like it hurts your empire so much that no possible advantage this government type might provide can ever compensate it.
There is nothing better than Republic. Full-Stop. In very rare circumstances Communism may actually be worth a second anarchy period. (But I have never ever encountered these circumstances yet in my games... Military games are usually won before the Industrial Age, in 100K games you use Feudalism, In a 20K game you can't afford the lost culture during anarchy and in science games (Space Race and UN) you will never make up the lost research turns during anarchy, not to mention the lost research turns needed for "optional" techs like Communism and perhaps even Nationalism.)
Why is republic better than democracy? I can't seem to build up my treasury, and the reduction on corruption seems like it's a good thing.
Republic is about as good as Democracy, they are more or less equivalent, sometimes the one is slightly better, sometimes the other.
Republic comes about 2000 years earlier. (If you use the slingshot.) And you certainly don't want to stay in Despotism that long... So you switch to Republic, once it becomes available.
Democracy requires you to research two additional optional techs, which you certainly don't want to do when going for a fast Space or UN victory.
And then there is the additional anarchy period, which that late in the game usually is between 6 and 9 turns. Again, in a fast research game you certainly don't want to risk losing 9 turns of research only to go from a good government into one that is approximately equivalent...
For these reasons no one uses Democracy (at least when playing competitively in the GOTM or HoF competitions).
Which is a pity. Firaxis really goofed up on this one. If they had made Democracy into something really superior to Republic, then it would add a new dimension to the strategy of this game. One would always have to counter-balance the pros and cons and make a difficult strategic decision "should I accept a second anarchy in order to get those benefits, or will it not pay off in my situation?" But as it is, it is a no-brainer: you get a huge penalty, but nearly no benefit at all. So why switch?
(The reduced corruption is nearly neglectable, in any case it will never compensate for the loss of 5-9 full turns of income. And the faster workers don't matter, because by the time Democracy becomes available, your core should already be fully improved... Perhaps it could prove useful when buidling the railway system, but again by the time Steam Power comes along, you should have enough workers & slaves to get the rails up quickly. Plus you will get Steam at least 13 turns faster, if you skip Democracy: 8 turns for the two optional techs and 5+ turns for the anarchy. And during these 13 turns, your "ordinary" workers can already put down a lot of rails... )
Feudalism is seriosly inferior to communism in the long run. Republic is usually way superior to feudalism. But poprushing can help with culture victory or getting courthouses fast and cheap to get regular production up.
Facism becomes available about the same time a communism and thus need to be compared with it. Facism starts with reducing population by 1 in town, 2 in cities and 3 in metropolises. Getting that cost back in will be hard as communism will nearly always have superior corruption. Only for very small empires facism is superior. This leads me to think that facism is only good for small empires that want to stay small but still wage serios wars. If you want to have a small to mid sized empire and destroy your enemies by razing all their cities facism is the way to got. Double worker efficiency will make slaves work as fast as regular workers in republic. So facism is also good in cleaning up a postnuclear world where all infrastructure is destroyed and everything is wasted. Communism is best if you intend to keep any conquests and go for world domination.
Despotism is a poor government due to terrible corruption and despotism penalty.
Anarchy is even worse. In anarchy however both buildings and units cost no money, so in some rare cases even this might be the best government.
Republic is the best over all government. For Nonexperts i might advise to not even try any other goverment.
Monarchy is the first modest government without war weariness. If you have to fight serios wars, you need it. But normally republic will do just fine.
Feudalism allows Poprushes and a high amount of free units per town. This combination makes feadalism good for a seamless switch from despotism in order to continue aggressive expansion.
Democracy is the best government for mid sized empires during peace.
Facism is clearly superior to monarchy. Choosing facism over communism is an act of desperation. Facism means to try war the hard way. A human only chooses facism because things are really messed up, but for your AI allies facism is the best choice that makes them least vulnerable in supporting your wars.
Communism is the best government in the long run. It has by far the best corruption and also each turn a 4% chance of assimilating foreign citizens into yours. Republic only has 2%, feudalism has 3%, democracy has 4%.
I disagree. Communism and republic tend to have similar amounts of research output per turn. But if played right communism can have a slightly better research output and get in its costs in less than 150 turns. So in terms of research the costs of anarchy are in before the end of the modern age.
Also one needs to consider the worth of better spies. That can make up for the time lost in anarchy.
Drafting and disbanding units is a nice way to convert food into production. I would not like to miss that option. I also would not like to miss using policemen that increase net production and net commerce. But nationalism itself might be neglectable. Communism is not, especially if staying a republic. Communism can easily achieve 10% more research output than a republic without policestations. Skipping communism seems kinda insane in a science game unless the 4 turn limit destroys all effort anyway.
In an OCC more than 3 tourist attractions should be possible if not needed.
re Democracy, do not forget the crazy unit upkeep costs!
In most games I play and these are on big maps, I switch to communism at the end to boost production and to get rid of the WW.
Perhaps if you count the "total number of beakers per turn". But if I am already able to research at 4 turns per tech (which I usually am long before Communism becomes available), then why do I need more beakers? I can't research any faster than 4 turns per tech, even if I get 100% more beakers out of Communism... So the 9 turns anarchy plus the turns needed to research Communism are definitely lost and can never be made up for during the rest of the game. ==> Spaceship or UN will be reached some 10-15 turns later than if I had stayed in Republic.
Yep, that is one major disadvantage compared to Republic. In Republic, you sooner or later have enough cities so that you don't pay any unit upkeep. In Democracy you pay for every unit. This probably more than outweighs the slight decrease in corruption. So I would say in most cases you have even less net income in Democracy than you would have in the same situation with Republic.
Given how fast units can be build in the industrial age you can be fast in a situation where democracy is better at unit maintence. 1 gtp per units vs 2 gtp per unit make a difference. Democracy is better in the long run and would be much better for the start in the ancient age. But in between republic with 3 free units per city and 4 per metropolis will be better.
Lanzelot, how in the name of all that's holy do you manage to get to be researching techs at four turns each? We are talking about the same game aren't we … ?
Thanks for the replies on my governments and science questions. Always illuminating (and sometimes depressing too)
For 4-turn research, science farms are really helpful, as are libraries and universities. I tend to limit my growth too much early on, but even so, I usually hit 4 turn research about halfway through the middle ages in my fast science games at emperor or below.
Libraries are helpful even when you only get one additional beaker from them, because the upkeep for the library can be paid for by income from other civs, but you can't get beakers from the money other civs pay you. This helps me justify my overbuilding of libraries.
I do tend to build at the expense of growth, so I've started playing some science games where I'm not allowed to build libraries until some specified point - not until Astronomy, or until two opponents are gone, that sort of thing. Generally I hit 4-turn research sooner this way. It just isn't as much fun for everyday, though - I like to build rather than conquer.
Spoonwood has a couple of screenshots in the interesting screenshot thread showing lots of beakers (around 850, and not even maximized for beakers, because he has unneeded clowns who could be scientists).
Separate names with a comma.