Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Vuldacon]

I go for Monarchy then Democracy.
If you have built all improvements and have many Wonders and you have Great Unit Power you can prevent War weariness by not losing many units when at War.
Democracy is indeed better if you have established Great Power and maintain your dominance. The main thing is to not lose Units and finish Wars quickly, which you can do IF you have the Power = improvements, Wonders and Units with many cities displaying "We Love The King".

 

[tjs282]

Feudalism only really has any use if you strangle all your cities to size 6, and then you still get War Weariness from your larger army. I'm sure there must be an ideal scenario for it, but I never found it.

If the player is focusing on achieving that specific VC, then Feudalism is actually pretty useful for a Civ-wide Culture game (as a REL Civ): that's how we just won our 130K SG as Spain, at Emp (Large 60% Archi, IIRC).

Spoiler :

We did our initial expansion/ research/ warring/ under Despot, then Republic (could have used Monarchy, I guess, but research is faster as a Republic), switched to Feudalism once we had 2/3 of our own continent (destroyed Sumeria, then evicted the Romans) and the neighbouring continent (Egypt) effectively under our control, then invaded the northern landmass (Mongols, Babs, Arabs) across the 2 shortest crossing-points. We cleared, irrigated and ICS'd all the conquered territories, while also pop-whipping Temples, Caths, Libs and Cols in every town that hadn't already built/bought them under Republic.

That said, I don't think I'd want to go Feudal under any other circumstances, and I wouldn't have much wanted to do this as a solo game, either: ICS (always) looks horrible IMO, and managing a fairly large number number of units spread all over the map, while also watching over 150+ towns to minimise whip-wastage, was not particularly relaxing (turn-times got pretty stupid-long in the 'late' game)...

 

[WeirdoJoker]

I'm playing a Religious Civ (Spain), so anarchy is not a problem at all. I'm just thinking a republic would be better overall, with monarchy being better for wartime. Right now I'm technically at war, but there's no fighting going on. Celts are on the other side of the (small/continents/80%) map, and I'm more interested in building culture than units while staying friendly with my neighbors (though I'm building up the units now that most of the buildings are up). My thinking is that switching to republic will reduce corruption overall. It's the other differences I don't understand ... i.e., "unit support" and "military police limit." (Not worried about the draft rate, since I've never drafted a citizen, anyway, though I suppose it would be useful in an emergency.)

 

[justanick]

I'm playing a Religious Civ (Spain), so anarchy is not a problem at all.

2 turns anarchy is still expensive. For religious civs going for democracy can be an option.

Compared to republic democracy has 25% less distance corruption, compared to despotism it is 50% less(150% vs. 75%). This difference in corruption could mean something early on, but in the long run it gets marginalized.

Workers can build improvements up to 50% faster than in a republic etc.. So for laying railroads that can be a nice boost.

 

[jarred!]

It's the other differences I don't understand ... i.e., "unit support" and "military police limit." (Not worried about the draft rate, since I've never drafted a citizen, anyway, though I suppose it would be useful in an emergency.)

In short, unit support is the number of free units you can have per city by population before you have to start paying for them. Town is less than or equal to 6, city is 7 to less than or equal to 12, metro is 13 and up. In each gov't but republic and feudalism, cost for extra units is 1gpt each, in republic it's 2gpt for each extra unit. Feudalism is 3 gpt.
MP limit is the number of units in a settlement that will act as MPs, any number higher than this will have no further effects. Each MP makes a single unhappy citizen content. Draft rate is the number of citizens you can draft per settlement per turn. These units will be conscript.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Full disclosure: I'm addicted to science. I love running through the tech tree, building both Cope's and Newton's, and building my economy to fuel all that research.

The initial switch to republic is a little jarring, since all the warriors (or spearmen) that I've been using as military police to keep citizens happy no longer serve that function. I usually need to bump up the slider, and make sure that I've got luxury resources connected. Most of my wars in republic are resource-driven, to grab iron and coal to build my railroads. I also gobble up the odd singleton city that an AI plopped down in open space near my territory.

By running measured campaigns, war weariness is not too bad. More importantly, war weariness is calculated w.r.t. a specific opponent. I can fight one AI for 10 or 12 turns, negotiate peace and shift my forces to the other side of the empire. Fight AI number two for 10 or 12 turns, grabbing more territory, and then make peace. By the time I research the techs for oil, I usually have enough land so that it is found somewhere in my domain.

Even when I'm playing for domination (say, as the Aztecs, Zulu, or Japanese), I've found that war weariness can be managed by switching opponents. Perhaps I need to crank up the AI aggressiveness, or try to play "Always War" variant just to stretch my skills a bit more.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

2 turns anarchy is still expensive.

Really 1 turn, though ... at the end of a turn, before hitting enter/spacebar, initiate the revolution; end the turn; spend the next turn in anarchy; select new government. Unless I'm mistaken?

For religious civs going for democracy can be an option.

Compared to republic democracy has 25% less distance corruption, compared to despotism it is 50% less(150% vs. 75%). This difference in corruption could mean something early on, but in the long run it gets marginalized.

Workers can build improvements up to 50% faster than in a republic etc.. So for laying railroads that can be a nice boost.

Fair points ... puts democracy back on the table for me, at least for peacetime, if unit support is not more problematic than the corruption minimized. And I like worker efficiency, especially as I expect to have steam power soon. Last techs for middle ages are: magnetism (working on), metallurgy & military tradition. I always go for steam power next (unless playing a scientific civ & randomly get it for free).

 

[justanick]

Really 1 turn, though ... at the end of a turn, before hitting enter/spacebar, initiate the revolution; end the turn; spend the next turn in anarchy; select new government. Unless I'm mistaken?

You are mistaken. By switching right at getting the tech you can cut it short for commerce to one turn since commerce is calculated for the entire empire before you switch to anarchy. But everything local is still calculated for 2 turns anarchy. That is happyness, growth, production and culture. So switching without delay is sensible, but not that big an advantage either.

if unit support is not more problematic than the corruption minimized.

It more or less balances itself out. As republic there is free units support, so this helps. But for larger armies democracy is at an advantage.

 

[Vuldacon]

If managed correctly, Democracy is the most Powerful and will gain the most of everything, including Over All Score
Many Strategies to be played and they all require knowing the details of what each Government can provide. This is one of the many things that makes the Civ Game interesting and very detailed. Requires much time playing and studying.
Have to know what to do and when to do it

 

[Spoonwood]

If managed correctly, Democracy is the most Powerful and will gain the most of everything, including Over All Score
Many Strategies to be played and they all require knowing the details of what each Government can provide. This is one of the many things that makes the Civ Game interesting and very detailed. Requires much time playing and studying.
Have to know what to do and when to do it

I thought about trying a Democracy for a histographic hall of fame run a while back. The main problem though comes as that it requires a 2nd revolution, and I'm afraid that 2nd revolution wouldn't be good for score. Also, war weariness on an Sid Huge map probably will happen to some extent even if you're good.

 

[Takhisis]

Depending on the civ I usually do Despotism → Monarchy → Democracy (especially since they patched Conquests and a certain SW requires one to stay in Communism).

It also depends on the type of map; if there's not much fertile land then Feudalism is viable and if my civ is religious I can always do a bit more experimenting, especially if it's also industrious or scientific so I can make up for lost building/research time more easily. And the Great Library can accrue techs during anarchy but that's one of the biggest crutches in the game.

Maybe. At least, I'm thinking about it. Some other stuff I want to try at Regent, though, possibly including a larger than Standard map (which I've never done at any level).

It sounds as if you were playing with a lot of crutches. You'd better get the hang of resource insufficiency at the lower difficulty levels.

How are you with wonders?

 

[WeirdoJoker]

It sounds as if you were playing with a lot of crutches. You'd better get the hang of resource insufficiency at the lower difficulty levels.

It's only lately that I've been getting maps with insufficient resources on the map as a whole (though I don't have that problem in my current game ... no coal on my continent, but others have it and I can get it from them one way or another). And once again, I'm far ahead on tech, and not even playing a scientific civ, so maybe levelling myself up isn't such a bad idea after all.

How are you with wonders?

I've generally been trying to wean myself off them except as I may want/need specific ones for whatever my goals are. My current game, I'm going for an 80K, so I'm building as many as possible. And certain ones I really like - e.g., Pyramids & Leo's ... definitely scientific ones if going for the Spaceship, which is my favorite. My biggest weakness is (I think) insufficiently rapid expansion ... keeps me behind on the histograph, and hobbles me in other ways as well, and I imagine that would be a must at levels above Regent.

 

[tjs282]

My current game, I'm going for an 80K, so I'm building as many as possible.

This seems backwards to me. If you're going for a 20K Single-city Culture-win, then sure, you should be (pre)building lots of Wonders in that one town.

But for a Civ-wide Culture-win, you accrue much more Culture per turn (and per shield) by founding lots of towns, and then building(/ rushing/ whipping) generic Culture-generating buildings in those towns. But to get a sufficient number of towns to do that, your core should be putting shields into units, not Wonders (let the AI build the Wonders, then take them!).

 

[WeirdoJoker]

But for a Civ-wide Culture-win, you accrue much more Culture per turn (and per shield) by founding lots of towns, and then building(/ rushing/ whipping) generic Culture-generating buildings in those towns.

Well, I do that much, but not enough of it. Something I need to work on is building a lot of town first and foremost, and making sure there are enough units to defend them while I build culture-generating stuff. That's what I've been doing this time, just not enough towns to do the trick. I'll probably end up building the Ship before I can get the 80K (I always like to have a backup victory goal).

But to get a sufficient number of towns to do that, your core should be putting shields into units, not Wonders (let the AI build the Wonders, then take them!).

Hm ... I'll look at doing this on my next game, which will be a Standard map. I've never divided the responsibilities like that before.

 

[jarred!]

It's a good strategy to use: specific towns build military, others build settlers/workers, and others infrastructure. No use in having corrupt towns building libs and universities, and high food towns should be using their excess pop to build up the lower food towns (both by terraforming and by joins). In space games it's useful to have cities that have completed all the necessary buildings to start building units to disband in shield poor areas. I also have my high-pop towns sending pop to areas that need faster growth, or using corrupt areas to send pop back to my core.

 

[CKS]

If you want to hit 80k first, start ICSing your territory. You don't need to take more territory (although it might be nice), so you don't need more units. Just squeeze in more towns and give each of them a temple, library, cathedral, university (if you've gone past education), and colosseum. Put a town anywhere you can. This will steal tiles from other towns so your production will crash and your corruption will soar, so work your way in from the outside - plant towns near your capital last. If you are in feudalism, remember that food isn't corrupted, so pop-rushing like crazy works great.

If you are playing for 80K, the space ship should never be your backup plan. For 80K, the temple of artemis is your friend, so you want to not learn education. If you need military, you can get to cavalry without education so you are good. Cavalry armies will reliably take out 1hp TOW infantry in a metropolis, so they should suffice for any military purpose..

 

[justanick]

I'll probably end up building the Ship before I can get the 80K (I always like to have a backup victory goal).

Then you are doing something quite wrong. What you need is as many towns as possible, not any unneeded techs. So what you should do is play say the celts, use your UU to conquer sightly less than 66% of the world area and then use feudalism to poprush culture in every town you got. If you have 100 towns with 10 culture per turn, than you need less than 80 turns. You will not even reach the modern age.

A poor to mediocre substitute for feudalism is republic. Stop researching and use your gold to rush culture into every settlement you got. Again you will not reach the modern age.

 

[Takhisis]

It's only lately that I've been getting maps with insufficient resources on the map as a whole (though I don't have that problem in my current game ... no coal on my continent, but others have it and I can get it from them one way or another). And once again, I'm far ahead on tech, and not even playing a scientific civ, so maybe levelling myself up isn't such a bad idea after all.

Level yourself up then! It's a wonderful feeling when you've realised you can play at this newer, higher difficulty level.

I've generally been trying to wean myself off them except as I may want/need specific ones for whatever my goals are. My current game, I'm going for an 80K, so I'm building as many as possible. And certain ones I really like - e.g., Pyramids & Leo's ... definitely scientific ones if going for the Spaceship, which is my favorite. My biggest weakness is (I think) insufficiently rapid expansion ... keeps me behind on the histograph, and hobbles me in other ways as well, and I imagine that would be a must at levels above Regent.

I'd suggest trying Monarch, right now.

 

[Caro-Kann]

I have a question about city planting: The minimum distance between any two pair of cities is 2 tiles. Is there any way to change this value to something else? I tried looking in the "edit rules" section of the editor, but couldn't find anything. I might've just overlooked it, though.

 

[EMan]

Welcome to CivFanatics, Caro-Kann. (You must be a chessplayer!? 1. e4 c6)

I can't answer your question but, out of curiosity, why would you want cities adjacent to each other?