Black Waltz
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 569
Oh please. If you use 'we elect representatives' then nealry the whole world lives under a republic. Even Denmark, Sweeden, Spain, Germany, etc, who only have defensive forces.
Republic military gpt....
- Thread starter patronr383
- Start date
Intruder13
Pave the way
Well I'd rather not get off subject and argue with you, but I am right and you are wrong
j/k. Let me put it another way, Those countries you listed (Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Germany) would have a defensive army under any government because they are so small. Also, Germany got its war machine during WWII by using slave labor of those it conquered. As in the current version of the game Republic is really only useful when you conquer a neighbor and build infrastructure. The double-unit cost will kill Republic unless the some other factors (Civrules) are significant.Intruder13
Pave the way
We are talking about unit upkeep not gold-rush
because thats been fixed I agree with that. True we spend the most, but we have alot to show for it. This is why we kicked Iraq so quick.EDIT: We do NOT spend the combined total of the next 20 countries either; your numbers are greatly embellished
Black Waltz
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 569
Nope. It is actually quite true. In real money terms you spend more then the combined military budgets of the rest of the developed world.
Al Zan
King
this is great new, this means that the AI will will use other Gov for once!
downwithgravity
Zen Rocker
well...that would be more accurate then, if republic gets enhanced economic abilities and more expensive unit costs. because yeah the US spends a whole lot, but we can also afford it.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Well, republic's trade bonus offsets higher military cost in most cases (exempt if you have way to big military).
And after all Rome did switch to Monarchy later.
Sory people, but republic is not ment to be some sort of uber-government.
I applaud to changes made.
And after all Rome did switch to Monarchy later.
Sory people, but republic is not ment to be some sort of uber-government.
I applaud to changes made.
Intruder13
Pave the way
We may spend close to the total of the 10 closest countries but our military spending is only 3.2% of our GDP World Factbook (US)
However, I loaded up Civ III and looked under Democracy in the encyclopedia, and It mentioned this is the representative democracy that I have been talking about. Be that as it may, I still do not think republic should pay 2 gpt per unit. Well, Ill just have to wait and play the game before I complain anymore.
However, I loaded up Civ III and looked under Democracy in the encyclopedia, and It mentioned this is the representative democracy that I have been talking about. Be that as it may, I still do not think republic should pay 2 gpt per unit. Well, Ill just have to wait and play the game before I complain anymore.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think Rome switched to something closer to a Despotism, but I suppose it could be Monarchy.
IIRC, Democracy in the game represents something close to what the US has.
Rome's repulblic was not really a true republic. It was an oligarchy designed by the rich so they could keep their power, instead of a king. Only citizens of a certain wealth could vote (but they had to serve in the army). These people would run for one of the 7 governmental positions (The highest being the 2 consuls). If you serve in one position, you stay in the Senate for life (so you always have power).
Also, The Roman Republic suffered with corruption (something that Civ3's Republic doesn't have)
IIRC, Democracy in the game represents something close to what the US has.
Rome's repulblic was not really a true republic. It was an oligarchy designed by the rich so they could keep their power, instead of a king. Only citizens of a certain wealth could vote (but they had to serve in the army). These people would run for one of the 7 governmental positions (The highest being the 2 consuls). If you serve in one position, you stay in the Senate for life (so you always have power).
Also, The Roman Republic suffered with corruption (something that Civ3's Republic doesn't have)
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Monarchy in civs represents apsolutistic monachy, like many of those in 17-19th century, which is not too far from Imperial rule of Rome.
By the way, we get another form of decentralised Monachy with new Feudalsim added in C3C (feudal monachy more correctly).
On the other hand, Deportism represents very oppresive apsolutistic form of government with very poor economy (despotism penatly).
All governments have corruption.
Zoke0
Dangerous Hobo
According to Darius I (Persian king during the first Persin war with Greece/Athens) Democracy, which if you look at this right could be easily related to a Republic
Many>Factions (ie. Democrats and Republicans)>Chaos>People's Champion or Monarch
Now I don't want to get into a political debat about this, but I think this the whole theory about making Republic a harder government to conquer the world with. Like many rulers that tried to conquer the world they couldn't be a republic. Infact I think it was one of the Roman Emperors that stopped the expansion of the Empire, because he had to pay attention to the country itself. Firaxis couldn't bump up war weariness cause then they would have to do the same with Democracy. If they did that, then if you got invaded the people would all start to hate you for going to war. They did the next best thing and mad it harder to support an army of world conquest proportion. I kind of regret the changes, but they did they're best to not let one government to become the perfect government, because personally I hate playing and everyone else is Republic, then they all turn to Democracy, it bores me. So although, I'm dissapointed in the whole Republic being a harder government to rule under, I applaud the attempt to create a whole pool of general governments that can reflect your efforts (ie. Facism for a person trying to conquer the world and Republic and Democracy for someon trying to create a great cultural and economic empire).
Many>Factions (ie. Democrats and Republicans)>Chaos>People's Champion or Monarch
Now I don't want to get into a political debat about this, but I think this the whole theory about making Republic a harder government to conquer the world with. Like many rulers that tried to conquer the world they couldn't be a republic. Infact I think it was one of the Roman Emperors that stopped the expansion of the Empire, because he had to pay attention to the country itself. Firaxis couldn't bump up war weariness cause then they would have to do the same with Democracy. If they did that, then if you got invaded the people would all start to hate you for going to war. They did the next best thing and mad it harder to support an army of world conquest proportion. I kind of regret the changes, but they did they're best to not let one government to become the perfect government, because personally I hate playing and everyone else is Republic, then they all turn to Democracy, it bores me. So although, I'm dissapointed in the whole Republic being a harder government to rule under, I applaud the attempt to create a whole pool of general governments that can reflect your efforts (ie. Facism for a person trying to conquer the world and Republic and Democracy for someon trying to create a great cultural and economic empire).
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
This is the balance. It was seriously unbalanced before. Why should a government form that you can easily get a quarter of the way through the game be the best for nearly all situations?
Now you have to think about choice of government a little more. This is a good thing.
Merepatra
BreakAway Games
Don't get too worried, there will be some free unit support under Republic. But you now hopefully will have to think a bit more about which Government to choose rather than Republic always being the obvious choice.
Intruder13
Pave the way
Thats all I needed to know, unit support is what we needed. Good to hear from a official source, cheers.
robcheng
Sleep-deprived Addict
That's exactly right. I'm sure Rome's military wasn't cheap, either. You can still warmonger as a Republic, but it will cost you...and assuming your opponent isn't going to roll over in a couple turns, it would be cheaper to take the anarchy hit to change governments while you are at war. Forcing you to make tough strategic choices...that's what I call good game balance.
Gogf
Indescribable
Could somebody please explain how Republic was better than democracy? It seemed the same, except:
Republic worker rate: 100%
Democracy worker rate: 150%
Republic special: none
Democracy special: immune to propaganda
Democracy seems better to me.
Republic worker rate: 100%
Democracy worker rate: 150%
Republic special: none
Democracy special: immune to propaganda
Democracy seems better to me.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Democracy had high WW, Republic had low.
You could stay in war longer (and use less luxury tax) in Republic, giving you gold and a war at the same time.
You could stay in war longer (and use less luxury tax) in Republic, giving you gold and a war at the same time.
Intruder13
Pave the way
Democracy has much higher war wariness and will toss you in to anarchy if you remain at war for too long. Republic can stay at war long enough to do some damage.
