CultureFreak18
Chieftain
Yeah, I see your point. Thanks for bringing that up.
Screw Democracy
- Thread starter Exsanguination
- Start date
Angelscotboi
Emperor
I dont understand people who get to a democracy as soon as they possibly can, skipping other forms if possible. The way i see it, it is a stupid idea to become a democracy if u have any less than 15 or so cities.
I always try and wait until I have grown beyond that barrier before become a democracy because at that stage you can become basically a "super" democracy where it is quite possible to conduct a successful and lengthy war against another power, without disorder with your luxury rates at only 20%.
I have only once abandoned Democracy once during a war, and that was in favour of Fundamentalism during a rather annoying war with a much bigger neighbour. And that was only because under fundamentalism u could churn out a lot of units very quickly to perform a "blitzkrieg" against the enemy, to achieve a peace treaty and then restablish Democracy, after disbanding all the un-needed units.
I have also noticed that if u are a larger empire and you are a democracy you tend to have a very high rate of production, so u dont even need to have a standing offensive army because you can quickly produce one in one or 2 turns...
The only time I have ever used Communism was when my empire covered a good portion of the world and it became extremly difficult to manage under democracy even at 40/50% luxuries, and even then I dropped it in favour of Fundamentalism because I kept loosing money. In my view there is no point in having good science if you cannot afford to build the things you research.
Basically my point here is that each Government type has its own merits, and more than likely u will use each one of them at some point for some reason, and there is really no better government because Despotism is the best government at the beginning of the game because your small and Despotism allows quick expansion, Monarchy is good early in the game if you need to conduct a war or have not yet discovered Republic, Republic is good if you are a medium sized empire and have not yet discovered Communism because communism is a good replacement for a medium empire that needs to conduct war, or if you havent discovered Democracy, Democracy is good because of its Science bonus and quick growth for your individual cities and that it is easy to support a large empire, and Fundamentalism is a good alternative for a larger empire which is at war.
(Damn that was hellava long winded LOL)
I always try and wait until I have grown beyond that barrier before become a democracy because at that stage you can become basically a "super" democracy where it is quite possible to conduct a successful and lengthy war against another power, without disorder with your luxury rates at only 20%.
I have only once abandoned Democracy once during a war, and that was in favour of Fundamentalism during a rather annoying war with a much bigger neighbour. And that was only because under fundamentalism u could churn out a lot of units very quickly to perform a "blitzkrieg" against the enemy, to achieve a peace treaty and then restablish Democracy, after disbanding all the un-needed units.
I have also noticed that if u are a larger empire and you are a democracy you tend to have a very high rate of production, so u dont even need to have a standing offensive army because you can quickly produce one in one or 2 turns...
The only time I have ever used Communism was when my empire covered a good portion of the world and it became extremly difficult to manage under democracy even at 40/50% luxuries, and even then I dropped it in favour of Fundamentalism because I kept loosing money. In my view there is no point in having good science if you cannot afford to build the things you research.
Basically my point here is that each Government type has its own merits, and more than likely u will use each one of them at some point for some reason, and there is really no better government because Despotism is the best government at the beginning of the game because your small and Despotism allows quick expansion, Monarchy is good early in the game if you need to conduct a war or have not yet discovered Republic, Republic is good if you are a medium sized empire and have not yet discovered Communism because communism is a good replacement for a medium empire that needs to conduct war, or if you havent discovered Democracy, Democracy is good because of its Science bonus and quick growth for your individual cities and that it is easy to support a large empire, and Fundamentalism is a good alternative for a larger empire which is at war.
(Damn that was hellava long winded LOL)
Democratic Fundamentalism rules!!!
If you have a large and modern empire, then the perfect compromise between Civ2's two best governments (democacy and fundamentalism) is to build a super-fundamentalism. The way to do this is:
If you have a large and modern empire, then the perfect compromise between Civ2's two best governments (democacy and fundamentalism) is to build a super-fundamentalism. The way to do this is:
- Switch to a fundamentalist government
- Use your ample supplies of $$$ to build superhighways in all your cities
- Raise the luxury rate to about 60 or 70 percent. Since all citizens are content under fundamentalism, the high luxury rate will cause the majority of your citizens to become happy.
[/list=1]
That means that on yor next turn, all of those cities with more than 1/2 happy citizens will begin to celebrate We Love the High Priest Day, and you know what that means of course: the city collects resources as a democracy. So a city under fundamentalism with superhighways ceelebrating "We Love the High Priest Day" produces THREE TRADE in each road square. Once you have your economy rolling like this, You can lower the luxury rate to 30 or even 20 percent, the cities will still celebrate, and you'll still make MORE money and science than before!
starlifter
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,210
What you are describing is a partial (e.g., stunted) version of Power Fundamentalism. Most assuredly, you are wasting lots of resources if you do it merely as you've described.
It can (should) be done earlier, with less Luxuries allocated, no need for waiting until Superhighways, and implementation of Trade..
See this thread for descriptions of PF (and PD, too). The PD discussion is a superset of PF, BTW.
I usually go monarchy, with massive expansion across world, then commie (Left! Right?) via statue of libby, which sorts your massive corruption out, then batter the world into submission so its safe + easy under democracy for massive sci/lux rates and happy peeps near the endgame
DrakeRunner
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 11
I go from Depo, to Monarch, then when I get Democ, I build the Statue of Liberty and switch right to Fundamentalism, mainly because I suck with keeping my people happy. This way I keep people happy, I can divert things to Science or to Taxes as I need to, and keep a fair sized army, because I just love demanding tribute until they declare war, and realize that I built up several armies to conquer them.
I don't know why you would use monarchy once you have communism, in my experience, communism works the same way but just enhances some of the benefits monarchy has over despotism. I find monarchy is a simple straightforward but beneficial progression from despotism and that the same is true for communism over monarchy - they're all middle of the road governments, very easy to manage.
In a normal game I go from Despotism-Monarchy-Communism-Fundamentalism. I never use Republic or Democracy because they're weak, the suck the life out of your military and while the militaristic governments might put a damper on science, science won't help you when you get over-run by a way bigger army.
Ramsses
Chieftain
I'm playing Civ 2 for almost 3 years now.
I know how to manage a Democraty state but I don't like it!
I preffer Fundementalism because I always crushed the world with it...
I know how to manage a Democraty state but I don't like it!
I preffer Fundementalism because I always crushed the world with it...
The Mass Leader
The One and Only
I never go democratic - it causes war difficulty and people unrest.
My evolution way it - despotism - monarchy - modern circle.
The modern circle is republic-communism alternation.
I get communist, build temples, build cathedrals, build all that stuff. Then get republican. I build troops, get money, develop science, make better troops.
Then, if war is needed, if war is wanted, or if war is the only thing cool to do I get communist - and go to war.
After war, Republic. If there is Republic, why to make democracy? The little difference on profit does not worth it.
My evolution way it - despotism - monarchy - modern circle.
The modern circle is republic-communism alternation.
I get communist, build temples, build cathedrals, build all that stuff. Then get republican. I build troops, get money, develop science, make better troops.
Then, if war is needed, if war is wanted, or if war is the only thing cool to do I get communist - and go to war.
After war, Republic. If there is Republic, why to make democracy? The little difference on profit does not worth it.
I use Democracy if I'm playing OCC but otherwise I go Fundamintalism with SETI, Copers, and Newtons and say a 50% science rate you can pump out a tech every 4-5 turns with about 15 cities so... and that is without WLTHPD so, but in OCC Democracy with Shaksperes war is fine nobody is unhappy...
Andu Indorin
Retired Druid
Invariably, I go democracy as soon as its available. And with the Power Democracy in full operation, I don't even worry about building Factories. I just rush build Barracks, and then rush build Armor, Howitzers, and -- if desirable -- Mech Infantry. With the United Nations and the Emissary's Ploy, the Power Democracy becomes the most lethal form of government. ...
With the Power Democracy, the United Nations, and the Emissary's ploy, and the liberal use of Engineers and Freight, it is possible to sustain military expanision, economic expansion, geographic expanion (i.e., establishing new cities), and demographic expansion via having all of your cities celebrating We Love the President's/P.M.'s Day and still maintain one's scientific progress at one tech per turn. (Or, if you are so inclined, two techs per turn if you forego the expansion above.)
While establishing the Power Democracy requires a great deal of planning and development in the mid-game, it is hard to argue against the results achieved by the end game.
Ramsses
Chieftain
I just made a simple scenario for myself and I'm the West Europeans now.
I'm the only Democracy in the world with the Americans and I have luxury at 30%.
It's going good now but I still have sometimes the problem that running the empire more cost than I get in...
I don't like trading but I think I'll need to start with it in 5 or 10 turns now
.
I'm the only Democracy in the world with the Americans and I have luxury at 30%.
It's going good now but I still have sometimes the problem that running the empire more cost than I get in...
I don't like trading but I think I'll need to start with it in 5 or 10 turns now
.Russian Leader
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 5, 2003
- Messages
- 10
Democracy in my opinion is bad in civ 2 tot. I always go with Fundementalisum
its the best really. when the game gets going and you make like 1,000 a turn and sicence comes every two turns and you dont have any costs.
Terrapin
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 505
Republic/Democracy bashers are forgetting one thing: Celebration day growth. It takes some doing to set up the wonders, roads, irrigation, trade routes, market places, temples, colos, acquaducts (except on diety, where you cannot celebrate past size 8 with just temple/oracle/colo) and whatnot needed to support rapid expansion, but once you set it all up, crank up the luxuries and all of a sudden(5 to 8 turns), your population at least doubles, along with your income, science and shield production. By building a wave of settlers while celebrating, you put off the appearance of the first redface (the party pooper who ends the celebration) by one day and have a bunch of new settlers supported by the now massive cities. This first wave of growth starts early, usually in Republic, even before democracy is discovered. Unless a monarchy/fundy/commie is right nearby, I will be too big, rich and technically advanced for them to conquer by the time they find me.
Russian Leader
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 5, 2003
- Messages
- 10
my stratergy works verry good. i stay with the form of government i have already. and i expand regurly. buy the first 20-50 years i have around 150 cities all at the same numbers with 5 archers in them. along with settelers doing the needs of the terrain, and an army at war. And this is on medium. on verry easy i have dubble that.
only problium i have is the computer sending mass amts. of diplomats to steal technology from me.
so i box my cities with archers.
only problium i have is the computer sending mass amts. of diplomats to steal technology from me.
so i box my cities with archers.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I'm here to put in my two-cents. As always, this thread has been extremely informative and given me many ideas. It's with this attitude I present my current opinions.
As always, I'm confused by players who use Monarchy over Communism. Monarchy is a very good early government, especially for aggressive expansion. Communism is the same though, just with Espionage bonus, no Corruption, more expensive bribes, and double martial law.
A note about Democracy. I agree its one of the most powerful governments, especially if utilized correctly. Super Democracies, however, require a great deal of infastructure to support. Sometimes one does not have the security to establish to infastructure. A good example was when I was ganged up on by all 7 computer players. Somehow the far off ones had sufficient navy to send troops to me. I used to superior tactics to prevent being over-run, but could never muster the strength to counter-attack. Another problem with the infastructure issue is Spies. A wave of spies can devastate a large Democratic city, even if a Spy or Diplomat are stationed there. I used that tactic as a Communist power against a large Democracy. Once the Civ collapsed into Anarachy, I bought a good half-dozen of their cities the first turn. After that it was an aggressive strike with Armour and Bombers. Of course I have never had this same problem playing as a Democracy.
I have only played as a Fundamentalist once, and the corruption was horrendous. Fanatics are worthless. There are few times when the 10 unit support limit is actually nessecary. It goes back to that Art of War thing. A proper Amphibious assault with one or two transports is more effective than an expected attack by 30 or 40 armour/bombers. Besides, it is WAY too easy to bribe Fundy cities, especially in a large empire. Of course I do like the prospect of Suitcase Nuking cities
There is not a lot to be said about Communism. I have had mixed succes with it, basically a modern-day Monarchy. If someone has a good Communism strategy please tell it.
As always, I'm confused by players who use Monarchy over Communism. Monarchy is a very good early government, especially for aggressive expansion. Communism is the same though, just with Espionage bonus, no Corruption, more expensive bribes, and double martial law.
A note about Democracy. I agree its one of the most powerful governments, especially if utilized correctly. Super Democracies, however, require a great deal of infastructure to support. Sometimes one does not have the security to establish to infastructure. A good example was when I was ganged up on by all 7 computer players. Somehow the far off ones had sufficient navy to send troops to me. I used to superior tactics to prevent being over-run, but could never muster the strength to counter-attack. Another problem with the infastructure issue is Spies. A wave of spies can devastate a large Democratic city, even if a Spy or Diplomat are stationed there. I used that tactic as a Communist power against a large Democracy. Once the Civ collapsed into Anarachy, I bought a good half-dozen of their cities the first turn. After that it was an aggressive strike with Armour and Bombers. Of course I have never had this same problem playing as a Democracy.
I have only played as a Fundamentalist once, and the corruption was horrendous. Fanatics are worthless. There are few times when the 10 unit support limit is actually nessecary. It goes back to that Art of War thing. A proper Amphibious assault with one or two transports is more effective than an expected attack by 30 or 40 armour/bombers. Besides, it is WAY too easy to bribe Fundy cities, especially in a large empire. Of course I do like the prospect of Suitcase Nuking cities
There is not a lot to be said about Communism. I have had mixed succes with it, basically a modern-day Monarchy. If someone has a good Communism strategy please tell it.
The Mass Leader
The One and Only
This is time for me to put my own arguments here. The guy who likes democracy can write better than me - and it´s only because english is not my first language - but I have solid reasons to dislike democracy as a form of government and philosophy for conducing the civilization.
First, I keep my position when I say: If there is republic, why democracy?
Some thing I do:
First - When I start the modern ages, I put all my cities to auto-build and give power to the domestic advisor.
Second - I never change government without the need for it. When Monarchy makes my country to stop developing, I change to republic. When it happens, all Temples, Cathedrals, wonders, courthouses, are already builded. Republic starts working fine.
Third - I am not affraid of spies. I always build a "Maginot Line"-like defense system, at middle ages. With Leo´s workshop, pikemen become riflemen. No spy can enter my lands without declaring war. If it happens, I will surely leave no holes in the defending lines.
NOW ---- ** ** COMMUNISM ** ** ----
If my country is strong on trade and during my monarchy, I builded roads and railroads, I change from Monarch to Communist.
If Communism, with low or no corruption, can support all the national structure (cities are large, terrains are fertile...), I keep communism. No problems with corruption, no people unrest, no need to ask the senate when I want to make war, no need to explain anyone why my troops move away from home.
With communism, I get not the same money I was going to get with Republic. But, if I have a country rich enough to keep it´s own structures and prepare a large army, it´s fine. I don´t need a great amount of money to make any war, since my military forces are builded slowly, during long peace periods. When war comes, I have dozens or armours, bombers, Nukes, and all sorts of weapons.
Oh, and I lately ave started a new policy about United Nations: I build a small city in the desert, build UN there, and thn, disband the city. No artificial peace for anyone. Is someone wants to challenge the Red Army, they can do it freely. I will crush them all.
- I shall return victorious, or not at all -
That´s it. Hope I have explained my point well.
First, I keep my position when I say: If there is republic, why democracy?
Some thing I do:
First - When I start the modern ages, I put all my cities to auto-build and give power to the domestic advisor.
Second - I never change government without the need for it. When Monarchy makes my country to stop developing, I change to republic. When it happens, all Temples, Cathedrals, wonders, courthouses, are already builded. Republic starts working fine.
Third - I am not affraid of spies. I always build a "Maginot Line"-like defense system, at middle ages. With Leo´s workshop, pikemen become riflemen. No spy can enter my lands without declaring war. If it happens, I will surely leave no holes in the defending lines.
NOW ---- ** ** COMMUNISM ** ** ----
If my country is strong on trade and during my monarchy, I builded roads and railroads, I change from Monarch to Communist.
If Communism, with low or no corruption, can support all the national structure (cities are large, terrains are fertile...), I keep communism. No problems with corruption, no people unrest, no need to ask the senate when I want to make war, no need to explain anyone why my troops move away from home.
With communism, I get not the same money I was going to get with Republic. But, if I have a country rich enough to keep it´s own structures and prepare a large army, it´s fine. I don´t need a great amount of money to make any war, since my military forces are builded slowly, during long peace periods. When war comes, I have dozens or armours, bombers, Nukes, and all sorts of weapons.
Oh, and I lately ave started a new policy about United Nations: I build a small city in the desert, build UN there, and thn, disband the city. No artificial peace for anyone. Is someone wants to challenge the Red Army, they can do it freely. I will crush them all.
- I shall return victorious, or not at all -
That´s it. Hope I have explained my point well.
Similar threads
