State Property drawbacks?

[Jtownsend]

I'm used to the old Civ1/Civ2 government-type "Communism," which had sufficient drawbacks that I almost never used it; state property seems comparatively very useful. Is there a drawback I'm missing? Simply the lack of Free Market's bonus trade and corps?

 

[Verge]

Simply the lack of Free Market's bonus trade and corps?

That's pretty much it, although I consider the absence of corporate activity to be a massive drawback in most of my games.

 

[Andvare]

Yup. Only drawback is corps. Which can be quite big. However, when playing on a map where a considerable amount of overseas action is expected, corps is out the window in a heartbeat for no colony maintenance (see the latest ALC instalment for an example of this).

 

[Zanttu]

There aren't big drawbacks in State Property, but if you have a small empire with low mainteance costs and no workshops, the benefit of that civic is quite low also..

 

[AlessioCerci]

Free market is better if you have lots of intercontinental trade. an extra +10 commerce per coastal city is awesome.

 

[duende29]

I usually only stay on Free Market if I can get enough seafood to make Sushi worthwhile. Otherwise only if I'm not conquering cities, which is very rare. State Property gets better as you add more enemy cities to your empire.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Depends. If you have a big empire, especially one on multiple continents, you almost have to go with state property to deal the cost. It can also be really handy if you want to industrialise you empire since it gives an alright boost to hammers.
However, if you have a smaller-medium empire with lots of trade routes, Free Market is awesome. Trade Routes can be absolutly amazing and maximising them is always a solid economic strategy. That, and corporations can be extremely powerful if you have the right number of resources. Sids Sushi and Mining Inc can turn even a crappy little fishing village built on Tundra into a decent city in no time.