The Three Phases of Expansionism

[D0NIMATRIX]

i think the game was getting at how the america reacted to the vietnam war and how unpopular it is (could be anything else) but i do think that there should be less civil unrest because i remember playing one time and i got attacked and every1 of my cities went beserk and started rioting trying to stop the war and i ended up loses half of my empire because i couldnt produce any units!!!!!!!!! what about popular wars liek ww2 and such?

Yeah, the Vietnam War was just one instance (along with the iraq war) where the AMERICANS were annoyed with a war, and there are plenty of other nations that used good democracies on Earth, namely Greece and Rome (republic/democracy).

 

[mr_lewington]

i wouldnt really call rome a good republic... it's Corruption level was at Catastrophic level before it cliked the revolution button, 6 turns of anarachy and violia! an efficent Monarcy/ Fascim (w.e)

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Only near the time of Caesar. Before that it functioned very well. Believe me, I've read dozens of books about Rome.

 

[mr_lewington]

id have 2 say that the senators were pretty corrupt (some), like taking land from soldiers and hte poor. believe me, i watch the military channel but yes it was a well oiled machine

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

That applies to just about every government, (Nixon for example), but yes, otherwise, the Roman Republic ran quite smoothly.

 

[mr_lewington]

id have 2 say overall though that the emperors did a better job then the senators (Monarcy Triumphs ) but u seem to know more about the empire/republic, wat do u think?

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Yes, overall the early emperors did better than the republic had, but then the moronic later emperors came along and ruined the empire, then near the end some good emperors prolonged its existence a hundred years or so, but they could never fix the previous emperors' screw-ups.
As you see I like Rome.

 

[Jazzmail]

i think the game was getting at how the america reacted to the vietnam war and how unpopular it is (could be anything else) but i do think that there should be less civil unrest because i remember playing one time and i got attacked and every1 of my cities went beserk and started rioting trying to stop the war and i ended up loses half of my empire because i couldnt produce any units!!!!!!!!! what about popular wars liek ww2 and such?

Hehe. Well think about it this way: WW2 lasted from 1939 till 1945 (shorter for some allied nations), while a big war in Civ3 can last for centuries.
The period 1938-1946 is only 4 turns.

You cannot really compare civ3 numbers to the real world. It would be more interesting to argue whether war weariness has a place in the game as a concept, or are the numbers/formulas balanced in terms of gameplay.

There is no reason to lose anything except some coin/beakers due to WW in a republic, because in most situations all you need to do to prevent riots is increase the lux slider.

 

[bustedsynapses]

To use Democracies well, you need to keep your happiness way up. First, you need luxuries. Then, lots of city improvements. Get the other civ to declare war (best with a sneak attack). If you have a lot of luxuries, then conquest is easier, as the newly-won territories cave faster. They also like being in a democracy. The thing about democracies is that they are fabulously rich, and can afford to rush city improvements. They can also afford to mass-produce expensive, powerful units. If your units are inside cities most of the time, then war-weariness isn't much of a problem. So, don't fight in the countryside, unless you can pull back afterwards into the city. Go after one city at a time. I find flipping isn't much of a problem when you are a democracy, because you have all this culture and luxuries, so resistance is shortened, and can also afford to rush improvements. Democracies are my favorite to make war with, because they can afford larger forces, just don't have the cash shortages other gov's have, and flipping and resistance are so much less. (Those arab women can't wait to get rid of their veils and heavy, black clothes when we take over. Where we go wrong is letting those nimrods try to rule themselves, instead of setting up our rules in their country. Then they get foreign armed presence without the benefits.)

 

[mr_lewington]

how do u get another civ 2 declare war on u?

 

[Tone]

how do u get another civ 2 declare war on u?

There is no dead cert way that I am aware of but they are more likely to declare war if they are furious with you. Make numerous stupid demands; as they reject them they'll become furious. If they have a unit passing through your territory, you can then issue a 'leave or declare' demand and almost every time they'll declare war on you.

@bustedsynapses: what are you going on about at the end of your post?

 

[pol1]

@bustedsynapses :

are talking about civ2??? AFAIR there was penalty for having units far away from the city...
and AFAIK democracy doesn't have anything to do with flip's chances or resistance.

 

[bustedsynapses]

I find that happy towns flip less readily. I find that democracies in this game are happier societies. Just my experience.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

It could just be because they have enough money to support entertainers and also alot of luxuries.

 

[MAS]

Entertainers should only be used sporadically, they only produce 1 gpt worth of happiness effect. A scientist produces 3 gpt worth or beakers.
A citizen working a mined grass tile under monarchy produces 2 food, 1 shield, and 1 gpt. And under republic it produces 2 gpt.

This means that citizens under republic can pay for their own happiness with the lux slider. In the corrupt cities you'd use more and more specialist until you get to a point where a town is just farming for the specialists.
But under monarchy, citizens can't pay for their own happiness, you'll need to use units for MP, or build temples. Both slow you down in many ways. In both governments you'll end up with specialist farms.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Everybody has their own style of government, so this is one of the hardest-to-debate topics out there. I personally prefer dictatorial regimes, but seeing as you guys can get republic and democracy to work, I may well try them. BTW, I modded the game and modified a whole bunch of bizarre aspects about it. Here's the link for it:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/124581/What_Civ3_Should_Be_like-World_Map.biq

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . I personally prefer dictatorial regimes, but seeing as you guys can get republic and democracy to work, I may well try them. . . . .

Just because you're in Republic doesn't mean your citizens actually get any voice in things. You just don't get to use the

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

What I meant was that all three branches of government were in the possession of one guy.

 

[MAS]

Everybody has their own style of government, so this is one of the hardest-to-debate topics out there.I personally prefer dictatorial regimes, but seeing as you guys can get republic and democracy to work, I may well try them.

You are free to do in your games as you like, I suggest doing what is the most fun to you.

However, you should realize that the game is unbalanced in favor of republic. If we are talking about cold hard effectiveness, and not personal preferences, republic is the best choice of government 9 times out of 10. (for both peace mongering and conquest)

I'm talking about a standard random epic game of course, in mods, scenarios, and variants all bets are off.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

I always speak in terms of whatever game the thread is currently discussing. I speak from my memory of non-modded civ3, and I can never get democratic governments to work well. I could really use some tips on how to do it.