Sup guys. Good to be back after a long time away. I'm having some trouble with Democracy now that I've begun to favor it over Fundy because of the growth it fosters under WLTP. However, when I play against my buddies it's almost always vital to have a somewhat decent army or navy capable of waging a defensive war because of you don't, those that do choose Fundy can certainly pose a threat. I know several have developed tactics that enable larger armies, navies, and air forces, such as building Shakes in a city, but I was hoping to learn more about things like troop redistribution and how to sustain a Democratic force from veteran players. Thanks.
Troop Redistribution
- Thread starter Alsbron
- Start date
Have you seen this "Power Democracy" thread ?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87937
It was well-written, but was probably intended for single-player games. For some reason, there seem to be few threads about mulitplayer strategy. My guess is that Fundy would be a better wartime govt, but that Demo could work with a few strong alliances. For war, you'd probably need the Police Station Wonder (CfC? or WS?) and a small army/navy of the most powerful units possible + lots of spies and engineers.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87937
It was well-written, but was probably intended for single-player games. For some reason, there seem to be few threads about mulitplayer strategy. My guess is that Fundy would be a better wartime govt, but that Demo could work with a few strong alliances. For war, you'd probably need the Police Station Wonder (CfC? or WS?) and a small army/navy of the most powerful units possible + lots of spies and engineers.
That is indeed a wonderful thread, but although there's a lot in there about Demo and war, there's not a whole lot about the actual formation of the army. Any knowledge that I've been able to gain from the forums I've learned from that thread. However, I was hoping to find out a bit more from veteran players. I just can't seem through redistribution and wonders to be able to assemble a force capable of defending against an elite army raised under fundy in the late stages of the game. I've been able to do this well on some occasions, but it's a big risk when one (and sometimes two or three) big fundy civs attack you late in the game with big armies. 
I haven't played multiplayer, but you can take these comments for what they're worth:
Your success while playing as a democracy (or a republic) depends a lot more on your city management than do other governments. By this I mean that poor gameplay (doing little, or incorrect, city management) will harm you far more in a democracy than other governments. For example, if you ignore a city while in fundamentalism, all you will suffer is sub-optimal production. If you ignore a city in democracy, however, it is more than likely that it will fall into disorder. At the very least, We Love the President Day will stop after a couple turns, either due to an unhappy citizen or because of the need for an aqueduct or sewer system (also, if your cities are growing by WLTPD, you will want to visit each city every turn to assign the new worker to the job you want him to do). If, because you are playing multiplayer, you can't devote enough time to managing your civilization properly, democracy may actually be your worst government choice.
Assuming that you can take the time to run your democracy properly, there are a few things to keep in mind:
A democracy should never be on equal terms with civilizations of other governments. Democracy's power lies in the fact that it can speed ahead of other governments in population and technology. Other governments can field more units for their size than a democracy, and are free to move them how they like; the only advantage democracy has is immunity to bribery. You must compensate for this by being bigger, and having better (more advanced) units than your opponent. If circumstances prevent you from growing and making frequent caravan deliveries (such as having to divert substantial resources to defense to save you from being overrun), you should probably use a different government.
Remember that in single player, AI ineptitude reduces defense costs substantially, especially if there is some distance between the civs. Also, playing a large map usually means that there is ample room to grow, and it is usually assumed that the player can get any "necessary" wonder (particularly Mike's and Bach's). J.S. Bach's Cathedral is most useful for a democracy conducting war, since its effect applies after unit unhappiness.
Your success while playing as a democracy (or a republic) depends a lot more on your city management than do other governments. By this I mean that poor gameplay (doing little, or incorrect, city management) will harm you far more in a democracy than other governments. For example, if you ignore a city while in fundamentalism, all you will suffer is sub-optimal production. If you ignore a city in democracy, however, it is more than likely that it will fall into disorder. At the very least, We Love the President Day will stop after a couple turns, either due to an unhappy citizen or because of the need for an aqueduct or sewer system (also, if your cities are growing by WLTPD, you will want to visit each city every turn to assign the new worker to the job you want him to do). If, because you are playing multiplayer, you can't devote enough time to managing your civilization properly, democracy may actually be your worst government choice.
Assuming that you can take the time to run your democracy properly, there are a few things to keep in mind:
A democracy should never be on equal terms with civilizations of other governments. Democracy's power lies in the fact that it can speed ahead of other governments in population and technology. Other governments can field more units for their size than a democracy, and are free to move them how they like; the only advantage democracy has is immunity to bribery. You must compensate for this by being bigger, and having better (more advanced) units than your opponent. If circumstances prevent you from growing and making frequent caravan deliveries (such as having to divert substantial resources to defense to save you from being overrun), you should probably use a different government.
Remember that in single player, AI ineptitude reduces defense costs substantially, especially if there is some distance between the civs. Also, playing a large map usually means that there is ample room to grow, and it is usually assumed that the player can get any "necessary" wonder (particularly Mike's and Bach's). J.S. Bach's Cathedral is most useful for a democracy conducting war, since its effect applies after unit unhappiness.
Like others who have commented, I am a single user player. But one technic that I use in other war games and I think applies universally is top-notch up to date reconnaissance. Doing this properly is quite time consuming. But the benefit is huge. Any time you sink a loaded enemy transport you deal a significant blow. In modern times use planes for recon in all your border areas. In mid game use Destroyers (fastest ship in Civ2). Have a rapid response force ready to strike when the enemy is identified.
As for wonders I would say the most important ones that you need for a democracy in war that you do not necessarily need in a democracy, in order of importance, are: Bach, Shakespeare, Magellan (to give your naval forces the maneuvering advantage), Leo, Sun Tzu, UN (for reducing senate interference), Great Wall, Statue of Liberty (to change governments quickly if an emergency arises), and finally Suffrage. (Suffrage is last because its effect in any city can be duplicated by building a police station, thus losing it to a rival is no big deal where as all the others on the list give you a unique advantage.)
Of course, the science wonders are very important to keep you ahead in the tech race and happiness wonders such as Michelangelo, Hanging Gardens, and Cure are essential for a celebrating democracy.
As for wonders I would say the most important ones that you need for a democracy in war that you do not necessarily need in a democracy, in order of importance, are: Bach, Shakespeare, Magellan (to give your naval forces the maneuvering advantage), Leo, Sun Tzu, UN (for reducing senate interference), Great Wall, Statue of Liberty (to change governments quickly if an emergency arises), and finally Suffrage. (Suffrage is last because its effect in any city can be duplicated by building a police station, thus losing it to a rival is no big deal where as all the others on the list give you a unique advantage.)
Of course, the science wonders are very important to keep you ahead in the tech race and happiness wonders such as Michelangelo, Hanging Gardens, and Cure are essential for a celebrating democracy.
Here are a couple other ideas you might find useful:
If you have JS Bach's Cathedral, build size 2 cities that maximize production (ideally, build on a hill that you have started to mine, and that has access to 2 other hills; forests are a substitute if you don't have enough hills). These cities can have as many units outside the city as they want, because Bach's will make all citizens content.
Try setting up your civ in such a way that you can counterattack rather than trying to defend every city. Large cities and guerrilla warfare can help, since your enemy will be forced to deal with partisans (either wasting movement points to stop them from appearing, or attacking them after they have arrived) rather than continuing to advance forward. In most circumstances, attacking units will have an advantage over defending units, so attacking is preferable to defending. In fact, the best way to counterattack is to bribe your city back; captured cities will be in disorder, and the fact that they were previously yours means that you can bribe them back for 25% of the normal cost, and get whatever units are inside the city and next to it as well. The downside is they will get a technology when they take a city.
To minimize your vulnerability, you'll have to plan your rail network carefully, to prevent losing too many cities in the initial attack. You may want to make your rail cross hills or mountains that you can heavily defend (a small city with walls, barracks and a few vet defenders, or vet defenders in a fortress). If you can't do that, have size 1 cities with a defender, but no walls, in place, so that in the event of invasion, if the city is destroyed, the rail connection is broken. Just keep enough engineers "on call" (engineers that are either pre-charged, or have actually finished a job, so that you don't find that all your engineers have "moved" before you can deploy them to fix your rails) to actually build a rail, or to build a city there to have the exact purpose as the one just lost.
The only effective counter to this strategy I can think of is to bring in enough engineers to "fix" your network, or build around choke points. Of course, this means that they will have to reduce their army size in order to have enough engineers. Engineers are much more costly for Fundy (and Commie) civs than for democracies because of their lack of WLTPD. Also, they need their engineers back home to irrigate the land in order to grow at a decent rate. Moreover, bringing engineers into a war zone means they have to be defended, or they stand a high risk of being killed. Partisans gobble up undefended engineers because they get a x8 attack bonus against units with 0 attack. If you keep a few near places where you expect your opponent to build roads and rails, you can punish them severely for their actions (kill 2-3 engineers) if they don't think to leave a military unit behind.
This brings up the last tip:
Any partisans supported by a city that starves to death will not be disbanded, but become NON units instead. So, if you want to scatter partisans around your countryside (or around your enemy's countryside, for that matter) you can do this without having to suffer unhappiness.
If you have JS Bach's Cathedral, build size 2 cities that maximize production (ideally, build on a hill that you have started to mine, and that has access to 2 other hills; forests are a substitute if you don't have enough hills). These cities can have as many units outside the city as they want, because Bach's will make all citizens content.
Try setting up your civ in such a way that you can counterattack rather than trying to defend every city. Large cities and guerrilla warfare can help, since your enemy will be forced to deal with partisans (either wasting movement points to stop them from appearing, or attacking them after they have arrived) rather than continuing to advance forward. In most circumstances, attacking units will have an advantage over defending units, so attacking is preferable to defending. In fact, the best way to counterattack is to bribe your city back; captured cities will be in disorder, and the fact that they were previously yours means that you can bribe them back for 25% of the normal cost, and get whatever units are inside the city and next to it as well. The downside is they will get a technology when they take a city.
To minimize your vulnerability, you'll have to plan your rail network carefully, to prevent losing too many cities in the initial attack. You may want to make your rail cross hills or mountains that you can heavily defend (a small city with walls, barracks and a few vet defenders, or vet defenders in a fortress). If you can't do that, have size 1 cities with a defender, but no walls, in place, so that in the event of invasion, if the city is destroyed, the rail connection is broken. Just keep enough engineers "on call" (engineers that are either pre-charged, or have actually finished a job, so that you don't find that all your engineers have "moved" before you can deploy them to fix your rails) to actually build a rail, or to build a city there to have the exact purpose as the one just lost.
The only effective counter to this strategy I can think of is to bring in enough engineers to "fix" your network, or build around choke points. Of course, this means that they will have to reduce their army size in order to have enough engineers. Engineers are much more costly for Fundy (and Commie) civs than for democracies because of their lack of WLTPD. Also, they need their engineers back home to irrigate the land in order to grow at a decent rate. Moreover, bringing engineers into a war zone means they have to be defended, or they stand a high risk of being killed. Partisans gobble up undefended engineers because they get a x8 attack bonus against units with 0 attack. If you keep a few near places where you expect your opponent to build roads and rails, you can punish them severely for their actions (kill 2-3 engineers) if they don't think to leave a military unit behind.
This brings up the last tip:
Any partisans supported by a city that starves to death will not be disbanded, but become NON units instead. So, if you want to scatter partisans around your countryside (or around your enemy's countryside, for that matter) you can do this without having to suffer unhappiness.
Thanks for the information guys. I'm getting better at the work required at the micro level to manage my cities, and that certainly helps me. I jump out to a big lead early in the game with PDR strategy, and I'm getting better at making the advantage something my buddies can't overcome late in the game even with their huge Fundy armies.
Garfield, you're right on about the partisans. They've been a real bother to those that try to attack my awesome cities that have been pumped up with PDR.
Garfield, you're right on about the partisans. They've been a real bother to those that try to attack my awesome cities that have been pumped up with PDR.
Similar threads
