What is your gov technique?

[timerover51]

Let me tell you something about Govs in Civ 3: Republic is pretty much bugged.

It comes much early in the game (which means less anarchy turns and faster increased production) and you barely will find a match even in the end-game.

It should be nerfed in some patch that never came out.

Of course most of the people will disagree with me and say cool things about Commies or even Monarchy, but I'm sorry, this is my opinion, Republic is a way too OP.

Just go for it and don't worry about the other kind of govs unless for having other experiences.

If you think that it is overpowered, then change it and see what happens.

 

[Rodrig0]

i like to be republic first than switch to communism, i like a lot of cities. i have noticed that other civs are even with me on science and start to get a lil ahead after i have switched to commy.

This is my play style too. But by the time I switch to commie, I have conquered and developed my entire continent, so none of the AI's has any chance to catch up with me. Except when a civ in the other continent has played very agressive and succesful and also controls a lot of land... which doesn't happen often, as one of my strategies is to help with supplies the weakest civ at war, so the other won't get too strong
Sometimes we are even in techs at the start of the Industrial Age, when scientific civs get free techs and then trade them, but after that they seem to stall, while my research keeps going well and getting better as I conquer and develop more cities.

I used to like Demo and always went democrat, but after I understood why it suffered so much WW so fast, I left it for good and never used it again. OTOH I didn't try communism for a long time, but the first time I did I completely fell in love with it. Forced labor was a big drawback and I rarely amass even half of the units supported, but the traits that hooked me were no WW and the chance that any city could be as productive as a core city. I hated seeing a city in an idyllic location, wasted because its corruption was so high. I also like when I'm thinking... "should I fortify with artilleries into enemy territory to bombard that city for ages? Won't my people complain?" and then realize "screw that! we are commies! "

 

[Theov]

I'm looking at the options now. It looks like I might as well stick with Communism.

As a side note, it has been so long since I played Democracy that I'd forgotten the numbers. I gave up on it in the game mainly due to the high level of war-weariness.

a link is in my signature

 

[Desertsnow]

Yeah, Theov, I was looking at the stuff in your link. It reminded me why I don't use Democracy anymore.

 

[monotonous]

i did some testing last night. what i found is for large empires, communism is probably the best, the key stats i roughly remember:

despotism - income 3000, corruption 1300, unit support 0
democracy - income 4700, corruption 1800, unit support 460
communism - income 3221, corruption 768, unit support 0

my conclusion is, democracy does offer 1500 more income, but that offset by 1000 corruption and 460 unit support, and you get high ww and far away cities have very low production like any old government. i used to be a big fan of democracy but it's really underpowered.

under communism, a city on the north end of the continent (my capital is on the south end) has a production ratio of 6:4 (blue:red, without courthouse), that's pretty ing impressive imo. it might not good for space race as your core cities now have more waste, but it's probably the only way to develop the new captured area.

about the early government, i'm never a big fan of republic, most of my attempts have been ended up badly, my country always went bankruptcy even i scale science to 0%. the *2 unit cost is a pain in the ass, because i tend to build a large military first, so i don't have many roads or 6+ cities at the beginning of middle age. also no city police is another problem, when you just get into middle age you usually don't have access to at least three luxuries (which are on the other continent), also temples, marketplace and churches weren't built in most cities, so it might have even worse ww problems than democracy. but again i never really get into this government (only one of my victorious file was under republic)

so i think the best path is probably monarchy - communism, or in some extreme situations, monarchy - fascism. if you are religious, might switch to republic after you have the infrastructures established

 

[Lanzelot]

despotism - income 3000, corruption 1300, unit support 0
democracy - income 4700, corruption 1800, unit support 460

There must be something wrong in your test: Democracy has the lowest corruption of the non-communist governments, and Despotism the highest?!
Ah, wait, we need to look at the percentage: the numbers for Desptotism correspond to 43.3%, while the numbers for Democracy correspond to 38,3%
Hmm, still not what I would have expected?!

As to Monarchy vs Republic: Republic is about twice as powerful as Monarchy. Especially for fast research. If Republic doesn't pay off in your games, then you still have a systemic fault in your strategy (not enough workers, not enough towns, towns too small?!). Unit upkeep should not be a problem: at size 7 each city gives 3 free units compared to 4 free units under Monarchy. This little difference is easily out-wheighed by the almost doubled income under Republic.
In my experience there is nothing better than Republic -- for military games as well as for science games.

 

[Everkane]

In my experience there is nothing better than Republic -- for military games as well as for science games.

My point, exactly.

I'm not trying to be the mister-know-it-all here, but if Republic is not working for someone, he is probably doing something wrong. It's the very best for all kind of games.

If someone is in doubt about it, take this as examples: http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/index.php

In 99,9% of the games the player went for the Republic and kept that way till the end.

Even in larger empires, when you have about 150+ cities, Republic is the best because the fully corrupted towns can still be usefull with the Spec Citizens and if you really need to build things in those towns you just buy it due the awesome incoming you are getting from the main core.

I'm sorry but I can't see how Communism can be better if you can't even rush things with gold, among other flawed things about it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

My point, exactly.

I'm not trying to be the mister-know-it-all here, but if Republic is not working for someone, he is probably doing something wrong. It's the very best for all kind of games.

If someone is in doubt about it, take this as examples: http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/index.php

In 99,9% of the games the player went for the Republic and kept that way till the end.

I don't believe that, at all. There are many different types of games that have been submitted to the HoF, are some are simply incompatible with the Republic. Early conquests and domination victories usually end in Despotism. 100K games utilize Feudalism and its pop-rushing ability. And a lot of games on Deity and Sid may well rather use Monarchy than the Republic.

 

[Everkane]

I don't believe that, at all. There are many different types of games that have been submitted to the HoF, are some are simply incompatible with the Republic. Early conquests and domination victories usually end in Despotism. 100K games utilize Feudalism and its pop-rushing ability. And a lot of games on Deity and Sid may well rather use Monarchy than the Republic.

Ok, you wanna talk about facts, let's talk about facts.

First of all, when you say "Despotism" you are talking about games in which are won a way before Republic or Monarchy kicks in. It's not a gov to go, it's just the default for games you won't be able to change it in time or, even if you can, you are already destroying everybody to care about change govs. Unless you consider Despotism a good gov, now it's up to you.

Of course if you win a game at 3000 BC you are not gonna get Republic or any other gov.

Second, the only two early VCs we could take a break about Republic and consider other kind of gov (Despotism): Domination and Conquest.

Domination:

#1 - Republic
#2 - Monarchy
#3 - Republic

Conquest:

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic
#3 - Monarchy

When we talk about scientific games it's even more absurd, which is pretty obvious:

SpaceShip:

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic
#3 - Republic

Diplomatic (there are only 2 submits at Sid):

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic

Cultural 100k (no Sid Games, the only one of Deity indeed Feudalism like you said), Demigod:

#1 - Republic (it's your game!)
#2 - Feudalism
#3 - Despotism (honestly, I don't undestand this one)

Cultural 20k

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic
#3 - Monarchy


So, to be clear, when you have a very early victory (the ones you are unable to get out of Despotism in time) of course you can't win using Republic.

At Cultural 100k games you are right, Feudalism took a good place, but the first one is still Republic.

The other ones speak for themselves.

I'm not gonna look into every single level table, but I believe Republic takes a great place at any serious game. I probably exagerated when I said 99,9% anyway. Perhaps 90%?

 

[Theov]

if you get tired of the war weariness in republic and corruption overseas, it might economically not be the best choice, but for the sake of not going insane, I sometimes choose communism when I'm building a 'third core'.
Sure, republic could still be better overall, but pop-rushing some stuff in new cities, add workers to the cities and develop the land, build Secret Police HQ and quickly you have a 3rd ring of cities producing units.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ok, you wanna talk about facts, let's talk about facts.

And I think they make my point exactly.

First of all, when you say "Despotism" you are talking about games in which are won a way before Republic or Monarchy kicks in. It's not a gov to go, it's just the default for games you won't be able to change it in time or, even if you can, you are already destroying everybody to care about change govs. Unless you consider Despotism a good gov, now it's up to you.

Of course if you win a game at 3000 BC you are not gonna get Republic or any other gov.

It's true, it is debatable whether government even applies to early victories. But nevertheless, technically a lot of these early victories do not use Republic. And early victory isn't just 3000BC, it could well last longer.

Second, the only two early VCs we could take a break about Republic and consider other kind of gov (Despotism): Domination and Conquest.

Domination:

#1 - Republic
#2 - Monarchy
#3 - Republic

Conquest:

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic
#3 - Monarchy

When we talk about scientific games it's even more absurd, which is pretty obvious:

SpaceShip:

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic
#3 - Republic

Diplomatic (there are only 2 submits at Sid):

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic

Cultural 100k (no Sid Games, the only one of Deity indeed Feudalism like you said), Demigod:

#1 - Republic (it's your game!)
#2 - Feudalism
#3 - Despotism (honestly, I don't undestand this one)

Cultural 20k

#1 - Republic
#2 - Republic
#3 - Monarchy

I don't understand which games you are citing here. For example, I see three 100K games at Sid level and a whole bunch at Deity.

(And my game (the one with Persia or China?) is most certainly not #1 except if you take map size and difficulty into account. Plus, it was played in Vanilla and heavily relied on the remote palace exploit.)

But be that as it may. "Only" 12/18 of these games used the Republic.

So, to be clear, when you have a very early victory (the ones you are unable to get out of Despotism in time) of course you can't win using Republic.

True.

At Cultural 100k games you are right, Feudalism took a good place, but the first one is still Republic.

No, certainly not. Nearly all of the have been played using feudalism. A few Vanilla and PTW oddballs hardly make a big difference.

The other ones speak for themselves.

I'm not gonna look into every single level table, but I believe Republic takes a great place at any serious game. I probably exagerated when I said 99,9% anyway. Perhaps 90%?

That will all have to depend on how you are going to treat very early Conquest and Domination victories. If you discount them, then 90% will be about right.

 

[Everkane]

I took Standard map to collect those informations, at Sid level. I believe it's fair. There is no way I'm gonna look into all of them.

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/index.php?condition=Score&mapSize=Standard&submit=Go

You may be right about a Cultural 100k, since I never played that kind of game. Tried once, didn't work out.

About early conquests - even the ones in which Republic is available - most of them don't need to change govs. I believe I have a HoF game with Iroquois and IIRC I didn't change for Republic, but even if I did, it was unnecessary.

I really don't think they are serious games, I mean, rushing in Despotism. It may be funny, but there's no way to measure the govs effectiveness on them.

My point is if your game is going to take a little longer to fully be considerated a real game, Republic is the Gov to go.

I'm not in any way saying there's no reason to not play in Despotism and rush a conquest or domination, but when the game is long enough for you to need to change gov (even in thoses VC, but at Deity or Sid) you will take the Republic. I'm inclined to believe those Monarchy games would be better played if they were at Republic

Let's face it, Despotism is... not exactly a gov, winning still on Despotism means you probably made it too early. I really don't think it applies here.

You made your point, there are cases in which it's better to use other govs, and it's cool to learn about the 100k culture at Feudalism (it's not totally useless like I thought afterall).

But I keep my angle, Republic is OP and it's a must in serious games, unless specific cases.

 

[web25]

i did some testing last night. what i found is for large empires, communism is probably the best, the key stats i roughly remember:

despotism - income 3000, corruption 1300, unit support 0
democracy - income 4700, corruption 1800, unit support 460
communism - income 3221, corruption 768, unit support 0

my conclusion is, democracy does offer 1500 more income, but that offset by 1000 corruption and 460 unit support, and you get high ww and far away cities have very low production like any old government. i used to be a big fan of democracy but it's really underpowered.

under communism, a city on the north end of the continent (my capital is on the south end) has a production ratio of 6:4 (blue:red, without courthouse), that's pretty ing impressive imo. it might not good for space race as your core cities now have more waste, but it's probably the only way to develop the new captured area.

about the early government, i'm never a big fan of republic, most of my attempts have been ended up badly, my country always went bankruptcy even i scale science to 0%. the *2 unit cost is a pain in the ass, because i tend to build a large military first, so i don't have many roads or 6+ cities at the beginning of middle age. also no city police is another problem, when you just get into middle age you usually don't have access to at least three luxuries (which are on the other continent), also temples, marketplace and churches weren't built in most cities, so it might have even worse ww problems than democracy. but again i never really get into this government (only one of my victorious file was under republic)

so i think the best path is probably monarchy - communism, or in some extreme situations, monarchy - fascism. if you are religious, might switch to republic after you have the infrastructures established

ive done this too, i like the production in ALL my cities after switching, id just build courthouse and assign police to help even more. i started making more money eventually. i would be making 800+ gpt and getting advanced techs every 4 to 5 turns.

 

[lucky duck]

I never understood why people are so opposed to researching the Democracy branch of the tech tree. I never switch to Democracy, but I always consider researching it. Here's why:

In Conquests, most of the civs avoid Printing Press like the plague. It is very easy to be the first to research Printing Press, especially if you've built The Great Library. Selling contacts is an added bonus.

The AI usually go for Astronomy before they go for Banking. So you can usually get Banking as a monopoly tech.

Now you have Printing Press and Banking before the AI, where are you going to go? Research Democracy; it is another monopoly tech that you can trade for everything that the AI has. Please note: the AI do not go for Printing Press and Banking right away, but once they have these techs, they almost always go for Democracy next. Plan accordingly.

Free Artistry is just another monopoly tech to propel you out of the Middle Ages. Sometimes it is possible to research Free Artistry and still be the first to Economics, which is another monopoly tech for you. (Sometimes it is wise to research Economics before Free Artistry because this is how the AI does it, and you would like a monopoly on each.) This method of research allows me to build Smith's Trading Company, which is a worthwhile wonder for peaceful builders like myself.

This technique works very well on Deity, especially when used in conjunction with The Great Library. It's all about acquiring monopoly techs and trading them for their greatest value. Who cares if you don't plan on actually switching to Democracy?

 

[Kurgan117]

How is production better in communism than in republic, but not commerce?
I have a game in which I am an American Republic fixing to destroy the world and everyone on it. Should I switch?

 

[justanick]

The republic and democracy have a commerce bonus which makes them way superior for small and mid sized empires. Only large empires have a chance to reach parity in post corruption commerce in the comparision communism vs. republic. That is because communism uses a fundamentally different corruption system. As Republic and any other non-communal government you can have 20 to 40 cities with low corruption, further cities suffer high corruption. As a communist you can have 100+ cities all with the same mediocre corruption level, say 30% each. That way communist empires can have almost twice the production of a republic, but commerce wise there will be little difference as communism has no commerce bonus.

The thing about communism is that you need to build up all your cities, else you cannot harvest the gain of low corruption. If you do intend to truely destroy, if you want to genocide your way through the map the switch to communism might be wasted. Simply keeping the republic will work for that. Also switching to facism will work, although communism might be just as good. Generally speaking avoiding anarchy has a high priority.

 

[Buttercup]

In a Republic you get +1 Gold per tile that's already producing Gold. So, with republic you are almost guaranteed the best possible Commerce.

However...

Civ 3 has a very strict Corruption system, meaning the larger your empire the less of the total of the worked tiles makes it into your grand total the further away from the Capital your extra cities are. So a worked set of tiles a long way from your Capital might only produce 20% net of gross output.

Communism puts your entire empire at the same Corruption level, so, the larger your empire, the closer the gap closes between the Commerce benefit of a heavily corrupt Republic and a mildly corrupt Communism.

Production is different to Commerce because Republic doesn't give a bonus-per-tile to Production, it's the same as any other similar government type, so the gap between a heavily corrupt Republic and a mildly corrupt Communism closes a lot quicker than the Commerce bonus, and for very large empires will easily out produce a heavily corrupt Republic.

Civs with the Commercial trait suffer less global Corruption than other civs, which adds another consideration to the equation.

Edit - cross-post

 

[walletta]

I like to go Republic-Communism but that may only be because I haven't studied war weariness and corruption properly. Also, I'm playing Emperor level and there's more tolerance for the luxury of switching there than at higher levels.

 

[justanick]

So a worked set of tiles a long way from your Capital might only produce 20% net of gross output.

It might be worth to note that in the later game the distance corruption is low, so the distance to the capital is of low importance. It is the amount of cities that is the reason for high rank corruption. The rank however is sorted by the distance to the capital.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=76619

Civs with the Commercial trait suffer less global Corruption than other civs, which adds another consideration to the equation.

This lower rank corruption is of some relevance in the early and mid game, later the importance of the commercial corruption bonus is relativated by the VP, courthouses and police stations. For a communist empire the bonus is near irrelevant. The +3 base commerce per metropolis however is rather relevant in communism. That way communism can have a higher post corruption commerce than a republic. So while at first the commercial trait may seem to change the balance in favour of republic it is actually the opposite, it changes the balance in favour of communism.