What's Fascism got going for it that Communism doesn't?

[astrosoup]

What about Democracy, Is it worth the switch?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

For the record, I have successfully used feudalism but it wasn't pretty.

I had next to no rivers so cities were quite small - feudalism gives good unit support for <size7. So that was good.

Rushing is done with forced labour and my main city was on the river with floodplains so I rushed troops & kept the size down. So that was good.

I was at war with 2 rivals, one across a small sea and the other for their neighbouring territory with luxeries. I had no luxeries and needed a home guard for defense + MPs (rushed cities were unhappy). The 3 MPs were needed and that too was good.

After securing luxeries and fertile grasslands I could think of peace, growth and the Republic. So while feudalism had no long term place, it added to the short term strategy quite successfully. When I play religious civs, I often change govts to suit. Fascism/feudalism do have a place, albeit not mainstream.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

What about Democracy, Is it worth the switch?

Sounds like you need to gear up for war. I would go Feudal/Commie/Monarchy depending on your infrastructure & strategy.

 

[majk-iii]

Astrosoup could have gotten some use for feudalism in the game he's describing.

 

[sadu]

In republic, I like to make sure my army is up to date. The regular warrior you built for early on costs one gpt to maintain - same as a vet pikeman. In republic, you can't afford too many units, so you gotta make sure the units you have can defend your civ if need be.

 

[Own]

the ai looks greedily (and stupidly ) towards the free unit support and fast workers.

 

[Own]

What about Democracy, Is it worth the switch?

definately. democracy has slightly less corruption, but the main reason is unit upkeep. even though republic can support free units, it doesn't make up for the 2 gold per unit cost, unless you have less than double the units you could support (you should have way more than that)

 

[Norsk_Viking]

I always use Despotism->Republic->Communism/Democracy
never used facism, but im most of my games the iroquis and aztecs usually have it in from mid industrial to end. everyone else uses democracy

 

[Overlag]

I've tried Facism but prefer Communism - espically when going for conquest victory

the key drawback to Facism is no culture created until all citizens convert - takes much too long

well remove the citizens by rush building settlers/workers and moving them to your core cities. when the captured City is down to 1, start moving in YOUR settlers.

this tactic is unstoppable......

 

[Herrs]

I've just discovered the buty with communism. I usually play quite friendly games only interuppted with fast wars. So when discovered, I usually stick to democracy because of the looooong transit-time between governments. But I've discovered that if you had a big enaugh civ, communism is superior in everything (even research!) exept worker-rate, wich is not that important at the time.

I've never tried faschism. I think the culture-thing is a big disadvantage . Think of all the flipping!

With communism you can conquer a size 12 city far from your capital with a factory +other plant in it and build a lib/temple in just a few turns. When your culture expands you can use some of the units for something else.

 

[classical_hero]

No, I don't use Fascism-it's simply not worth it. I usually switch to Republic
at the start of the Middle Ages and keep it to the end.

In the game that I am playing ATM, have done this strategy and found that with the unit support in Republic, it is much better than Democracy in this game because when I had a test to see how Democracy would work, I found that I had to downgrade my slider because of the huge unit cost, whereas now I have no unit cost because I am still in Republic. It is better in this Government to have large cities. To make Democracy more useful, it could have some unit support, say 1 for cities, and 2 for metropolis's. Communism is really the only other worthy Government, because of the OCN increase and good unit support.

 

[Arkatsson]

I was told by someone I know to always use the Monarch gov. Should I do something else? My stratagy is random. It depends where my cities are and who are the other civs. But usually I like to keep it peaceful unless I'm in the feeling for war. Or am in the need of war like having to win a source of coal. But when I get a superior army against a close enough civ I like to wipe them out. So should I stay with Monarchy? Also the guy he plays lots of stratagy games. But he told me this before I got Conquests.


Thanks.

 

[Herrs]

Monarchy is only useful for longer wars early in the game. Republic has the tradebonus and lower corruption and WW is usually not a very big deal exept for really long wars. Once communism is discovered theres no use for monarchy what so ever

 

[Arkatsson]

Well also paying my citizens I like. But I guess it is better to save the money for buying techs.

 

[Zorn]

I used communism only once, back in ptw. I had a really large empire then, I guess over 100 cities. After I swithced, I produced less than before. The productivity in my large core cities dropped more than the productivity in my countless conquered cities rose. Since then, I ignored communism. I have read that comm. got better with c3c, so I might give it a shot.
As for facism, I think it`s underrated. You can have a core that is as productive (shieldwise) as in republic, but suffer no ww.
The only thing that speaks against facism is the culture thing. But there I found a simple solution: Just use the foreign population to poprush improvements. Poprush a temple, a courthouse and you will have a decent city wich will even soon expand. If money is rare, you will probably even expand faster than in monarchy where it can take 60 turns to build that temple.

 

[bingen]

Republic is the overall the best government. A switch to Democracy might be worth it if you are religious. A switch to Communism is a waste in general since if you get a huge bonus from the switch you are usually so large that you will win no matter what you use.

The only time to not use the Republic is if you are planning to war almost continuously.

 

[Aegis]

Monarchy is only useful for longer wars early in the game. Republic has the tradebonus and lower corruption and WW is usually not a very big deal exept for really long wars. Once communism is discovered theres no use for monarchy what so ever

I strongly disagree. Monarchy gives you the advantage of rushing via money when you have conquered low population cities, or even plopping down 1 pop cities, which would make it impossible to rush something requiring a lot of citizens. Rushing a harbor in order to link a resource or an airport to airlift troops into, or even barracks is absolutely essential in a lot of scenarios and Communism simply does not make the grade in that respect, while Monarchy shines.

Also, I prefer to have the bulk of my war effort fueled by the production of my core cities and those closest. While in Communism, my core cities' production time is increased 3-5 turns, however in Monarchy the time is slashed all the way down to 1-2 turns for whatever units I am building.

The ability to pump out military units nearly twice as fast in Monarchy than in Communism (in some scenarios) is another good reason to use Monarchy in an ongoing campaign as it gives you the opportunity to move a large number of freshly-produced units every turn to put out fires wherever you need them. Communism obviously has better unit support and it is easier to build city improvements far away from your capital, but as far as fighting an ongoing war in production, it cannot create as many units as Monarchy can in a short period of time. In other words, it takes longer to mobilize and longer to maintain a steady flow of units to the front lines.

Granted, you can rush military units for pop points in Communism, but you're also hurting your production, commerce and scientific research in those cities. In Monarchy, you're only hurting your gold reserves and your cities continue running at peak efficiency.

As far as keeping up in tech, as long as your cities have banks in the MA and Stock Exchanges in the IA, you will have no problem keeping up with the Democracies in researching technologies.

 

[Herrs]

A switch to Communism is a waste in general since if you get a huge bonus from the switch you are usually so large that you will win no matter what you use.

I think thats true if you play emperor or less. Im playing a demi-god game now (large map) and although a have 36% of the area (the runner up have 26%) and its still challenging because I'm behind in the tech race. Communism is very useful here.

I strongly disagree. Monarchy gives you the advantage of rushing via money when you have conquered low population cities, or even plopping down 1 pop cities, which would make it impossible to rush something requiring a lot of citizens. Rushing a harbor in order to link a resource or an airport to airlift troops into, or even barracks is absolutely essential in a lot of scenarios and Communism simply does not make the grade in that respect, while Monarchy shines.

Well I never play scenarios, but in an epic game this would certanly not make up for the HUGE corruption that comes with monarchy. Republic also have money-rushing by the way.

Also, I prefer to have the bulk of my war effort fueled by the production of my core cities and those closest. While in Communism, my core cities' production time is increased 3-5 turns, however in Monarchy the time is slashed all the way down to 1-2 turns for whatever units I am building.

In the game I'm playing, my core cities produce 30-50 shilds/turn and only around 6 of them goes to waste. And I don't even have policestation in all of them yet. Its not that bad considering the outer cities do the same, many of which would probalby only produce a few non-wasted shields/turn in Monarchy.

 

[Aegis]

Well I never play scenarios, but in an epic game this would certanly not make up for the HUGE corruption that comes with monarchy.

I was not referring to playing a scenario. I was referring to circumstances encountered in an epic game. There certainly is HUGE corruption far from the capital, but in the three rings surrounding the capital, it's not bad at all and the core cities will always out-produce Communism core cities. Six shields may be wasted in those core cities, however I prefer not to waste any. One to two wasted shields is acceptable to me. Six shields is enough to tack on another turn for the production of badly needed units. And if you place the Forbidden Palace in the proper distance from the capital this will really help. Without the FB, I would say that Monarchy was horrible, but with it, Monarchy is more than quite viable.

Republic also have money-rushing by the way.

Well, we were not discussing whether or not Republic is better than Monarchy.

Monarchy has better unit support than Republic and no war weariness, which is why I prefer to use it over Republic. The extra commerce for Republic is just overkill to me. It's not needed in my games, but then again I do not play on Sid so I do not have to compete with steroid AI's that research and build much cheaper than I do. Monarchy is the blending of the different governments, which is why I like it. It is versatile, and that is valuable. You can war wonger with it quite successfully with very good core city production and corruption in the outer rings or you can sit back and research 4-turn techs as well.

The biggest reason I prefer Monarchy for War Mongering is because I am almost always at war, which would make Republic useless, and the rush-buys are indispensible. They are absolutely essential, and Communism simply cannot compete with that. Rushing Temples to extend the angle of land from which I can attack is handy, but it's the rushing of harbors, airports and barracks that is most handy to me.

All of which is why I prefer Monarchy over Communism. =o)

 

[gunkulator]

I was not referring to playing a scenario. I was referring to circumstances encountered in an epic game. There certainly is HUGE corruption far from the capital, but in the three rings surrounding the capital, it's not bad at all and the core cities will always out-produce Communism core cities. Six shields may be wasted in those core cities, however I prefer not to waste any. One to two wasted shields is acceptable to me. Six shields is enough to tack on another turn for the production of badly needed units.

If I have two to three times the number of productive cities, I am more than happy to wait an extra turn for a Communist city to produce a unit. No government outproduces Communism.

Monarchy has better unit support than Republic and no war weariness, which is why I prefer to use it over Republic.

Really only 1 better until metros. The extra commerce and reduced corruption of Republic easily make up the difference.

The extra commerce for Republic is just overkill to me.

There's no such thing as too much commerce, especially with a cash-buying gov't.

Monarchy is the blending of the different governments, which is why I like it. It is versatile, and that is valuable.

IMHO it is less versatile than Republic. During times of peace, Republic soars over Monarchy. At war, you have to be a bit more careful but it is manageable.

You can war wonger with it quite successfully with very good core city production and corruption in the outer rings or you can sit back and research 4-turn techs as well.

There's no way you can out-research an AI Democracy in Monarchy, at least on Emporer level and above. You will always be behind. As cities grow and markets, banks, libraries and universities go up, the extra commerce of Rep/Dem dramatically boost Rep/Dem civs.

As for war, you have to know how to manage WW. Fight shorter wars against different opponents and you won't have to worry much about WW.

The biggest reason I prefer Monarchy for War Mongering is because I am almost always at war, which would make Republic useless, and the rush-buys are indispensible.

I, too, am pretty much always at war, however I use Republic almost exclusively. WW under Republic is really not that bad. The luxury slider is more effective due to the extra commerce of Republic. Since you always have up to date units under Republic, you should be able to get peace whenever you want.

They are absolutely essential, and Communism simply cannot compete with that. Rushing Temples to extend the angle of land from which I can attack is handy, but it's the rushing of harbors, airports and barracks that is most handy to me.

If you're talking about rushing improvements in captured cities, you generally want to eliminate the native population and Communism's pop rushes are actually helpful for this. Barracks eliminates 2, harbor 3. I generally don't build airports. I burn a worker and build an airfield instead.