When to get out of Despotism

[Lord Emsworth]

I sometimes wait for a settler to finish. I guess I would wait for wonder too, although that just doesn't seem to happen ever. Apart from that I switch immediately. The reasons are fairly simple. Firstly I get rid of the despo penalty and can finally get surplus food from irrigated grasslands. Absolutely not to be underestimated. And secondly, the ability to rush things along with cash, esp. settlers. You see, in despotism you hardly have the food to build settlers and you have to build those (and other things) with just the shields you make off the tiles. As a republic or monarchy, food is not the problem and neither is getting enough shields.

The rest doesn't bother me in the slightest.


(And before I forget, a Golden Age is generally best when it comes right after you emerge out of anarchy. The sooner the better.)

 

[Puppeteer]

I used to have trouble when getting out of Despotism, but I don't anymore. I used to try to get markets built in core cities before revolting.

Now I don't have that trouble, and I didn't really notice that it had changed for me until reading this thread. My opening play has evolved in a way that I think has me ready for the revolt.

I think they keys are support costs, happiness and raw income.

Raw income: Simply put, by the time you go Republic every land tile being worked by a city should have a road. In my early game now I try to have every worked tile improved with a road and mine-or-irrigation or have the city pop a settler as it reaches size 3 or a worker during size 2, so as a result when I get the Republic tech all my citizens are working roaded tiles, and money bonus tiles like rivers and gold are prioritized.

Happiness: In the early Republic, the lux slider is key, and usually for me courthouses aren't complete yet. Forget about multiple luxury resources or marketplace multipliers. The trick here is to not let the more corrupt cities grow bigger than the lesser corrupt cities, because it takes more lux slider to make the corrupt cities happy. So ideally as you approach the Republic tech the capital has the highest population, followed by the inner core and then the outer core being the smallest. That way a 20% or 30% lux slider may keep everyone happy (enough) while still allowing income.

Support: Getting the capital and core cities to pop 7 or better helps reduce unit support, but the real key is minimizing costs by not having too many buildings or units. For units I generally have a skeleton defense of one unit per city plus a reg warrior for MP duty if needed. Some of the city defender units are vet spears, maybe a reg or vet archer or two since it's usually better to meet the enemy (usually a barb, occasionally a frisky AI) at the border instead of the doorstep. If trouble comes calling I'm moving units around to meet the enemy, but usually I avoid conflict in the early AA. Despotic wars are extremely expensive in terms of expansion. But as soon as I revolt to Republic I disband the MP warriors and sometimes other units. In the early game the AI seems to bully more if I have undefended inner cities, but by the time I reach Republic I often leave inner cities undefended.

Building maintenance support: I don't build temples unless I really need an early border expansion or need to pop some culture on the border to minimize flip risk. I pick high-production cities for barracks, and usually only one or two food bonus cities get a granary, and then I leverage those cities to make most of my settlers and workers, and if I have one or two good worker pumps I often use them to join workers to cities after pop 7. I used to build temples in every city for the +1 happiness, but they simply aren't worth it. At 1c per turn I can manage better with the lux slider and civ planning.

 

[Verarde]

I aim for Monarchy as soon as possible, and stick with it the rest of the way.

 

[creamcheese]

I aim for Monarchy as soon as possible, and stick with it the rest of the way.

Are you a big warmonger or something?

I always aim for the republic slingshot and switch as soon as possible. I might delay if something important like a wonder is about to be built, but usually not at all.

 

[Verarde]

I usually find myself making war.

 

[Theov]

I usually find myself making war.

me too, I still prefer Republic, for the in between war turns.
Haven't tried monarchy much.
I still expand and grow without war with the Republic, when I can't expand, first serious wars happen. But that's easily way after the switch to republic.

 

[Buttercup]

In the debate between Monarchy and Republic I will always choose Monarchy. It's the AI which tends to dictate wars and should I wish to invade someone the last thing I want is slowly deteriorating happiness.

I've tried all of the governments except Communism and Fascism and Monarchy is easily the one which allows for the least micro-management. Also, money isn't really that crucial in the civ games whereas production is.

Like the OP states, no end of times I've tried Republic in the early stages only to be met with an hour of micro-management for no benefit other than being able to see more pretty gold things on my city screens, all of which are neutered by having to spend them on armies, luxury sliders or citizen entertainment.

I think the best time to switch governments is when it feels right in that particular game. If my cities are next to rivers or lakes and can grow without aqueducts then I go to monarchy ASAP, if not then I just amble my way through the first civ page and convert to monarchy when I can be bothered.

I have been known to wait for Democracy before I switch before. It kind of depends on the map. For example the only time I feel I prefer Republic is when I'm alone on an island and tech progression via gold production is more important than war, growth, armies or improvements.

Soundbite: You just get a feeling when it's the right time to change.

 

[creamcheese]

In the debate between Monarchy and Republic I will always choose Monarchy. It's the AI which tends to dictate wars and should I wish to invade someone the last thing I want is slowly deteriorating happiness.

I've tried all of the governments except Communism and Fascism and Monarchy is easily the one which allows for the least micro-management. Also, money isn't really that crucial in the civ games whereas production is.

Like the OP states, no end of times I've tried Republic in the early stages only to be met with an hour of micro-management for no benefit other than being able to see more pretty gold things on my city screens, all of which are neutered by having to spend them on armies, luxury sliders or citizen entertainment.

I think the best time to switch governments is when it feels right in that particular game. If my cities are next to rivers or lakes and can grow without aqueducts then I go to monarchy ASAP, if not then I just amble my way through the first civ page and convert to monarchy when I can be bothered.

I have been known to wait for Democracy before I switch before. It kind of depends on the map. For example the only time I feel I prefer Republic is when I'm alone on an island and tech progression via gold production is more important than war, growth, armies or improvements.

Soundbite: You just get a feeling when it's the right time to change.

Micromanagement is definitely a part of the game. Using a tool like civassistII can really help with this sort of thing.

It seems to me like you are making war weariness in to a big bogeyman that it isn't really. The extra gold more than makes up for it, especially in times of peace. If you find the AI controlling when wars happen ,that is actually better in Republic, as if they declare you can get war happiness. With a dogpile you can often get we love the king in all cities quite easily. You should read some articles on war happiness, war weariness, and using the sliders. Then you will see the real power of republic.

 

[Buttercup]

Micromanagement is definitely a part of the game.

There's micro-management and there's micro-micro-management.

Using a tool like civassistII can really help with this sort of thing.

You mean it's that bad you can't do it without help?

It seems to me like you are making war weariness in to a big bogeyman that it isn't really.

It is a big bogeyman, that's the whole point of it.

The extra gold more than makes up for it, especially in times of peace.

As I said, in the early stages you don't get extra gold as it's all consumed by unit costs, happiness sliders and citizen entertainers.

If you find the AI controlling when wars happen ,that is actually better in Republic, as if they declare you can get war happiness.

For a short period to help you get going.

With a dogpile you can often get we love the king in all cities quite easily.

For a short period.

You should read some articles on war happiness, war weariness, and using the sliders. Then you will see the real power of republic.

I've no doubt people have written some fascinating articles on 'how to make feudalism work for you' as well, but from my experience Monarchy is the least hassle for the most benefit.

The two primary ways to 'win' a civ game are military victory and domination victory, and the game is heavily biased towards warfare. A government type which offers maximum production, zero war weariness, a 2/4/8 unit support cost, 3 military police per city plus perfectly adequate tech speed advancement is not only obvious, it's kind of a no-brainer.

You can get a Monarchy to use 100% of it's taxes on science and still have cash to spare and still have a massive army by use of the wealth feature (which is based on production). And you don't have to spend hours checking every city for minor fluctuations in population or war length.

I'm currently playing a Huge Regent and I'm researching Refining in 8 turns after having spent the past 30-odd techs at a speed of 6 turns per advancement. Is that not quick enough for you? It could have been 5 or 4 turns but I'm choosing to have 200 war units to ensure the AI doesn't get any funny ideas and to ensure I can expand whenever I feel the need. My cities are either 'we love the king' (yes, you said king also, was that a Freudian slip?) or near as makes no difference on a permanent basis as I have 7 luxuries without trading because if I need another luxury, I can just go get it, almost without thought (it gets a tad more complicated after the alliances and mutual protection pacts come into effect, but this is of zero issue early in the game).

Maybe you'd like to tell me what major problems you've had with monarchy?

 

[Raliuven]

@Buttercup

I understand what you are saying regarding monarchy. There was a time when I was a diehard monarchy fan. It has some attractive qualities that make it nice, especial for players that are either new or that don't like to MM all the time. If you are hesitant about using the luxury slider it is also attractive because moving MPs can balance things out in high population cities - but to my mind that is another type of MM. Another nice feature is that your MPs can make unhappy foreigners in newly conquered cities happy, something that makes a republic annoying.

However, I think the issue here is that you are talking about a Regent game. At regent you can win with the city governors managing your cities. Keeping up with techs is not much of a problem; good trading will often get you ahead even without good planning. And 6-8 turns per tech is not great, though early in the game there is not much you can do. The aim is for 4 turn techs.

This is where monarchy falls down for most players. Research is a function of gpt. You cannot research more then you can make in one turn (modified by multiplier buildings and science farms). You can deficit spend, but you still can't research faster than your gpt. Because Republic gives more gold per tile, you have an increased gpt and thus an increased capacity. Increased capacity + multiplier buildings=even more gpt. As both types of government receive the same benefit from science farms, that's a wash. So, all things being equal, 100% of monarchy research is far less than 100% of republic research.

The strength of monarchy is that it has a large unit support and no war weariness. But in the context of research, that does not, in itself, increase the maximum rate at which you can research. It just reduces the maintenance costs/luxury slider and may allow you to move the science slider higher (but remember, you are using the monarchy's reduced pool of money). As you can deficit spend, a Republic could cover maintenance costs by raising additional capital - such as selling those advanced techs for gold or gpt. War weariness, when it exists , can be offset by additional luxuries (which can be traded for techs) or situational entertainers.

Bottom line - Republics will almost always research faster than Monarchies.

This is pretty important at higher difficulties. Creamcheese is probably talking about Emperor+ games. Yes you can win in Monarchy at higher difficulties. It is most helpful when the game has turned into a slugfest. The idea of Republic is to research faster and field units that are much stronger. Thus you have less war weariness because your units are not dying and you have a smaller army because each unit is that much better then the enemy.

I personally don't use any assistance programs because I love to MM. But there comes a time for everyone when enough is enough. That threshold is different for everyone.

WLTKD is a common term with no attachment to any form of government. It is a point of reference in common use on this site. So to say 'we love the king day' does not imply you are in a monarchy government, it implies the state of a city in celebration. And who doesn't like to see fireworks?

 

[Buttercup]

Points taken and understood Raliuven. I am not overly familiar with anything above Monarch level though I have played games right up to sid. I'm a fanatic with the mechanics, but I'm not a fanatic for the unnecessary punishment and cheating AI of the higher levels. I tend to play all computer games in 'normal' mode, which, for the civ games is supposedly Regent (though the leap from Warlord to Regent seems to be the biggest chasm in the list), one is way too easy while the other is, by comparison, that little bit too hard to classified as 'normal'.

I fully understand the tech-lust for 4 turns per tech, this was my primary strategy for civ2. In civ2 it was republic/democracy all the way. For civ3 they seem to have manipulated the techs so it's not entirely based on quantity of beakers produced and I've never been able to find a benefit for Republic in civ3 other than when alone on an island.

There's two things that frustrate me about Republic fans though and they are as follows:

1. They don't see their method as an option, but rather as a necessity and everyone who chooses a different preference is somehow a newb. Like it's the big key to the game to master Republic when, in reality, it's just another personal choice as to how you prefer to play the game. Has it been proven beyond doubt that the only way to get a comfortable win in the higher levels is by mastering the Republic?

2. They use a huge amount of language to basically say they use a republic because it is the best way to advance in the tech tree. I've been the most advanced nation on a number of occasions only to find my civ destroyed by a larger despotic and backward nation. And the AI does attack you in large numbers when you are the tech leader (apart from during a pangea campaign), it seems to be an intentional matrix implemented by the developers for civ3. I've seen many people describe how they prefer to sit back just behind the tech leader and reduce the external threats as a tactic for survival.

Soundbite: I do understand that a correct implementation of Republic is the best way to advance in the tech tree if that is your goal and tactic.

 

[CKS]

One thing to note here is that republic is a lot better in conquests than PTW. You can get it for free via philosophy and you get a bunch of unit support that you don't get in PTW.

I think most republic fans would state their preference as "republic usually, monarchy for heavy warring, feudalism for 100k" (well, perhaps not the 100k part, as few seem to play it), rather than "republic for experts, monarchy for newbies."

 

[creamcheese]

1. They don't see their method as an option, but rather as a necessity and everyone who chooses a different preference is somehow a newb. Like it's the big key to the game to master Republic when, in reality, it's just another personal choice as to how you prefer to play the game. Has it been proven beyond doubt that the only way to get a comfortable win in the higher levels is by mastering the Republic?

No, of course not. It is always an option to take Monarchy (or any gov), the point being it generally is better (in score terms, not fun) to go republic. More flexibility, more money, etc. If you asked me which is easier, a republic diety game or a monarchy on diety? The republic is almost always easier (barring some odd circumstances that pander to a monarchy). Now, if you asked me, which is more satisfying to win, a 4-turn republic tech fest to space race on monarch, or an "always war" game on monarch (in monarchy naturally); the monarchy wins for enjoyment every time. It is still much harder to win, and will probably end with a much lower score.

Ask any HoF player what gov they use to maximize score, almost always republic. Monarchy is for those quick military domination/conquests on smaller maps.

So, yes, it does depend on how you want to play the game. You can win on any level in feudalism or despotism (there are some players around here who can probably do it on sid), but it is not easy. From a purely score-based approach to the game, I choose republic every time.

 

[Spoonwood]

Ask any HoF player what gov they use to maximize score, almost always republic. Monarchy is for those quick military domination/conquests on smaller maps.

For HoF games, it's usually Despotism for military domination/conquest games. There do exist exceptions, as I think Moonsinger's Sid military games went to the Republic.

I've no doubt people have written some fascinating articles on 'how to make feudalism work for you' as well, but from my experience Monarchy is the least hassle for the most benefit.

The two primary ways to 'win' a civ game are military victory and domination victory, and the game is heavily biased towards warfare. A government type which offers maximum production, zero war weariness, a 2/4/8 unit support cost, 3 military police per city plus perfectly adequate tech speed advancement is not only obvious, it's kind of a no-brainer.

You can get a Monarchy to use 100% of it's taxes on science and still have cash to spare and still have a massive army by use of the wealth feature (which is based on production). And you don't have to spend hours checking every city for minor fluctuations in population or war length.

I'm currently playing a Huge Regent and I'm researching Refining in 8 turns after having spent the past 30-odd techs at a speed of 6 turns per advancement. Is that not quick enough for you? It could have been 5 or 4 turns but I'm choosing to have 200 war units to ensure the AI doesn't get any funny ideas and to ensure I can expand whenever I feel the need. My cities are either 'we love the king' (yes, you said king also, was that a Freudian slip?) or near as makes no difference on a permanent basis as I have 7 luxuries without trading because if I need another luxury, I can just go get it, almost without thought (it gets a tad more complicated after the alliances and mutual protection pacts come into effect, but this is of zero issue early in the game).

If you're going for a military victory, and your at, near, or beyond military tradition (unless the AI has tons of bombers such as on higher levels), Republic actually works as better for a military victory, given that you do the following:

1. Once you have military tradition you shut off research (or maybe Steam Power or maybe Replacable Parts).

2. You cash-rush armies, perhaps buying a worker first and then finishing the army... or buying one every other turn, or disbanding some units even to get them in.

War weariness is practically non-existent when you use armies and/or artillery for most of your fighting.

 

[Buttercup]

1. Once you have military tradition you shut off research (or maybe Steam Power or maybe Replacable Parts).

I have used this tactic before

I call it the 'what am I waiting for?' tactic and can be implemented at any point. The map-size is the crucial factor as to when to do it however and this is why Cavalry (and getting to it first) is such a huge factor for civ3. As someone else noted, you can research Horse Riding 2/1/2 as the last tech of the ancient world and then have Cavalry just 7 techs later 6/3/3. Cavalry will then be the dominant military unit until tanks (so far ahead in the tech tree that games often don't even get that far).

As soon as Cavalry is gained, and if you're the first to get it, this tactic is almost screaming in your mind every turn from then-on in. With the correct use of cavalry you don't even need armies or any other units, you can literally wipe out another civ in one turn if you plan it meticulously and their towns are closely knit. maybe two or three turns if they are a bit more spread out. Of course it depends how cruel the rolls are also (cough cough).

 

[Raliuven]

2. They use a huge amount of language to basically say they use a republic because it is the best way to advance in the tech tree. I've been the most advanced nation on a number of occasions only to find my civ destroyed by a larger despotic and backward nation. And the AI does attack you in large numbers when you are the tech leader (apart from during a pangea campaign), it seems to be an intentional matrix implemented by the developers for civ3. I've seen many people describe how they prefer to sit back just behind the tech leader and reduce the external threats as a tactic for survival.

If you are the most advanced nation then this should not happen. Unless you are hopeless weak, being the most advanced means you have something everyone wants. If a Civ DOWs on you, then you start a dogpile on them with a tech gift to every civ - or at least those that are nearby and matter and fight a purely defensive war with settlers waiting in the wing to snatch up land.

If on the other hand you refuse to give up any tech and/or make alliances to secure you existence then you can expect the AI to start a dogpile on you.

But none of that has anything to do with the government you are using.

I don't know how to reconcil the following two things:

The two primary ways to 'win' a civ game are military victory and domination victory, and the game is heavily biased towards warfare. A government type which offers maximum production, zero war weariness, a 2/4/8 unit support cost, 3 military police per city plus perfectly adequate tech speed advancement is not only obvious, it's kind of a no-brainer.

1. They don't see their method as an option, but rather as a necessity and everyone who chooses a different preference is somehow a newb. Like it's the big key to the game to master Republic when, in reality, it's just another personal choice as to how you prefer to play the game. Has it been proven beyond doubt that the only way to get a comfortable win in the higher levels is by mastering the Republic?

First you make the assumption that everyone is aiming for a military victory and state that you don't even need a brain to decide that Monarchy is the best way to go. Then you blast those that prefer Republic for being heavy handed.

My actual comment was:

It has some attractive qualities that make it nice, especial for players that are either new or that don't like to MM all the time.

IMO new players gravitate there for the same mechanism as some experienced players but for different reasons. Experienced players may not want the hassle, new players don't understand enough of the game to MM correctly. Basically the game flies on autopilot.

I've no problem with anyone's playing style. Its your game - there is no right or wrong. There is no proven method, which is the great thing about the game. But in my experience, the less you need to worry about the MM of the game, the less efficient the game is running. The less efficient the game is running, the smaller the margin of victory.

Re: The game cheating above Regent. Aside from reading 'you might be an AI Civ if', Regent is no where near fair for the AI. The AI does so many inefficient and tactically dumb things that 'fair' probably occurs somewhere around Monarchy-Emperor. In spite of most of the game being a 'no-brainer', it is the one tool you have that the AI does not. It goes a long well to leveling (dominating) the playing field.

 

[Buttercup]

If on the other hand you refuse to give up any tech and/or make alliances to secure you existence then you can expect the AI to start a dogpile on you.

This is just it, it's like playing Russian Roulette with the AI. You get a message from someone demanding you give them Chivalry - they might declare war if you say no, they might not. The whole point of you getting to chivalry first was so you could use it before they get it, so just giving it away seems a tad pointless. It is normally too early for roads to connect to enable bribery by luxury or resources trading leaving your only bargaining tool being the techs, which you didn't want to give away and the timing for battle is wrong as you've only just learnt Chivalry and haven't actually built any knights yet, you were just about to start your war dedication. Before you know it 3 civs are at your borders and Republic is starting to look very shaky indeed.

First you make the assumption that everyone is aiming for a military victory and state that you don't even need a brain to decide that Monarchy is the best way to go. Then you blast those that prefer Republic for being heavy handed

so true! I apologise

IMO new players gravitate there for the same mechanism as some experienced players but for different reasons.

I've found that new players gravitate nowhere except complete confusion They probably install every new government as it arrives because the screen suggests the option to them once the tech is discovered They probably don't even realise there's a Change Government button

(a neat trick from civ2 was to select anarchy when you knew you were going to die soon, then split your nation in two from a revolution and select to play the new nation that wasn't at war with anyone then shake up the diplomacy from a new position - a guide to 'how to make anarchy work for you' type scenario )

Re: The game cheating above Regent. Aside from reading 'you might be an AI Civ if', Regent is no where near fair for the AI. The AI does so many inefficient and tactically dumb things that 'fair' probably occurs somewhere around Monarchy-Emperor. In spite of most of the game being a 'no-brainer', it is the one tool you have that the AI does not. It goes a long well to leveling (dominating) the playing field.

It's a shame that AI has to be like it is, dumb in some respects, cunning and frustrating beyond belief in others. You are correct, a human brain should, good start permitting, be able to 'win' regent in all the victory condition choices without too much problem. But this is what makes it 'normal' in computer game terms - winnable with a standard input without too much cheesing but with healthy concentration.

My concern about 'fairness' on higher levels is simply the speed with which the AI produces new towns and advances in technology. I don't like to feel I'm being hurried when I play a computer game

 

[Raliuven]

This is just it, it's like playing Russian Roulette with the AI. You get a message from someone demanding you give them Chivalry - they might declare war if you say no, they might not. The whole point of you getting to chivalry first was so you could use it before they get it, so just giving it away seems a tad pointless. It is normally too early for roads to connect to enable bribery by luxury or resources trading leaving your only bargaining tool being the techs, which you didn't want to give away and the timing for battle is wrong as you've only just learnt Chivalry and haven't actually built any knights yet, you were just about to start your war dedication. Before you know it 3 civs are at your borders and Republic is starting to look very shaky indeed.

You got me there. The trick is to trade it before they demand it, which may mean your new tech fetches 1/10th the asking price in a flury of not-so-good trades. Or the catch 22 which is you need to be strong enough that they wouldn't dare to demand it, in which case being the tech leader is less of an issue because you could research via pointy stick anyway.

I've found that new players gravitate nowhere except complete confusion They probably install every new government as it arrives because the screen suggests the option to them once the tech is discovered They probably don't even realise there's a Change Government button

Very true! I certainly did this my first few games. I mean, democracy must be better than monarchy - it is an entire AGE later. Then we arrive at communism, another AGE later and . . . umm, what? Luckily I found this site and there are a lot of good information and good players to help.

It's a shame that AI has to be like it is, dumb in some respects, cunning and frustrating beyond belief in others. You are correct, a human brain should, good start permitting, be able to 'win' regent in all the victory condition choices without too much problem. But this is what makes it 'normal' in computer game terms - winnable with a standard input without too much cheesing but with healthy concentration.

My concern about 'fairness' on higher levels is simply the speed with which the AI produces new towns and advances in technology. I don't like to feel I'm being hurried when I play a computer game

Fair enough. I suppose there is only so much you can do with a bunch of 01010101.

 

[PaperBeetle]

If you find the AI controlling when wars happen ,that is actually better in Republic, as if they declare you can get war happiness.

...
For a short period.

For a potentially unlimited period.
But note that war happiness accrues to monarchies (and the other autocratic governments) as well. It is just the war weariness which is specific to representative governments.

 

[Buttercup]

It is just the war weariness which is specific to representative governments.

The odd one out is Feudalism. Not really what one would call representative government but one that still has crippling War Weariness.

I recently had an opportunity to really give Feudalism a good test out. I was playing Babylon on a Huge Map total Pangea. My island was quite large but had zero luxuries on it and zero rivers, just one lake. So I really packed in the cities and squeezed about 12 size 6 towns onto the island. Perfect conditions for Feudalism.

I was quickly ahead of nearby islands for techs and proceeded to invade a few. While assaulting my third civ the battle was a bit harder with bigger losses - it was Germany with about 12 size 12 cities. But I was in feudalism so I had a much larger army, that's the whole point of Feudalism afterall.

I was only able to take down about 2 cities on each assault before even just size 6 towns with temples, adequate military police and a couple of conquered luxuries all went up in a cloud of grey smoke, every single one.

My luxury slider was already at 30% and some towns even had one entertainer already so I was left with no choice really but to declare peace (allowing them to rebuild their army which would make the next assault, once everything had restored, more prone to the same situation.

Feudalism strikes me as Monarchy for smalltowns, and it's main bonus of allowing 5 units per smalltown suggests it's supposed to be a warring government type.

Soundbite: Feudalism is definitely the game's odd-ball government type.