When to switch governments?

[Abegweit]

@aabraxan

First let me re-iterate the concept of net income. It is the money you have left over after all necessary expenses. It is necessary to pay corruption, unit costs and maintenance. While there are things you can do in the long run to fight off all these things, on this turn these costs are fixed and cannot be avoided. To a certain extent, luxes fall into this category too but CAII gives you no information about that so you have to estimate it yourself.

Once your fixed costs are paid for, the rest of the money is yours to do with as you please. You can spend it on science, rush buy units, buy tech, bribe the AI, etc. The whole objective of a game of Civ is to maximise net income (well... net shields too). This is why I did not include science in the formula. Science is one of the things you might do with your net income, not one of your fixed costs.

You should switch from one government to another if the expected increase in your net income outweighs the costs of the anarchy. A switch out of despo almost always pays and the only question is which of the three early governments to choose. Only in special circumstances is the answer anything other than Republic.

You should switch to Republic before your expected net income in this government exceeds that of Despo for several reasons. Your shield count will go up somewhat and net food even more. Further your growth during the anarchy will help too. Republic has other benefits beside the commerce bonus. In my experience is that, given the typical empire size at the time you learn Republic, you should switch is when the difference has been reduced to about 20. Usually, this is already true so you should revolt immediately.

archimandrite has it right. The formula is telling you that you have too many units for Republic to support. You are ready to revolt but unit costs are dragging you down. Get rid of the extras, either in war or by disbanding them. No defensive units. No regular units. Consider getting rid of vet warriors and merging workers too, although I doubt that your problem is an excess of workers. Rather I expect that they never should have been built in the first place.

My feeling here is that your unit costs of 7 even in despotism is rather higher than I would usually permit myself. Depending on the number of cities you have, I'd estimate you've 7-14 more units than you might perhaps need.

That would justify the switch, I think.

And the formula says exactly that.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I've been switching to republic as soon as I can, on the following theory: The sooner I can get through anarchy, the less I lose. However, my current game (C3C, monarch, continents, Iroquois) has got me to thinking that maybe I'm switching too early.

When do you make the switch?

Immagine it is turn 150. You have had a 5 turn anarchy. Anarchy is pretty much completely lost time, so it is like you have been playing 145 turns now. In that light, it does not matter when you had those 5 turns of anarchy. If you have them early, your development is more behind, if you have them late, your lose more on immeadiate production. It evens out because in both cases you simply have played a 145 turn game.

However, an earlier anarchy does indeed give some benefits:
-Anarchy length depends on the number of cities you have and thus may be shorter when you have it early.
-Large cities can get in trouble in anarchy easier than small ones and may even suffer starvation or lose buildings due to civil unrest.

Those are however relatively small factors. The first one would be big if you'd compare 5 towns to 30+ towns, but usually you have quite some towns already anyway when you can swich.

Therefore, i prefer to swich to republic when my calculations show that republic will be beneficial to me or almost so (because you may gain a few citizens during anarchy). In this calculation, do not forget to include the extra food you will get for non fresh water cities in an agricultural civ and for the tiles that produce 3+ food. Food can now be counted equal value to shields because under republic you can make as much of it as you want by irrigating grassland. Also don't forget to include possible changes you are gonna make in your republic calculation (like disbanding warriors or stopping that settler factory and letting it grow past size6). Don't just calculate 1 extra gold for every citizen, but substract corruption from that extra commerce. It is all pretty easy and accurately to calculate, you just need to get some proper estimates on the extra shields and gold you get from the lower corruption.


So i aim to swich at the break even point or just before. Other factors like wars, buildings to be finished, settlers to be finished etc can influence the timing for a few turns as well.

 

[Ringo Kid]

In that light, it does not matter when you had those 5 turns of anarchy. If you have them early, your development is more behind, if you have them late, your lose more on immeadiate production. It evens out because in both cases you simply have played a 145 turn game.

I think the real calculation is on the turns remaining in the game, not the turns in the past. This is because if you gain X amount of benefit with 200 turns remaining in the game, you gain X times 200. If you wait ten turns you only gain X times 190.

Also your gains are multiplied by turns, for example if you build a marketplace ten turns earlier, all the following improvements in that city come earlier as well.

 

[Aabraxan]

Thanks to everyone for the information. It would appear that I'm going to wind up with, well, let's call it a "suboptimal" time for switching governments. . . I'd noticed in my prior games that I invariably wound up disbanding units when it came time to switch. That's what made me think that maybe I was switching too early.

I like to play out my mistakes, to see if I can salvage the game, so that's what I'll do.

As of the latest save, I've got:
16 cities
19 workers
2 warriors
15 archers
8 Legionaries
3 spearmen
7 Horsemen
2 catapults
2 settlers
3-5 Ancient Cavalry (can't find them in CA2)

Clearly, I need to do something with these units. I'll disband a few, but really, I think it's time to go warmongering.

 

[Ringo Kid]

What is your immediate goal, your next step in the game at this point? Is there a weak nearby civ to add to your empire? Is your closest neighbor at a distance and stronger than you? Is there land available to expand into without war?

I think the answers to questions like that will tell you what to do next.

Normally if you can take over the entire continent, you win. If you are strong enough to to do that now, then warmongering does sound like the right step. If not, then peace while building your size and strength is the better choice.

A useful tactic for getting more unit support might be to build some settlers, raze a few enemy towns, build new cities with the settlers, and add some of your workers to the new towns, replacing them with slaves from the razings.

Because more towns and or fewer native workers equals more unit support for troops.

 

[Aabraxan]

There are two civs nearby, the Spaniards and the Germans. Both are located to my SW. Neither civ is what I'd call a large military threat. My borders have bumped up against the Spaniards and will soon hit the German borders. The Spaniards also have the Pyramids, iirc.

There is a little bit of greenery to my NE, and a fair amount of tundra up there. In the recent past, I've had 2 or 3 barbarian uprisings on that side.

So I've sort of got the option here: I could expand peacefully, or I could go to war. I am moderately confident that I can take the continent now.

I am tentatively planning on an archer/horse assault. I've got some Legionaries, but I don't want my GA yet. So I think I'll hold them back for a while. Maybe spare a town or two until after I make the Despo/Rep leap, then move them out to trigger my GA. . .

The next question is whether to make the leap before or after war. I could rely on Despo to provide some troop support, or I could make the switch while I'm moving troops into position, and put science at 0%. I can then disband warriors and spears to get positive gpt.

 

[Abegweit]

There are two civs nearby, the Spaniards and the Germans. Both are located to my SW. Neither civ is what I'd call a large military threat. My borders have bumped up against the Spaniards and will soon hit the German borders. The Spaniards also have the Pyramids, iirc.

Get Izzy. No AI should ever be allowed to hold the Pyramids.

There is a little bit of greenery to my NE, and a fair amount of tundra up there. In the recent past, I've had 2 or 3 barbarian uprisings on that side.

You shouldn't generally have built up such a large military while you still have space for peaceful expansion but since you did... get Izzy.

I am tentatively planning on an archer/horse assault. I've got some Legionaries, but I don't want my GA yet. So I think I'll hold them back for a while. Maybe spare a town or two until after I make the Despo/Rep leap, then move them out to trigger my GA. . .

The next question is whether to make the leap before or after war. I could rely on Despo to provide some troop support, or I could make the switch while I'm moving troops into position, and put science at 0%. I can then disband warriors and spears to get positive gpt.

How big are your towns? Assuming that they have grown a bit, and I suspect that they have, sixteen is more than enough to justify a GA. Assuming this is the case, my suggestion is revolt immediately and get Izzy. As soon as you are out of Despo, bring the Legions in and let the good times roll. Warning: if you want to bring Otto in, you'll need to do it before the revolt. You can't establish an embassy in anarchy.

 

[Aabraxan]

I have already established embassies with both Izzy & Otto. Most of my towns are size 3-4. No, I shouldn't have built up such a large military while there was room for peaceful expansion, but, since I did . . . I think I'll go get Izzy, and maybe Otto while I'm at it.

As for the switch, I just don't want to risk triggering my GA while I'm in anarchy.

 

[Ringo Kid]

I agree with Abegweit. Revolt, Attack, trigger GA, then build hordes of horsemen while your towns have a growth and gold spurt.

If your attack runs out of steam due to war weariness or whatever, then declare peace, disband archers in the conquered towns to help build whatever you need there, wait for Knights and upgrade, then attack some more.

Sounds like fun to me.

 

[LowEndUser]

Forget a War with the Republic. ( Unless you really Love A Challenge )

It has too expensive units support, gives too much War Weariness, and too few Free Units per City.

Your War will bog down with the very limited Military force you have now, especially if one of the Civs. your attacking has or will soon get The Great Wall or Sun Tzu`s. ( and I bet they will 5 turns into your War. ) You could easily lose 1/2 of it attacking 2 Cities even with average die rolls.

Go to Monarchy. Set Science slider to 10%. Lux to 0 or 10%. Use Gold to buy units and Allies. When you have 60+ units ( especially Legionaires ) attack and don`t stop until you have crippled that one Civ. and they make peace for all their Techs or last 2 Cities or both. Take a brief break, repeat with the next Civ. (Just the Time and Space envolved in this can take you into the 1880`s.) Own Continent. Win Game.

May I respectfully suggest if you have not, read some of Zerksees Game reports listed in his post below this thread.

PS: Catapults are your Friends. If they get their Spearmen behind Walls, with Barracks, supported with Archers you will Never, Ever take them with Horsemen and Archers alone. Even the Legionaires will have problems against that setup.

 

[MAS]

@LowEndUser

Eh, the biggest baddest most hyper aggressive warmonger on this forum advices republic above almost anything else, except maybe when you play an "Always War" variant game.

And I agree

 

[Abegweit]

As for the switch, I just don't want to risk triggering my GA while I'm in anarchy.

Right. So don't bring them into the conflict until you are out of it.

 

[Aabraxan]

@ LowEndUser,
While I'll freely admit that I've yet to use Monarchy, I haven't had too much trouble warmongering in Republic. Additionally, I can switch to Republic now. I'd have to research or trade up to Monarchy before I could make the switch. Off the top of my head, I don't know where the Germans and Spaniards are in that line, but I haven't researched anything on the path to Monarchy, so that could be a time-consuming proposition.

As to Zerksees game reports, I'd be glad to read them, but I couldn't find the links to which you referred.

@Abegweit,
I won't. And I'll post my progress when I've made some headway in that game. Two SGs and RL have hogged all of my time in the last few days.

 

[LowEndUser]

@LowEndUser

Eh, the biggest baddest most hyper aggressive warmonger on this forum advices republic above almost anything else, except maybe when you play an "Always War" variant game.

And I agree

If you mean Zeeksees, I believes he has played most of the published AAR Games with PTW, which is as I recall as a much different Gane, and faster, ( build rate ) and I believe easier, Game when played as a warmonger then Conquests. They Nerfed the Warmonger aspect of PTW in Conquests IMO.

If not Zeek, please point me to the threads of the person you refer. FWIW: From Zeeksees Sid Game AAR " Monarchy will be our government of choice until communism."


I need to know why as a hard core warmonger he would prefer The Repubic to Communism in Conquests...

If you compare the key Governments facts, like " Hurry Method", "Free Units", "Draft Limit", and "War Weariness" in Conquests it`s hard to see why Republic is a better warmonger choice then Monarchy/ Communism, which give more advantages at all levels, unless he plays a Stop War & Build and Start War again and Stop and build , etc, etc

Thanks !!
P.S. I`m NOT trying to start an argument, but I`m sincerely interested in why Folks think The Republic is the Choice for a warmonger at Regent and Higher.

 

[LowEndUser]

@ LowEndUser,
While I'll freely admit that I've yet to use Monarchy, I haven't had too much trouble warmongering in Republic. Additionally, I can switch to Republic now. I'd have to research or trade up to Monarchy before I could make the switch. Off the top of my head, I don't know where the Germans and Spaniards are in that line, but I haven't researched anything on the path to Monarchy, so that could be a time-consuming proposition.

As to Zerksees game reports, I'd be glad to read them, but I couldn't find the links to which you referred.

@Abegweit,
I won't. And I'll post my progress when I've made some headway in that game. Two SGs and RL have hogged all of my time in the last few days.

The Zerksees AAR Threads and his Sid Game and others.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186709

 

[Aabraxan]

LowEndUser,
Thanks. I'll read some of those. I already see a couple of training missions that look like good places to start.

 

[Abegweit]

If not Zeek, please point me to the threads of the person you refer. FWIW: From Zeeksees Sid Game AAR " Monarchy will be our government of choice until communism."

I need to know why as a hard core warmonger he would prefer The Repubic to Communism in Conquests...

MAS is referring to WackenOpenAir, who has already expressed his reason for his opposition to Communism on this thread, but I'll recap it for you briefly. The main point is that Communism comes too late.

In any game, you have to choose between one of the early governments - Depotism, Monarchy, Republic and Feudalism. The right answer almost always is Republic but the other three are possible in special circumstances. Monarchy is good are AW, Feud for 100K and Despo for ultra-early conquest. These govts also make some sense for a SID game, where you need to support big armies and research is difficult no matter what you (although Republic can work too - the top two SID HOF games were done in Republic). A lot of SID games are played in Mono, as Zerksees' was.

The point is that these are niche cases. At Diety and below your proper early choice is normally Republic. It will be perhaps a hundred turns from the moment you acquire Republic to the moment you can revolt to commie. If you have managed to do it in much less than that, it is because you have conquered the world and filled it with science farms. This is not the optimal organisation of your empire for Commie, which needs dozens of big powerful cities instead of hundreds of tiny ones.

Going two techs down a dead-end path and re-organising your entire empire is just not worth it. Better to stick with republic to the end of the game.

 

[MAS]

My point was...

Forget a War with the Republic. ( Unless you really Love A Challenge )

It has too expensive units support, gives too much War Weariness, and too few Free Units per City.

I know from my OWN experience that this is just not true! (I was not referring to myself as the biggest warmonger btw)
I admit I don't play SID level, but as far as empire difficulty I can say from my own experience, you can war in republic without much trouble.

The reason to choose republic over monarchy is simply because of the very same reason why you would choose republic over monarchy as a builder. More commerce, less corruption.

The unit support is not a big problem, the amount of extra cash from republic more than makes up for it, even if you include the fact units cost 2gpt.

The WW is only a problem if you play under "Always War" variant rules. Because only then does it build up to the point monarchy becomes better.

 

[Ringo Kid]

The best path for me is Despotism-Republic-Communism, because once you get up around fifty or more cities, Communism is more productive. Either for building city improvements or tanks, it's much stronger.

 

[glenmetz]

I almost always switch to Monarcy ASAP (unless I'm close to a wonder or in the middle of a war). I almost always go to Monarcy because often times, and the end of the civil unrest I'm going to start a war with weak neighbor #1. I just love irrigating those distant cities and turning them into specialist farms.