Which form of Gov't is your favorite?`

[thetrooper]

Republic. Seriously is Alpha_Killer back?

Doubt it. Look at his join date.



Oh aye! The question. Republic unless I'm doing some crazy variant.

 

[Roma]

Feudalism up intil Fascism. I cant play on any other govs. Everytime i try I have no money no men and no sceince. Does and one easle see that some suck for money and men?

 

[Kool Keith]

Feudalism and Fascism are possibly the worst two governments in the game.

Republic is quite powerful, you just need to make sure your infrastructure is properly developed before you switch.

 

[Roma]

They both work good for me but I war a lot and I tried monarchy but it fell short of what I needed. What about Dem? Is that good.

 

[Desertsnow]

Democracy is excellent for economy and corruption-control but not good if you're playing a warlike game as warweariness sets in quickly can can actually result in overthrow of government.

 

[Gen. Rommel]

Yeah, which isn't something we can say about our real-world democracies. According to Civ logic, George Bush should have felt the boot a long time ago.

I forgot to mention at the beginning that I always switch to Monarchy. It's the only early government that I can get in the ancient age that can effectively let me wage war and also support me on my many campaigns against the other civs. If I feel like switching (usually when I'm playing a religious civ) I'll also switch to feudalism to change it up a bit but mostly, I stick to monarchy and then communism as soon as I research it.

 

[Kool Keith]

Communism is a pretty sweet government. The common argument against it is that you shouldn't waste you time researching two extra techs that you don't need, plus the extra anarchy period. If your game is still in doubt at that stage, you should be spending you resources on working towards flight, since bombers will dominate. Or if you are a builder, TOE.

 

[Sashie VII]

I research Communism even if I never switch to it. Police stations combat war weariness, I'm a bloodthirsty-building-Republic leader

 

[Macezek]

Republic, and when my empire gets too big, Communism.

 

[Roma]

You know that thing you get form Communism seceret police or something, ok well back on point if i change to communism and then build the police thing and then switch back do i still keep the police thingy

 

[AznWarlord]

Monarchy all the way, I hate how Democracy doesn't support many troops plus the war weariness, in Monarchy, you get a lot of troop support, low war weariness, and less pollution, I think.

 

[Tomoyo]

Republic. Not even close.

Anarchy just sucks.

Despotism sucks.

Monarchy simply can't compete with Republic in any facet of the game except MPs. (I believe it has been shown somewhere that Republic with maximum war weariness, with the luxury slider pushed to ~40% or whatever it required to offset the war weariness, is the economic equivalent of the same civ in Monarchy. Any less war weariness, and Republic is better.)

Feudalism is just too disconcerting. I'm sure there's a way to use it effectively, but it contradicts civ logic. It has the same war weariness of Republic and less money. If you have a huge, huge army (talking something in three digits), then maybe it's good.

Democracy comes too late and requires two optional technologies.

Communism comes even later and requires an optional technology in the age when you should be researching steam power, industrialization, electricity, medicine, and scientific method. Also, if your empire is big enough that Communism is a good government, you've in essence already won the game, so it doesn't matter. Also, if your empire is big enough that Communism is a good government, the anarchy time will be hell.

Fascism isn't that bad. Double-speed workers can help you rail your empire. If you have a small one, the anarchy won't be that bad. On top of that, you'd be able to support a large army (which you will build with the rails and factories you just learned about). It's useful if you find yourself with a small empire in the industrial ages needing to fight against larger, more advanced AIs.

 

[AznWarlord]

I'd rate the governments like this.

Bad:
-Depositism
-Anarchy

Poor:
-Democracy
-Feudalism

Good:
-Communism
-Fascism

Exxecellent:
-Monarchy
-Republic

Also, keep in mind that a government on top of another one in the same catagory does not make it etter. I'd say they are about the same.

 

[Gen. Rommel]

You know that thing you get form Communism seceret police or something, ok well back on point if i change to communism and then build the police thing and then switch back do i still keep the police thingy

Unfortunately, no. The effects of the secret police only pertain to a communist regime and switching to another government will make it void (again). However, you do not have to build it again once you do decide to switch back to communism meaning the effects will set back in as soon as you start another Marxist/Leninist revolution.

Fascism isn't that bad. Double-speed workers can help you rail your empire. If you have a small one, the anarchy won't be that bad. On top of that, you'd be able to support a large army (which you will build with the rails and factories you just learned about). It's useful if you find yourself with a small empire in the industrial ages needing to fight against larger, more advanced AIs.

Hmmm, that is actually quite an interesting aspect. Personally, I've never been in the situation of owning a civ with a small land mass at the later parts of the game but I'm sure your statement holds complete legitimacy. The effects of Fascism would most likely truly help smaller civs strive for greater glory. I'll test it out one of these days by keeping my civ mostly peaceful in the beginning of the game and therefore my empire somewhat small. Let's just hope I don't get wiped out before researching Fascism hehe.

 

[chickensaver]

Yeah, which isn't something we can say about our real-world democracies. According to Civ logic, George Bush should have felt the boot a long time ago.

I guess it's because were more of a republic than a democracy.

 

[Gen. Rommel]

I guess it's because were more of a republic than a democracy.

Hehe, good point! The U.S. governing body does resemble more a republic than a "true" democracy. Ironic considering that the War on Terrorism uses the forefront of "spreading Democracy" although the nation doing this is actually not itself a "real" democracy.

 

[AznWarlord]

US is both.

The Senate and President are definately the good old Roman Republic, a head (well 2 consuls for Rome) and a Senate working together. The House on the other hand represents the representative democracy. But in reality, the Senate and Pres call the shots.

 

[Desertsnow]

@ Rommel: Dooooon't get me started on my government. I believe George of the Jungle should have felt the boot a long time ago. Democracy may be the best government in real life, but dogma of the Bush regime borders on fascism.

(Apologies for the political venting, but I had to vent.)

 

[AznWarlord]

Either it's Fascism, or a 49%R and 51%D controlled Senate just doesn't get along.

 

[Desertsnow]

That too. tendamncharacters