Sir John
The evil one...
This is probably a dumb question, but why do we have monarchy as a government? Why dont we use democracy or a Republic??
Why Monarchy?
- Thread starter Sir John
- Start date
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
We are constantly at war. So why not?
Sir John
The evil one...
Well, good point 
Vander
Privateering in Idaho
Do we plan on shifting to commmies when we get the proper tech?
Sir John
The evil one...
Vander: Communism suck...
BTW: you are not allowed to have more then 5 lines in your sig...
It says so in the forum rules....
BTW: you are not allowed to have more then 5 lines in your sig...
It says so in the forum rules....
Vander
Privateering in Idaho
Could you please explain why you think communism "sucks"?
Thread moved to the citizens forum. Sir John, almost all discussion threads should be started in the citizens' forum, and almost no threads should be started in the main forum.
Sir John
The evil one...
well, I dont have any game reasons if thats what you mean, but I do have some real-life reasons.
Communism in it self i the perfect governement, but for it to work properly it need to have perfect incoruptuable leaders and since that doesnt exist then communism sucks...
Communism in it self i the perfect governement, but for it to work properly it need to have perfect incoruptuable leaders and since that doesnt exist then communism sucks...
Sir John
The evil one...
@eyerei: ok. I didnt know 
Vander
Privateering in Idaho
True that communism is incredibly difficult to pull off in real life, but in the wonderful world of Civilization, Communism is a viable option. I think that communism would be a good choice for government when our nation gets large. We may be at the point where the corruption in the outer cities is so overwhelming that we may want to switch to communism so the outer provinces can produce SOMETHING. But then again, that's just me and I could be wrong.
Grandmaster
Deity
The problem with Communism is this:
It cripples production. Period.
This is why:
Communism puts "an equal, low level of corruption in all cities." What that essentially means is, it lowers the corruption in our fringe cities, but adds huge amounts of corruption in our core cities, essentially bringing them down to the level of a middle-class secondary city. That serves one purpose: to ensure that instead of having a few cities pumping things out rapidly, we have many cities building them slowly. Not good when we constantly need to be feeding soldiers into the war machine. I fully support staying with Monarchy... in fact, I usually stay as a Monarchy through my entire games. The few times I have changed to Democracy, I have been destroyed by a nation who I could have easilly handled militarilly as a Monarchy. And when I use a Communism, I find that my production drops off to a point where I cannot rebuild the units that I lose in the field.
It cripples production. Period.
This is why:
Communism puts "an equal, low level of corruption in all cities." What that essentially means is, it lowers the corruption in our fringe cities, but adds huge amounts of corruption in our core cities, essentially bringing them down to the level of a middle-class secondary city. That serves one purpose: to ensure that instead of having a few cities pumping things out rapidly, we have many cities building them slowly. Not good when we constantly need to be feeding soldiers into the war machine. I fully support staying with Monarchy... in fact, I usually stay as a Monarchy through my entire games. The few times I have changed to Democracy, I have been destroyed by a nation who I could have easilly handled militarilly as a Monarchy. And when I use a Communism, I find that my production drops off to a point where I cannot rebuild the units that I lose in the field.
Vander
Privateering in Idaho
I have found it useful in some campaigns, but not all. It is quite useful when you want to get culture improvements out in fringe cities without using a lot of gold. But hey, different strokes for different folks.
By the way, i feel reeeeeeaaaallll silly now that I found out that we already have access to communism!
By the way, i feel reeeeeeaaaallll silly now that I found out that we already have access to communism!
Wouldn't that be anarchy, with no leaders?
Sir John
The evil one...
I actually agree with goonie there... The USSR never became a real comunist state... in a real comunist state all the people are good to eachother and give each other waht they need.. since everyone are perfect, there would be no need for leaders, do you might say thats it a anarchy if you think of anarchy as a absence of leadership, but anarcy means chaos so it wouldnt be the proper description...
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
In a perfect world, Communism would just be democracy taken too far. Instead of the people's government via representatives, it would be the people's government via the people. No representatives, just the people running the country.
And on the topic of communism in civ3, well, why bother? If our country was A) half the size and B) had every city with Courthouse/Police station combo, It might be good. but that wont happen.
And on the topic of communism in civ3, well, why bother? If our country was A) half the size and B) had every city with Courthouse/Police station combo, It might be good. but that wont happen.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Democracy is actually the people running things with no representatives. What most people think of as democracy are countries like the USA but we are actually a representive republic.
Sir John
The evil one...
in a true democracy you have representatives, but to get a pure democracy, the people would vote for every songle descision and the representattives were just there to keep everything in order.. they woudnt decide anything... Thas true democracy...
Sniper59
Chieftain
Communism is not the perfect government, even in theory. And even without "uncorruptable leaders", you need uncorruptable and hard working citizens also. Some time during the 60's, the Soviet Union was having trouble producing enough food to supply their population. A team of agricultural experts was sent from Iowa State in Ames, Iowa, to investigate why they weren't producing enough food.
So why was it they weren't making enough?
Because the people were unmotivated. Some figured that "Hey, I can just sit here, and I'll still get everything the same as everyone else. Why should I work?". So basically what our researchers told them was that to fix their agricultural system, they'd have to fix their government. So after that, the Soviet Union began giving incentives for people to produce, which brought it farther and farther away from achieving "Pure Communism".
So why was it they weren't making enough?
Because the people were unmotivated. Some figured that "Hey, I can just sit here, and I'll still get everything the same as everyone else. Why should I work?". So basically what our researchers told them was that to fix their agricultural system, they'd have to fix their government. So after that, the Soviet Union began giving incentives for people to produce, which brought it farther and farther away from achieving "Pure Communism".
Similar threads
