worth democracy?

[SeriousCaller]

I'm not sure whether I should change up to democracy. I am Persia in Regent, near the end of industrial with around 2/3 of the territory, the rest shared between 3 civs. I have parity in tech, the largest army and absolute control of the largest continent and a further large island and a share in a smaller one.

My problem is corruption. My large continent has a productive end and a very unproductive end (formerly owned by the zulus). Out in the islands nothing much gets buit at all. How can I make my empire more productive? I have roaded, railroaded and improved all the terrain. Everyone is at peace finally. Is it worth changing governemnt to reduce my corruption?

 

[bambam190]

Have you looked into moving your Palace or building your FP?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

How big is your empire? After a certain size, an empire is just corrupt.

Democracy is a little helpful, but pretty much it reduces distance corruption, and your empire is probably running into rank corruption issues.

 

[Norton II]

Whatever benefits could be gained by switching to democracy at this point (I'm assuming you're in republic) aren't worth an extra 8 turns of anarchy. If you want to get some use out of your ultra-corrupt cities, irrigate all the tiles around them and use the food surplus to support lots of scientists.

 

[The Omega]

If you control that much land, and really want to reduce corruption, you should switch to Communism.

 

[12 Bar Blues]

The anarchy turns will lose most of your gains.

With the largest army, a full continent and tech parity, I'll go for killing whoever remains.

 

[Aabraxan]

I'm not sure whether I should change up to democracy. I am Persia in Regent, near the end of industrial with around 2/3 of the territory, the rest shared between 3 civs. I have parity in tech, the largest army and absolute control of the largest continent and a further large island and a share in a smaller one.

If you own 2/3 and 3 other civs own the other 1/3, that means that each one of them has ~1/9 of the territory. With "parity in tech, the largest army and absolute control of the largest continent," the other civs really shouldn't pose any threat, at least not militarily. What's your VC of choice?

My problem is corruption. My large continent has a productive end and a very unproductive end (formerly owned by the zulus). Out in the islands nothing much gets buit at all. How can I make my empire more productive? I have roaded, railroaded and improved all the terrain.

Have you turned the corrupt areas into specialist farms? Get enough well-fed specialist farms up and you can cash-rush lots and lots of stuff.

 

[Ondskan]

VICA LA REVOLUTION BOLSHEVIK!

 

[SeriousCaller]

Have you looked into moving your Palace or building your FP?

I accidentally built the FP rather too close to my capital. I suppose I could move my capital to the other end of the continent.

If you want to get some use out of your ultra-corrupt cities, irrigate all the tiles around them and use the food surplus to support lots of scientists.

Have you turned the corrupt areas into specialist farms? Get enough well-fed specialist farms up and you can cash-rush lots and lots of stuff.

Same thing?

With the largest army, a full continent and tech parity, I'll go for killing whoever remains.

the other civs really shouldn't pose any threat, at least not militarily. What's your VC of choice?

Thats what I was about to do. I usually go for space race or cultural, or lose interest once the game is effectively won, but this is my first regent game, so I might just go for killing the others. The problem then is war weariness. The last war I had was fairly recently, where I took an island of 6 or so cities off the aztecs. Most of my cities were in disorder by the end of that.

So I could
1. go peaceful, move my capital and grow scientists and taxmen until the tech is up to space age and head for alpha centauri
2. become communist, then kill everyone
3. stay in republic, then kill everyone. The weapon of choice is infantry, cavalry, battleships and (just) planes, but tanks are not far off.

 

[Marsden]

If this is conquests, then the Republic unit support makes up for the slight decrease of corruption. Add in the anarchy of revolting, unless you're a religous civ which you are not, just makes it not worth it at all.

 

[CommandoBob]

Thats what I was about to do. I usually go for space race or cultural, or lose interest once the game is effectively won, but this is my first regent game, so I might just go for killing the others. The problem then is war weariness. The last war I had was fairly recently, where I took an island of 6 or so cities off the aztecs. Most of my cities were in disorder by the end of that.

Markets will make your luxuries a lot more helpful in calming the masses, even during a war.

Part of WW is caused by having units inside the enemy's border on the IBT. So the key is not to do that, or at least, not to leave a lot of units.

Instead, place a settler and a defender just inside enemy territory. With the right defender they should survive the IBT just fine. On the next turn, build a city and use it as a springboard to attack the enemy.

This way you are not having a lot (20, 30 or more) of units spending the IBT behind enemy lines (and thus worrying the population about their well-being). Two units is a lot easier to handle.

But for now, attack as you are. Switching to another government this late in the game is rarely a good idea.

 

[gmaharriet]

Marsden already alluded to something VERY important...

If this is conquests,

Which version you're playing makes a huge difference in which strategy may work best for the questions you are asking.

I accidentally built the FP rather too close to my capital. I suppose I could move my capital to the other end of the continent.

If you are playing vanilla or PTW, a capital move could work well. If you're playing C3C, it will make little difference except to create lots of corruption in your current capital city

Same thing?

Yep!

The problem then is war weariness. The last war I had was fairly recently, where I took an island of 6 or so cities off the aztecs. Most of my cities were in disorder by the end of that.

The War Weariness affect would only come back if the next war is again with the Aztecs...it takes 20 turns of peace to wear off...BUT it starts from zero for a war with a different civ. If you are having a lot of WW, make peace with the civ you're fighting, and go to war with someone else.

So I could
1. go peaceful, move my capital and grow scientists and taxmen until the tech is up to space age and head for alpha centauri
2. become communist, then kill everyone
3. stay in republic, then kill everyone. The weapon of choice is infantry, cavalry, battleships and (just) planes, but tanks are not far off.

Communism is very powerful in C3C, but not very good in vanilla or PTW. Scientists and taxmen are also far more powerful in C3C, BUT the two do not combine well. For Communism you want your cities relatively far apart, large and powerful. For sci/tax farms, you want towns placed very close together, like CxC in distance. So decide which direction you want to go and plan your new cities accordingly. Again, what version you're playing makes a difference.

 

[PaperBeetle]

I'm not sure whether I should change up to democracy. I am Persia in Regent, near the end of industrial with around 2/3 of the territory, the rest shared between 3 civs. I have parity in tech, the largest army and absolute control of the largest continent and a further large island and a share in a smaller one.

It sounds like the game is already won. What do you hope to gain by subjecting yourself to another 6ish turns of anarchy?

 

[Ringo Kid]

I suggest you download civ assist , and use that to determine whether or not the govt switch will make sense for this particular game.

 

[Headbanger]

If you control that much land, and really want to reduce corruption, you should switch to Communism.

Won't all his cities be corrupt then?

 

[CommandoBob]

Won't all his cities be corrupt then?

Yes and no.

All will be corrupt.

But all will share the same corruption rate.

So that the capital will have the same corruption rate as the city halfway around the world.

At least, that is how I understand it; I've never used Communism as a government.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

All will be corrupt.

But all will share the same corruption rate.

So that the capital will have the same corruption rate as the city halfway around the world.

If I Remember Correctly, Civ 3 Conquests changed Communism so that the capitol is corruption free.

All of your other cities will have corruption, but Communism caps corruption at 33% per city, so all of your 1-shield cities will become like 6-7 shield cities.

Also remember in Communism you can build Secret Police HQ which is a 2nd Forbidden Palce...

The main trade-off with Communism vs. whatever is that your CORE cities (nearest your capitol) alreadty have improvements, and are monster cities. When you switch to Communism, those monster cities become corrupt at the expense of all other cities becoming functional.

So the pay-off takes a long time. But ultimately for 100s of cities, Communism is better.

EDIT: As someone else probably mentioned, non-commie you can turn your corrupt cities into scientist farms. If you need to build temples or whatever, USE ENGINEERS.

 

[SeriousCaller]

sorry for anyone's wasted time - I'm playing vanilla.

Looks like I'm going with either option 1 or 3. Science, then space race or kill everyone. Looks like the capital move may be good, but it will take ages to build it deep in (former) zululand.

thanks also for the advice re: war weariness.

 

[CommandoBob]

When you get the chance, upgrade to Complete. More Civs, more wonders, more units, more governments, stronger armies. MGLs don't rush Great Wonders anymore, but that doesn't seem to be a big handicap as I once thought.

City placement is a bit easier also; Rings are not needed.

 

[DBear]

Democracy isn't worth it. The slight reduction to corruption is more than offset by unit maintenance costs. Stick with Republic.