Favored Goverment Type

[East Street Trader]

Despotism is fine early on. Because you get to build easily. So while your priorities are settlers, temples, barracks and some units and while your workers have not yet done a wole lot to improve the land, despotism works well. Indeed on large or huge maps I have played a couple of games where I extended the period under despotism a very long way with success.

Once the land starts to be decently improved you want to be a monarch. Which also gives splendid conditions for building.

Eventually a monarchy begins to stagnate, however. It will be powerful and hence must expect to attract generally adverse attitudes. It cannot hope to keep up in research and it becomes progressively more difficult to counter that factor by exploration/tech trading/extorting tech in war.

At this point my own preference is one revolution to democracy into which government I will settle for the rest of the game.

Typically this point is reached when Railroads are not far off and it is handy to get the boost to worker efficiency ready for building all those railroads and for coping with the pollution which the railroads/factories and hospitals will soon spawn.

Typically also the excellent conditions for building which the extended period in despotism/monarchy provide means that you will have cathedrals and marketplaces in each core city.

Unless the map has proved unkind you will also have three or four luxuries securely under your control and plans to acquire the next couple.

Subject to what happens about cash flow, building now slows down. But it would have done anyway in outlying cities and the thing about low production peripheral cities is that their food production is not affected by corruption and as they grow in population the extra couple of arrows per head of population converts to a worthwhile addition to research even after the hit from corruption.

So, typically, I find that it is not long before I can count on an advance every fifth or fourth turn. Which is enough to keep pace with the AI and then outdistance them.

I do not say that going for early Republic is a bad way to play. But the balances it requires to be struck are harder to achieve. How well you micromanage will have more say in the success achieved than following the easier path.

Equally a sprawling empire does fine under Communism.

There are definately particular circumstances where investing the time required to research the needful techs, whether for early Republic or for Communism, will pay off. But those cases, in my view, are the exception. In an ordinary game which follows a standard sort of path I really doubt that Despotism/Monarchy followed by Democracy can be bettered.

[East Street Trader]

Double post.

[Aqualung71]

I have to agree with Catt.....very well reasoned argument too Catt. I've always felt that Demo just doesn't give enough financial and production advantage (in terms of lower corruption and waste) to make it worthwhile, and the risk of anarchy due to WW makes it even less attractive.

But I'd like to also put this debate into the context of where we are in the game. By the time you get Demo, you're in the late middle ages. You're probably gearing up more workers to get ready for RR building. Your huge production boost of factories/plants is not far away either.

At the higher difficulty levels of Emperor/Demi-God you are probably also just catching up or slightly ahead of the AI in tech terms. You are now in a position to solidify your position and burst into the industrial era, then takeover the world. Bear in mind also (based on a majority of my Civ games), you may not be too far away from a major industrial age world war (usually AI induced). And before anyone says it, contrary what the rules apparently say I've found that WW often kicks in relatively early even when you didn't start the war.

And I just KNOW that you're also greedily eyeing ToE and Hoover (and possibly US).

Now assuming you're non-religious.....playing Emperor/Demi-God......hands up who is now ready, with all this wonderful stuff in the pipeline.......for an 8-turn period of anarchy? Not too many I would guess.

And by the time you are ready for a switch, you've probably moved way ahead in tech by the late industrial age and you'll soon start coasting towards MI and MA to finish off the AI. Refer Jimmytrick's comment about not really needing to move from Rep into Demo to win the game. Why bother?

I think the problem is that the Republic form of government available in Civ3 is either not truly representative of the republican system originated by the Romans (which, based on it's timing of availability, it is clearly meant to be), or else Republic as it currently stands is available MUCH too early in Civ3.

How many players rush out of Despotism into Monarchy, and then move straight into Republic when available? Not too many I would guess. With the exception of those warmongers who prefer a longer-term Monarchy, most Despots will move straight into Republic. Reason being, it is too close to Monarchy and the greater benefits on production and gold are just too great to ignore.

Now, if the availability of Republic (as we know it, really being a modern republic originating from the French revloution rather than a Roman style republic as I presume it was intended to be) were pushed back to say, oh....late middle ages, let's say Theory of Gravity....and modern Democracy wasn't available until AFTER the industrial revolution - say Combustion....then that would make the decision making a lot trickier. In the meantime, you've got a choice of Monarchy and (later) Feudalism. Want to switch governments now for a huge production boost, but suffer 5-8 turns of anarchy just before you get RR, while the AI continues on towards ToE? Hmmm, now that's a tough one!

I tihnk Firaxis should probably rethink the government types and timing. Also having a look at the DyP, with it's additional forms such as Protestant Monarchy, Parliamentary Democracy and others that escape my fading memory at the moment, may be worthwhile. It would also be interesting if more government specific buildings wre available.....hmmm, and maybe even government specific UNITS, now there's a thought.

But I fear I am rambling again and getting away from topic, so I'll leave it there.

Bottom line is - the timing of availabilty and the relative differences between governments clearly make Republic the best all-round government for the majority of the game for a non-religious Civ.

And this is despite the increased support costs in C3C, which can be countered even with a large military by quickly growing all towns to cities and, partly BECAUSE you have a large military, by capturing more towns/cities.

Cheers!

[East Street Trader]

I suspect that this is an issue where generalisation cannot, in the end, substitute for the exercise of judgment based on the specific circumstances.

Thus the exact degree to which your empire will gain from a shift from Republic to Democracy (or from Monarchy/Communism to democracy) is going to depend to a considerable degree on the precise geographical configuration of your empire and upon the food generating capacities of your cities. If your empire is relatively small or very compact then the benefit will be generally lower than if you have expanded further or else are playing on a map with more widespread landmasses. Similarly if your cities have, in general, lots of access to grassland/coasts and sea squares the benefit of a switch will be greater than if numbers of the cities have limited capacity to grow by reason of hills and mountains.

A scarcity of luxuries will also affect matters.

If, however, we take a case of an empire that has grown large, where many cities are heavily affected by corruption, where the outlying cities have a strong capacity to increase population and where the empire already enjoys a number of luxuries and will gain more then I do not agree that the 8 turns in anarchy should represent anything more than a minor element in the balance.

In the circumstances I describe, a shift from any lesser form of gov.t to democracy will have much more than a marginal effect. For the reason I give in the post above. Under democracy every additional head of population brings enough additional arrows to nudge up the empire's income in money and research effort.

The game lasts long enough so that the 8 turns of lost production will be made good very quickly by this factor.

What you observe happening in such a game is this. Under the lesser form of gov.t you happily improve your position for a long time and expand your empire. But at a certain point the level of corruption makes further expansion neutral. What I call "stagnation" sets in. The number of turns required to achieve the next advance is the clearest indicator of this with cash flow the second clearest.

Typically, while you are still able to expand profitably the number of turns trequired for the next advance will steadily drop. But as you approach the size at which stagnation sets in you will also reach the point where you start to be the first civ researching your next tech. Once you hit the stagnation point the number of turns required will start to remain static or may even slowly start to lengthen.

Typically, and subject to whether you have some rich AI opponents to soak, you won't have been rolling in cash up to now but you will have had enough to rush temples in newly captured cities and to attend to a couple of other urgent needs. But you will not, under your own steam, generate enough income routinely to rush lots of buildings in outlying cities. So the population growth of those cities gets cramped.

If you now bite the bullet, suffer the 8 turn period of anarchy and go democratic you will not see an instantaneous cure for these constraints. As you come out of anarchy there will be no instantaneous reduction of the number of turns required for the next advance nor will cash flow suddenly hit some enormous positive number. But what will happen is that you will end the stagnation. As you now continue aggressively to expand you will start to see research time coming down again and you will start to see more cash appearing.

And, of course, this restores a virtuous cycle. If you establish a secure tech lead, trading (subject to there being any worthwhile trading partners) becomes very profitable (in my current game the french gave me several thousand in cash plus around 450gpt and some bits and pieces for one tech), you get to use spare cash so as to allow those remote cities to continue to put on yet more population and you can, for the first time, expect to get to useful wonders first and to be able to build them quickly.

Now I have little doubt that it is possible to forgo continued expansion and instead to nurse the empire you have established towards your desired form of victory. But I like to expand throughout a game. There always seems to be another strategic objective available and it just seems natural to be going for it.

So I don't like to lie down under the constraints of corruption. And democracy is the way to break those bonds.

[Catt]

First off, good discussion! Second off, I think individual game circumstances make the "Monarchy or Republic" question an interesting one. I would strongly disagree that "[i]n an ordinary game which follows a standard sort of path I really doubt that Despotism/Monarchy followed by Democracy can be bettered." I'd argue that in many games, Despotism-Republic will be far superior to the Monarchy-Democrary route.

But I still don't think I grasp the fundamental basis for your argument, at least as it relates to Republic vs. Democracy (if that is indeed what you're commenting on). Selectively:

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Thus the exact degree to which your empire will gain from a shift from Republic to Democracy (or from Monarchy/Communism to democracy) is going to depend to a considerable degree on the precise geographical configuration of your empire and upon the food generating capacities of your cities. If your empire is relatively small or very compact then the benefit will be generally lower than if you have expanded further or else are playing on a map with more widespread landmasses. Similarly if your cities have, in general, lots of access to grassland/coasts and sea squares the benefit of a switch will be greater than if numbers of the cities have limited capacity to grow by reason of hills and mountains.

At least as regards Republic vs. Democracy, I don't see how population differences plays a role (other than with respect to upkeep costs, in which case pop growth favors Republic).

If, however, we take a case of an empire that has grown large, where many cities are heavily affected by corruption, where the outlying cities have a strong capacity to increase population and where the empire already enjoys a number of luxuries and will gain more then I do not agree that the 8 turns in anarchy should represent anything more than a minor element in the balance.

Is this argument applicable to Republic vs. Democracy?

Under democracy every additional head of population brings enough additional arrows to nudge up the empire's income in money and research effort.

Same question.

What I call "stagnation" sets in.

[. . .]

But you will not, under your own steam, generate enough income routinely to rush lots of buildings in outlying cities. So the population growth of those cities gets cramped.

Are you arguing that one generally won't have enough to rush a temple or library so as to expand borders?

So I don't like to lie down under the constraints of corruption. And democracy is the way to break those bonds.

One of the principal arguments in my overall view is that the corruption differences between Republic and Democracy are very, very small. Is your view that there is a meaningful difference?

I'd add that in C3C, one of the best corruption fighters around is the taxman. Irrigate the heck out of corrupt cities and turn the citizens into corruption-free tax collectors.

Catt

[jkelly]

Pre-C3C:

Not religious: Despotism --> Republic
Religious Despotism --> Monarchy --> Democracy

[David Murray]

Feudalism is underrated by the looks of it. It's a good government, the only problem is you kind of *have* to switch later to one of the three advanced forms of government.

[CerberusIV]

I have actually abandoned using Republic in C3C. When (if) I get it I usually am not at the point where I have enough cities to avoid massive unit support costs. By the time Republic makes sense for that I am not far from Democracy anyway.

I have actually rather taken to Feudalism as my intermediate government between Despotism and Democracy. The advantage is that you have to research the tech anyway and can skip the Monarchy and Republic techs so it doesn't take much longer to reach. The disadvantage is ensuring you retain enough towns, rather than cities, to not be paying unit costs.

I rarely, if ever, miss getting the 3 industrial wonders at monarch level. Even if I am a couple of techs behind entering the era the AI's don't beeline Industrialisation and do try building the wonders before putting in factories and coal plants in key cities - so it is possible to outproduce them.

By that stage my war style is to eliminate the AI's one by one and I have never yet reached the point of a revolt - simply by avoiding the WW factors as much as possible.

I accept this may not hold good on higher levels but it works for me.

[Cruddy]

In Civ3 my fave Govt is Communism... because if I can afford to change to Communism (huge empire, all tech research complete, huge war in the offing) then effectively I've already won, and it's all over bar the shooting.

Mind you, I spend most of the game in Republic... and I play Bloodbath. Always.

[Ljube]

Where is despotism?

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ljcvetko
Where is despotism?

It is the default start government. F1 has a box that shows the form of government currently being used. You can select another form to start the revolution, if yo know another form.

Is this what you are looking for?

[Ljube]

No I wanted to vote for despotism as my preferred government only to discover it wasn't offered as one of options in the poll.

So I publicly expressed my dissent

[Russian_King]

I would say democracy as soon as i find it, just to grow nice and ritch! and get all the techs before all else, but when ure far ahead and you already have most the techs, the ending government is communism so u can produce either the spaceship parts or make war with the rest of the world and CRUSH IT UNDER MY BIG FAT THUMB MUHOHAHAHAH