1.15 Beta -- Communism seems much, much better

pcasey · January 18, 2004, 19:51

In previous versions of Civ III, I was never all that big a fan of communism. In my experience, by the time my empire was big enough that communal corruption seemed like a good idea, it wasn't and I'd end up with every city having like 80% corruption.

I tried it out again in 1.15 though and found it incredibly useful. I can't tell if there's been a hidden rule change that benefits communism, if it's an unexected side effect of the corruption changes, or if it's always been useful and I just didn't reconize it.

To give you an idea though, I was playing Standard Map/Pangea.

I controlled about 50% of the central land mass and was mopping up. The areas around my palace and FP were pretty productive, but the border cities were pretty much all running at max corruption.

Under 1.15 communism, every single city switched to about 15% corruption, as opposed to the 80% I was accustomed to seeing under previous patches.

Did anyone else notice an improvement? As it stands now, I can't see ever *not* going communist if war appeared a possibility.

Nor Me · January 18, 2004, 20:58

Communism has been improved but the main difference is that corruption has been made worse in other goverments because the FP now does less.

You can't get 15% corruption in an unimproved city in communism. You need a courthouse at least to get that low.

I'm testing communism in my current game and it will give you more production for a reasonably sized empire. To compete with Republic in science, unless you have a very big empire, you'll need to build more courthoses and libraries in those cities that don't have them. This would cut into your production for war and would add to the time that you'd need to make a viable communist empire compete with a republic generally.

If you have a large empire and the game still is still some way from finishing then it's going to be worth switching whether you intend to fight or not.

Artifex · January 19, 2004, 17:15

Good Question. Can Communism compete with Republic in science if your empire is big enough? Is this a possibility? I always wanted to be a commie.

MrWhereItsAt · January 20, 2004, 05:59

pcasey - did you have the Secret Police HQ as well?

And Artifex - I guess it would if you had good cities that were located away from your FP and Palace. Otherwise a Republic, which would favour better production etc in the cores would be a better bet still.

pcasey · January 20, 2004, 15:05

I did eventually build the SPHQ, but honestly didn't see any difference. Under the new corruption rules, its only real function is to increase OCN, right? So far as I could tell, corruption across the empire was roughly identical before and after I built the SPHQ.

The main advantage I saw to communism is that it let me build up the fringes of my empire. The initial switch from republic->communism was about a wash. I could run with a higher science %, but my overall income was lower w/o the republic bonus so my discovery rate was about the same.

Once I put libraries and unis in the fringe cities that hadn't been viable under republic though, my tech rate shot past where it had been under republic.

Artifex · January 20, 2004, 21:20

This is nice. I always wanted to be Communist. My only question is if it is worth it to endure the 9 turn anarchy at this stage to switch from Republic to Communism.

Tarquinius · January 21, 2004, 07:22

Well, I wondered the same thing and decided to switch in a game that was already won. Standard map 60% water, continents. I own almost 50% of the total land mass.

I got six turns of Anarchy. I was really pleased with the result. I will compare my empire under Republic and Communism.
I have around 50 cities, with most cities one one continent, and a few on islands and other continents. I played as Russia btw.

Republic:
- Researching The Corporation in 4 turns with +400
- Moscow (capitol) has no corruption. FP city has minor corruption (10%). Nearby cities also minor. Outer cities have (almost all have Courthouses) 90% corruption, most of them have 2 shields production. This is an improvement over PTW, where outer cities could not get more than 1 shield.
- I am allowed something like 150 units.

Communism
- Reseacrhing The Corporation in 4 turns with +200
- Moscow has no corruption. All other cities have around 25% corruption! Wow, this means my former Viking city can really build the Iron Works.

Captured cities can really build improvements now.
- I am allowed something like 300 units.

Conclusion: Communism is really competitive in science! It allows a greater productivity than republic. Big minor point is pop rushing, under republic I rushed improvements in outer cities. Still I think Communism is better for me here, because I actually can build a lot of useful improvements (marketplaces, libraries etc.) like pcasey already said, in my outer cities. I haven't built the SPHQ yet, I will try to see whether it makes a lot of difference.

Artifex: If it is worth the switch? In some situations it would. On Archipelago Communism would be really great because all islands would be allowed production. Especially with a not too great core (poor terrain) the generic corruption would be very nice. If religious, in some cases the switch could be imperative.

I really like the improvement of communism, as you now actually have to make a choice, instead of staying in Republic the entire game!

MrWhereItsAt · January 21, 2004, 07:48

That IS a dramatic change. What I would be interested in is how close your income comes to your Republican income after building all those Libraries, Banks etc.

And it shows that Communism works well for what it should be for - widespread empires with many decent cities located at a distance to the Palace/FP

Tarquinius · January 21, 2004, 13:14

Quote:

To compete with Republic in science, unless you have a very big empire, you'll need to build more courthoses and libraries in those cities that don't have them. This would cut into your production for war and would add to the time that you'd need to make a viable communist empire compete with a republic generally.

I don't really agree here. You say it cuts in the production for war, but what were those cities doing under republic? They only have 2 shields due to the massive waste, and 2 shields cannot build much in the industrial age. After the switch most of my outer cities get something like 7 shields, which leads to acceptable building times. (Lib in 12, Temple in 8 etc.) Your overall productivity is a lot higher under communism if you have a large spread empire.

And MWIA: I am already very close to my Republic income; only 200 gold lower. With all my cities developed and the SPHQ built I will probably surpass my Republic science.

Just one bad thing about all this: democracy is almost useless. Democracy would lead to less corruption, but also to unit upkeep (around 100 gold per turn in my case) and higher War Weariness. It probably will not be worse than Republic but certainly not worth the switch.
It could use some strengthening, like is proposed in the AU mod. (Give Democracy the same Free Units as Republic)

MoonWolf · January 21, 2004, 13:35

I really have to try communism now!

Tarquinius,
Even with the military support in democracy and war weariness, I feel it to be a good option. Making your wars quick and effective, won't produce so much war weariness until quite late (unless you loose much of course)

Nisku · January 21, 2004, 16:39

double post

Nisku · January 21, 2004, 16:40

Tarquinius, you said Moscow had no corruption in communism. Did you look at your SPHQ and FP cities? In my game under communism both those cities also have no corruption, so I've got three non-corrupt cities.

I did the same kind of experiment you did. I don't remember the numbers but fascism was horrible, communism was close to republic but still behind, democracy was making a little more gold then republic. I did the switch in the middle of a long war so democracy and republic also had some war weariness. My conclusion: communism is great for war even for smaller empires. I'd still stick with democracy though if I only anticipated short wars or no war.

Tarquinius · January 22, 2004, 08:27

My FP had slight corruption, something like 5 or 10%
Capitol never seems to have corruption under any government under this patch, unlike before, where the capitol would also be affected by corruption if you got many cities. I didn't build the SPHQ yet, but I assume it will be the same as the FP.

And MoonWolf, I don't think democracy is a bad government, but I only think it is not much better than Republic, and hence there is no reason to switch if you are not religious. 8 turns of Anarchy is a harsh penalty for only slight improvement.

player1 · January 22, 2004, 09:16

One thing about Democracy:
If you have less then 4 units per town, or 6 units per city or 8 units per metropolis, you'll get lower unit upkeep in Republic compared to Democracy. Which means more money in Republic then in Democracy.

alexman · January 22, 2004, 11:18

Patch 1.15 made the Forbidden Palace stronger for Communism and weaker for other governments, compared to PTW.

The above fact, combined with the common complaint that corruption in a modern Democracy should not depend on distance from the Capital, leads to the idea:

Give Democracy communal corruption!!!

Democracy would still get the trade bonus, of course, so it would always be better than Communism for peace, and it would be much better than the Republic, especially for large empires.

asleepathewheel · January 22, 2004, 11:42

man I just finished a game where I switched to communism. damn, good govt for those sprawling archipelago empires.

Cookie Monster · January 22, 2004, 12:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquinius
Communism
Big minor point is pop rushing, under republic I rushed improvements in outer cities.

What I would do in this case is not pop rush but use your increased production to your advantage. Produce a bunch of explorers or arty and move them to the outer cities and disband. That's one way to rush shields in a city without whipping citizens to death.

player1 · January 22, 2004, 18:17

I just think that it would be nice to have pop rushing more valuable in modern govenments, like 30 or 40 shields for pop.

EDIT:
Idea for Firaxis: Just make pop-rushing become +100% effective (40 shields), after you discover Nationalism.

asleepathewheel · January 22, 2004, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
I just think that it would be nice to have pop rushing more valuable in modern govenments, like 30 or 40 shields for pop.

EDIT:
Idea for Firaxis: Just make pop-rushing become +100% effective (40 shields), after you discover Nationalism.

I agree. might as well just say no rushing for the commies, too prohibitive to use for any industrial + unit.

SuperPower · January 22, 2004, 19:37

I think that its despotism, the most useless regime change, that contains the highest level of corruption. This is what I've noticed in the last week or so while I have been trying every government type over and over.

Nisku · January 22, 2004, 22:25

I double checked and yeah no corruption in those three cities under communism, maybe I also have a courthouse/police station in them.

MrWhereItsAt · January 23, 2004, 04:19

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

Give Democracy communal corruption!!!

Democracy would still get the trade bonus, of course, so it would always be better than Communism for peace, and it would be much better than the Republic, especially for large empires.

This DOES sound good, even if it was the same communal rate as for Communism the trade bonus would mean, depending on your empire size, a small to significant amount more trade than in Communism. But production would not be affected... Also the SPHQ is a bonus to Communists that Democracies would not get, unless there was another FP-type building for Democracies (House of Representatives perhaps?).

swat-spas2 · January 23, 2004, 04:33

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

Give Democracy communal corruption!!!

Second the motion. Something must be done to improve the late game governments. I am in almost continous wartime at the late stages of a game (without that pesky peace score from civ of old) and that really hampers a democratic regime. On top of this I must pay a hefty fine of 5-8 turns of chaos (I hardly ever play religious) to get to this point to begin with. This is not a happy turn of events. While its not the last gov to discover; it should be somewhat useful compared to communism, or even (i haven't tried it yet myself) fascism.

In fact if you generally analyze the governments IRL, democracy has worked rather well in a more decentralized economic structure, meaning those border towns should fare well; while communist/fascist regimes have depended (at least to date) on harsh restrictive measures that run a few places smoothly and experience a scaling of corruptive influence away from the capitols (decreasing with the effectiveness of say, the KGB). The theory of both systems seems to be what is reflected here (although in theory communism is merely the economic system of a democratic nation, but this is confusion enough)

So in theory I might suggest actually trading their corruptions and leaving the SPHQ in effect for communists. The increased warmongering ability (martial law, no WW, good unit supports) and a seperate anti-corruption bonus should still make this a useful gov. While democracy would suffer heavily in protracted wars, but you could build up rather smartly beforehand, or secure new holdings easier. It could make for an interesting balance late game. But even just making demo-communal would strengthen it dramatically. It might not need something like the republic 1/2/4 to make it worth the chaos against republic (depending on your empire's size)

Plotinus · January 23, 2004, 11:33

Ah, remember those halcyon days of Civ1? No corruption at all for Democracies! I don't think I ever built a courthouse. I prefer the current system, though. I don't mind having range-type corruption for Democracies - I just think of it as simulating a greater degree of local government. An example in the real world might be the Commonwealth - Canada and New Zealand are ruled by the British Crown, but we allow them self-government (must be kind to the poor colonials) and therefore we benefit little from their production, commerce etc.

ErikM · January 23, 2004, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Plotinus
An example in the real world might be the Commonwealth - Canada and New Zealand are ruled by the British Crown, but we allow them self-government (must be kind to the poor colonials) and therefore we benefit little from their production, commerce etc.

I somehow thought that Canada is an independent country of sorts, though

The Templar · January 23, 2004, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Give Democracy communal corruption!!!

Did it in my PTW mod (the Space Age mod) - but called it Neo-liberalism (without the worker bonus). That alone created a near supergovernment. Pure Democracy, with the worker bonus, creates an absolute supergovernment that ruins the game balance.

MrWhereItsAt · January 24, 2004, 06:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Plotinus
- Canada and New Zealand are ruled by the British Crown, but we allow them self-government (must be kind to the poor colonials) and therefore we benefit little from their production, commerce etc.

'Allow' us to be independent?
/me raises an eyebrow

There's an interesting aspect of future civ games' government systems. With local autonomy, there is a chance they will just split and form their own Republic, as some Australians want to do.

Fatwreck · January 24, 2004, 07:10

about the pop rushing, would it be to unbalancing to let communism rush buy and pop rush?

Plotinus · January 24, 2004, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
'Allow' us to be independent?

Ah yes - although I was surprised when I lived in New Zealand and found how amazingly popular the British Royal Family seemed to be. Every magazine had Prince William on the cover. There's even something called "Queen's Birthday Weekend". None of that nonsense here.

But still, Canada and the others may be separate countries with separate governments, but I think the fact that they retain the same head of state, on whose behalf those governments operate, indicates that they could be thought of as the same civilisation in the terms of this game. And that's something that corruption can simulate. It doesn't have to represent just unscrupulous provincial governors skimming off the taxes.

The Templar · January 24, 2004, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck
about the pop rushing, would it be to unbalancing to let communism rush buy and pop rush?

Can't do it so the question is moot.

Right now, I'm playtesting Communism with goldrush instead of poprush. It changes the dynamic of the game a bit but doesn't seem unbalance the game. The AI still prefers facism - which is beyond me. The culture creation penalty is too much of a liability in my book.