Unofficial: Should we change governments?

[Jonny]

Now that we have reached the beginning of the middle ages, the possibility of changing governments is becoming a reality. While we don't have the Republic or Monarchy techs (I don't think so anyway), we could research them, or perhaps get them from someone else if we wanted them.

So, I ask this question: Should we change governments?

Please vote and discuss.

Note: This poll is unofficial, and it lasts 4 days.

[GodKing]

I say switch to monarchy ASAP. One thing to remember though, both republic and monarchy are very expensive to purchase at this time, but for the long term benifit of our society, I think it is the best way.

[MrWhereItsAt]

To a large degree this decision is going to depend on (and will in turn affect) our long-term aims once France is at least mostly ours. We really need to either choose

1. Peaceful development and build-up of infrastructure (Republic) or

2. Further WoN Wars (Wars of Necessity) (Monarchy or Despotism)

We will be in a much better position to decide once the war is won, but we need to discuss this aspect of our future now as well.

I think Monarchy will help a lot, as it will allow us to grow in population much faster than we have been able to with a few irrigated grasslands. This will also necessitate us getting Mono (Cathedrals) to keep the new population happy. Our government choice will be intrinsically linked to the techs we get next, and we simply cannot afford Republic without Cathedrals and possibly Banks due to the high public discontent and unit costs.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Jonny
While we don't have the Republic or Monarchy techs (I don't think so anyway), we could research them, or perhaps get them from someone else if we wanted them.

We have neither. The plan is to just buy them so we can keep following Project lain. If anyone wants to research those techs instead of buying them, just voice you opinion in the Area 25 thread.

I'd like to switch as soon as possible, but not through research. I'd like to follow Project lain at least through buying Mono.

[Shiber]

An important note: don't forget about support!
Currently we have 41 military units and 48 free support. Had we switched to republic we would have been paying 41 gold per turn today, in addition to what we're already paying for support and corruption.
Sure, Republic is awesome but we'll have to cut down our military force before we switch!
My suggestion is as follows: after the French war send what is left of the attack force (I'm assuming we'll sign a peace treaty before we lose most of our units) to America (or perhaps add a bit of reinforcements if we feel it's necessary, depends on how many troops survive the invasion to France) and take over what is left of it. Then minimize our offensive force as much as possible (keep about 4 swordsmen to counter any surprise attacks and discard the rest) and only then switch to republic if we have the tech.

[jdd2007]

either would be much better than despotism, especially monarchy considering our army

[GePap]

I expect our loses to the French should be light, and we do have 5 warrior we can upgrade to 5 more swordmen, more than enough to defeat the Americans.

I think the Republic will be best- I don't mind srhinking the mIlitary- the long-term benefits will be eimmense. Besides, we are relegious- we can switch governments at a whim, so this issue is not as problematic as it would be otherwise.

[Inverse Icarus]

I like pop rushing a lot, but monarchy would really help our corruption woes.

[Spiffor]

About military costs :
We have units which will be pretty useless very soon (archers), and disbanding them will be just fine after the 2nd American campaign. We'll spare something like 8 gpt or so.
Plus, we'll probably lose swordsmen in the process, less gpt to pay once we're in Republic.

Lastly, the greatly improved corruption, and the gold we could get from our luxuries would more than make up. Let's face it : after the 2nd American cmpaign, our infrastructure won't be enough to go to war with ready opponents (Greeks or Germans). Our corrupt cities won't be able to produce correctly, and we'd be outproduced by our enemies (just imagine Alexander having twice as more knights than us).
We can't afford a knights war against ready countries.

We'll need a building period, to have a strong infrastucutre, as soon as the 2nd American campaign is over. For this, we must have :
- as little corruption / waste as we can get
- as much research as we can get, at least to reduce the buying cost of a tech
- as much money as we can get (rushbuilding + tech buying)

Republic is the obvious choice. We had wars of necessity. Now, we have Building of necessity. Republic is the regime for building. We might swich to monarchy when we're ready and willing to war (being religious rocks)

[UnOrthOdOx]

Spiffor, while I somewhat agree with a time of MORE buiding, are we really in a position now to handle Republic? We would need to spend a decent sum on entetainment for Republic to work. We are Religious and can change Gov't at the drop of a hat, I say Monarchy for now, Republic maybe later. (Our short wars are no problemfor a Republic.)

[Spiffor]

Unorthodox :
After the 2nd American campaign, we'll have dyes, wines and incese. Our marketplaced-templed cities would be able to go to 6 pop without problem. Plus, with half-priced cathedrals and Persian spices, our cities could get to 11, 12 with a colosseum.
At short term, Republic is very viable because of our 3 luxuries and all our temples. At long term, it's more than viable because of foreign trade + cathedrals colosseum.

I don't think we should waste money by buying monarchy as soon as someone finds it, since Republic will be good for our needs. (and 1 turn wasted in a revolution isn't good anyways)
Republic will allow us to rush more buildings/cathedrals (simply by making more money), and will allow us to be efficient with a mere 10% entertainment, should we need entertainment.

Overall, I don't think monarchy will do us any good in comparison to Republic, except when we are ready for a long, deadly war with the Germans or Greeks.

[OPD]

IMHO
Our cities will be able to handle republic.
10% lux would let them all grow to 6 and alot of our cities would need aquaducts before more growth anyway.

But what if we can switch to monarchy while the incense is still about 20 turns away?

[Apocalypse]

We don't have the money for both Monarchy and Republic. We also need Monotheism.

[Harovan]

Republic would kill our economy for 2 reasons: Military upkeep and unhappiness. The increased commerce can not nearly compensate this. Republic will be possible, when we have marketplaces in our core cities and at least 3 different luxuries hooked up. Right now we need the martial law, as the 2nd citizen is already unhappy. Monarchy would be a good choice.

By the way: Who votes for reducing military (ours is not big!) to save money, is just screaming: "Extort me! Attack me!". I wouldn't recommend this.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Republic would kill our economy for 2 reasons: Military upkeep and unhappiness. The increased commerce can not nearly compensate this.

I never research Republic in my games, exactly by the reasons pointed by Sir Ralph. Mostly, I change from Monarchy directly to Democracy.

[Panag]

hi ,

we should get to republic

but not before we have some guys walking around Uber Isle , ...

have a nice day

[MrWhereItsAt]

We are currently on a war footing, and while this lasts (throughout the French reorganisation and consolidation of the rest of America if we choose), the best we can do is Monarchy (due to the lack of unit support costs), which we should get as soon as we can.

Once we have dropped our weapons and have the population growth/Cathedrals, Republic would be great. However, this is some way off and without the capacity for pop growth to work more improved terrain, Republic is useless.

[civman2000]

Note that in monarchy our unit costs will also be high: somewhere around 15 gold or so, and we wouldn't have the extra commerce advantage. Overall though, being religious and able to switch without wasting lots of time, we should go to monarchy for now IMHO

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Republic would kill our economy for 2 reasons: Military upkeep and unhappiness. The increased commerce can not nearly compensate this. Republic will be possible, when we have marketplaces in our core cities and at least 3 different luxuries hooked up. Right now we need the martial law, as the 2nd citizen is already unhappy. Monarchy would be a good choice.

By the way: Who votes for reducing military (ours is not big!) to save money, is just screaming: "Extort me! Attack me!". I wouldn't recommend this.

I definitely agree, even though I am a peace lover if we get inti wars of necessity we'll need Monarchy to pay for our units, so we dont have wimpy Honest Abe wanting his "fee"

[Panag]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
We are currently on a war footing, and while this lasts (throughout the French reorganisation and consolidation of the rest of America if we choose), the best we can do is Monarchy (due to the lack of unit support costs), which we should get as soon as we can.

Once we have dropped our weapons and have the population growth/Cathedrals, Republic would be great. However, this is some way off and without the capacity for pop growth to work more improved terrain, Republic is useless.

hi ,

, why have to revolts , we should take republic , in one step , not in two , ....later a democrazy , maybe , ...

and its best if we could do it it before we can go to war , but the time might be a bit short , ...

have a nice day

[Shiber]

Panag,

Egypt is a religious civ. Religious civs can switch governments without descending to anarchy.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
Panag,

Egypt is a religious civ. Religious civs can switch governments without descending to anarchy.

hi ,

indeed it lasts only one turn !

but we should get the republic , this way we shall have more benefits

have a nice day

[GPBurdell]

To field a successful military force, we need two things - technology and money - a principal as true in Civ as in the real world. The only way to achieve significant advantages in these areas over the rest of the world is with governments like Republic and Democracy. Later, after we are solidly established, we can modify our government as needed to suit our foreign policy agenda.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by panag
indeed it lasts only one turn !

Yes, I know. The minimum amount of turns of anarchy for switching governments is 1.

Originally posted by panag
but we should get the republic , this way we shall have more benefits

Not if we switch now. It will completely ruin our economy.
When do you suggest we switch to Republic then? Please be specific, you have a tendancy to speak in general terms.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber


Yes, I know. The minimum amount of turns of anarchy for switching governments is 1.



Not if we switch now. It will completely ruin our economy.
When do you suggest we switch to Republic then? Please be specific, you have a tendancy to speak in general terms.

hi ,

we should switch asap to Republic , that is a general term , point , nothing to it

we shall get more money , less coruption

have a nice day

[Shiber]

Panag,
Currently we lose ~15 gold per turn to corruption. If we switch to Republic we'll save roughly 7 gold per turn from lesser corruption and increase our income from the cities because we get a bonus commerce point for every square already producing at least one commerce, BUT we'll have absolutely no free support for our units! This means we'll have to pay *** 4 1 *** gold per turn to support our military units and our workers!!
Panag, please do the math before you make any suggestions!

I'm starting to get a feeling you never even bothered to download and load the saved game. Otherwise you wouldn't keep making such baseless suggestions.

Edit: I apologize for being so rude.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
Panag,
Currently we lose ~15 gold per turn to corruption. If we switch to Republic we'll save roughly 7 gold per turn from lesser corruption and increase our income from the cities because we get a bonus commerce point for every square already producing at least one commerce, BUT we'll have absolutely no free support for our units! This means we'll have to pay *** 4 1 *** gold per turn to support our military units and our workers!!
Panag, please do the math before you make any suggestions!

I'm starting to get a feeling you never even bothered to download and load the saved game. Otherwise you wouldn't keep making such baseless suggestions.

Edit: I apologize for being so rude.

hi ,

well no need to do the "calculations" or being so rude , ...

its easy to count , > 1+1 = 2 , .....

no need to do math , since its allready done , so please dont suggest something that is done , and please respect other people views , before you go after them ,
after all people just want to post their views , their feelings , their votes , they should not be forced to changed , or they should not get someone who says , do this or that , before you do this , and do so , and so , ....

everyone has his or her views , ....

now , there is a manual with civ3 , that has on page 128 and 129 the explanation of what a monarchy and a republic is , .....

"under a Republic , your workers produce one extra commerce in any square where they were already producing at least one"

under a monarchy you loose more to corruption , so there fore you save again , .....

actually there is only one way to find out , and that is to play a game for yourself , save a turn , a see what you have in gold , the switch , then see what you have , ....

in the long run a Republic gets the first prize , ...

have a nice day

[Shiber]

Panag, I'm not forcing you to change your mind. I'm merely presenting my case, which is that you are wrong. Furthermore I ask you not to patronize and quote from the manual; I know the manual just as good as you do Panag.
Now, I've made all the calculations and it sums up to this:

* Our workers are currently working 20 tiles that produce commerce. This means that we'll get 20 additional gold per turn.
* Under Republic corruption is lower. We are currently losing 14 gold per turn to corruption. Under Republic, corruption is roughly half as much as under a Despotism, so let's assume that corruption will drop from -14 to -7 per turn, meaning that we'll be saving 7 additional gold per turn.
This sums up to a gain of roughly 27 gold per turn, sounds good but...

Republic has its drawbacks.
* First of all, under Republic we cannot use military units garrisoning our city as military police. A garrison unit serving as a military police makes one unhappy citizens content. Without military police we will need to invest 10% or 20% into entertainment to prevent cities such as Termina from falling to civil disorder. This means we'll be losing 10% or 20% of our income.
* Second, under Despotism we get 4 free support per town (or city or metropolis). Under Republic we get none. This means we'll have to pay one gold every turn to support each one of our units (this includes our army, the spearmen garrisoning our cities and our workers). Currently we have 41 units, which means we'll have to pay 41 gold each turn to support them.
This sums up to a loss of 41 gold from support, plus 2 or 3 gold to entertainment.

27
-
41
===
-14

So according to my estimate we'll be making approximately 14 less gold per turn than we do now. In other words, at the moment Despotism and Monarchy are clearly better than Republic because under Republic we lose more money per turn.
If something in my analysis is still unclear to you then please don't hesitate to ask. I will explain everything you want to know.

If you disagree with my analysis then please post your own detailed analysis of why Republic is better. Don't forget to mention all the reasons that made you come to your conclusion and be sure to do all the math before you present your case.

[Captain]

Shiber, Panag is somewhat of a "nice" troll. Don't let him bait you. He has his opinions, but based on what he usually writes, you can be sure that he doesn't really read what others have written already - or that he doesn't understand them. His posting history shows this and its incontestable. I think most people already realize not to take him seriously.

Funny thing is, I'm still not sure if he's seriously that oblivious or whether he's trying to be a troll.

Don't waste your typing on him. Anyone with any sense of where we're going as a nation and any sense of the game rules, would know monarchy is the way to go for us over the next 50-100 turns.

in 1st term, Panag was one of the main reasons we came up with the no-playing ahead rule. and what he's suggesting here, instead of doing the math, is playing ahead. absolutely wrong.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Captain
Shiber, Panag is somewhat of a "nice" troll. Don't let him bait you. He has his opinions, but based on what he usually writes, you can be sure that he doesn't really read what others have written already - or that he doesn't understand them. His posting history shows this and its incontestable. I think most people already realize not to take him seriously.

Funny thing is, I'm still not sure if he's seriously that oblivious or whether he's trying to be a troll.

Don't waste your typing on him. Anyone with any sense of where we're going as a nation and any sense of the game rules, would know monarchy is the way to go for us over the next 50-100 turns.

in 1st term, Panag was one of the main reasons we came up with the no-playing ahead rule. and what he's suggesting here, instead of doing the math, is playing ahead. absolutely wrong.

hi ,

nope before you write certain thigs , you might want to read the last post again , .....

where jsu where is it suggested about playing ahead , nowhere so you are wrong on that

troll = wrong , Shiber just finds it funny to troll a couple people , mainly with a certain flag

now , its not because of "panag" that the none playing ahead rule came the way you suggested it , "panag" was asking for it , ...

instead of going on the personal tour it would be more intresting to use PM and to stay with the game

still people can write what their views are , some say this , some say that , now , if everyone would be the same then there is nood to have a game , one person could play it , because then according to some peoples views there view would be right , ....

intresting to see that in the poll about the change of government not all the people voted for monarchy , ....

oh , and by the way , panag "bites" only in banana's

now please stay on topic

have a nice day