Communism: The Hammer and Sickle

[Strakorfsky]

Good day! Has been quite a while sence I last sent a thread in, was having so much fun with my German Panzers I forgot about you all, well anyways, hello! And, as always, I hope both you and I can share knowledge about this particular subject!

Historical Overview: Communism was a socialistic creation of the early 1900-1930. Originaly, the socialist idealism was made by Plato in his thoughts of "equality of the masses." Nearly 1500 years later, Karl Marx improved upon his idea, and, naming it socialism. His thoughts on equality of the workers and the destruction of the classes were very popular in unindustrialized countries such as Russia, Germany, and other developing European countries. The most famous of the socialist countries was, of course, the Soviet Union which was formed shortly after Vladimir Lynch Lenins rise to power as the first Premier of Russia. Communism on a world basis started a decline after the Soviet Unions demise, and so ended the Communist fear which had griped the NATO nations for almost 80 years.



Personal Overview of Communism: Well, first off, Communism is unique government and provides many distinct advantages and disadvantages that one should be aware of before going head-long into, hence being the point of this .
Eonomic losses and gains from communism might either hurt you real bad,really give you a boost, so beware. First off, Communism is not a government of a few strong core cities. In fact, if you have developed like that, only haveing a few good cities around the capital, you might want to go Monarchy or Democracy. But, if you have a potentialy large industrial basis, but the cities are too far out, then Communism is the perfect way to enrich those corrupted cities. Also, because of the communal corruption, you can just void out those capital bonus- they would no longer matter. In fact, you farthest out (less developed cities), are more likely to benefit from the communal corruption, while your core cities, are porbably going to lose production and gold.
Military is also an important consideration when decided to use a COmmunist or Monarchy government for a long, grinding war. I have found that communism often is quite useful for wars. First of all, Communism (like Monarchy) allows for NO civil disorder in times of war, hence meaning that you don't have to worry about your cities ounce you are in conflict. Also, the increased Military police can also be useful for quelling civil uprisings (tanks in the streets crushing the Ugoslavian Rebels like Russia did ). But, by far, the most important advantage, the communal corruption! It is annoying seeing your cities revolt back to their homeland, and knowing you can not build that nice temple or library to keep them from revolting. The communal corruption gives you the chance to actually build something in those newly conquered cities, why, because, for instance, a city you got has 20 Prod., and the communal corruption ussualy takes about 4-7 prod. away, so, instead of have barely 5 prod. which you would in any other government, you have roughly 13, enough to build something like a temple, or such.( Thses results were based on attacking an empire that was over 60 tiles away on a Monarch level in COmmunism, results MAY vary.) One more thing is the draft Limit. Often, I rarely use this, those conscripts are simply too weak, but, I guess they have a small use fr the 2 limit.

Problems With Communism: Though for the many advantages of Communism, I am going to report to you, the loyal reader, the problems of this most intrigueing of governments, let us begine.
Communism's main problem is that its communal corruption being so good for distant, productive cities, does not do much for your inner, core production cities. This is one of the serious drawbacks of it. I have heard many people complain that they lose their core cities production and commercial seriously by the corruption generated. This is understandable, many people have GREAT pride in how well they place their capital and FB to minimize corruption. When intering communism, be very aware that you NEED to have a strong economy to accomodate for the lose that Communism will bring on your economy. You can try and make up for the lose of gold by trading goods,building banks in those smaller, developing cities, and building courthouses and police stations.
Also, unlike democracy, communism lacks the increased worker actions. Though this is a minal lose too me, I have heard many complain that they were better off in Democracy, once again, they generalized their cities, concentrating on inner cities, that would explain why they took sucha plung in COmmunism. The workers action not being doubled in communism has baffled me. It would seem sence communism's worker idealogy would make the work harder in theroy, but, that was not how it worked in the USSR, oh well, the makers of CIV 3 were obviously more friendly to democracy for some, odd, strange reason..no offense .

Religious Civ's Factor: many people like to have the good of both worls through playing as a religious civ, and I totaly agree! Being able to switch instantly from governments is a veyr powerful advantage. COnsidering that you can have Democracies great economy for peacetime, and communism's great war-time advantages, who would't agree? This is a great stratagy, because, you can build all those happiness wonders and buildings, but the fact remains, there WILL be civil discontentment in 25-50 turns in democracy.

Well, that about sums up my views on Communism, please fell free to make any other iqueries, thoughts, or contridictions to my thoughts, i'll be listening!

Ps: "i think Firaxis abused the making of Russia, they SHOULD NOT have been expansionist and scientific, rather, they should have been militaristic and industrious, but they had to sell that off to CHina, those infadels! No offense though."

-Ronnie

[Theseus]

Ronnie, agree taht communism has some excellent attributes for warmongering.

Read this:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=61226

[Blue Moose]

I don't think it is true at all that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was more of an oligarchy than anything else (or some sort of a group dictatorship). Not only did the creation not follow the principles of Marx (which advocated that the *working class* would revolt and overthrow current governments), but a true communism would have no central authority. Naturally, Marx's theories are significantly flawed. The point though, is that the USSR didn't have a true communism, though I usually don't argue this point since they called themselves a communism. I usually refer to that type of government as a "Stalinist Communisms," if I feel the need to make the distinction. They aren't very communist (in the marxist sense), and they were less and are far, far less socialist than curent democratic socialisms though, IMHO.

Anyhow, in my CivIII experiences, I've seldom seen Communism to be better than a Monarchy. Most of my games I have a fairly high culture, so assimilation only takes a short time (since I have a lot of troops occupying the city, both moving to the front lines and repairing damage). Hence, pretty soon I can buy temples and other improvements. Flipping hardly ever happens to me. Under a communism, you can't do much to build things fast in a small city, and I usually lose commerce and production compared to a Monarchy. Even in a huge empire with many cities that were fairly well developed far away from capitals. I haven't yet played a game where going communist seemed like a good idea. Maybe if I made massive numbers of conscripted troops in those cities, but that seems a little silly. Even as a monarchy you can still get some benefit from large foreign cities. I think it might only be worth becoming a communism when you have over 80-100 cities, and almost all of them developed pretty well. Otherwise the gains really aren't there. In my opinion, Communism should have a unique building only it can build and use, that functions like a courthouse or police station in terms of reducing corruption and waste. Preferably a very cheap building too, with no maintainance.

[vmxa1]

Theseus, if I read that thread correctly at the time, it was basiclally determined that communism sucks? Yes you can terminate people, but so what. It has such low productivity. it is easier to starve the pop. If you need to switch to it that hurts and if you were in before you went on the city grab, you paid dearly. I seldom grab and hold more than 2-3 cities in a given attack so I can garrison until the resisters are done. I will grab 10-15 cities, but not in a just a few turns. If I go for that many I will raze most of them.

[Theseus]

Well, a lot of other people (including you) were saying that communism sucks, but I stand by the application I described.

Specifically:

* Religious

* A strong and well-managed (i.e., all good improvements, many luxuries, etc.) core empire.

* A massive takeover... 10+ large cities in 5 turns or less.

* Poprushing in ADDITION to starvation.

Unfortunately I didn't show enough screenshots of that part of AU 105, and I've deleted the saves, but look at the maps on this page:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...7&pagenumber=2

I'm telling you, I got all the Persian cities down to 2-3 pop, and built Temples, Marketplaces, and Courthouses (IIRC) in all of them in like 6 turns. You can see by the second map how effective it was.

I haven;t since been in a situation where I thought it appropriate, but it really worked very well. I just think of it as one more tool to draw upon (but that's all... otherwise, I agree, communism sucks and should somehow be enhanced).

[Catt]

Originally posted by vmxa1
. . . . I seldom grab and hold more than 2-3 cities in a given attack so I can garrison until the resisters are done. I will grab 10-15 cities, but not in a just a few turns. If I go for that many I will raze most of them.

I took away from the thread that Communism, under certain circumstances, could be deployed in order to avoid doing what you're doing -- i.e., it can make it possible to conquer many big, well-developed cities in a short period of time, and allow the retention (instead of razing) of the cities while at the same time substantially reducing the chance of flips.

The power of the tactic, I thought, was a very quick pop reduction through pop-rushing (lower flip chances), using the pop to build the culture improvements destroyed in the takeover (temples, cathedrals, libraries, etc.), and, hopefully, enjoying the fruits of captured cities (rather than open land) such as surviving non-culture improvements - marketplaces, banks, factories, etc. If you can get the pop down to just a few citizens and also eliminate the cultural border pressure, you can keep the cities without fear of too many flips.

I would think that it is only viable with a religious civ, since the anarchy would make it too costly to employ otherwise.

Catt

[Theseus]

Right, thanks Catt, for reminding me...

I used to bombard cities down to 3-4 pop before taking them over, both to get rid of pop (for both the defensive bonus and to "pre-eliminate" resistors) and to damage the defenders.

Now, especially if I'm doing a multi-city take-down of a healthy AI civ, I barely bombard at all, hoping to keep all of the non-cultural improvements.

That has obvious downsides, which the communist "diet" addresses quite well.

[Strakorfsky]

I am quite honored to have so many pro-players repsond, here is my thoughts.

Using communism to me is a risky venture in any sence, sure you lose producion, but if you want to controls a massive amount of cties spread out. Personaly, I just raze cities if they have a 50% or more chance of being fliped back to owner. I go insane when I capture very useful cities and only to lsoe them a couple of turns later, reminded I ussualy play in Monarch Difficulty.

Well, I have had a lot of succeses with communism, and it is my favorite when I am playing against an A.I> and I have a lot of productive cities away from the capital. I guess I am not one of those people who like to build just around the capital.

Well anyways, as for monarchy, I like it also, great central type government, Ussualy the best way to go when you need to maximize your terrain on small island maps.

-Ronald

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Theseus
Well, a lot of other people (including you) were saying that communism sucks, but I stand by the application I described.

Specifically:

* Religious

* A strong and well-managed (i.e., all good improvements, many luxuries, etc.) core empire.

* A massive takeover... 10+ large cities in 5 turns or less.

* Poprushing in ADDITION to starvation.

Ok I was lazy and should have mentioned that in that very narrow set of conditions only. but even you were mostly negative in that thread. Those circumstances must include a religous trait or it is just too painful IMO. That prohibits it in many games for me as I rarely use that trait.

[Theseus]

Fair enough.

[Raghnall]

I *think* I may be in a good position to go communist. I fended off an Egyptian attack, and then went on the offensive. I'm the Americans, and was following an industrious strategy at the time. As part of that strategy I went Democratic as soon as possible for the boost that workers get.

However, after fending off the initial attacks and going on the offensive, my population got unruly. After about 10 turns on the attack, I had two or three cities per turn (some new, some that had been around awhile) go into CD. I just go and correct them as it happened.

Finally, while I'm nearing the end of wiping the Egyptians out, my country falls into anarchy. I've got an 8 turn anarchy ahead of me ( I guess because it happened due to war), but when I get out, I plan on going to Communism first, because I want to make sure I hold all my ill gotten gains (those being all those cities on the far reaches I've captured) and make them somewhat productive with courthouses and police stations before reverting to Democracy. Yes this will hurt my over all economy in the short term, but I'm hoping to prep it for the long term when I do revert to Democracy.

[Theseus]

Raghnall, if you want to poprush the captured cities down a LOT, then Communism is good.

Otherwise, and especially if you have a lot of gold, I'd with Monarchy instead.

On a broader note, I would advise two things:

* Use the city governor to manage moods... this will prevent civil disorder for a loooong time.

* It's better to conduct your wars under a less effective goverment, and then recover in Democracy.

[vmxa1]

If you are in a prolonged war, it is wise to pacify your people. I would keep an eye on my pop and give them luxs or specialist to insure their happiness. I have gone essentially the whole game at war from the time I made republic and had no disorder, it just requires you pay close attention. A quick scan of the faces in the domestic screen will do the job. I think I would rather suffer some disorder than be in communism, unless you are pop rushing, it is just not worthwhile.

[Raghnall]

Points taken on Civil Disorder. I sure didn't want to go into an unplanned anarchy, but, now that it's happened, combined with the fact that I want to pop rush courthouses/police stations/temples/libraries in that order on all the cities I've captured, while in the meantime, finishing off the Egyptian if not already done so by then, Communism seems to be the perfect solution.

As soon as all those cities have as many of those four improvements that I can pop rush through, I'm switching back to Democracy.

So, from this point I'm looking at a 16 turn stretch. 8 in wartime anarchy, 4 in communism, followed by hopefully only 4 in peacetime anarchy for the planned revolt back to Democracy.

I will try the City govenors. I never used them before, but if they can save me from unplanned anarchy, it's worth a try.

[vmxa1]

I would be very hard press to go that route. The lost of production in all cities for such a long time will be not be easily made up by pop rushing a few building that you do not even need in cities that are not going to earn back all of that industry in any reasonable time frame.

[Theseus]

I agree... not being religious, that plan results in way too much anarchy. How's your cash? If you are not going to be at war, go back into Democracy, starve the new cities, adn buy your improvements.

[NeOmega]

LAst time I switched govs to go to communism because my 2000 yera old republic didn't like my quest for world domination and the spilling of blood that entailed.

But, during the anarchy, I finished off two more nations, and realized I had 2 allies, and my rivals only numbered two. 16 civs had been cut down to 5.

Well, I quit warring during anarchy, switched to democracy, waited for about 4 turn to be asked if I wanted to vote from my UN, and I was like yeah, and won 3-2.

What was the point of that story, none really, but......

When my people really start to P1$$ me off, and luxry rates of 50% aren't enough for their spoiled palette, I go into anarchy, if my war isn't over in 7 turns (emporer)
I switch to communism, if it is over, I switch back to Republic or Democracy.

In modern wars, 7 turns is a long time, and I have never had to go to communism.

Also, you can earn, on a huge map with 20 cities, up to 40 GPT in some instance during this anarchy, or more interestingly, when you are being paid for techs you sold, you will see your income JUMP dramatically, as maintanence and Army maintenance costs are cut.
(Of course this is an optical illusion, as realistically, your income was just loe because you were investing in science, but ya know..... anyways, that was a bunch of useless rambling).

[vmxa1]

I am at war for 1000 yrs in republic using 10% lux at Monarch. Just do not start the wars. Once the metro gets to mid 20's you may need a couple of specialist.

[Raghnall]

Well ...

Much like NeOmega, I found that while in Anarchy, I wiped out the Egyptian. Therefore, there was no longer the need to go Communist.

I did do the cheesy manuever where I sued for peace getting all the techs Cleo had that I needed first, then immediately went back to war when she stupidly protested that my troops were still on her soil. The nerve of her!

When that war was finished, I had quite the lead in all three categories of score, power and culture.

I easily won the game with my first Space Race victory. I half expected the game to end because I'd gained enough of the total territory of the world.

I thought of continuing the game and doing a total military rollup of the rest of the world, but that would have been adding "injury to insult!"

[vmxa1]

I am not that upset about going back to war if the AI yells at you for having troops in their land after hostilities cease. You should get a turn or two to leave without the prodding. If I am going to attack, asking me to leave will not help, so wait and see if I go.

[Jaybe]

Hey, it's a free ride to the border, and I know it's going to happen so I don't get bothered about it. The hassle is when you get a free ride to some neutral ground you haven't got access to.

Sometimes I have started a withdrawal before I offer peace, but never more than one turn's worth.