 |
|
Dominae
|
|
Would it not make more sense to tweak Fascism after we play the "Power of Fascism"? How many of us have actually switched to Fascism since the release of Conquests?!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pvzh
|
 |
Canada
Aug 2002
time: 01:32
|
|
I agree with nbarclay. I had a feeling that flag forced re-settlement will be the first to go after this game, so I proposed to remove it.
BTW, why not up the unit support cost for republic to 3 gpt per unit? Once you have cities, marketplaces, banks and even stock exchanges, paying 2 gtp for unit is not a big deal anymore. You can stay in republic all you like unless you are fighting multi-front war and WW is unbearable. With 3 gtp for unit industrial era war goverments will have their place.
Edit: with 3 gpt even Monarchy and Feudalism will be a good idea to fight war.
Last edited by pvzh on 25-11-2004 at 21:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Force-resettlement, while certainly annoying, is one of the defining characteristics of the Fascist government in C3C (that and the ridiculous unit support). I recommend trying to beef up the other aspects of Fascism, for diversity's sake.
quote:
(Yes, I know I haven't used Fascism. But Fascism is similar enough to Monarchy that it's not hard for a player who knows how Monarchy and Communism compare to extrapolate approximately how Fascism and Communism would compare.)
|
Care to play just one game with the stock version? Who knows, you might be surprised!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The pirate
|
|
just on principle, I think that changes should be made after a game to assess them, rather than in anticipation: we play the one time with max impact, then work out what to do to ensure we would use it again.
perhaps there is a strategy that minimises the impact of relocation
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Force-resettlement, while certainly annoying, is one of the defining characteristics of the Fascist government in C3C (that and the ridiculous unit support). I recommend trying to beef up the other aspects of Fascism, for diversity's sake.
|
Exactly. 
I would add that forced resettlement is also an important part of a good role-play leading to Fascism. Let's not forget that important fact. 
[edit]
quote:
Originally posted by The pirate
perhaps there is a strategy that minimises the impact of relocation |
Yes, there is. Get new land ASAP. The conquered AI territory usually has huge food surpulus in cities, so the population skyrockets there. The least you get is a fast developing new part of the empire (pop-rushing galore). The extreme way would be to force-move the new population. How would pop-rushing Settlers to add them at home sound to you? Or perhaps using them to quickly plug the holes in city spacing the AI made? Nice anti-flip tactic, eh? 
Yes, it's extreme, but that's what the government is about. No, it's not doable in all circumstances, but then again, nothing is.
[/edit]
Last edited by Modo44 on 26-11-2004 at 00:03
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
Moving this here from the AU505 download thread:
quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Yeah, I rememberred the Feudalism changes. At least a part of why I lost interest a while ago.
I strongly disagree that stock Feudalism is weaker than stock Monarchy. Reduced corruption with my playstyle would be insane.
|
quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Yes, most players consider it a niche. Many also consider it means you are confined to not building aquaducts and keeping cities small too, and few want to do a second govt change.
What does monarchy have over Feudalism?
No WW
Cash Rush
Support in larger cities.
WW never stopped me from oscillating wars in PTW, it sure as hell isn't going to when you give me MP's with Feudalism.
Without a cash bonus, I typically don't find much use for cash rush under Monarchy except on maps with allot of cash bonii anyway. That cash is needed for things such as research and upgrades more than rushing the odd improvement here or there. Poprushing, however, can be quite effective to a warmongering player, as you are attempting to make Feudalism into. Nothing like having a temple in that conquered city 2 turns after taking it.
That leaves the support issue. This is why most players think they need to keep things small. That is not the case as you can see in my previous save.
So, in the late game, yes Monarchy is better. During Medieval, and planning on a second govt change, they are equal in stock version. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
On paper, it looks to me like there is no point to choosing Monarchy at all with few exceptions given the change, though.
|
Even if this were true, wouldn't it encourage an extra government switch, or at least a strategic choice of whether to stay in Despotism until the Middle Ages? Remember that you need 5 techs to get Monarchy, but 19 to get Feudalism - I'd say Feudalism should be slightly better than Monarchy.
But there are quite a few cases when Monarchy is better than Feudalism, even in the AU mod. Common cases are when you don't have room for enough small towns by the time Feudalism arrives, or when you have too many units over the free unit support (since they are so expensive in Feudalism).
quote:
And again you say "lots of small towns and lots of units". That is not my point at all.
|
I guess I should have said "lots of small towns and lots of units compared to the total number of your cities". You can see from the attached graph that Feudalism is better than Monarchy in a relatively small area of the units/city vs towns/city space. The AU mod makes it so that area is slightly larger.
quote:
The extra unit support (and you don't need many under 6 to provide enough for the typical war machine) is provided by conquering cities and poprushing them back to the 4ish range to both provide improvements and manipulate the flip formula and unit support, then allowing them to grow. It creates a self-perpetuating beast perfect for oscillating wars.
|
This is a great strategy ( ), but as with anything in Civ3, it won't work every time. For example, my feeling is that as you go to higher difficulty levels you will a) need to support more units to get the job done, b) have a smaller initial area in which to place your small towns, and c) not be able to get away with quick wars to deal with WW. These factors will make Monarchy better than Feudalism more often.
 Attachment: 3gpt.jpg
This has been downloaded 82 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
I just looked at the tech tree, and it's five techs: Warrior Code, Ceremonial Burial, Mysticism, Polytheism, and Monarchy. Of course a raw comparison of number of techs is a bit misleading, since trades can account for a lot of them going for Feudalism but a Monarchy beeline requires doing almost all the research yourself. But even so, Monarchy can be reached a whole lot earlier.
After using Feudalism in our Glory of Culture game, I agree that the AU Mod version is very powerful in an "oscillating warfare" strategy that changes opponents when war weariness gets too bad. As long as you keep adding small towns to your empire, you can let your core cities get big and productive and still have plenty of free unit support. I don't think I ever even came close to Feudalism's free support limit in that game.
But I also agree with alexman that the fact that Feudalism comes so late provides a huge counterweight for that power. In contrast, without Feudalism having a corruption advantage, Feudalism's only significant advantage in games where core cities are generally size seven and above by the middle ages is the ability to pop rush (since Monarchy also generally has plenty of free support under those conditions). And it's hard for me to see how the ability to pop rush would make it worth staying in Despotism a lot longer or making a second government switch, even for religious civs. That's especially true when players can fight for as long as they want to in Monarchy but can be forced to cut their wars shorter than they would have preferred due to war weariness in Feudalism.
The real problem is that we can't have there be a significant number of situations and playing styles where Feudalism is better than Monarchy without (gasp!) having there be a significant number of situations and playing styles where Feudalism is better than Monarchy.  It would seem that UnOrthOdOx's preferred playing style is one that fits Feudalism especially well. But that doesn't mean that Feudalism in the AU Mod is so overpowered as to make Monarchy uninteresting in the more general case.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
punkbass2000
|
 |
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rommel2D
No tribe starts with Warrior Code and Ceremonial Burial. Under stock rules, you cannot get Monarchy as your fifth tech.
Also, a Feudalism 'beeline' doesn't include Monarchy at all, or Philosophy for the AU mod. That's a huge 3 tech swing from the initial comparison.  |
Yeah, they really should have made the Mongols or Zulus Religious instead of Expansionist. AFAIK, the Japanese orignally had the Wheel as a starting tech because, at the time, only Aztecs and Japanese shared traits. I was also boggled by the Vikings being Mil/Exp in PTW, there should never be three civs with the same traits.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rommel2D
I don't know if this is venturing OT, but playing France and beelining Construction, doesn't it seem likely you could trade Masonry, Alphabet, Math, Currency, and Construction around to get the other 12 required ancient techs in a time frame not too far from a 50-turn march to Monarchy? It's not a strategy I've ever tried, but I feel myself being drawn in...  |
That would cut down the time a lot to the extent that it works, but even after you get to the medieval era, you'd still have to research Feudalism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Food Pillar versus Gold Pillar.
Both are equally excellent foundation strategies... I play whichever of the two as appropriate to the given game.
AU 505, even with its given limitations, illustrates this: Would one choose a poprushing government prior to Fascism, considering the silk gold available to the core cities (and the general lack of extra food resources)? IOW, would one wait for Feudalism as the first non-despotic government?
I think not. |
If only you allowed the conquering of neighbors I most definately would.  As is, there's no choice but to go builder-crazy.
quote:
I do think that the AU Mod helps balance Feudalism versus Monarchy and Republic a bit... UnO, you should try the current govs in the mod. |
Yes I should just try the mod period. That's allot of changes to read through for someone with little time, though.
Beelining Monarchy does allow you to grab it much earlier. I would argue that VS the AI, though, there are usually better tech paths unless you are planning a GA in ancient. As is, in stock, I have problems seeing any value in changing to a Monarchy what seems to average to ~10-20 turns earlier than waiting for Feudalism. On maps where a Feudalism choice is not best, I see few instances where Monarchy would serve better than Republic. (VS AI only, and planning on a second change.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-11-2004 22:14
|
