 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mharmless
|
|
Well, rushbuilding with population is excelent. I'd much rather spend two citizens to complete that temple _right now_ than 220 gold. Also, communism gets millitary police and an insignifigant ammount of war weariness. You can enter and maintain extremely long wars as the agressor if you are a communist power.
Edit:
Neglected to say why population instead of money. Conqured cities are difficult to keep under control. Forced labor offers a handy way to bleed off population every turn without destroying the city entirely. Much easier to keep a size three city in line than a size 21. And thanks to forced labor you turned those eighteen population units into 180 to 720 sheilds, depending on when you use them and how many population it takes per use. Further, specialist citizens are not realy worth much in this game, so useing populations over 20 to rush build makes good economic sense as well.
Last edited by mharmless on 10-11-2001 at 03:34
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Karhgath
|
|
The advantages of communism(in Civ3 =) :
Free units (2 in town, 4 cities, 8 metropolis)
Communal corruption(it should, theorically, be shared among every city equally, but I never really tested it)
More military police
No war weariness
Better draft rate
Better assimilation rating
Forced labor(MUCH better than paying gold, IMHO, things seems to cost a LOT more than in civ2, and everything costs money now)
So, if you are going for a conquest game, you would probably be better off with Communism than any other govt.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|