 |
| |
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:19
|
|
I always work towards Monarchy right away. Not only do I get the government, but I also get the Hanging Gardens.
When there's still land available for expansion by that time, Monarchy functions better than republic, as it is less expensive to build up extra military to allow greater stretching of military resources.
Once I get to the middle ages, and have discovered Chivalry, I'll go off and annex one of my neighbours. By this time, my settlements will have grown into cities, and have plenty of free unit support, making war less costly. As well as that, there's no problem with war weariness, making it possible for you to wage a war that lasts centuries. You could be at war the rest of the game, and none of your citizens could give a damn.
Of course, by the time I've swept across the entire continent and hold an empire that spans from coast to coast, north to south, east to west, I'll be ready to switch to Democracy and build up infrastructure.
In my strategy, republic has no place. I just find it easier to expand both through settlers and conquest under Monarchy, and then build up my infrastructure under a democracy so I have a strong base with which to build up my forces to invade overseas when I decide to switch to Communism (or even back to Monarchy).
Last edited by Jethro83 on 26-04-2002 at 16:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Maybe the most important aspect of this decision is whether you're a religious civ, or not. If you're not, you probably only want to make one government switch, and that is most likely going to be republic, since it's the most flexible government, and effective once your civ has some infrastructure.
If you're a religious civ, however, and playing on a higher level, you may not want to wait until your civ has built all that infrastructure to lose some of despotism's handicaps. In that case, as Ethelred said, monarchy makes an excellent interim government before republic (or democracy, if you're not warring too much).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heartsurgeon
|
|
The problem with republic is that you can't be fighting with anyone, and I usually use the ancient and early middle ages to have wars, especially if playing Rome, Persia, or the Iroquois. I've found myself staying in monarchy until Democracy comes available. By then I've got a big lead in cities and workers, and switching to Democracy just lets the commerce explode.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BillChin
|
|
Both Monarchy and Republic are good and each have their place. In general, for a Republic to be viable, a player needs three or more luxuries and marketplaces in the core cities, and expect some time at peace. Monarchy is a good war time government because there is no war weariness. Monarchy also allows the use of three military police per city to make up for any lack of luxuries. Despotism is an alternative when a player needs to field as large an army as possible and has few large cities (pop 7+).
Communism, and Democracy are relatively weak governments and are more suited for special situations and religious civs. Otherwise the additional turns of anarchy and other negatives of each make Monarchy and Republic preferrable (Monarchy for war, Republic for peace).
Democracy is a fragile government on competitive difficulty levels (Regent and above). An unexpected war can collapse a Democracy in a few turns. The only real benefit of Democracy is faster workers to build railroads--not worth the problems associated with increased war weariness. The difference in corruption sounds significant (4/9 vs. 2/3 for the distance factor), but in practice usually only yields one more shield to a handful of cities.
Communism dilutes the production power of core cities. Again on lower difficulty levels, this is not as big a deal, but on Regent or above it can be. On Emperor level, the industrial core might go from 10% waste to 40% waste after a switch from Monarchy to Communism. A potentially huge price to pay for better spies, one more military police and a few shields in outlying cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
I disagree that you cannot fight in Republic. More accurately, you cannot fight constantly in Republic.
On Emperor, I switch from despotism to monarchy as soon as possible if playing a religious civ; otherwise, I wait until I have temples and either enough luxuries or a happiness wonder, then go to republic. I almost always play for a space-race win, but engage in enough fighting to usually have the largest civ by mid- to late-game. The very fact that you're fighting ought to mean that you have enough of those critical luxuries that keep a republic happy during wartime - I've never fought a war where I had to raise my luxury tax past 30% while in republic. I suppose it might be different if your goal is a domination victory, and intend to achieve it by fighting every single turn. But my only domination game - won in 1415 - was played in republic. I had all of the happiness wonders and all of the luxuries and... more importantly... each war didn't last that long. Why? the tech lead I built up not playing in monarchy.
All of the above refers to playing Emperor, standard everything, including the map - larger maps may require a different governmental strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
centrifuge
|
|
If you want to be a warmonger, Monarchy is much better than Republic. Mainly due to martial law I'd say.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dawidge
|
 |
Chicago
Apr 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Don't draft, in a winning game you'll never have to.
(it's never always a winning game of course, but drafting? Why should you? Never did it, never will, playing 60th game I suppose, ...)
AJ |
There's always a first time, isn't there. 
I use it extensively during peacetime to build up my defensive forces and allow the veteran infantry to prepare for battle while cranking out tanks. I draft because in the "just one more turn" game I get into a "oh, that was easy, just one more city" mood and get a little overextended. In order to keep my "allies" form getting any wise ideas, I need to keep my defenses strong. With the draft, all I have to produce is offensive units, and I can keep them on the offense.
Drafting allows me to dump enough troops into a newly captured town that I never lose one to cultural reversion. I never raze the cities I take. Consequently, I get to domination victory pretty quickly after I get tanks.
The unhappiness hit isn't too bad if you keep them on a schedule. In the thick of a drawn out war, I try not to draft more often than once every 10 turns or so. That gives them time to recover the lost population and to keep the draft unhappiness at a fixed level,
easily offset by luxuries.
Remember, that AI doesn't pause to consider the strength of the units you have, just their number, and I've found that draftees on the defense are reasonably strong. Park them on mountaintops on the front line and they become veterans very quickly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
I never draft as policy, but then I don't build defensive units as policy either... sometimes not even spearmen... until my cities have nothing better to do in the late industrial age. So what happens on that rare occasion when somebody attacks and my cavalry is out of reach? I draft.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2002 05:39
) so Republic it is...
)
|