 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
Even with no maintenance costs, Communism can't cut it financially compared with Democracy unless you have a pretty big military. My AU 201 game is in the middle of the industrial era, and I'm exceptionally well built up for that era thanks to huge amounts of build-and-disband and rush buying. (It is an Ultimate Power game, after all.) My empire has two cores on two continents, and the second one is just starting to reach the point where its biggest cities have built everything worth building.
The figures below aren't completely scientific since the communist figures are coming off anarchy while the Democracy figures are after a regular change of turns (giving the Democracy an extra marketplace and bank, and maybe causing a few other differences). But if I'm remembering right that WLTQD doesn't affect gold, just production, that shouldn't be too bg a deal compared with the size of the difference.
Democracy: 2905 net gold with zero science.
Communism: 1860 net gold with zero science.
So why is the difference so big? I suspect that previous analyses failed to fully consider the compounding effect of marketplaces and banks. If it's 1.5 for the marketplace times 1.5 for the bank, each gold of Democracy's bonus can turn into 2.25 gold. (I'm not quite positive that's how it works, though.) I'm sure Communism could close the gap some in the modern age, but even so, I don't think we have to worry about free maintenance making Communism better than Democracy for a builder empire. (And let's not forget that even if Communists can accumulate gold, they can't spend it on rush buying without changing governments.)
A couple more notes about this particular game: (1) I do NOT have Smith's yet. If I did, Democracy would have even more of an advantage. (2) My military is almost within the AU mod's free support range even for Democracy (currently over 100 units!), so Communism's free support is not providing any real advantage. (3) Every city that matters has a courthouse, and the vast majority have police stations.
Unless further evidence refutes this analysis, I think the free maintenance for Communism is probably a good thing. It doesn't seem to overbalance in favor of Communism, and it does make Communism a lot more competitive than it would be otherwise.
I'm going to post F1 screens from the two branches, first Democracy and then Communism. Here's the Democracy F1 screen:
 Attachment: democracy 1190 ad.jpg
This has been downloaded 92 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Even with no maintenance costs, Communism can't cut it financially compared with Democracy unless you have a pretty big military. |
After taking a look at your savegame, I think you're right, and I stand corrected.
quote:
The figures below aren't completely scientific since the communist figures are coming off anarchy while the Democracy figures are after a regular change of turns ...
Democracy: 2905 net gold with zero science.
Communism: 1860 net gold with zero science. |
The figures for both governments comming off anarchy:
Democracy: 2863 net gold with zero science (860 corruption, 1154 maintenance)
Communism: 1860 net gold with zero science (876 corruption, 0 maintenance).
quote:
So why is the difference so big? I suspect that previous analyses failed to fully consider the compounding effect of marketplaces and banks. If it's 1.5 for the marketplace times 1.5 for the bank, each gold of Democracy's bonus can turn into 2.25 gold. (I'm not quite positive that's how it works, though.) |
Actually, the overall bonus factor is 2.0 - you have to add the marketplace and bank bonus and then apply the outcome to the 'raw' commerce income minus corruption. My former analysis DID take this into account, but my failor was to compare a 'free maintenance' Communism with a hypothetical 'trade bonus' Communism instead of a Democracy. The difference - and the likely explanation of your results - is Communism's communal corruption. Although the corruption figures of your savegame seem to be quite similar (860 for Dem vs. 876 for Comm), the latter one is in fact much higher, because it stems from 'raw' commerce income without a trade bonus. (There's no easy way to calculate the real overall corruption rate for Democracy, but Communisms real rate is about 43% - in your capital Thebes, of 42 'raw' commerce units 18 are lost due to corruption). Conclusion: Even free maintenance obviously can't offset the negative overall effects of communal corruption.
quote:
A couple more notes about this particular game: ... (2) My military is almost within the AU mod's free support range even for Democracy (currently over 100 units!), so Communism's free support is not providing any real advantage. |
Your units-per city-ratio of 1.2 (104 units, 88 cities) seems to be quite low even for the late stage of an 'ultimate power' game - in one of Arrian's savegames where he built up an offensive force, the ratio was about 3 units per city. Still I suspect that there aren't many game situations when the free support range of vanilla Civ3's Communism will be exceeded, and that the AU mod's additional free support actually doesn't make a difference.
quote:
Unless further evidence refutes this analysis, I think the free maintenance for Communism is probably a good thing. It doesn't seem to overbalance in favor of Communism, and it does make Communism a lot more competitive than it would be otherwise. |
I have to agree.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
Actually, Thebes isn't my capital anymore. I built my FP in Delhi so I could move my palace to the other continent, and then moved my palace to Pompeii back in 790. Still, a courthouse and police station do a lot to keep Thebes's corruption rate down under Democracy.
I always run a very lean military, probably a good bit leaner than I could get away with against human opponents. My units-per-city ratio was actually significantly lower when I conquered the second continent than it is now! The only reason it's so high now is that I've had several centuries where off and on, several cities had nothing better to do than to build troops. (And even so, I've disbanded more for the shields than I've kept.)
Communism would do better (relatively speaking) in the mid or late modern era, with airports, mass transit systems, research labs, and maybe eventually recycling centers adding to maintenance costs. And it would look a lot better if my palace and FP were not well-placed. Combine poor capital placement, additional buildings, and a large military, and Communism probably does have a niche where it could match or even beat Democracy for gold/science generation. But it would be a niche government at best during peacetime.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Combine poor capital placement, additional buildings, and a large military, and Communism probably does have a niche where it could match or even beat Democracy for gold/science generation. |
While I can't prove or refute the general thesis, I've done some calculations based on your savegame. Would Communism's free maintenance offset the negative overall effects of communal corruption and a lacking trade bonus if you built every improvement in all of your cities and maxed them out at size 20? The answer is 'probably no'. Communism's gold/science generation won't match or even beat Democracy's.
Why do I think so? Based on your savegame, the most important thing was to find out Democracy's 'real' corruption rate in your sprawling empire without actually counting the 'raw' commerce income in 88 city screens. Here goes:- I knew that Thebes lost 18 out of 42 'raw' commerce units due to communal corruption, which is a rate of about 43%.
- As this corruption rate should be the same throughout your empire, the 876 units lost due corruption under Communism are 43% of the total 'raw' commerce income, which results in about 2044 commerce units without a trade bonus.
- From your savegame, I knew that commerce units lost due to corruption were 589 under Monarchy and 962 (+63%) under Republic.
- As Monarchy and Republic have the same corruption level ('problematic') in the AU mod, the higher absolute figure for Republic must stem from the latter government's trade bonus - the more you have, the more you lose.
- Total 'raw' commerce income with trade bonus therefore should be about 63% higher for your empire than without trade bonus (2044), which results in about 3338 'raw' commerce units for both Republic and Democracy.
- As you lost 860 commerce units due to corruption under Democracy, Democracy's 'real corruption rate is (860/3338) or about 26%.
And now for the easier part: Compare 43% corruption plus free maintenance for every city improvement with trade bonus plus 26% corruption, with your former capital Thebes as exemplar.- Under Communism, 'Thebes' yields 42 'raw' commerce units, 18 of which (43%) are lost due to corruption.
- The 24 units left have to be multiplied with 2.25 (assuming library, university, research lab, marketplace, bank; 50% science, 0% luxuries), which results in 54 gold/science units.
- As maintenance is free and your military is well under Communism's support limit (8 free units per metropolis in vanilla Civ3), 'Thebes' (as every city in your empire) actually yields 54 gold/science units per turn.
- Under Democracy, 'Thebes' yields 63 'raw' commerce units (+21, including the city tile). Democracy's average empire-wide 'real' corruption rate of 26% results in a loss of 16 units.
- The 47 units left have to be multiplied by 2.25, which results in about 106 gold/science units.
- Now we have to subtract maintenance costs of 41 gold for the 25 possible city improvements of vanilla Civ3 and support costs of 2 gold (assuming about 4 units including workers per city, 2 of which are free in the AU mod). 'Thebes' actually yields 63 gold/science units per turn under Democracy, or 9 units more than under Communism.
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
As for Communism, thanks for investigating it. Don't forget that in order to help the AI it's better to give supportless units than free-maintenance buildings. Is infinite support-free units out of the question? |
While I'm not an expert player, I always suspected that the AI neglects city improvements and builds too large a military (including many obsolete units). Still, I have rarely seen an AI that paid unit support costs under Communism even in vanilla Civ3. Contrary to that, free maintenance WILL increase the AI's treasury to a certain extent. And if the first hints of AI tweaks in PtW turn out to be true (Mongols building stock exchanges, according to Catt), I'd rather have free maintenance than doubled unit support.
Note: I still regret that free maintenance would take away a lot of interesting decisions what improvement to build next. But as far as I can see, it's the best solution to tweak Communism that is currently available. A future version of PtW's editor may include new possibilities like a tuned-down version of communal corruption.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaveMcW
|
|
Trade is not an issue in communism. If you want to research and get rich you use republic or democracy.
Communism is a war government, all it needs is a way to cover its upkeep and produce reinforcements as fast as the other governments.
What about a massive increase in military police, to help make pop rushing viable?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
dp
Last edited by player1 on 05-11-2002 at 04:53
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
Keep in mind that in the AU 201 game, I have my palace and forbidden palace very well placed (or at least I like to think so). I have no cities that remain totally corrupt after adding courthouses and police stations. That isn't always practical, and communism would probably do a lot better by comparison under less favorable circumstances. Still, games where it makes sense to use communism as anything but a wartime government even with free maintenance would be few and far between if they exist at all.
Free unit support under communism is good enough in the standard game that I seriously doubt that adding more would make much difference. Yes, AIs have bigger militaries than humans do, but once the free unit support is enough to cover all a civ's units, any additional free support is of no more than theoretical interest. And even if an AI would go a unit or two per city over, the amount of gold involved wouldn't be big enough to make that much difference.
All in all, free maintenance seems to be the only really practical way I've seen to make serious research under communism even remotely viable, at least in the standard game. Thus, it's the only way to deal with the problem of AIs' scientific efforts self-destructing in the middle of the space race. (Note: these comments are pre-PtW.)
I also tend to wonder how much maintenance costs really enter the picture regarding strategic choices except maybe in the very early stages of the game. If I'm winning, I can afford to build where and when I want to without worrying much about maintenance. If I'm behind, improvements that wouldn't be worth the maintenance costs are unlikely to be worth the diversion from military forces. Do other people pay a lot more attention to maintenance costs than I do, or is what's lost in terms of strategy mostly just theoretical?
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2002 04:50
). Ah, I'm already signing up for the 3rd PBEM and don't even have the game yet. Hopefully next Wednesday I will.
.
Attachment: 
|
