 |
|
Knecht
|
|
I have always aimed for the Republic on my way to Democracy but have lately been considering reseaching Monarchy as a quicker way to get Despotism behind me and thus gain the advantages of irrigation sooner. With the Republic, you gain additional commerce on squares that already have it but you lose more to corruption and waste. Is this a wash? Should I forget about the Republic and get to Monarchy as soon as possible (and also possibly get other techs like Currency earlier as well)? Or (because Monarchy to Democracy is such a long trip) should I go for them both? Is there any accepted wisdom on this issue?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
The key to winning in Civ3 is the constant warfare. You need to have GLs, free workers, and resources to build up your civ, and to weeken AI civs at same time. To fight wars, you must be in Monarchy.
Speaking of corruption, the Republic is not any better. So I will ALWAYS use Monarchy as opposed to Republic.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
I-iZ-1337
|
|
Republicz iz wikedz if j00 wantz t00 g0 th33 scienz r00t3z.. forz 3arl33 spazeshipz it roxxorz a11 otherz optionz. If j00 iz goinz th33 conquezt approachez j00 n33dz monarch33z f0rz n0 warz w33r33nez.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
Theseus,
As I discovered in my "game of ultimate power" Monarchy corruption is pretty much comparable to Republic corruption - it's just that you have a huge drop-off in total commerce generated. But, like you point out, you don't have to pay for your armed forces. I was supporting huge numbers of units, had well-placed Palace & FP, and most of my "core" cities were on rivers or lakes, meaning they were all size 12 and generating a fair amount of trade.
The only time I really debate between republic and monarchy is if I'm playing a non-religious civ. If I'm religious, I can just switch whenever. If I'm not, this is a big decision. I've gone both ways with it. First, in the aforementioned GoUP, I went with Monarchy and had a lot of success with it. In my most recent Chinese warmongering rampage, I went with republic... and had quite a bit of success with that. WW was hardly a factor, because large numbers of Riders can tear through an AI empire pretty quick.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001 time: 06:21
|
|
Arrian, I checked your 1275AD save. Awesome game - I was especially impressed with the city of Beijing producing 26 shields in the middle age!
Okay, now for some 'builder mode' stats:- You have 51 cities, of which 19 are level 1, 32 are level 2 and (naturally before Sanitation) 0 are level 3. For Monarchy, this results in 166 free units (19*2 + 32*4).
- You have 142 units (2.8 per city) and therefore don't pay any support. 33 units (0.7 per city) are Offensive Land, 63 (1.2 per city) are Defensive Land, 16 (0.3 per city) are Other Military (BTW, this includes leaders
), 30 (0.6 per city) are Settlers/Workers.
- You have also captured 44 Workers (0.9 per city). As they are working at half speed, this is equivalent to 22 built workers, and I'd be interested in how many additional workers you had built without these 'prisoners of war'.
I also took a look at your 'newjapan' save, and the figures and ratios are quite similar.
For 'amassed units' stats, I'd like to take a look at an 'Ultimate Power' game save from about 1AD - shortly before you unleashed your Horsemen/Swordsmen hordes on India.
BTW, does anyone besides me think that 8 free units per metropolis (standard setting for Monarchy/Communism) is somewhat unbalancing? Wouldn't 6 free units be more appropriate?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
lockstep,
I think you may be right about the unit support for metropoli... 6 would probably be better.
Unfortunately, I only have saves for 3450BC, 420AD, 800AD, 940AD, 1275AD, 1465AD, and 1685AD. I got hit by "one more turn" syndrome and failed to save the game between 3450BC and 420AD.
I may, however, be able to find a save of the beginning of one of my horse rushes from a different game. I'll have a look tonight.
I also have a newer Chinese game that may actually have been more "powerful" than the UP game, but I didn't do my standard military buildup. I did end up with comparable numbers of troops, but the ratios will be off because of the incredible boost I got from buying workers from the AI. During my "early war" stage, most of the AI's have 5 cities, and I'm on 11. I do have a save from then, though, and it may be what you're looking for.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
lockstep,
Actually, I didn't really need as many defenders as I had. Yes, my homeland was safe from invasion. The coastal cities could have kept their defenders, with the inland ones giving up theirs. Keep in mind that some of my defenders were in France, protecting my attack troops and garrisoning Paris. The real ratio of defenders to cities is more like 1 to 1. My attack forces were just coming back up to strength in 1275... they had been severely weakened by the intial attack on France (Riders vs. Mustkeers... ack!).
Hmm, extra workers.. yes, I probably would have built extras (and did, during the RR binge) had I not had the slaves. Dunno how many, because I don't really calculate out "I need X number of workers." Then again, I had those slaves because I conquered my neigbors. Without that conquest, I would have had a much smaller empire, with less need for workers.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|