 |
|
SorvinoBackhand
|
|
Assuming Republic is not an option, which is a better government form for warfare - Monarchy or Communism?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:29
|
|
I would prefer monarchy over communism. I hate the whip, refuse to use it.
Maybe the new conquest govts will add some spice to the choices.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
Communism, unless you are already using Monarchy and aren't a religious civilization.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
Provided you have built courthouses and police stations, the corruption your core experiences is only 4 or five shields (for production anyway, if I remember rightly).
The overall drop in corruption really does make up for this if you have a lot of cities ... in fact it more than makes up for it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Turk Man
|
|
Istanbul
Jan 2003 time: 07:29
|
|
Communism rule to Monarchy!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
I've overused the whip in Despo and believe me, your citizens will remember for a looooong time. I won't trade production in my large core cities for the sake of small outlying ones. Communism is a bad deal. Let the AI waste time reasearching it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
quote: Originally posted by gunkulator
I've overused the whip in Despo and believe me, your citizens will remember for a looooong time. I won't trade production in my large core cities for the sake of small outlying ones. Communism is a bad deal. Let the AI waste time reasearching it. |
You've obviously never experienced that great feeling when you capture a large enemy city, quell the resistance 3-4 turns later, and are then able to build a temple in about 7 turns.
Communism really does work when you are in the serious business of capturing lots and lots of cities. It's much easier to steal enemy technology as well - especially with research set at zero.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
quote: Originally posted by vmxa1
Why am I in a hurry to build a temple in the far flung captured metro? This late in the game, they do not have any tech for me to steal anyway, if they did it would not be hard to do or to trade for. |
Hi
Well, if that city was captured under Monarchy, you'd just have a big old city to starve which would never produce anything for you. You'd be as well to raze it and replace it with a small city of your own (which will take 30 or 60 turns to produce a temple depending on your civ traits). Perhaps it's just a personal preference but I love the idea of putting newly captured cities to work producing buildings so that in 20 turns or so they will be in a position to start pumping out tanks like everyone else. It really does feel 'communal' - that everyone (i.e. every city) is doing their best for the war effort! And when we're talking only a few shields off of core cities, those tanks and bombers are still being produced in 2 turns each. Who can complain?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
I prefer to capture early and raze later. Late in the game everyone hates you anyway. Once past OCN, every new city under Communism just makes your core cities less and less productive. Why spend the money on them at all?
Contrary to the designer's intent, I build colonies late in the game, not early, to get lux/res I need on another continent.
Razing a city requires no money for building and maintenance, no units for garrisoning, guarantees no culture flipping or recapture and you get a bunch of free slaves.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|