My favorite thing to do is selling or gifting Democracy to rivals. Then I mobilize on them when they go through anarchy. Afterwards, they will be using Democracy but the war weariness is too much so they go right back to anarchy. 😆 They just enjoy switching governments a little too much.
I've used Fascism for one Faction only, Germany, go figure right? I've found that when using fascism, you will need to have a well established country before switching to fascism.With this being said, you can declare huge major wars with many fronts, and the war weariness comes in handy and the extra unit count helps out a lot. I have a game where my unit count was over 700 and in war with almost every faction in the game and still held my own. Some AI countries had huge armies as well (spying on them.) The "culture" issue isn't really a major problem, especially if you 1) slave labor the population to whatever you want to build within that city (I find this way to be a bit slow, but it starts to coring process earlier than...) 2) Starving the population for its money. As in making the population very useless, but just for money purposes (switching them from happiness person to a tax collector) and make all of the population as a tax collector and if its a bigger city with a pop. of 10+, it creates a ton of money for a few turns, until the pop. dies out. (Yes its only a temporary thing.) Especially when you have a well formed empire already, with your core major cities outputting the necessary needs for your war time. You can use this money to either fund for better tech times (increasing the tech slider) or increasing the happiness slider, both of which only benefits your core empire, it wont benefit the front line cities aka the cities that you've taken. But once you killed off 90% of the population by taxing them (yes I know, cruel) you can start to populate the city that you took and "core" it into your own empire. Adding your cultural influence at the same time. The only down side to 2) is that your new cities will have to start from pop 1 and work their way up, but usually doesn't take long to grow, and core. So if you use Fascism, you'll have to be in constant wars, and in late game scenarios, you'll have major alliances forming around, which forms major wars. My core cities are the size of 20+ pop. so I'm not entirely sure where the killing of my population happens, unless you're talking about the purging, but I'm no expert on this game and I found that this way is the easiest, for me at least, to play this government type.
one way to balance facism (Imho) would be if there was a national wonder exclusive to facist civs (like secret police HQ for commies) called a concentration camp, that would allow you to guarantee that pop lost to hurrying would use up foreign citizens first (mabye continental effects only). inb4 this is considered hate speech, this is just an idea for a historically accurate game concept calm down youtube.
@@sirzorg5728 It still wouldn't be anywhere worth. The best balance would be just to do away with the pop loss upon switching. Otherwise monarchy is still a better deal because the tech while optional is cheap late game unlike fascism.
I have noticed that nearly all warring AI civs exclusively use Fascism under most Dom/Conq Victory conditions when it needs to go for the 3 movement unit/tank rushes throughout the industrial era. That being said I think the crappy governments (fascism, democracy, feudalism) were made less for the human player and more to give an edge to the AI on higher difficulties with their brief anarchies. I’m currently going through my military advisor in the industrial era and, as always, every Civ except for myself is either fascist or democratic.
Bro, not sure why it took me twenty years to try and do it properly, but I finally opted to use a Republic style of government and it ROCKS!!! I always opted for Monarchy to aid me in the wars I engage in towards the end of the ancient era but this time I opted for Republic and my economy has been booming ever since. I can afford tons of military units, the corruption is minor and I now control at least 24 cities after taking them from my rivals. I am now seeking to expand to another continent but my have to change the government style into something else.. or fuq it, will conquer the distant cities and let them rot in corruption, who cares? My main systems remain boom megalopolises!! So yeah, thanks for the advice man, you sir are a gem!!
I'm glad it's working well for you! The skill cap on republic is high too. So as you get better at playing with fewer units or growing your cities earlier, you'll have an even stronger economy.
In conquest (and in permanent war) the best goverment is Communism on large maps and Fasism on smaller maps. Also when i play religious civs, I switch to fasism when it's time to spam your motherland with railroads, the 2x work effectiveness gives you HUGE advantages. Then you can switch to Communism or whatever you like.
A lot of the functions in the first few minutes are restricted to certain Civics in Civ4 (e.g. Drafting only under Nationhood, Worker speed only changed by Feudalism). Certainly something Civ3 veterans can cite as an example of sequel streamlining. 7:40 A digression on Unit Support.
Hi. I love your videos. I consider Civ. III the best game of the series, and getting to master it is a challenge. Please, could you make a video that deals in detail with the trade of technologies, luxuries and resources in C3C?
Could you please make a tutorial about corruption, and explain in details how the corruption works in Civ3? Is it important how far the Forbidden Palace should be built? Thank you!
You have two kinds of corruption and they are additive, so even if you reduce one kind the other might be enough to push the city into uselessness. They are Distance Corruption and Rank Corruption. Distance Corruption is the one you are more familiar with, simply put the more distant a city is from your Capital the more corrupt it is. However this kind can be reduced, since the Forbidden Palace counts as your Capital for calculations of Distance Corruption. The second kind is Rank Corruption and very little can reduce it. It is the corruption that grows the more cities you have. It also grows as you get more distant from your Capital but the Forbidden Palace only gives a small flat reduction to it. Furthermore there is a number the Optimal Number of Cities that depends on Map Size and Difficulty. Once your cross the ONC Rank Corruption grows drastically. In conclusion to minimize corruption you want your empire to be rectangular shaped, where one half of the rectangle is your original homeland with its productive cities and the other half of the rectangle is your 2nd homeland, centered on the Forbidden Palace which your probably got by conquering a neighbour. Unless you are going for world conquest and Communism you stop there and just peacefully develop until the win. Because any cities outside this rectangle can increase Rank Corruption within the rectangle unless you are careful. Basically it is safe to take any city that is further away from your Capital than any city within the rectangle, those distant cities won't worsen rank corruption of your new and old core cities. That is the best use of the FP, carving out a new homeland. But alternatively you can put it really far away and still get a good city, since FP sets max corruption to 90%, but what is one great city compared to a whole new core region. Enjoy ;)
Great video, could you upload a video on your favourite civs from worst to best. I’m starting to get back into civ 3 and I’m really curious on your opinions of each of the civs .
Considering how much I war, all my efforts to use Republic or Democracy just cause frustration. I spend so much gold balancing happiness and covering military costs that the economic/technology benefits are sunk. Keeping to Monarchy allows for military police, negates war wariness, and leaves my economy to focus on technology. I just lure my foes into embargoing and warring each other, snipe cities, stage to hit nations weakened from recent wars, and build up gold for rapid construction and espionage.
Another solid instructional viddy. Good to know Despotism penalty also applies during a GA. Bummer. Now I know why the Romans with their Legionary aren't so hot; have to wait until you get out of Despotism before using 'em to full effect.
@@suedeciviii7142 If you're able to have a really good start, legionary rushes can totally crush most people who don't have a defense that's built up too much. In my experience, at least
@@zombied3stroy3r9gaming4 So can sword rushes though. The extra point in defense doesn't offer much aside from very marginal resistance to defensive bombard, and a little protection for your stack. But at that era, the AI won't be attacking into units you send into their land much.
@@suedeciviii7142 Yeah, it's just fun to do things sometimes. I'm someone who plays entirely casually, using what I think is fun but still effective. Of course, this all doesn't account for the scenario specific legionaries that can also build roads and progressively improve.
@@zombied3stroy3r9gaming4 I'll say they are very good units to have around, and a great way to invest your early golden age shields. They just don't conquer any faster.
I have some important insight into Civ3 5 years after this vid was posted: "Hurry method" reads like "Horny method" on 360p. Thank you for reading my analysis.
Hey Suede, hear me out on this and tell me what you think: is feudalism better than monarchy if played correctly? The other drawback is that in monarchy you have to pay gold to hurry production. That's tough because in monarchy you generally don't have much gold. But you get the higher unit support. However, played correctly feudalism has even higher unit support. Further, you can use forced labor to keep populations low to keep the unit support up. Additionally, any newly conquered cities add a tremendous amount of unit support instead of being a drain on your civilization. Now if you're going peaceful builder then absolutely go republic. But if you're going to be in constant war, go feudalism and use that happiness slider to deal with war weariness which with low populations ought not be too much of an expense.
Now my case for fascism is when you have big cities and are going to war then go fash for the unit support. I'm usually fighting wars of attrition at this point, destroying enemy infrastructure and razing cities that I conquer so that I don't have to deal with culture flipping. With fascism using this strategy I can have a bigger military, and I avoid the culture issues by building new cities. The worker efficiency makes new infrastructure builds for those cities much faster. That's just my 2 cents but hey, maybe I'm just a contrarian.
If you're relying on the happiness slider to deal with war weariness, you'd be better off in monarchy (or republic). The real trick is manipulating war weariness to keep levels manageable, while still accomplishing your war goals. You're right that in theory, feudalism has a lot of advantages over Monarchy. It's definitely a viable government, but suffers from the issue of being difficult to use. Republic is too, but republic has a lot more tangible benefits up front.
Regarding the commerce bonus and corruption. Corruption just means the double effect isn't quite as good, compared to a no corruption government that doesn't exist. It's also like the only upside that impacts your capital instantly
I just got into civ but decades ago an acquaintance in high school explained to why feudalism isn't viable. He said that by the time you research feudalism, you don't want feudalism. Feudalism would be a great government to have in the early game to help grow your towns but by the time you access it, all your towns are mostly cities and therefore it's not a good idea to have feudalism and just go for Republic or Monarchy.
The use I have for the Demonitized Government is long drawn out late game wars where mass armies work a bit better. I also tend to switch into it from Democracy after amassing huge funds. And culture flipping only seems like an issue that could be solved by leaving some units outside recently beaten citys or just raze them and move in your own settlers.
I've used Democracy to great effect when I'm religious on every difficulty level short of Deity/Sid (where I just went Feudalism and knight stacks -- only did it once of Deity/Sid each, it's not much fun). Typically an AI civ will do the research for me, and the 150% worker speed is very useful for pumping out those railroads which practically guarantees you faster production than the AI for at least the first half of the industrial era. Sorry addendum -- the reason I need the extra worker speed is bc when I'm playing a peaceful game the Republic's unit cap can make it VERY hard to maintain the optimal 1.5 workers per city without the AI declaring war on me and cutting off my luxury supplies. I'm not sure if this same strat would work on Deity/Sid since I normally have to conquer or die on those difficulties so science/diplo isn't an option, and I don't know if it's necessary to win since the difficulty isn't too high, but it certainly makes life easier.
Hey suede, could you please make a video explaining accelerated production in detail please? I've never chosen it for a lack of understanding. Cheers!!
Hi ..I m watching your videos .. very helpful .. I m using republic much more … but keep getting lots of unhappy spaces .. I tried making library’s and market ..u say better than temples ..not working …what am I doing wrong ..thx buddy
I do feel you are underselling Fascism a bit. It is really good in certain scenarios. Like when you decide to go militaristic but you only have a small country. The huge unit support will do wonders for you, 10 for metropolises? Nuts. Worker speed will help with rails and reordering lands you conquer. You can tank the pop loss before you get hospitals and it will be a total non-factor. You just taxstarve/forcelabour cities you conquer and use railed irrigations to rapidly repopulate with your own people, it is even darkly fitting to the govt. Now, admittedly I play with cultural conversions turned off so those 1-3 stragglers will not cause flips from across the map. Plus with Nuisance corruption and proper city placement as I told you, with a rectangular shape of your country and the Forbidden Palace serving to make a 2nd core you can have a lot of productivity in the civ. And cities you take beyond that, ones that are terminally corrupt, you can turn into tax cities. Basically focus on Food, grow them to massive sizes and turn excess people into tax collectors or scientists, allowing an awful city to be fairly useful with 30-40pop each, and ofc it provides 10 unit support allowing for some monster armies, I once had 1000 unit support. But you don't have to go that extreme, you can conquer and go into Rep/Dem or into Commie for truly massive productivity. Try it out sometime, you might be surprised.
In Civ 1 democracy was bonkers if you are aiming to peace, since it negates corruption, although if you were doing war republic is a better option, since democracy dont let you declare war, and if a unit is out of its home city, the home city gets very unhappy (2 unhappy citizens, can be reduced to one with the universal suffrage wonder, still if you use republic you can build the suffrage wonder and negate that problem entirely [republic suffers that same penalty as democracy, except it is only 1 so it can be reduced to 0], and republic iirc had just slightly more corruption than democracy, still democracy makes you a lot of money Edit: the unhappiness penalty doesnt apply to settlers
Also, and I understand your video got made with the human player in mind, so this makes for a tangent of sorts, feudalism, and especially fascism end up better for the AIs. I think we saw that the AIs don't end up always running a 100% science rate on Sid (I've seen this more), and Sid level AIs can run into unit support issues (though they do get some free unit support, I'm not sure it's enough to last all that long). So, something like fascism has more benefits to them.
This happened to me by accident but you can get a 1 turn anarchy if it happens during your golden age! also would like to submit my saves for analysis too if that is possible! :D
I've never heard of or seen that. Could you send a save where that happens? suedeciviii@gmail.com Feel free to send one for analysis, especially saves that are hopeless or unwinnable
@@anotharoundboi People on civfanatics always say "don't switch governments during your golden age". But it a GA knocks 1 turn off anarchy it might be worth it.
Feudalism is a great governement if you're playing on a tiny, small or standard map and plan to win by domination/conquest by the end of middle ages. Just research chivalry and slave yourself a massive army. I just had a really fun game as Japan - by the end, I had an army of like 150 samurais, including 7 armies, just rampaging around the world, and still about 100 unit cap remaining. Of course I barely reached metallurgy and didn't even touch the upper branch of tech tree (I captured Temple of Artemis, so I stayed away from education... until I accidentally captured the Great Library a few turns before the end, lol), because I had to spend all my money to keep citizens from rioting and even then I usually had to use entertainers in the worst cities. Obviously a horrible governement in the long run, because it will completely mess up your growth, but it has its uses :)
Maybe Feudalism could work with a developed core and an outer ring(s) of small towns. The center can do useful stuff like wonders, special buildings etc., while the rest is there for the mass. So c-x-x-c in the center, maybe even c-x-x-x-c, and after that c-x-c all the time like a mad man.
I think the number of military units also contributes. More military means shorter anarchies. Or it could just be from the lower pop. Anyhow if you have nationalism, draft some rifleman /infantry.
More military does not mean shorter anarchy. More military provide military police, and they put down resistance faster. But they don't effect anarchy length.
Democracy with full on entertainment (happiness improvements) is something you can do in civ 6 but in civ 3 just doesn’t work without moving the slider. I honestly don’t understand why
when invading and dropping settlers, i tend to build a temple first, and usually rush it 2nd turn, to get my borders growing. have any videos on what a decent building build order should be when taking enemy cities or dropping new ones?
That's sensible, if you're worried about culture flips. Not really, it's not of huge importance. Usually they're so corrupt that it doesn't matter, but if they're not then just treat it like a city you built. If a captured city has a lot of tourism income you definitely want a courtouse.
Something important about Communism: it brings the Despotism penalty back. That what the Civilopedia means when it says it limits commerce. Every tile that produces three or more commerce produces one less. Since you didn't mention it I thought I'd put it here.
That's not the case. Check it yourself. What they mean by "limiting commerce" is you don't get the commerce bonus that you get in democracy or republic. But you'll still have more commerce than anarchy/despotism since there's no despotism penalty.
I tried different governments and I think that for a big empire a good suite is communisme. High unit support and good production. Quite frankly I didn't notice that it is worse at commerce than republic/democracy. Yes, republic government produces more gold but often it is spent on corruption, happiness slider and unit support. Corruption is higher on republic and democracy and it can even just end with one shield production cities on the edge of empire whereas you will not see such in communisme. But I have to mention that I am not an experienced player. I do my games on monarch difficulty.
@@ЕленаЕвграфова-ш7ф On 70% water, unless you've conquered half the map, you'll have significantly more commerce in republic as long as you don't have war weariness, and are managing your economy well. On 60% water, it's possible that with 1/3 of the map you might come close to republic's commerce.
I have a feeling the game calculates war weariness penalties different in only single player games and games made in LAN(with ai only). Since I mostly play democracy, I never have problems with being constant in a aggresive war in LAN games, while playing in single player. I get fucked over by the unhappiness immediately.
Do you have a video on making the civilizations for CIV III? I made two civilizations for but on the diplomacy screen when you hit trade the civilization screen is blank, or black, whichever you want to call it.
This video absolutely will not answer your question but it may be interesting to you anyway, it explains why doing what you're doing is so hard. th-cam.com/video/sxfv4X_iDNQ/w-d-xo.html The easiest way to do what you want is to just replace a civ that already exists in the game.
@@suedeciviii7142 apparently I can make one civilization and the game works, but the trade screen for that civilization is blank if I make two civilizations in a scenario and click on trade of one of the Civilizations that have made the game locks up.
At 04:28 you talk about workers in anarchy. Let's say you are in government with 100% worker speed and you want to work a task that takes 12 base turns. You work 2 turns and have 10 to go. Then you switch to anarchy at 50% speed. You work 4 turns and have 8 base turns to go. Then you switch to a government with 100% speed. You work 8 turns and finish the task. Is that the way it works?
Something like that. I think the rounding might be generous. In future start multiplayer, chopping takes 4 turns in anarchy, 2 turns in republic. If you start chopping the turn before coming out of anarchy, it will complete the next turn. So in two turns total.
According to Civilopedia Democracy has a bonus both in commerce and production, I couldn't find out what's exactly this "production bonus" and you didn't mention it on the video, so appreciate if you could answer that.
It has less corruption, so that would have a (very marginal) effect on production. Maybe they're referring to the increased worker speed? There's nothing mechanically in the game that allows you to assign higher production to a government other than those two mechanisms.
I like fascism when I've built a tech and size lead over enemy civs and just want to wipe them out without actually expanding much. I don't know if it's actually better than monarchy for that, I'm experimenting with late game monarchy at the moment
Feudalism is great for a 100k game. You whip in culture in ICS spaced towns quicker than you could buy them in that many cities. That said, 100k games almost surely ends up the rarest victory condition, other than histographic.
I did a game like that as Egypt for the channel. The plan was feudalism when it started, but as the game progressed I realized it was more valuable to stay in republic to tech and switch at communism. Communism outclasses feudalism hard. Might have had to do with the difficulty level. I was being boated a lot and needed rails badly.
Thank you man for teaching us how to use republic. I tried it while bearing in mind your instructions (not to have excessive defensive units in the core of the empire and have cities size 7+) and it was awesome. I really enjoyed it. I was much ahead in tech than my opponents and yet had a decent army to have small wars (monarch difficulty). And all that even that I wasted my golden age as some stupid AI attacked my hoplite for now reason early in the game. PS. At some point as the empire grows I think it worth switching to communism.
Depends how you're closing out the game. If you're closing out via domination (good) or 100k culture (bleh) then definitely switch. If you're closing out the game by diplo, or space race, then definitely stay in republic. On low difficulties, the safety of communism maybe be better than the tech speed of republic. But as difficulty goes up, the AI will start out-teching you if you go communism. So they'll beat you to spaceship parts, to the UN, and they'll roll over other AIs with the new techs they have, making things more risky for you.
The governor just uses entertainers, right? This is part of the issue I was talking about at 7:30. If a citizen is an entertainer, then it's not assigned to a tile, and not generating food, commerce, or shields for a city. But the citizen still eats 2 food per turn. This means that growth either stops, or slows dramatically. This causes a lot of different problems. The one I mentioned here is that in monarchy and republic, cities size 7+ increase the unit cap, causing significant savings (especially in republic, since the cost for exceeding the unit cap is doubled in republic). The best ways to fix happiness problems are luxuries, military police, and the happiness slider.
@ Aaron You can maybe try my approach. I am somehow in between of manual and automatic. When I am at city screen, and click on the very central (city) tile, the Governor automatically place people where he thinks it's best. If I see 1 or 2 entertainer, it's an alarm for me, so I increase the luxury, and then I check again how Governor distribute them, meanwhile I am planing a ways to hook up some luxury recourse, and depending on situations, sometimes I let entertainer to be in the city, if my worker needs few turns to make road to specific city. Why increase luxury for whole nation, if only one city needs road to it? It is stuff like that you need to watch out.
@@bobankrsmanovic9398 Yeah. The luxury slider is incredibly efficient. But as you point out, it's a uniform rate across you're whole country. If they let you let the slider per city you'd never need anything else.
Please answer my question, why you're always choosing republic, as far i understand you're choosing republic because of deposition penalty but in return the issue with republic if you exceeded the units cap so it will be huge pain to pay -2 for each unit , so i won't be able to build many units like in deposition so it makes me leave the cities with no unit to protect
Maybe a useful way of using Fascism is if you are a Religious civ, have a ton of workers and just discovered railroad. You switch fast to fascism and use that 200% work efficiency to rail road your entire empire and then go back to another government. Maybe?
You lose a bunch of population when you switch to fascism. And 2 turns of anarchy means you lose a bunch of shields too. You could just build like 1-2 worker in each city instead of switching. Plus you'd have to tech fascism. The AI overvalues government techs, so buying it off them would cost an arm and a leg. Either way, you're usually going to get steam power 20 turns before you'd ever get fascism. And those first 20 turns of railroads is the most important, it links your whole empire together. It's a cool idea, but I don't think I could find a situation where it would be really beneficial. This is just in single player though. In future start multiplayer, it's viable to go fascism if you spawn near coal + iron for the fast rails.
I struggle with using Republic. I find my corruption stays the same and I struggle with happiness problems because I can't afford military police. I use the happiness slider but it means I have to decrease science funding so I fall back in tech once I switch to Republic. Am I doing something wrong?
It's ok if you can only run 50% science in republic. If you can only run 20%, then you have a problem. Yes, republic has no military police. But if you have the happiness slider at 10-20%, the extra gold from republic will be funneled to happiness, which should balance things out. You probably won't want to have a ton of defensive units in republic anyway. You should usually be able to not exceed the unit support cap by more than 20%, although being under it is ideal. So if the cap is 50, you should normally be able to limit yourself to 60 units.
@@maryren7894 50% in republic is better than 70% in despotism, because you get more gold in republic. In the long term, trade for luxuries and build markets. That'll solve your happiness problems.
Suede i wish i could give you a donut in return for the great time watching your videos. Thanks to you i actually value free time more than i did before. Anywayyy... i once saw your all time top 10 scores and your number 1 was on *Chieftain* and was over 30K?? Do i remember wrong or how in the world did you do that. I'll delete this comment once you answer, im such a spammer
Don't delete comments, it's good for the channel engagement hahah I don't know. It might have been this one www.reddit.com/r/civ3/comments/e2sej2/suede_tried_hard_but_gets_massacred_obliterated/ Could have also been a high score game I downloaded and retired.
@@suedeciviii7142 i have a very broken internet on my phone and i can't open links. But thanks anyway :P and okay sure i wont delete them. Glad you like them
I tried communism on a huge map with 200 cities and had a courthouse in 80% of them. I was still having terrible corruption. Why does the civilopedia speak of the corruption in communism as a positive thing? Or does it increase the more cities i have? Because i tell you i had so many cities that the number 4 appeared behind the names
Try to strategically put Palace, Forbidden Palace and Secret Police HQ among those cities. Secret Police HQ is Communism only small wonder(doesn't work in other goverment types). Those can reduce corruption pritty much. However, if I am not wrong, more cities brings more corruption as well as unhappines. So communism + courthouses along with anti-corruption small wonders are not allmighty with big number of cities(like in your case ~200).
Feudalism is an underrated government for higher difficulty levels. You should only grow like 7 core cities for production, rest are small towns with scientists or else they'd be corrupt anyway. Here is where Feudalism's 5 per town unit support shines, you get to have a massive army and not pay for it.
Yeah. Monarchy is good for fighting, but it's difficult to support stacks the way you can in despotism. 2/4/8 unit support is a definite downgrade. Feudalism is like despotism without the despotism penalty. War weariness is an issue for sure, but at higher difficulty levels, you should have a lot of experience dealing with it. And with bigger stacks, it's easier to fight quicker wars. :)
@@suedeciviii7142 Whenever you are ready for another shot at Sid difficulty on standard sized map I'd be all over it. Just finished a 48 hour game where I thought I had it as I made it to railroads and built up a stack of 100 artillery. But then it turned out the enemy had 10 times more units than I expected, so pissed off lol:)
@@nurmikoil1103 If I do it will probably be on stream. It's like a 8 hour time commitment and even if I hit late game I might not win. And if I don't win I don't want to post it.
@@suedeciviii7142 on stream you mean twitch or where do you stream? It's still entertaining to watch even if you lose, not knowing the outcome adds some spice. I liked watching that archipelago game as Byzantines that you played.
I stream on twitch. www.twitch.tv/suedecivIII Yeah, I generally don't like spoilers when I watch things. But people have acted disappointed in the past when I post losing games, so I avoid it. Also many losses aren't obvious. The byzantine game is a good example. I didn't lose any cities or anything, I just clearly lacked any ability to close out the game. I can see that in advance, but many new players might not understand why I'm giving up.
Governments are one of those things I sometimes think about when I ponder what I would change if I ever made my own mod. I feel like Feudalism would be straight up balanced if you removed the war weariness and added some small perk, like 10 or 20 % enslave chance to create new worker when you kill enemy unit (it would kinda make sense, historically - when you conquer new lands, you get more serfs to work for you). Or something else. It would be a perfect government for warmongers. Use forced labor to keep population under 7 in most of your cities and wage endless wars with your neverending stream of new units. The way it is now, it is just completely useless, aside from some niche strategies. As for Monarchy, which would now lose its "government for warmongers" status, I would add some diplomacy benefits. A lot of Monarchs in history were related, and also, when a king or queen were strong, they had a better diplomatic standings with other nations, so again, it would make sense historically. For exemple, AI would agree to more favorable trades, and they would be more likely to enter diplomatic agreements, like mutual protection pact or military alliance. To make democracy a bit more worthwhile researching and switching to, I would probably add some bonuses to science (like 10 % increased output) or happiness bonuses. This way IMO, Republic, Monarchy, Feudalism and Democracy would be completely balanced, as well as Communism (the spies, Secret Police HQ, the system of communal corruption and high unit support are a big enough advantage as they are). As for Fascism, I have no idea how to redeem that one, it's a complete clusterfuck. Maybe at least add some significant bonuses for production when you're in a wartime mobilization?
Yeah they gave it all kinds of custom mechanics that make it match real life. Killing population when you switch, no culture until you have a cultural majority, etc. And they're all downsides! How cool could the other governments be if they used that kind of power to make a government that doesn't suck.
@@suedeciviii7142 It's amusing because of how they seem to have mellowed out in the most recent entries. I'm not saying that they are now implying Fascism is a good form of government, but at least give it some balanced benefits and downsides for balance purposes, now making it more a military indoctrinated regime rather than just mass genocide
@@suedeciviii7142 wierd, my favorite goverment is fasism (in civ 3 mean ). And I once won on sid ^^, with some reloads though. I gues my playstyle and game rules just match fasism
I really, really wish you'd stop taking big throaty gulps of water when you're right next to the mic. Its like listening to someone chew their food - very gross. Like, mute your mic or, for the love of god, just turn away from the mic for a moment
Hey, no need to be rude, but yes absolutely. These were amateur videos and I find it uncomfortable to watch them now. I'm in the process of remaking them. As for muting the mic, at the time I did not have an interface capable of that. I do now.
Suede CivIII I’m not elite at the game or anything but it’s the only gov that I can build massive armies/no war weariness and my capital city doesn’t have corruption. The corruption to captured cities and the cultural defect isn’t a problem because I instantly slave the population to build cultural improvements and all my squares are invested into growing the population that I then slave to build whatever I want making shield corruption negligible. As a bonus faster workers (meh) and military police limit of 4
@@owenkile6042 Fair point. I guess if you didn't build many cities, the benefits communism has to production wouldn't apply. So in that sense, fascism would function as an upgraded monarchy. More unit support, faster workers, more military police, and slightly lower corruption. And as you've attested, the drawbacks aren't super huge. Although I still think the anarchy is bad, and losing population in your core cities when you switch is too. I still think communism is strictly superior in theory, but fascism could be a lot easier to use in practice.
@@owenkile6042 you saying that is perfectly fine, facism is great if ur mediocre at the game the thing is at the end game u are suppose to have huge army which means u need to monarchy or facism or communism and no war weariness those are ur 3 choices facism is good for u if u are so bothered by corruption me personally just build factories to make up the slack with monarchy its not a big deal u suppose to have forbidden anyway just learn to play and ull b able to use monarchy as well it is better then facism u can hurry production with gold
The governments are honestly one of the most important parts of civ.
@Matthew Familia Only when you've stopped expanding.
I used to think democracy was the best, and then I stopped playing on chieftain.
My favorite thing to do is selling or gifting Democracy to rivals. Then I mobilize on them when they go through anarchy. Afterwards, they will be using Democracy but the war weariness is too much so they go right back to anarchy. 😆 They just enjoy switching governments a little too much.
I've used Fascism for one Faction only, Germany, go figure right? I've found that when using fascism, you will need to have a well established country before switching to fascism.With this being said, you can declare huge major wars with many fronts, and the war weariness comes in handy and the extra unit count helps out a lot. I have a game where my unit count was over 700 and in war with almost every faction in the game and still held my own. Some AI countries had huge armies as well (spying on them.) The "culture" issue isn't really a major problem, especially if you 1) slave labor the population to whatever you want to build within that city (I find this way to be a bit slow, but it starts to coring process earlier than...) 2) Starving the population for its money. As in making the population very useless, but just for money purposes (switching them from happiness person to a tax collector) and make all of the population as a tax collector and if its a bigger city with a pop. of 10+, it creates a ton of money for a few turns, until the pop. dies out. (Yes its only a temporary thing.) Especially when you have a well formed empire already, with your core major cities outputting the necessary needs for your war time. You can use this money to either fund for better tech times (increasing the tech slider) or increasing the happiness slider, both of which only benefits your core empire, it wont benefit the front line cities aka the cities that you've taken. But once you killed off 90% of the population by taxing them (yes I know, cruel) you can start to populate the city that you took and "core" it into your own empire. Adding your cultural influence at the same time. The only down side to 2) is that your new cities will have to start from pop 1 and work their way up, but usually doesn't take long to grow, and core. So if you use Fascism, you'll have to be in constant wars, and in late game scenarios, you'll have major alliances forming around, which forms major wars. My core cities are the size of 20+ pop. so I'm not entirely sure where the killing of my population happens, unless you're talking about the purging, but I'm no expert on this game and I found that this way is the easiest, for me at least, to play this government type.
What difficulty are u playing on?
@@sebastianbob3393 Regent, I've tried Monarch a couple of times too, and get shat on late game lol
one way to balance facism (Imho) would be if there was a national wonder exclusive to facist civs (like secret police HQ for commies) called a concentration camp, that would allow you to guarantee that pop lost to hurrying would use up foreign citizens first (mabye continental effects only).
inb4 this is considered hate speech, this is just an idea for a historically accurate game concept calm down youtube.
@@sirzorg5728 hehehe a clever idea, I must admit
@@sirzorg5728 It still wouldn't be anywhere worth. The best balance would be just to do away with the pop loss upon switching. Otherwise monarchy is still a better deal because the tech while optional is cheap late game unlike fascism.
I have noticed that nearly all warring AI civs exclusively use Fascism under most Dom/Conq Victory conditions when it needs to go for the 3 movement unit/tank rushes throughout the industrial era.
That being said I think the crappy governments (fascism, democracy, feudalism) were made less for the human player and more to give an edge to the AI on higher difficulties with their brief anarchies.
I’m currently going through my military advisor in the industrial era and, as always, every Civ except for myself is either fascist or democratic.
Bro, not sure why it took me twenty years to try and do it properly, but I finally opted to use a Republic style of government and it ROCKS!!! I always opted for Monarchy to aid me in the wars I engage in towards the end of the ancient era but this time I opted for Republic and my economy has been booming ever since. I can afford tons of military units, the corruption is minor and I now control at least 24 cities after taking them from my rivals. I am now seeking to expand to another continent but my have to change the government style into something else.. or fuq it, will conquer the distant cities and let them rot in corruption, who cares? My main systems remain boom megalopolises!!
So yeah, thanks for the advice man, you sir are a gem!!
I'm glad it's working well for you! The skill cap on republic is high too. So as you get better at playing with fewer units or growing your cities earlier, you'll have an even stronger economy.
In conquest (and in permanent war) the best goverment is Communism on large maps and Fasism on smaller maps. Also when i play religious civs, I switch to fasism when it's time to spam your motherland with railroads, the 2x work effectiveness gives you HUGE advantages. Then you can switch to Communism or whatever you like.
A lot of the functions in the first few minutes are restricted to certain Civics in Civ4 (e.g. Drafting only under Nationhood, Worker speed only changed by Feudalism). Certainly something Civ3 veterans can cite as an example of sequel streamlining.
7:40 A digression on Unit Support.
Hi. I love your videos. I consider Civ. III the best game of the series, and getting to master it is a challenge. Please, could you make a video that deals in detail with the trade of technologies, luxuries and resources in C3C?
Yup. I'm going to do a video a diplomacy and reputation.
Best of the series? What?
This reminds me of Civ 4, in that half your options are terrible and a quarter are super hard to use.
I guess it is kinda randomly asking but do anyone know a good site to watch new movies online ?
@@gaelangelo1828 the pirate bay
Fascism is good in modern start and future start because the worker speed buff is very relevant
Could you please make a tutorial about corruption, and explain in details how the corruption works in Civ3? Is it important how far the Forbidden Palace should be built? Thank you!
You have two kinds of corruption and they are additive, so even if you reduce one kind the other might be enough to push the city into uselessness. They are Distance Corruption and Rank Corruption. Distance Corruption is the one you are more familiar with, simply put the more distant a city is from your Capital the more corrupt it is. However this kind can be reduced, since the Forbidden Palace counts as your Capital for calculations of Distance Corruption.
The second kind is Rank Corruption and very little can reduce it. It is the corruption that grows the more cities you have. It also grows as you get more distant from your Capital but the Forbidden Palace only gives a small flat reduction to it. Furthermore there is a number the Optimal Number of Cities that depends on Map Size and Difficulty. Once your cross the ONC Rank Corruption grows drastically.
In conclusion to minimize corruption you want your empire to be rectangular shaped, where one half of the rectangle is your original homeland with its productive cities and the other half of the rectangle is your 2nd homeland, centered on the Forbidden Palace which your probably got by conquering a neighbour. Unless you are going for world conquest and Communism you stop there and just peacefully develop until the win. Because any cities outside this rectangle can increase Rank Corruption within the rectangle unless you are careful. Basically it is safe to take any city that is further away from your Capital than any city within the rectangle, those distant cities won't worsen rank corruption of your new and old core cities. That is the best use of the FP, carving out a new homeland. But alternatively you can put it really far away and still get a good city, since FP sets max corruption to 90%, but what is one great city compared to a whole new core region. Enjoy ;)
Great video, could you upload a video on your favourite civs from worst to best. I’m starting to get back into civ 3 and I’m really curious on your opinions of each of the civs .
Yup! It's a big project, but now that I'm done the unique unit video it should be easier to do.
Considering how much I war, all my efforts to use Republic or Democracy just cause frustration. I spend so much gold balancing happiness and covering military costs that the economic/technology benefits are sunk. Keeping to Monarchy allows for military police, negates war wariness, and leaves my economy to focus on technology. I just lure my foes into embargoing and warring each other, snipe cities, stage to hit nations weakened from recent wars, and build up gold for rapid construction and espionage.
Another solid instructional viddy. Good to know Despotism penalty also applies during a GA. Bummer. Now I know why the Romans with their Legionary aren't so hot; have to wait until you get out of Despotism before using 'em to full effect.
The good news about legionaires is they're the same price as pikeman, but with +2 attack. So they are quite handy in the medieval era.
@@suedeciviii7142 If you're able to have a really good start, legionary rushes can totally crush most people who don't have a defense that's built up too much. In my experience, at least
@@zombied3stroy3r9gaming4 So can sword rushes though. The extra point in defense doesn't offer much aside from very marginal resistance to defensive bombard, and a little protection for your stack. But at that era, the AI won't be attacking into units you send into their land much.
@@suedeciviii7142 Yeah, it's just fun to do things sometimes. I'm someone who plays entirely casually, using what I think is fun but still effective. Of course, this all doesn't account for the scenario specific legionaries that can also build roads and progressively improve.
@@zombied3stroy3r9gaming4 I'll say they are very good units to have around, and a great way to invest your early golden age shields. They just don't conquer any faster.
I have some important insight into Civ3 5 years after this vid was posted:
"Hurry method" reads like "Horny method" on 360p.
Thank you for reading my analysis.
Very important analysis! I'm re-making this video at some point, hopefully is stays as saucy as it currently is
Hey Suede, hear me out on this and tell me what you think: is feudalism better than monarchy if played correctly?
The other drawback is that in monarchy you have to pay gold to hurry production. That's tough because in monarchy you generally don't have much gold. But you get the higher unit support. However, played correctly feudalism has even higher unit support. Further, you can use forced labor to keep populations low to keep the unit support up. Additionally, any newly conquered cities add a tremendous amount of unit support instead of being a drain on your civilization.
Now if you're going peaceful builder then absolutely go republic. But if you're going to be in constant war, go feudalism and use that happiness slider to deal with war weariness which with low populations ought not be too much of an expense.
Now my case for fascism is when you have big cities and are going to war then go fash for the unit support. I'm usually fighting wars of attrition at this point, destroying enemy infrastructure and razing cities that I conquer so that I don't have to deal with culture flipping. With fascism using this strategy I can have a bigger military, and I avoid the culture issues by building new cities. The worker efficiency makes new infrastructure builds for those cities much faster.
That's just my 2 cents but hey, maybe I'm just a contrarian.
If you're relying on the happiness slider to deal with war weariness, you'd be better off in monarchy (or republic). The real trick is manipulating war weariness to keep levels manageable, while still accomplishing your war goals.
You're right that in theory, feudalism has a lot of advantages over Monarchy. It's definitely a viable government, but suffers from the issue of being difficult to use. Republic is too, but republic has a lot more tangible benefits up front.
I’ve had to use feudalism a couple of times where I spawn in poor terrain and am surrounded by aggressive Civs.
Regarding the commerce bonus and corruption.
Corruption just means the double effect isn't quite as good, compared to a no corruption government that doesn't exist.
It's also like the only upside that impacts your capital instantly
I just got into civ but decades ago an acquaintance in high school explained to why feudalism isn't viable. He said that by the time you research feudalism, you don't want feudalism. Feudalism would be a great government to have in the early game to help grow your towns but by the time you access it, all your towns are mostly cities and therefore it's not a good idea to have feudalism and just go for Republic or Monarchy.
If your civ is underdeveloped, go Feudalism. Switch later once your civ is fully developed. I made it work in the past.
The use I have for the Demonitized Government is long drawn out late game wars where mass armies work a bit better. I also tend to switch into it from Democracy after amassing huge funds. And culture flipping only seems like an issue that could be solved by leaving some units outside recently beaten citys or just raze them and move in your own settlers.
I've used Democracy to great effect when I'm religious on every difficulty level short of Deity/Sid (where I just went Feudalism and knight stacks -- only did it once of Deity/Sid each, it's not much fun).
Typically an AI civ will do the research for me, and the 150% worker speed is very useful for pumping out those railroads which practically guarantees you faster production than the AI for at least the first half of the industrial era.
Sorry addendum -- the reason I need the extra worker speed is bc when I'm playing a peaceful game the Republic's unit cap can make it VERY hard to maintain the optimal 1.5 workers per city without the AI declaring war on me and cutting off my luxury supplies.
I'm not sure if this same strat would work on Deity/Sid since I normally have to conquer or die on those difficulties so science/diplo isn't an option, and I don't know if it's necessary to win since the difficulty isn't too high, but it certainly makes life easier.
I'll just stick to Monarchy primarily throughout the game just to avoid the micromanaging, war weariness, and hurry method/forced labor penalties.
I would like to see you play a game with what you consider the worst civ combined with the worst government :)
Hey suede, could you please make a video explaining accelerated production in detail please? I've never chosen it for a lack of understanding. Cheers!!
Hi ..I m watching your videos .. very helpful .. I m using republic much more … but keep getting lots of unhappy spaces .. I tried making library’s and market ..u say better than temples ..not working …what am I doing wrong ..thx buddy
Markets only work if you have a lot of luxuries. Trade with the enemy civs for luxuries.
I do feel you are underselling Fascism a bit. It is really good in certain scenarios. Like when you decide to go militaristic but you only have a small country. The huge unit support will do wonders for you, 10 for metropolises? Nuts. Worker speed will help with rails and reordering lands you conquer. You can tank the pop loss before you get hospitals and it will be a total non-factor. You just taxstarve/forcelabour cities you conquer and use railed irrigations to rapidly repopulate with your own people, it is even darkly fitting to the govt. Now, admittedly I play with cultural conversions turned off so those 1-3 stragglers will not cause flips from across the map.
Plus with Nuisance corruption and proper city placement as I told you, with a rectangular shape of your country and the Forbidden Palace serving to make a 2nd core you can have a lot of productivity in the civ. And cities you take beyond that, ones that are terminally corrupt, you can turn into tax cities. Basically focus on Food, grow them to massive sizes and turn excess people into tax collectors or scientists, allowing an awful city to be fairly useful with 30-40pop each, and ofc it provides 10 unit support allowing for some monster armies, I once had 1000 unit support. But you don't have to go that extreme, you can conquer and go into Rep/Dem or into Commie for truly massive productivity. Try it out sometime, you might be surprised.
In Civ 1 democracy was bonkers if you are aiming to peace, since it negates corruption, although if you were doing war republic is a better option, since democracy dont let you declare war, and if a unit is out of its home city, the home city gets very unhappy (2 unhappy citizens, can be reduced to one with the universal suffrage wonder, still if you use republic you can build the suffrage wonder and negate that problem entirely [republic suffers that same penalty as democracy, except it is only 1 so it can be reduced to 0], and republic iirc had just slightly more corruption than democracy, still democracy makes you a lot of money
Edit: the unhappiness penalty doesnt apply to settlers
Also, and I understand your video got made with the human player in mind, so this makes for a tangent of sorts, feudalism, and especially fascism end up better for the AIs. I think we saw that the AIs don't end up always running a 100% science rate on Sid (I've seen this more), and Sid level AIs can run into unit support issues (though they do get some free unit support, I'm not sure it's enough to last all that long). So, something like fascism has more benefits to them.
This happened to me by accident but you can get a 1 turn anarchy if it happens during your golden age! also would like to submit my saves for analysis too if that is possible! :D
I've never heard of or seen that. Could you send a save where that happens?
suedeciviii@gmail.com
Feel free to send one for analysis, especially saves that are hopeless or unwinnable
@@suedeciviii7142 will try to replicate it. i forgot what save that was on hahaha!
@@anotharoundboi People on civfanatics always say "don't switch governments during your golden age". But it a GA knocks 1 turn off anarchy it might be worth it.
Feudalism is a great governement if you're playing on a tiny, small or standard map and plan to win by domination/conquest by the end of middle ages. Just research chivalry and slave yourself a massive army. I just had a really fun game as Japan - by the end, I had an army of like 150 samurais, including 7 armies, just rampaging around the world, and still about 100 unit cap remaining. Of course I barely reached metallurgy and didn't even touch the upper branch of tech tree (I captured Temple of Artemis, so I stayed away from education... until I accidentally captured the Great Library a few turns before the end, lol), because I had to spend all my money to keep citizens from rioting and even then I usually had to use entertainers in the worst cities. Obviously a horrible governement in the long run, because it will completely mess up your growth, but it has its uses :)
I'm guessing you play accelerated production?
@@suedeciviii7142 No, no, this was regular production. Although it was on monarch, I never played higher.
Maybe Feudalism could work with a developed core and an outer ring(s) of small towns. The center can do useful stuff like wonders, special buildings etc., while the rest is there for the mass. So c-x-x-c in the center, maybe even c-x-x-x-c, and after that c-x-c all the time like a mad man.
Definitely
@@suedeciviii7142 will Test it on Monarch.
I think the number of military units also contributes. More military means shorter anarchies. Or it could just be from the lower pop. Anyhow if you have nationalism, draft some rifleman /infantry.
More military does not mean shorter anarchy. More military provide military police, and they put down resistance faster. But they don't effect anarchy length.
Democracy with full on entertainment (happiness improvements) is something you can do in civ 6 but in civ 3 just doesn’t work without moving the slider. I honestly don’t understand why
when invading and dropping settlers, i tend to build a temple first, and usually rush it 2nd turn, to get my borders growing. have any videos on what a decent building build order should be when taking enemy cities or dropping new ones?
That's sensible, if you're worried about culture flips. Not really, it's not of huge importance. Usually they're so corrupt that it doesn't matter, but if they're not then just treat it like a city you built.
If a captured city has a lot of tourism income you definitely want a courtouse.
Something important about Communism: it brings the Despotism penalty back. That what the Civilopedia means when it says it limits commerce. Every tile that produces three or more commerce produces one less. Since you didn't mention it I thought I'd put it here.
That's not the case. Check it yourself. What they mean by "limiting commerce" is you don't get the commerce bonus that you get in democracy or republic. But you'll still have more commerce than anarchy/despotism since there's no despotism penalty.
I tried different governments and I think that for a big empire a good suite is communisme. High unit support and good production. Quite frankly I didn't notice that it is worse at commerce than republic/democracy. Yes, republic government produces more gold but often it is spent on corruption, happiness slider and unit support. Corruption is higher on republic and democracy and it can even just end with one shield production cities on the edge of empire whereas you will not see such in communisme. But I have to mention that I am not an experienced player. I do my games on monarch difficulty.
what map size/ water percent do you play with?
@@suedeciviii7142 Standard map size. Continents 60% or 70% water. Also tried with pangea 60% water of standard map size.
@@ЕленаЕвграфова-ш7ф On 70% water, unless you've conquered half the map, you'll have significantly more commerce in republic as long as you don't have war weariness, and are managing your economy well.
On 60% water, it's possible that with 1/3 of the map you might come close to republic's commerce.
I have a feeling the game calculates war weariness penalties different in only single player games and games made in LAN(with ai only). Since I mostly play democracy, I never have problems with being constant in a aggresive war in LAN games, while playing in single player. I get fucked over by the unhappiness immediately.
Do you have a video on making the civilizations for CIV III? I made two civilizations for but on the diplomacy screen when you hit trade the civilization screen is blank, or black, whichever you want to call it.
This video absolutely will not answer your question but it may be interesting to you anyway, it explains why doing what you're doing is so hard.
th-cam.com/video/sxfv4X_iDNQ/w-d-xo.html
The easiest way to do what you want is to just replace a civ that already exists in the game.
@@suedeciviii7142 apparently I can make one civilization and the game works, but the trade screen for that civilization is blank if I make two civilizations in a scenario and click on trade of one of the Civilizations that have made the game locks up.
@@suedeciviii7142 I didn't see any thing in there about what I was doing but ill look again.
At 04:28 you talk about workers in anarchy. Let's say you are in government with 100% worker speed and you want to work a task that takes 12 base turns. You work 2 turns and have 10 to go. Then you switch to anarchy at 50% speed. You work 4 turns and have 8 base turns to go. Then you switch to a government with 100% speed. You work 8 turns and finish the task. Is that the way it works?
Something like that. I think the rounding might be generous.
In future start multiplayer, chopping takes 4 turns in anarchy, 2 turns in republic. If you start chopping the turn before coming out of anarchy, it will complete the next turn. So in two turns total.
@@suedeciviii7142 OK, cool.
According to Civilopedia Democracy has a bonus both in commerce and production, I couldn't find out what's exactly this "production bonus" and you didn't mention it on the video, so appreciate if you could answer that.
It has less corruption, so that would have a (very marginal) effect on production.
Maybe they're referring to the increased worker speed?
There's nothing mechanically in the game that allows you to assign higher production to a government other than those two mechanisms.
I like fascism when I've built a tech and size lead over enemy civs and just want to wipe them out without actually expanding much. I don't know if it's actually better than monarchy for that, I'm experimenting with late game monarchy at the moment
Aside from the weird penalties to population, fascism is pretty much strictly better than monarchy. But monarchy is awful too.
Feudalism is great for a 100k game. You whip in culture in ICS spaced towns quicker than you could buy them in that many cities. That said, 100k games almost surely ends up the rarest victory condition, other than histographic.
I did a game like that as Egypt for the channel. The plan was feudalism when it started, but as the game progressed I realized it was more valuable to stay in republic to tech and switch at communism. Communism outclasses feudalism hard.
Might have had to do with the difficulty level. I was being boated a lot and needed rails badly.
Too much revolts can put you into anarchy?
Thank you man for teaching us how to use republic. I tried it while bearing in mind your instructions (not to have excessive defensive units in the core of the empire and have cities size 7+) and it was awesome. I really enjoyed it. I was much ahead in tech than my opponents and yet had a decent army to have small wars (monarch difficulty). And all that even that I wasted my golden age as some stupid AI attacked my hoplite for now reason early in the game.
PS. At some point as the empire grows I think it worth switching to communism.
Depends how you're closing out the game. If you're closing out via domination (good) or 100k culture (bleh) then definitely switch. If you're closing out the game by diplo, or space race, then definitely stay in republic.
On low difficulties, the safety of communism maybe be better than the tech speed of republic. But as difficulty goes up, the AI will start out-teching you if you go communism. So they'll beat you to spaceship parts, to the UN, and they'll roll over other AIs with the new techs they have, making things more risky for you.
Incredibly helpful.
What’s your opinion on making the governor manage the citizens moods for you? i usually do that and pay no attention to the happiness slider
The governor just uses entertainers, right?
This is part of the issue I was talking about at 7:30. If a citizen is an entertainer, then it's not assigned to a tile, and not generating food, commerce, or shields for a city. But the citizen still eats 2 food per turn. This means that growth either stops, or slows dramatically.
This causes a lot of different problems. The one I mentioned here is that in monarchy and republic, cities size 7+ increase the unit cap, causing significant savings (especially in republic, since the cost for exceeding the unit cap is doubled in republic).
The best ways to fix happiness problems are luxuries, military police, and the happiness slider.
@ Aaron
You can maybe try my approach. I am somehow in between of manual and automatic. When I am at city screen, and click on the very central (city) tile, the Governor automatically place people where he thinks it's best. If I see 1 or 2 entertainer, it's an alarm for me, so I increase the luxury, and then I check again how Governor distribute them, meanwhile I am planing a ways to hook up some luxury recourse, and depending on situations, sometimes I let entertainer to be in the city, if my worker needs few turns to make road to specific city.
Why increase luxury for whole nation, if only one city needs road to it?
It is stuff like that you need to watch out.
@@bobankrsmanovic9398 Yeah. The luxury slider is incredibly efficient. But as you point out, it's a uniform rate across you're whole country.
If they let you let the slider per city you'd never need anything else.
Where do we send you save files at?
Nowadays it's best to post them to the "check out my game" channel of the discord.
discord.gg/cRZbqBvWKP
Please answer my question, why you're always choosing republic, as far i understand you're choosing republic because of deposition penalty but in return the issue with republic if you exceeded the units cap so it will be huge pain to pay -2 for each unit , so i won't be able to build many units like in deposition so it makes me leave the cities with no unit to protect
Not quite. The reason I choose republic is because of the commerce bonus. See my "Intermediate tips" video for more details :)
Maybe a useful way of using Fascism is if you are a Religious civ, have a ton of workers and just discovered railroad. You switch fast to fascism and use that 200% work efficiency to rail road your entire empire and then go back to another government. Maybe?
You lose a bunch of population when you switch to fascism. And 2 turns of anarchy means you lose a bunch of shields too. You could just build like 1-2 worker in each city instead of switching.
Plus you'd have to tech fascism. The AI overvalues government techs, so buying it off them would cost an arm and a leg.
Either way, you're usually going to get steam power 20 turns before you'd ever get fascism. And those first 20 turns of railroads is the most important, it links your whole empire together.
It's a cool idea, but I don't think I could find a situation where it would be really beneficial.
This is just in single player though. In future start multiplayer, it's viable to go fascism if you spawn near coal + iron for the fast rails.
I struggle with using Republic. I find my corruption stays the same and I struggle with happiness problems because I can't afford military police. I use the happiness slider but it means I have to decrease science funding so I fall back in tech once I switch to Republic. Am I doing something wrong?
It's ok if you can only run 50% science in republic. If you can only run 20%, then you have a problem.
Yes, republic has no military police. But if you have the happiness slider at 10-20%, the extra gold from republic will be funneled to happiness, which should balance things out. You probably won't want to have a ton of defensive units in republic anyway.
You should usually be able to not exceed the unit support cap by more than 20%, although being under it is ideal. So if the cap is 50, you should normally be able to limit yourself to 60 units.
@@suedeciviii7142 Thanks so much. How do you stop yourself from falling behind on tech if you're only tech-ing at 50%?
@@maryren7894 50% in republic is better than 70% in despotism, because you get more gold in republic.
In the long term, trade for luxuries and build markets. That'll solve your happiness problems.
You know what's better than republic? 52 bombers.
They aren't mutually exclusive my friend
@@suedeciviii7142 true true. Even better is a Republic with 52 bombers :D
Suede i wish i could give you a donut in return for the great time watching your videos. Thanks to you i actually value free time more than i did before.
Anywayyy... i once saw your all time top 10 scores and your number 1 was on *Chieftain* and was over 30K?? Do i remember wrong or how in the world did you do that.
I'll delete this comment once you answer, im such a spammer
Don't delete comments, it's good for the channel engagement hahah
I don't know. It might have been this one
www.reddit.com/r/civ3/comments/e2sej2/suede_tried_hard_but_gets_massacred_obliterated/
Could have also been a high score game I downloaded and retired.
@@suedeciviii7142 i have a very broken internet on my phone and i can't open links. But thanks anyway :P and okay sure i wont delete them. Glad you like them
Do best civ booooyyyyyyyyyyy
For massive maps communism is best if you mass build courts and police then factory
Communism with ICS is the best! The first time I did this could beat Deity with the Iroquois (conquered the whole map).
I tried communism on a huge map with 200 cities and had a courthouse in 80% of them. I was still having terrible corruption. Why does the civilopedia speak of the corruption in communism as a positive thing? Or does it increase the more cities i have? Because i tell you i had so many cities that the number 4 appeared behind the names
Define "terrible"? 60%?
@@suedeciviii7142 well 8 corrupt shields out of 10 overall shields
Try to strategically put Palace, Forbidden Palace and Secret Police HQ among those cities.
Secret Police HQ is Communism only small wonder(doesn't work in other goverment types).
Those can reduce corruption pritty much.
However, if I am not wrong, more cities brings more corruption as well as unhappines.
So communism + courthouses along with anti-corruption small wonders are not allmighty with big number of cities(like in your case ~200).
Feudalism is an underrated government for higher difficulty levels. You should only grow like 7 core cities for production, rest are small towns with scientists or else they'd be corrupt anyway. Here is where Feudalism's 5 per town unit support shines, you get to have a massive army and not pay for it.
Yeah. Monarchy is good for fighting, but it's difficult to support stacks the way you can in despotism. 2/4/8 unit support is a definite downgrade.
Feudalism is like despotism without the despotism penalty. War weariness is an issue for sure, but at higher difficulty levels, you should have a lot of experience dealing with it. And with bigger stacks, it's easier to fight quicker wars. :)
@@suedeciviii7142 Whenever you are ready for another shot at Sid difficulty on standard sized map I'd be all over it. Just finished a 48 hour game where I thought I had it as I made it to railroads and built up a stack of 100 artillery. But then it turned out the enemy had 10 times more units than I expected, so pissed off lol:)
@@nurmikoil1103 If I do it will probably be on stream. It's like a 8 hour time commitment and even if I hit late game I might not win. And if I don't win I don't want to post it.
@@suedeciviii7142 on stream you mean twitch or where do you stream? It's still entertaining to watch even if you lose, not knowing the outcome adds some spice. I liked watching that archipelago game as Byzantines that you played.
I stream on twitch. www.twitch.tv/suedecivIII
Yeah, I generally don't like spoilers when I watch things. But people have acted disappointed in the past when I post losing games, so I avoid it.
Also many losses aren't obvious. The byzantine game is a good example. I didn't lose any cities or anything, I just clearly lacked any ability to close out the game. I can see that in advance, but many new players might not understand why I'm giving up.
Democracy is the best government in future era start. You gain huge advantages from having quick workers.
In the future start scenario, yeah, I'd believe it.
I hear about communism giving a production bonus, but haven't seen anyone say what that bonus actually is. Any ideas?
Reduced corruption, corruption includes wasted shields.
@@suedeciviii7142 Oh, that's it? Fair enough.
Governments are one of those things I sometimes think about when I ponder what I would change if I ever made my own mod.
I feel like Feudalism would be straight up balanced if you removed the war weariness and added some small perk, like 10 or 20 % enslave chance to create new worker when you kill enemy unit (it would kinda make sense, historically - when you conquer new lands, you get more serfs to work for you). Or something else. It would be a perfect government for warmongers. Use forced labor to keep population under 7 in most of your cities and wage endless wars with your neverending stream of new units. The way it is now, it is just completely useless, aside from some niche strategies.
As for Monarchy, which would now lose its "government for warmongers" status, I would add some diplomacy benefits. A lot of Monarchs in history were related, and also, when a king or queen were strong, they had a better diplomatic standings with other nations, so again, it would make sense historically. For exemple, AI would agree to more favorable trades, and they would be more likely to enter diplomatic agreements, like mutual protection pact or military alliance.
To make democracy a bit more worthwhile researching and switching to, I would probably add some bonuses to science (like 10 % increased output) or happiness bonuses.
This way IMO, Republic, Monarchy, Feudalism and Democracy would be completely balanced, as well as Communism (the spies, Secret Police HQ, the system of communal corruption and high unit support are a big enough advantage as they are).
As for Fascism, I have no idea how to redeem that one, it's a complete clusterfuck. Maybe at least add some significant bonuses for production when you're in a wartime mobilization?
lmao Based Republican moment!? viva la revolucion 9:37
Wished u did this for civ 6
"Fascism: This government is really, really, really bad."
Well gotta hand it to the devs, they really made it feel like fascism in real life
Yeah they gave it all kinds of custom mechanics that make it match real life. Killing population when you switch, no culture until you have a cultural majority, etc. And they're all downsides! How cool could the other governments be if they used that kind of power to make a government that doesn't suck.
@@suedeciviii7142 It's amusing because of how they seem to have mellowed out in the most recent entries. I'm not saying that they are now implying Fascism is a good form of government, but at least give it some balanced benefits and downsides for balance purposes, now making it more a military indoctrinated regime rather than just mass genocide
@@suedeciviii7142 wierd, my favorite goverment is fasism (in civ 3 mean ). And I once won on sid ^^, with some reloads though. I gues my playstyle and game rules just match fasism
@@aivarasaleksiejus7558 tell us about it, how are those rules and playstyle? thanks in advance
Just stick with republic
I really, really wish you'd stop taking big throaty gulps of water when you're right next to the mic. Its like listening to someone chew their food - very gross. Like, mute your mic or, for the love of god, just turn away from the mic for a moment
Hey, no need to be rude, but yes absolutely. These were amateur videos and I find it uncomfortable to watch them now. I'm in the process of remaking them.
As for muting the mic, at the time I did not have an interface capable of that. I do now.
@@suedeciviii7142 I'm sorry, I was just really wigged out when I commented
Facism is the best
Any particular reason? I admit I don't have much experience playing in it, but I really have trouble imagining what could make it worth choosing.
Suede CivIII I’m not elite at the game or anything but it’s the only gov that I can build massive armies/no war weariness and my capital city doesn’t have corruption. The corruption to captured cities and the cultural defect isn’t a problem because I instantly slave the population to build cultural improvements and all my squares are invested into growing the population that I then slave to build whatever I want making shield corruption negligible. As a bonus faster workers (meh) and military police limit of 4
@@owenkile6042 Fair point. I guess if you didn't build many cities, the benefits communism has to production wouldn't apply. So in that sense, fascism would function as an upgraded monarchy. More unit support, faster workers, more military police, and slightly lower corruption. And as you've attested, the drawbacks aren't super huge. Although I still think the anarchy is bad, and losing population in your core cities when you switch is too.
I still think communism is strictly superior in theory, but fascism could be a lot easier to use in practice.
Suede CivIII I agree, me saying fascism is the best is far from accurate haha
@@owenkile6042 you saying that is perfectly fine, facism is great if ur mediocre at the game the thing is at the end game u are suppose to have huge army which means u need to monarchy or facism or communism and no war weariness those are ur 3 choices facism is good for u if u are so bothered by corruption me personally just build factories to make up the slack with monarchy its not a big deal u suppose to have forbidden anyway just learn to play and ull b able to use monarchy as well it is better then facism u can hurry production with gold