Best Government

[thedestro]

Well due to the recent change with Monarchy, and the Environment effect, isn't Capitalist better than Monarchy now?

Capital is just like Monarchy except they don't have +1 happiness, but it has improved environment effects, and -5% wonder and improvement upkeep.

for reference: http://cybernations.net/about_topics.asp#Government_Type

Edited May 21, 2008 by thedestro

[SilverHawk]

I've been Captialist since it got the Bill discount. I'm ahead of the curve baby.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Federalist Government for bill paying/buying infra (since it also adds some protection with the +8% effective troops).

Democracy for collecting unless your people want monarchy, revolutionary, or totalitarian.

[thedestro]

Capitalist still beats those (disregarding the government desired by population)

[admin]

Federalist Government for bill paying/buying infra (since it also adds some protection with the +8% effective troops).

Democracy for collecting unless your people want monarchy, revolutionary, or totalitarian.

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

[Delta1212]

Of course, then you run into issues with the people who are playing to get the desired government type and guess incorrectly. If it takes them 10 days to get a second guess, you have a problem.

I wouldn't extend it past 5 for that reason, although even that might be pushing it a bit.

[Aeternos Astramora]

I'm not really sure how changing the 3-day restriction would affect others. My shortest collections are about 12 days long, so I can't say. However, I think 5 days should be the maximum if you did choose to change it.

I don't see how this would affect war very much. The only two real benefits from governments for wars is +10% spy attacks and +8% effective troops. However, both are fairly minor changes (the +10% spy attacks obviously being more important than the +8% effective troops though for larger nations).

And as for other events, I don't really know what other events would occur that would want someone to change governments.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Aeternos Astramora

[thedestro]

I would push for an increase, but for the government changes to be taken more seriously, it should be more than 5 days.

These days, you can pretty much tell when mass-war is possible to break out (for your own alliance that is). Thus, 5 days is too short, and is still pretty manipulable.

An increase, to 7 seven days (nice, solid week) is more risky, and it could play somewhat of a stronger role in CN politics, if alliances are trying to stall wars until they can get their aligned nations to switch to the desired 'war' government.

EDIT: But if in anarchy and at war, it should be lessened to 5 days.

Edited May 23, 2008 by thedestro

[CloudGT4]

Just another thing to keep the little man down in my opinion.. I wouldn't push for an increase.. but if there had to be one, no more then 5 should be sufficient.

[thedestro]

Where's your logic/info to back it up?

[Andre27]

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

I think the 3 day government switch restriction is fine. Making the restriction longer would frustrate novice players.

When starting to play, 3 days is already a long time.

The basic problem with the government effects is that, with the exception of environmental effects, there are only positive effects or lack of positive effects. No government gives any negative effects.

Anarchy: Only negative environmental effect.

Capitalist: positive environmental effect, plus 5% land, lower infra purchase cost and improvement/wonder upkeep.

etc.

There are no real negative effects.

If negative effects were added to the different governments then government swapping may become less profitable.

With the addition of negative effects one could think of:

* a % population drop

* negative land effect added to negative environmental effect (polluted soil)

* increased infra upkeep

* increased improvement/wonder upkeep

* negative income modifier (e.g. 3% less income)

As an addition to positive government effects (for balance purposes)one can think of:

* Positive defensive modifier

* Lower soldier count needed to prevent anarchy (secret effect for obvious reasons)

* Positive income modifier (e.g. 3% more income)

The trick would be to balance the "good" and "bad" for each government.

One last feature to be added can be "no government change during war" : this would also make the spy function more useful.

Edited May 21, 2008 by andre27

[SF Austin]

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

It would be fine, except in the case of anarchy, which would make wars even more one sided from a first strike. If you would drop the No anarchy to declear war requirement then i would be for it. Otherwise it favors the aggersor to much.

[Craven]

3 days is swell to me go any longer and I foresee issues.

[Syzygy]

It would be fine, except in the case of anarchy, which would make wars even more one sided from a first strike. If you would drop the No anarchy to declear war requirement then i would be for it. Otherwise it favors the aggersor to much.

Problem with that would be that people could self-anarchy the nation to chose another gov after 3 days . 5days of anarchy seems a bit harsh, but on the other hand it is quite hard nowadays to anarchy someone the conventional way, and nuclear anarchy is 5days+ anyway.

[JoshuaR]

Five days is a nice compromise.

[iMatt]

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

I would hesitate to change this. I think 3 days is a perfect number of days to make rulers think hard about switching governments and plan ahead for collections/war, etc. There is also that anarchy problem. I don't think anarchy should be any more than 3 days, but then there may be people self anarchying just to be able to change government sooner than the new restriction of say, 5 days.

(That said, I'd like to thank you for the recent updates. Any updates to the game will make for more interesting game play and a change from the ordinary. Keep the updates coming!)

[SilverHawk]

5 Days would be good ONLY if the description for desired government was made much more clear for the new players.

[SF Austin]

Problem with that would be that people could self-anarchy the nation to chose another gov after 3 days . 5days of anarchy seems a bit harsh, but on the other hand it is quite hard nowadays to anarchy someone the conventional way, and nuclear anarchy is 5days+ anyway.

It is quite easy to anarchy a nation during a war, Making them wait 5-10 days to leave anarchy to beable to declear on other nations makes the first strike extremly powerful as it would limit the counter offensive to a degree of laughability.

[MrCyber]

but on the other hand it is quite hard nowadays to anarchy someone the conventional way

Not really In our last war we anarchied 84% of our opponents in our first wave of attacks

ON TOPIC

I think 3 days is long enough and should not be extended. Especially for new players who collect daily this will be a pain if it gets extended. So my vote would be to not extend it

Edited May 22, 2008 by MrCyber

[Otto Verteidiger]

3 days is reasonable because that's how you stay in anarchy, unless you'd be able to change after 3 days still? (With say 5-10 days)

[JoshuaR]

Yeah, I change my mind. I prefer 3 days, but if increased, 5 days max.

[PussInBoots]

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

I would love to get it increased...

5 or 7 days would be ideal!

[deathcat]

I say keep it 3 because new players don't get it.. and I don't want to lose players because they start off with a poor choice. I would be open to a change say for any nation over 365 days old. That way the strategy for larger nations is increased.

[Steelrat]

My biggest concern is Anarchy, 3days are fine now to change your Government. I would instead go for adjusting the different Government types like someone else said before. Give the Governments more unique negative and positive effects.

In general war Governments should improve your war abilities while penalty your economy (note: economy not population as population plays a big role in war) and a war and a Spy Op Government should have even more economy penalties. Vice versa for peace Governments, the better you can improve your economy the worse your war/spy op abilities should be.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Steelrat

[sayton]

Not really In our last war we anarchied 84% of our opponents in our first wave of attacks

ON TOPIC

I think 3 days is long enough and should not be extended. Especially for new players who collect daily this will be a pain if it gets extended. So my vote would be to not extend it

Yea I would have to agree with everyone here in this saying. Even if you are fighting alone but attked pre and post update. YOu would still do the anarchy affects if you redployed after the first two attks at update. If you know how to dpeloy and arent affraid to deploy alittle too much you cdan always re buy and deploy again and anarchy easier..

as for the topic relation.. I think I will see what capalist brings.. after i get out of anarchy lol