Despotism to monarchy help

why when i switch form despotism to monarchy i am going fomr 20 to 30 plus to -10 or something same thing with republic i dont understand this

The free unit support per settlement is 4/4/4 in despotism and 2/4/8 in monarch.
The free unit support in republic is 0/0/0 in vanilla Civ3 nad PTW and 1/3/4 in Conquest.

these numbers stand for town/city/metropolis where
town = size 1-6
city = size 7-12
metropolis = size 13 and higher.

Example situation:
If you have 8 towns and 2 cities in despotism, you can have 40 units without paying gpt upkeep for them.
If you switch to monarchy, you can only have (8*2 +2*4) 24 units without paying gpt upkeep.
So if you had 30 units, you pay 0 upkeep for them in despotism and 6 gpt in monarchy.

If you have negative income you can solve this by lowering your science slider in the F1 screen a bit.

You can also elevate the cost somewhat by getting rid of useless units and growing more of your towns into cities.

The main advantage of getting away from despotism is that you lose the despotism penalty! this is usually well worth the reduction in free unit support per settlement, as it means you can grow and produce faster.

In conquest, units above the free support limit in republic will cost 2gpt per unit. And even 3gpt per unit in feudalism. In vanilla and PTW, units cost 1gpt in all governments.
The commerce bonus in republic is worth more than the free support though.

dont switch to monarchy, wait for feudalism = )

Skibatized said:

dont switch to monarchy, wait for feudalism = )

Click to expand...

I would strongly disagree with that statement. Just about the ONLY time you want to be in feudalism as a government is if you are going for a 100K cultural victory.

gmaharriet said:

I would strongly disagree with that statement. Just about the ONLY time you want to be in feudalism as a government is if you are going for a 100K cultural victory.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Except for 100k, Feudalism rarely has an advantage over Republic. +1 commerce is very strong.

Feudalisim sucks for everybody, but Republic sucks for warmongers, so why not have Monarchy? It would be nice to have unit support, like on Despotism, but then you can't keep your citizens if you want to rush things, so you have to prioritize or you'll get confused.Duh.

GuitarHero said:

Republic sucks for warmongers, so why not have Monarchy?

Click to expand...

No, actually, in most cases, republic is better for warmongers than monarchy.

The WW can easily be dealt with, the commerce bonus is bigger than the free unit support in monarchy.

This is true for all versions of Civ3, and in C3C things are even more in favor of republic.

GuitarHero said:

Feudalisim sucks for everybody, but Republic sucks for warmongers, so why not have Monarchy?

Click to expand...

I agree with MAS that Republic usually works better for warmongers. The BIG exception to this is if you're playing AW (Always War) and never make peace with any civ during the entire game.

Monarchy is easily researchable because its in the lower ancient tech tier, so you can try and go straight to monarchy, trade or pop up the other techs you need and change government asap, if your religious this could be a payoff.

Warrior Code + Mysticism + Polytheism + Monarchy.

Trade Warrior Code, Develop Mysticism, set up units to pop huts after you get mysticism and maybe you get Polytheism.

Remember, corruption in Monarchy is heavier then Republic and wont give you the +1 commerce bonus, but if you place your cities at a 2x tile distance with fresh water nearby and grow all of´em to cities you´ll have a good production core with 4 unit support like despotism and your workers will suffer no penalties.

Tighter city placement will give you more cities and thus higher unit support with less corruption.

In sum Republic is always preferable to Monarchy in the long run, but Monarchy can be a devastating choice for an early Warmonger, just put all your gold on Chariots, your stack of doom will be ready faster then the enemy can say "long live the republic!"

Develop HBK after stack is ready and upgrade to horses, go kill.

RickFGS said:

In sum Republic is always preferable to Monarchy in the long run, but Monarchy can be a devastating choice for an early Warmonger, just put all your gold on Chariots, your stack of doom will be ready faster then the enemy can say "long live the republic!"

Develop HBK after stack is ready and upgrade to horses, go kill.

Click to expand...

That's a good strategy.

well, what do you guys think of my early war strategy:

i usually go for writing first, trade writing for iron working and then research code of laws before philosophy if i have a tech lead, if not i choose philosophy and if all goes well the free tech should either be code of laws or the republic.

by this time i should have plenty of swordsman, many cities and road to my target. when i am out of unit support in despotism i set tech slider to null and declare war. i like to have my anarchy period in war as i dont have to support my huge army. as republic is available i usually face big support problems so i stop creating military and focus on libs, temples, aqueducts. my army is probably be able to conquer some territory awhile and perhaps to destroy one rival completely and/or weakening multiple of them. my support costs are quickly reducing by the mass aqueducts i build instead of military, the fact that the war is swords-consuming and the newly conquered cities. so when the war is over i should have my territory doubled, my army largely destroyed and maybe obsolete, but the future enemies of mine should fear from my warlike republic with huge free support

so any thoughts on this?

Skibatized said:

dont switch to monarchy, wait for feudalism = )

Click to expand...

I believe that feudalism is quite a bizarre government, see the below link.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=244313

But a lot of ppl underrate republic, I just tried it, its not bad, but its just that its not very realistic, and a lot of useful aspects are missing.

People go on and on about how republic is the better choice for warmongers, but i got to disagree. Republic was made to be a peacefull government! why elss would they put ww in it? I try to go to republic and all the sudden:
>My citys go into disorder
>My unit cost is through the roof
>And the corruption bonus is hardly notticable!
10 turns down the line:
>My lux slider is at 50% trying to keep everybody happy, and i still got disorders
>My science is at 0% because I need the money for troops.

Now i have to try to research monarchy because there is no way my civ is gonna make it to the middle ages for feudalisim (which is realy not a bad choice; lots of unit support, little war weariness). I get to monarchy and my civ is back in order

Bottom line, monarchy was MENT to be for war mongers, and republic was MENT for peacefull people.

Mao Zendog said:

People go on and on about how republic is the better choice for warmongers, but i got to disagree. Republic was made to be a peacefull government! why elss would they put ww in it? I try to go to republic and all the sudden:
>My citys go into disorder
>My unit cost is through the roof
>And the corruption bonus is hardly notticable!
10 turns down the line:
>My lux slider is at 50% trying to keep everybody happy, and i still got disorders
>My science is at 0% because I need the money for troops.

Now i have to try to research monarchy because there is no way my civ is gonna make it to the middle ages for feudalisim (which is realy not a bad choice; lots of unit support, little war weariness). I get to monarchy and my civ is back in order

Bottom line, monarchy was MENT to be for war mongers, and republic was MENT for peacefull people.

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem that you were using republic correctly. First, is every tile that you are working roaded? Second, how many regular warriors do you have. Each one of those should be disbanded. And third, how many cities and markets do you have?

Republic is by far the best gov't if you use it properly.

Mao Zendog said:

Bottom line, monarchy was MENT to be for war mongers, and republic was MENT for peacefull people.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Have you read this?

civverguy said:

I don't think that's true. Have you read this?

Click to expand...

Wow. I read the article. Wow. I have got to try that someday. But people underrate republic and democracy because the war weariness is so powerful, in the U.S. which is a democracy, sure people are pissed with the Iraq war, but they don't riot and defect to Canada or something. Also, the bonuses for freedom of the public are not brought to full flower. Normally, people who work for themselves will work harder than as if they worked for some lord. The corruption also makes it harder to rule effectively. It's so huge that even as a minimal waste democracy you lose too much gold in large empires to make it worthwhile. The unit support is also a joke. Even in democracy and republic people understand that a military is important and that they have to have one to safeguard their freedom. In short, the game mechanics ruin some otherwise fantastic governments for the non-professional player.

You guys need to be careful with Moonsinger's advice about warmongering in Democracy, IIRC, it was written for Vanilla , not C3C.

The Republic government changed radically between Vanilla/PTW and C3C; Vanilla Republic had the same unit support structure as Democracy, so the reduced corruption in Democracy was worth the effort for a modern-era endgame. With the unit support in the C3C version of Republic, it is often not worth switching to Democracy... the unit support offsets any economic/corruption benefits of Democracy.

And I agree with others on this point: Republic is durable enough for all but the most vicious warmongering.

Sure it's only in Vanilla, but still that's amazing that he can do that.

D0MINATRIX said:

...only in Vanilla....

Click to expand...

Your tone indicates that you may have misunderstood me. It sounds as if you think Vanilla is somehow "easier" than C3C. That's not really the case. Even though the games look and feel the same, there are a lot of differences between C3C and Vanilla. Some subtle, some important... some of them game-altering.

The difference between Vanilla Republic and C3C Republic is game-altering; perhaps moreso than the Statue of Zeus.

Empiremaker said:

Republic is by far the best gov't if you use it properly.

Click to expand...

And using it properly means managing your cities every other turn. Using the Republic effectively means you have to take the time to perfect everything, which mean you probably won't declare war until the industrial age. You'd have to work every tile, get every tech, and build every improvement you can before you declare war. You would probably reach the mid modern age by the end of the game.

For me, the AI's usually declare war on me early in the game, ask for tribute in which denying it will lead to the stack of doom in your territory. For Monarchy, all you need are shields and money, and the best damn unit in your time period. Wars start in the Ancient Age, and by the time the game ends, every civ is so hindered in tech that you only reach the early industrial age.

I used to use republic but I switched to monarchy because my AI is screwed up and although Aggression is set on Normal, they still declare war on me any chance possible. And although I agree that Republic is underrated, it's overrated at the same time . Strangely.