Is there any situation on high difficulty (Emperor+) where republic is preferable instead of monarchy?? After all, unless you play aggressively on high difficulty you will soon be toast, and republic is only good for small peaceful empires, right?
Does anyone ever use republic on high difficulty?
- Thread starter Tanilo2
- Start date
Tomoyo
Fate
All the time. Republic is good in every single situation not in an absurd variant. THe extra gold more than compensates for the WW.
I prettry much never find monarchy to be preferble. Tolerable, yes. I use rep in all levels. You just have to manage you wars. I would maybe not use it in AW game, depending on the map and the level.
Tomoyo
Fate
vmxa said:
T-Hawk's game is probably the only one where Republic can be useful in AW...
Which T-hawk game?
Anyway, so as to make this not entirely a thread-jack, republic is usually great at emperor, dem-god and deity. (I've never played Sid and probably never will.) If you're used to playing monarchy, though, you'll find that the same tactics won't work. You need to modify your play style.
I've never quite understood the "you must be at war all the time to succeed at emperor and up" mentality. I mean, I love a good AI-bashing as much as the next war-monger, but I've never found that to be the case except with poor starting positions. What you *can't* do and still succeed is to play passively in the classic "way too many spearmen, way too many buildings and way too little interaction with the AI" manner.
Renata
Anyway, so as to make this not entirely a thread-jack, republic is usually great at emperor, dem-god and deity. (I've never played Sid and probably never will.) If you're used to playing monarchy, though, you'll find that the same tactics won't work. You need to modify your play style.
I've never quite understood the "you must be at war all the time to succeed at emperor and up" mentality. I mean, I love a good AI-bashing as much as the next war-monger, but I've never found that to be the case except with poor starting positions. What you *can't* do and still succeed is to play passively in the classic "way too many spearmen, way too many buildings and way too little interaction with the AI" manner.
Renata
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
I agree with Renata on this. Playing agressively at higher levels doesn't automatically mean AW. You can play a very agressive game without being constantly fighting. And you can fight a lot under Republic as long as you know how to do it effectively.
Always War
namliaM
Deity
"Give the man a fish, and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to fish..... "
try this: http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/Civ3_jargons.txt
Along with these: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3academy.shtml
Teach him to fish..... "
try this: http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/Civ3_jargons.txt
Along with these: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3academy.shtml
Tomoyo
Fate
@Renata: http://www.dos486.com/civ3/epic14/page1.html
@namliaM: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107641
The jargon thing on the main site is very outdated...
@namliaM: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107641
The jargon thing on the main site is very outdated...
As has been said, Republic is the default government of choice. The question shouldn't be "Will Republic work?", it's "Is there an overwhelming reason NOT to use Republic?" I'm a pretty heavy war-monger (according to most definitions, anyway), and I only very rarely use any government other than Republic.
Republic is better than Monarchy for small, peaceful empires, middle-sized occasionally warring empires, tiny warring empires, sprawling empires, and most things in-between.
Arathorn
Republic is better than Monarchy for small, peaceful empires, middle-sized occasionally warring empires, tiny warring empires, sprawling empires, and most things in-between.
Arathorn
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Is Republic the very best Government to use?
In all circumstances? No. But it's generally pretty close.
Exceptions....
Fairly large, peaceful empire...democracy is often a bit better. BUT, it's only a small bit better and generally not worth the two techs (Printing Press and Democracy) AND the period of anarchy. Plus, democracy is worse when that peace ends. It takes a LONG LONG time for the slight benefits of democracy to make up for the cost of the extra techs, not to mention the anarchy turns.
Large, warring empire. Communism is better. It just is. It, again, takes a while to make up for the extra corruption in the core and the anarchy period. But once you get to that point, the extra shield production lets Communism be a MUCH better warrer. With the right type of empire, Communism will even exceed the commerce production of Republic. Not right for every game, but it can be a winning decision to do another revolt.
Variants. Always War, Non-Oscillating War, No Optional Tech, or something else where you'll be at war without the ability to make peace to recover or unable to get the Republic tech. 100K ICS might well be better in Feudalism. If you're off varianting, that's enough reason to ask the question "Is something better than Republic?" The answer isn't always yes, but you should ask the question.
Republic isn't always the best government for a given situation, but it's almost always a close second, at worst. And it comes so early. It just very often makes sense to revolt once to Republic and stay there. Anarchy is INCREDIBLY expensive, and the benefit from leaving Republic rarely justifies it.
Arathorn
![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
i decided to ask this while on the subject of republics and democracys.
is war wariness solely affected by casualties in the war?
im just wondering cause im playing a sweet game as the koreans, and i've conquered 6 cities of the ottoman empire, without having anyone die (h'wacha's are amazing) so i might switch to democracy, if war wariness is only based on casualties.
@ Tomoyo -- thanks. 
That was a pretty amazing game. It was quite astonishing how he was able to clean out his continent so neatly, even with a good civ, a decent map and some good luck. The rest is a cakewalk on with isolated civs on Monarch, of course, even if getting all those 4-turn techs probably wasn't *quite* as straightforward as the write-up made it appear.
@ Own: Lots of factors go into war weariness. To name some:
-- number of units you have in enemy territory at the end of a turn. (Number of AI units in *your* territory does not count against you, in and of itself.) Hence, fast attackers are less vulnerable to war weariness than slow ones are.
-- number of your own units that are attacked each turn. Hence the high war weariness incurred by the typical overseas invasion, even if you lose few units. Another point in favor of fast attackers that can retreat away out of danger, and "offense is the best defense".
-- Units lost.
-- Cities lost or razed. (Razed is worse, I think, but I'm not sure. This includes formerly-AI cities you've just captured.)
-- Tiles of yours that are pillaged.
That's all I can think of for now.
Oh, and the Hwach'a are incredible in C3C. Did you know they can promote and generate leaders when an "elite" manages a kill shot? Only thing is you can't tell which units are elite, because there's no status bar. I suppose if you renamed them right after the promotion message, that'd work.
Renata
That was a pretty amazing game. It was quite astonishing how he was able to clean out his continent so neatly, even with a good civ, a decent map and some good luck. The rest is a cakewalk on with isolated civs on Monarch, of course, even if getting all those 4-turn techs probably wasn't *quite* as straightforward as the write-up made it appear. @ Own: Lots of factors go into war weariness. To name some:
-- number of units you have in enemy territory at the end of a turn. (Number of AI units in *your* territory does not count against you, in and of itself.) Hence, fast attackers are less vulnerable to war weariness than slow ones are.
-- number of your own units that are attacked each turn. Hence the high war weariness incurred by the typical overseas invasion, even if you lose few units. Another point in favor of fast attackers that can retreat away out of danger, and "offense is the best defense".
-- Units lost.
-- Cities lost or razed. (Razed is worse, I think, but I'm not sure. This includes formerly-AI cities you've just captured.)
-- Tiles of yours that are pillaged.
That's all I can think of for now.
Oh, and the Hwach'a are incredible in C3C. Did you know they can promote and generate leaders when an "elite" manages a kill shot? Only thing is you can't tell which units are elite, because there's no status bar. I suppose if you renamed them right after the promotion message, that'd work.
Renata
Short answer -- no! Being attacked, having units in enemy territory, .... do, too.
Long answer -- consult the all-knowing threads in the forums. Like
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=61628
Arathorn
SJ Frank
Spamalot Co-court
Just to clear up one thing, in the WW article where it says:
"Add 1 wwp if you have units in enemys territory when in war. (In beginning of the turn)"
It means that you get +1 WW point if you have more than 0 units inside enemy borders at the start of a turn; it does not mean you get 1 WW point for each unit you have inside enemy border. It is therefore not a major contributor to War Weariness.
"Add 1 wwp if you have units in enemys territory when in war. (In beginning of the turn)"
It means that you get +1 WW point if you have more than 0 units inside enemy borders at the start of a turn; it does not mean you get 1 WW point for each unit you have inside enemy border. It is therefore not a major contributor to War Weariness.
Gato Loco
Open to Interpretation
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 347
I'd be wary about using Republic on a no-luxury map, or one with no fresh water and no food bonuses. But on normal maps I'd aggree with everyone else. The disadvantage to Republic isn't the WW, which can be managed with the lux slider. Remember that the extra commerce will more than offset the cost of a few turns at higher luxuries unntil you manage to end the war. The real cost is the unit support. If you can't get enough big cities to support all your units, you can find yourself easily paying >40 gpt, every turn, war or peace, WW or no WW, until you manage to get enough cities. This is especially true early in the game when you're still in the expansion phase.
Another thing to remember is that on higher levels, wars will less often be all-or-nothing conquests and more often be short wars to grab a little terrirtory and extort a bit of tech. Such oscillating wars are more suited to the nature of Republic.
Another thing to remember is that on higher levels, wars will less often be all-or-nothing conquests and more often be short wars to grab a little terrirtory and extort a bit of tech. Such oscillating wars are more suited to the nature of Republic.
CTM
I choose no avatar.
Hmm, how about a Demigod game in the late Middle Ages (for you, that is) where you have at least 100 cities in a sprawling empire, a huge military, only three luxuries and no cathedrals, you're behind your rivals by almost a full age, and you've been constantly at war with most of the world since you reached the end of the Ancient Era?
