[C3C] HOT TAKE: Mathematical proof war civs like Monarchy are BETTER than Republic in many circumstances!

[C0rTeZ48]

Hello there, long time Civ 3 enjoyer. I've been playing this game since about 2002, and still do at times. I've also known this site for a very long time, but this is my first serious post I've ever made, and it will be a bold one. I'm interested most of all in game balancing, and I've been meddling with the civ editor since about the time it has come out. I love meddling with game mechanics, and perhaps will make a series of posts in the future in which I will recommend some major balancing suggestions to better balance many different aspects of the game: governments, units/combat, city improvs/wonders, tech trees, resources, happiness/commerce/shields/food, tiles, citizens, tech trees, civs, etc.

As for now I will focus on my hot take I've never seen someone mention in any post in the forum: mathematical proof that war govs like Monarchy/Fascism/Communism are better than Republic in many circumstances, and perhaps even Democracy:
Despite the bonus commerce of Republics, Monarchy still comes on top on average mathematically, especially when considering army sizes in the equation. This is mainly the result of the higher unit support cost of 2, compared to 1 of other governments. In addition, bonus commerce has a lot of added negatives, mentioned down below. I've never seen people address these serious issues. I'll use some examples of different city sizes in different time eras to prove total commerce bonus between Republic and Monarchy given the best conditions in favor of Republic:

• Towns (ancient era/early medieval conditions): given an average pop of 4, this gives a bonus commerce of 5 (5 bonus tiles). Marketplaces may boost this by 50%, resulting in 7.5. Adding in 25% WW penalty, and a 25% corruption average, this comes down to a combined 2.5-3.75, but more likely an average of about 3.25.
  Monarchy however always gives a flat 2 unit support (compared to Rep of 1), AND has the MAJOR benefit of only having a unit support cost of 1 compared to 2. Because of this, Monarchy and Republic town sizes break even after having 3-4 units: support cost Rep 3 units= (2x2-3.25=about 1) OR 4 units (2x3-3.75=2.25). This is about equal to Monarchy costs. So basically, a Monarchy with an average army support of 3-4+ per town will on average always be stronger than a Republic (due to the 2 flat unit support, and 1 unit cost of Monarchy).
• Cities (late medieval era conditions): I'll use the exact same math, but write it down more shortly this time: given an average population of 10, this gives a bonus commerce of 11 (11 bonus tiles). Marketplaces/banks may boost this by 50-100% resulting in 16.5-22. Adding in a 25% WW penalty, and a 25% corruption average, this comes down to a combined 8.25-11.
  Monarchy and Republic city sizes break even starting from having 10-13 units: support cost Rep 10 units= (2x7-8.25=about 6) OR 13 units (2x10-11=9). This is about equal to Monarchy costs. So basically, a Monarchy with an average army support of 10+, max up to 13+ per city will an average always be stronger than a Republic (due to the 4 flat unit support, and 1 unit cost of Monarchy). For the pre-Banking medieval era, an average army support of 9+ per city will be stronger in a Monarchy than a Republic.
• Metropolis (industrial/modern era conditions): I'll use the exact same math: given an average population of 18, this gives a bonus commerce of 19 (19 bonus tiles). Marketplaces/banks/stocks may boost this by 50-100-150%, resulting in 19-28.5-38-47.5. Adding in a 25% WW penalty, and a 25% corruption average, this comes down to a combined average of about 9.5-14-19-24, given the very best conditions, but more likely an in between number of about 16.5.
  Monarchy and Republic city sizes break even starting from having 16-24 units: support cost Rep 16 units= (2x12-16.5=about 7.5) OR 24 units (2x20-23.75=26). This is about equal to Monarchy costs. So basically, a Monarchy with an average army support of 16+, max up to 24+ per city will on average always be stronger than a Republic, but very likely lower; (due to the lower average population AND overlap in tiles between metro cities). In Monarchy flat unit support per metro is 8, combined with 1 cost per unit.

Republics do have slightly lower corruption however, but this is only 10% of rank corruption. On the other hand, relative military police benefits of Monarchy aren't calculated and therefore should be added as well.

Additionally, there are some more MAJOR drawbacks of Republic compared to Monarchy I haven't even mentioned yet:
1) I've used the VERY BEST condition of bonus commerce govs in my examples: near complete population, AND having NO overlap with tiles of nearby cities, especially for metropolis sizes. Usually this isn't the case.
2) I've used an average corruption of 25%, which is fair. But larger civs will always swing in favor of Monarchy compared to Republic since bonus commerce is subject to corruption, whereas unit support is not.
3) Bonus commerce is subject to pillage/bombard tiles/city improvements/city population, whereas unit support is not (tiles without 1 commerce NEED to have roads in order for bonus commerce to come into effect). Therefore, when artillery/bombers are researched, republic becomes MUCH less reliable. Simply bomb Republics into oblivion, destroy any marketplace/bank/stock exchange, and war weariness and bonus commerce will destroy them, if not from within due to war riots: pillaging/bombarding tiles or units down to 1HP raises war weariness points by 1, and attacking or killing an enemy unit raises wwp by 2, even when you kill them by lethal bombardment! This way you wont even have to conquer cities anymore in order to raise war weariness of enemy civs.
4) Bonus commerce relies heavily on population size, therefore making relative smaller town/city/metropolis sizes more preferable to Monarchy/Fascism/Communism.
5) I've given an average war weariness of 25% in all my examples, which is fair. Simply attack Republics/Democracies, never accept peace, and watch their war weariness rise! They will first gain a happiness boost, but it will quickly dwindle after more attacking. However, when fighting a civ you can't coerce into peace treaties (on higher difficulties/non-AI) as a Republic yourself, you're simply screwed since your own war weariness will only become higher and higher! And police stations aren't available until Communism, and even require being in that gov before building them! Also, larger maps will gain war weariness more quickly due to the larger amount of units.
6) Cant rely as much on nuclear power plants, since the risk of meltdown is far too high under war weariness.
7) In addition, Monarchy/Fascism/Communism have higher military police limit, which are also about equal each to about 2-4 pieces of additional commerce unit I haven't even mentioned yet in my math examples (since 1 content/happy face equals about 1 commerce). This is an low-shield, cheap way to obtain happiness. This way you can focus quicker on building large armies instead.
8) Golden Age/WLTKD are NOT subject to bonus commerce. WLTKD divides waste, not corruption by 2, 4 when communism.
9) Having near to 0 unit support cost to make more use of bonus commerce in many situations isn't realistic, especially when fighting aggressive (non-)AI on higher difficulties on more continental/pangaea based maps.
10) Monarchies rely less on growth and happiness, and can focus more shields on units, since Republics need more growth to get more out of their bonus commerce. Republics will therefore have to put more shields on city improvements/wonders, and more commerce on luxuries, whereas Monarchies rely more on cheap military police units for happiness. This way Monarchies can focus more on building large armies instead, putting more weight into making Republics gather war weariness points. Republics have more commerce to hurry production/upgrade units, but conversion rates are 4 to 1, and some shields are always wasted anyway. This way Monarchies grow their economies relatively more by conquering. And as the above math shows, Monarchies do better with maintaining large armies.
11) Monarchies are more handy too in certain custom-made scenarios where growing your empire is a small or non-existant part of the game, since you can focus produce more on building units, and less on building city improvements. Just go for the bare essentials. Because of lower maintenance you can sustain larger armies as well.
12) The only small added benefit of bonus commerce is that you can choose to spend it on unit cost/upgrade units/happiness/maintenance/treasure/spies/hurry production/trading, whereas monarchy automatically spends it on armies. But happiness is never a problem as long as the ridiculously OP marketplaces are there, and commerce on Monarchy/Fascism/Communism is still more than sufficient to pay for all of these problems. Plus, when adding support cost into the mix, Monarchies can support larger armies on average. And Monarchies can still gather sufficient commerce to get what they want from trading with AIs. Plus, Republics tend to spend their commerce less effectively and efficiently due to their wealth whereas Monarchies tend to spend them more on what is truly essential.
13) I haven't mentioned Fascism yet, but they would do even better than Monarchy relative to Republic.

Conclusions: Republic reaches it relative peak strength in the later medieval era (when banking has been tech'd), but loses it again in the later industrial era after hospitals and especially bombard units like artillery/bombers have been researched. If your civ has a lot of towns in the pre-banking Medieval Era, Monarchy is definitely hands down the better decision in near to all cases.
Basically, a Republic being at war with another 'war gov' will absolutely lose out long term. War govs like Monarchy/Fascism/Communism can support far bigger army sizes and more reliably sustain nuclear power plants. Republics may be better however on lower difficulties, smaller map sizes with less war weariness, certain water based maps which are more easily defendable, AND/OR when going for more peaceful victory conditions.

 

[templar_x]

C0, thanks for coming up with new ideas after such a long time. However, the assumptions, and thus the result, are flawed in my eyes. 8) is just wrong. The conclusions... are neither intuitive nor matching my (similarly old) experience. Quite the contrary. Not that I am not playing the Monarchy warmonger game... But a good player would never play this way. Like 5), my WW usually is zero, in Republic, having wars all the time. It is a matter of strategy und planning. I also, and this might be the most important point, usually do NOT pay unit upkeep for most of the game.
I think, the goal of your calculations should be a different one. Like, UNDER WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES can Monarchy be better for warmongering. Fair enough and very valid point. But, sure, it has been covered already. Still an interesting topic. But the big breakdown of Republic as the gov of choice in wartimes? Not so...
t_x

 

[C0rTeZ48]

C0, thanks for coming up with new ideas after such a long time. However, the assumptions, and thus the result, are flawed in my eyes. 8) is just wrong. The conclusions... are neither intuitive nor matching my (similarly old) experience. Quite the contrary. Not that I am not playing the Monarchy warmonger game... But a good player would never play this way. Like 5), my WW usually is zero, in Republic, having wars all the time. It is a matter of strategy und planning. I also, and this might be the most important point, usually do NOT pay unit upkeep for most of the game.
I think, the goal of your calculations should be a different one. Like, UNDER WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES can Monarchy be better for warmongering. Fair enough and very valid point. But, sure, it has been covered already. Still an interesting topic. But the big breakdown of Republic as the gov of choice in wartimes? Not so...
t_x

Thank you for your kind reply. But let me address some of the things you mentioned:

• What is wrong about statement number 8? WLTKD does lower corruption, but it does not increase bonus commerce in any way, nor have any impact on it. And Golden Age does increase commerce, but it also has no impact on bonus commerce in any way. Thing is: Golden Ages are just as strong as Monarchies as compared to Republic. F.e., a Bank increases output of Golden Age commerce in Republic just as much as it does in Monarchy. And you still need at least one commerce per tile anyway, so its not a substitute for not having any roads.
• It may not be intuitive, nor matching your experiences, but those are just anecdotes. Sure, as a Republic, you'd be able to do very well and beat a lot of games against AI, even in the situations I just described. But is Republic better in those situations than Monarchy? Absolutely not. Thing is, I'm pretty confident you'd never truly played a very challenging game: high difficulty, lots of aggressive civs with large empires and high corruption, pangaea map, lots of enemy artillery/bombers, going for more warlike victory conditions, and such. You even admitted you usually never pay for unit upkeep. That to me shows you're not playing truly challenging games, nor do not play against other online players. No offense. So my math still stands.
• Yes, most of times your war weariness may be zero, since it indeed often is, but that's simply since you're able to 'outsmart' AI players into peace treaties in the games you're playing. If you were in the conditions of the very challenging game I just discribed, OR even worse, going up against real life players with war govs, you'd absolutely be in a worse position.
• And on the other hand, being a Monarchy going up against enemy Republics, you'd be able to 'abuse' their war weariness by never offering/accepting them peace treaties, which is another strategy many don't seem to consider as well as they should.

Look, I do agree with your last point though, that Monarchies is mostly better under certain conditions, but that was pretty much what I ended on in my conclusions in my original post: that Republic however is probably better on lower difficulties, smaller map sizes with less war weariness, more water based maps (archipelago) which are more easily defendable, AND/OR when going for more peaceful victory conditions.
So I definitely think Republics should NOT be recommended in a lot of certain situations.

EDIT: WLTKD actually does NOT lower corruption. It divides waste, not corruption by 2, 4 when communism.

 

[justanick]

Towns (ancient era/early medieval conditions): given an average pop of 4, this gives a bonus commerce of 5 (5 bonus tiles). Marketplaces may boost this by 50%, resulting in 7.5. Adding in 25% WW penalty, and a 25% corruption average, this comes down to a combined 2.5-3.75, but more likely an average of about 3.25.

This is not how the math works. At size 4 25% WW gives one unhappy face, same as one size 6. At size 4 this may not matter as you may have luxuries. But marketplaces should not be assumed at below size 7, as reaching size 7 is a top priority for a republic. Good players know to avoid incurring WW, but let still assume it anyway.

Size 6 means 7 bonus commerce out of which 5.25 remain after assumed 25% corruption. Subtract 1 for compensating the one unhappy face and it is 4.25 in favour of republic so far.

Monarchy however always gives a flat 2 unit support (compared to Rep of 1), AND has the MAJOR benefit of only having a unit support cost of 1 compared to 2. Because of this, Monarchy and Republic town sizes break even after having 3-4 units: support cost Rep 3 units= (2x2-3.25=about 1) OR 4 units (2x3-3.75=2.25). This is about equal to Monarchy costs. So basically, a Monarchy with an average army support of 3-4+ per town will on average always be stronger than a Republic (due to the 2 flat unit support, and 1 unit cost of Monarchy).

When playing a republic 3 units per town should be the upper limit of units. So that is 1 unit support as monarchy and 4 as republic. We end up at 1.25 in favour of republic or 0.25 if we count in one utilized content face from military police. In this era monarchy still has merits.

2 more examples:

Size 7, 3 units per city and no marketplace: 8 commerce bonus, 6 after 25% corruption, 5 after compensating for one unhappy face from 25% WW, and 4 after compensating for lacking military police. This nets an advantage of 4 in favour of republic as no unit support is to be paid.

Size 12, 4 units per city, marketplace: 13 commerce bonus, 9.75 after 25% corruption, 6.75 after 25% WW, 4.75 after compensating for lacking 2 military police, 7.125 after marketplaces, 5.125 in favour of republic after 2 unit support.

These examples in my eyes are skewed in favour of monarchy. Republic is about mitigating WW and unit support cost. At 3 units per city and 0% WW the later example is 11.625 in favour of republic. This is what good strategy can reasonably achieve.

6) Cant rely as much on nuclear power plants, since the risk of meltdown is far too high under war weariness.

Is it? I deem it manageable.

8) Golden Age/WLTKD are NOT subject to bonus commerce.

The slightly lower corruption of republic does increase what remains of the GA. That also means that the usefulness of the WLTKD is slightly diminished. But achieving WLTKD is usually a waste in the first place. Efficient gameplay keeps happy and uncontent citizens in the balance, no additional happiness is required.

9) Having near to 0 unit support cost to make more use of bonus commerce in many situations isn't realistic, especially when fighting aggressive (non-)AI on higher difficulties on more continental/pangaea based maps.

Having about 1 unit per town above free unit support is a sound assumption for a republic. If you want to prioritize early wars, monarchy may better suit you. Or simply stay in despotism. That tends to be the better choice if your early survival depends on it. Once a certain areas has been secured, republic is the way to go.

 

[justanick]

It may not be intuitive, nor matching your experiences, but those are just anecdotes.

From my point of view what you present are just anecdotes. There is a wide variety of documented games that show how republic is properly utilized to win games.

When dealing with human opponents governments like monarchy gain merit, but even then it is often not the first choice.

• Yes, most of times your war weariness may be zero, since it indeed often is, but that's simply since you're able to 'outsmart' AI players into peace treaties in the games you're playing.

Or simply killing the AI for good. Incurring a few turns of WW is a small price to pay if the long term gain warrants it.

So I definitely think Republics should NOT be recommended in a lot of certain situations.

I would guess that republic is preferable to monarchy in more than 90% of situations. The situations you seem to have in mind tend to be very rare. There are basically 2 relevant scenarios you imply: Playing poorly or being forced to play "poorly" in a war against other human players. But there is a caveat: Which humans have the stomach to grind each other in such a prolonged war of attrition? When you start a war you should have prepared in a way that allows you to bring it to a conclusion reasonably soon.

 

[C0rTeZ48]

This is not how the math works. At size 4 25% WW gives one unhappy face, same as one size 6. At size 4 this may not matter as you may have luxuries. But marketplaces should not be assumed at below size 7, as reaching size 7 is a top priority for a republic. Good players know to avoid incurring WW, but let still assume it anyway.

Size 6 means 7 bonus commerce out of which 5.25 remain after assumed 25% corruption. Subtract 1 for compensating the one unhappy face and it is 4.25 in favour of republic so far.

When playing a republic 3 units per town should be the upper limit of units. So that is 1 unit support as monarchy and 4 as republic. We end up at 1.25 in favour of republic or 0.25 if we count in one utilized content face from military police. In this era monarchy still has merits.

You're right about that for smaller city sizes, war weariness is broadly calculated somewhat differently, but on average the 'cost' of a content/happy face is still equal to about one currency. This does indeed lower the cost a bit, but doesn't make too much of a difference in the long run.

And yes, most of times your war weariness may be zero, since it indeed often is, but that's simply since you're able to 'outsmart' AI players into peace treaties in the games you're playing. If you were in the conditions of the very challenging game I just discribed, OR even worse, going up against real life players with war govs, you'd absolutely be in a worse position.

After a certain time many towns will be able to reach 6 pop size, but to take that as an average is simply not fair. Some cities at least will be at lower population due to insufficient/slow growth, or being worker producing towns.

Also, you havent considered military police limit, which is equal to 3 content faces, which are definitely equal to about 2 or 3 pieces of currency. Take that into account, and now republic is only in favor of 1.25-2.25 pieces of currency. Just 1 or 2 more military units, and monarchy is now definitely stronger.

Size 7, 3 units per city and no marketplace: 8 commerce bonus, 6 after 25% corruption, 5 after compensating for one unhappy face from 25% WW, and 4 after compensating for lacking military police. This nets an advantage of 4 in favour of republic as no unit support is to be paid.

I dont understand why you're going here for size 7, since on average city sizes would be closer to 10, but still, taking military police into account, those still add up to 3 content faces, being equal to about 2 or 3 pieces of currency. This adds up to 2 or 3 in favor of Republic. Just 1 or 1.5 more military units, and monarchy is now definitely stronger.

Size 12, 4 units per city, marketplace: 13 commerce bonus, 9.75 after 25% corruption, 6.75 after 25% WW, 4.75 after compensating for lacking 2 military police, 7.125 after marketplaces, 5.125 in favour of republic after 2 unit support.

Think you need to add 1 more military police here, which equals up to 4.125 in favor of republic. With just 4 more pieces, monarchy has now become stronger.

These examples in my eyes are skewed in favour of monarchy. Republic is about mitigating WW and unit support cost. At 3 units per city and 0% WW the later example is 11.625 in favour of republic. This is what good strategy can reasonably achieve.

I get this, and its a reliable strategy in certain circumstances. BUT, it will not be under other certain circumstances: high difficulty, lots of aggressive civs with large empires and high corruption, pangaea map, lots of enemy artillery/bombers, going for more warlike victory conditions.

Is it? I deem it manageable.

As long as war weariness has not been severely added up. After a certain point there is simply too much unhappiness. The only saving option is diplomatic options with AI enemies, but when playing on the above mentioned circumstances, this won't be a viable option anymore. Not to mention when playing against real life players.

The slightly lower corruption of republic does increase what remains of the GA. That also means that the usefulness of the WLTKD is slightly diminished. But achieving WLTKD is usually a waste in the first place. Efficient gameplay keeps happy and uncontent citizens in the balance, no additional happiness is required.

I pretty much agree mostly, but dont forget that WLTKD will be hard to maintain as war weariness ranks up.

EDIT: WLTKD actually does NOT lower corruption. It divides waste, not corruption by 2, 4 when communism.

Having about 1 unit per town above free unit support is a sound assumption for a republic. If you want to prioritize early wars, monarchy may better suit you. Or simply stay in despotism. That tends to be the better choice if your early survival depends on it. Once a certain areas has been secured, republic is the way to go.

Once it has been secured perhaps, but what when you're playing against many aggressive civs on a pangaea map on higher difficulty? Or even worse, when playing against real life players?

 

[C0rTeZ48]

From my point of view what you present are just anecdotes. There is a wide variety of documented games that show how republic is properly utilized to win games.

When dealing with human opponents governments like monarchy gain merit, but even then it is often not the first choice.

I displayed math, facts and logical conclusions about game mechanics and balancing, I didn't name personal experiences I've had in the game, which is what anecdotes are.

And sure, as a Republic, you'd be able to do very well and beat a lot of games against AI, even in the situations I mentioned before. But is Republic better in challenging games than Monarchy? Absolutely not.

I would guess that republic is preferable to monarchy in more than 90% of situations. The situations you seem to have in mind tend to be very rare. There are basically 2 relevant scenarios you imply: Playing poorly or being forced to play "poorly" in a war against other human players. But there is a caveat: Which humans have the stomach to grind each other in such a prolonged war of attrition? When you start a war you should have prepared in a way that allows you to bring it to a conclusion reasonably soon.

It's not about playing poorly when the difficulty has been high from the start. One can still play well, and end up in difficult situations.

I'd say Monarchy is better actually in the majority of cases: 10% higher total city number (rank corruption) of Republic doesn't quite hold up, and Monarchies are simply able to gather larger armies. Republic probably is better on smaller map sizes with less war weariness, more archipelago maps which are more easily defendable, AND/OR when going for more peaceful victory conditions. On larger sized pangaea maps I'd say Monarchy is the preferably option, especially when playing on higher difficulties.

Republic doesn't have an inherent advantage above Monarchies (no higher production/commerce/food etc.). Thing is: in your scenario you're describing, it'd be better to be prepared as a Monarchy, since they're definitely able to wage wars for longer. I haven't heard a good reason yet why Republics should be better to find quick wars than Monarchies are. It's a larger gamble.

And then I haven't even mentioned artillery/bombers yet...

 

[templar_x]

Thank you for your kind reply. But let me address some of the things you mentioned:

• What is wrong about statement number 8? WLTKD does lower corruption, but it does not increase bonus commerce in any way, nor have any impact on it. And Golden Age does increase commerce, but it also has no impact on bonus commerce in any way. Thing is: Golden Ages are just as strong as Monarchies as compared to Republic. F.e., a Bank increases output of Golden Age commerce in Republic just as much as it does in Monarchy. And you still need at least one commerce per tile anyway, so its not a substitute for not having any roads.
• It may not be intuitive, nor matching your experiences, but those are just anecdotes. Sure, as a Republic, you'd be able to do very well and beat a lot of games against AI, even in the situations I just described. But is Republic better in those situations than Monarchy? Absolutely not. Thing is, I'm pretty confident you'd never truly played a very challenging game: high difficulty, lots of aggressive civs with large empires and high corruption, pangaea map, lots of enemy artillery/bombers, going for more warlike victory conditions, and such. You even admitted you usually never pay for unit upkeep. That to me shows you're not playing truly challenging games, nor do not play against other online players. No offense. So my math still stands.
• Yes, most of times your war weariness may be zero, since it indeed often is, but that's simply since you're able to 'outsmart' AI players into peace treaties in the games you're playing. If you were in the conditions of the very challenging game I just discribed, OR even worse, going up against real life players with war govs, you'd absolutely be in a worse position.
• And on the other hand, being a Monarchy going up against enemy Republics, you'd be able to 'abuse' their war weariness by never offering/accepting them peace treaties, which is another strategy many don't seem to consider as well as they should.

Look, I do agree with your last point though, that Monarchies is mostly better under certain conditions, but that was pretty much what I ended on in my conclusions in my original post: that Republic however is probably better on lower difficulties, smaller map sizes with less war weariness, more water based maps (archipelago) which are more easily defendable, AND/OR when going for more peaceful victory conditions.
So I definitely think Republics should NOT be recommended in a lot of certain situations.

I apologize, as I initially had the false impression that you have at least some practical knowledge of high level games, but you maybe were not aware of how much farther things had been discussed and examined on sites like this one already since 2002...
your, again, assumptions of which kind of games i can, not anecdotally but *practically* (huge difference, btw), weigh in as examples, or arguments, show that you did obviously not even check the warmonger tables of the HoF. challenging games...
ahem. yes. very funny.
no offense meant that i tried to give you farther insight in what others have already found out. long ago, that is. but please kindly keep your alleged mathematical wisdom for gaining your own #1 HoF table positions, there are some to have...
t_x

 

[justanick]

You're right about that for smaller city sizes, war weariness is broadly calculated somewhat differently, but on average the 'cost' of a content/happy face is still equal to about one currency. This does indeed lower the cost a bit, but doesn't make too much of a difference in the long run.

The difference can be surprisingly much. It is important to not get the wrong idea by resorting to fictional averages.

After a certain time many towns will be able to reach 6 pop size, but to take that as an average is simply not fair. Some cities at least will be at lower population due to insufficient/slow growth, or being worker producing towns.

Very early on it will of course be less on average. But since growth tends to be more limited by the lack of an aqueduct, size 6 is a reasonable default. And for producing workers a very good way to do it is to time it to grwoth to size 7 in places with a river. In any case growing fast is paramount.

Also, you havent considered military police limit, which is equal to 3 content faces, which are definitely equal to about 2 or 3 pieces of currency.

Those coins only offset the coins you spend on unit support. Thinking about it, my example for size 6 is skewed in favour of monarchy.

Clearly military police can matter in some special circumstances like in despotism when you have no yet tapped into luxuries. Once this changes no content faces from military police may be needed. Once cities are larger military police may again matter, but this is also when republic is more powerful.

As a repulic you donnot want your units to sit idle at home. Either you use your units to make significant gains or you disband them or donnot built them in the first place. If however as a republic you try to use an approach suited well for monarchy, you may of course find the result unsatisfying.

I dont understand why you're going here for size 7

Getting there is a top priority. Also it it a good lower estimate. Together with the supplied upper estimate you get a proper idea where the reality of the game might be.

I get this, and its a reliable strategy in certain circumstances. BUT, it will not be under other certain circumstances: high difficulty, lots of aggressive civs with large empires and high corruption, pangaea map, lots of enemy artillery/bombers, going for more warlike victory conditions.

It does work reasonably well at Sid when going for domination. Depending on details it works better than monarchy. Monarchy is better in all circumstances except those that matter. The few turns in which monarchy is better on paper are far outweighed by the turns in which republic is better on paper. That is why most capable players choose it.

Once it has been secured perhaps, but what when you're playing against many aggressive civs on a pangaea map on higher difficulty?

Those are the instances where you cannot afford the luxury of becoming a monarchy in the first place. You need to secure a reasonable amount of land first before reseaching a government tech and taking the hit of an anarchy period.

Or even worse, when playing against real life players?

Those tend to choose republic. I once was the only player not going for republic and monarchy instead. That was no sound decision.

 

[C0rTeZ48]

I apologize, as I initially had the false impression that you have at least some practical knowledge of high level games, but you maybe were not aware of how much farther things had been discussed and examined on sites like this one already since 2002...
your, again, assumptions of which kind of games i can, not anecdotally but *practically* (huge difference, btw), weigh in as examples, or arguments, show that you did obviously not even check the warmonger tables of the HoF. challenging games...
ahem. yes. very funny.
no offense meant that i tried to give you farther insight in what others have already found out. long ago, that is. but please kindly keep your alleged mathematical wisdom for gaining your own #1 HoF table positions, there are some to have...
t_x

Er.. ok. But anyway, just want to add that WLTKD actually does NOT lower corruption. It divides waste, not corruption by 2, 4 when communism.

 

[C0rTeZ48]

Very early on it will of course be less on average. But since growth tends to be more limited by the lack of an aqueduct, size 6 is a reasonable default. And for producing workers a very good way to do it is to time it to grwoth to size 7 in places with a river. In any case growing fast is paramount.

What I totally forgot to mention btw is that Monarchies are more handy too in certain scenarios where growing your empire is a small or non-existant part of the game, since you can focus produce more on building units. It also goes well with building fewer city improvements. Just go for the bare essentials. Because of lower maintenance you can sustain larger armies as well.

And also, Monarchies are less reliant on happiness, since they do better on average with lower population sizes. That also means wasting less shields and commerce on city improvements or luxuries. Instead, just rely more on the added military police limit.

Those coins only offset the coins you spend on unit support. Thinking about it, my example for size 6 is skewed in favour of monarchy.

Clearly military police can matter in some special circumstances like in despotism when you have no yet tapped into luxuries. Once this changes no content faces from military police may be needed. Once cities are larger military police may again matter, but this is also when republic is more powerful.

I completely agree, marketplaces are ridiculously OP in my opinion when combined with luxuries. Later in the game military police becomes important once again. However, I disagree that's when republic is more powerful. I'd say starting from Replaceable Parts and Flight, Republic severely lowers in power. War weariness by bombardment becomes a major issue later on.

Getting there is a top priority. Also it it a good lower estimate. Together with the supplied upper estimate you get a proper idea where the reality of the game might be.

I see. Just dont forget however that Republics need more happiness as well since they rely more heavily on population than Monarchies do.

It does work reasonably well at Sid when going for domination. Depending on details it works better than monarchy. Monarchy is better in all circumstances except those that matter. The few turns in which monarchy is better on paper are far outweighed by the turns in which republic is better on paper. That is why most capable players choose it.

Not sure if I completely understand your point here. I will admit that one benefit of Republics I havent mentioned is that the bonus commerce is handy for buying researched techs by AI civs and trading. Off course, buying techs of AI civs is cheaper than researching it yourself. However, Monarchies should have sufficient commerce as well.

Is this what you meant to say?

Those are the instances where you cannot afford the luxury of becoming a monarchy in the first place. You need to secure a reasonable amount of land first before reseaching a government tech and taking the hit of an anarchy period.

Don't forget however that the larger the size of your civ, the longer anarchy periods take. Off course, when being a religious civ this barely matter at all.

Those tend to choose republic. I once was the only player not going for republic and monarchy instead. That was no sound decision.

It was probably more a situational consequence. If you'd known a better strategy and went for higher military units, you would have turned out stronger. Monarchies require a different approach and strategy than Republics do, they can afford being low in military units better than Monarchies do.

 

[justanick]

Er.. ok. But anyway, just want to add that WLTKD actually does NOT lower corruption. It divides waste, not corruption by 3, 4 when communism.

Not quite. The right formula can be found here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/everything-about-corruption-c3c-edition.76619/

What I totally forgot to mention btw is that Monarchies are more handy too in certain scenarios where growing your empire is a small or non-existant part of the game, since you can focus produce more on building units. It also goes well with building fewer city improvements. Just go for the bare essentials. Because of lower maintenance you can sustain larger armies as well.

And also, Monarchies are less reliant on happiness, since they do better on average with lower population sizes. That also means wasting less shields and commerce on city improvements or luxuries. Instead, just rely more on the added military police limit.

Well, that seems a bit like missing the point. The point is to build up a prosperous civilization like south korea, not a poor nation like north korea with a large military. All investment in the military is essentially wasted. Sure you need some military to stay reasonably save and some more if you intend to expand your territory when the opportunity is right. But later on military is mainly built to be disbanded for the shields in cities that need them.

Not sure if I completely understand your point here. I will admit that one benefit of Republics I havent mentioned is that the bonus commerce is handy for buying researched techs by AI civs and trading. Off course, buying techs of AI civs is cheaper than researching it yourself. However, Monarchies should have sufficient commerce as well.

Unless you have an oversized military a republic will have a significantly larger net commerce (research output + financial balance). This can change if WW is very high, but those are only a small fraction of all up to 540 turns in one game.

So as a republic it is far easier to research techs at a pace of 4 turns per tech and to finance the 15 to 30 gtp building maintenance per metropolis. And of course it is also easier to spend gtp on forming military alliance. Why waste your own military units, when you can make AI waste their units on each other? Let war be a disease that infects every empire except your own.

Don't forget however that the larger the size of your civ, the longer anarchy periods take.

The difference is up to two turns, realistically speaking it is one turn or none. Small empires incur 3 to 7 turns anarchy, mid sized empires 4 to 8 turns and larger empires 5 to 9 turns. I donnot know the exact thresholds(probably a fraction of OCN), but chances are that by the time you have the needed tech for a government change your empire is already large enough to incur 5 to 9 turns, all of same 20% chance.

You need one anarchy period. Any additional anarchy period is to be avoided.

It was probably more a situational consequence. If you'd known a better strategy and went for higher military units, you would have turned out stronger.

No, that was not the problem. The problem was that i tried the military minded approach you imply. But by the time a military large in numbers was built and moved the way to the enemy, the enemy had the tech advantage of cavalry. If i went for republic instead i could have had an advantage in ecomics and military strenght. In competitive games the tech pace tends to be high and this requires republic to stay competitive.

Monarchies require a different approach and strategy than Republics do, they can afford being low in military units better than Monarchies do.

Yes, combine the UU of the Iroquois with monarchy and you can spam the cheap and effective units without regret in terms of WW and gtp. Noone doubts that there are situations that favour monarchy over republic. But those are rather rare exceptions, much rarer than you seem willing to admit.

 

[Spoonwood]

Also, you havent considered military police limit, which is equal to 3 content faces, which are definitely equal to about 2 or 3 pieces of currency. Take that into account, and now republic is only in favor of 1.25-2.25 pieces of currency. Just 1 or 2 more military units, and monarchy is now definitely stronger.

I think you've missed the opportunity of using those units elsewhere. 1 or 2 more military units over 6 cities makes for 6 to 12 military units. If those units go out conquering instead of becoming military police, that war against any AI where war weariness occurred goes faster. One can also attack them sooner and them throwing more units at you also becomes less of a concern. Also, since those units don't have to be in cities, the shields can get used to make artillery type units or more offensive units. Both of which can lead to a greater kill/death ratio and possibly spawning a military great leader earlier or more of them in fewer turns.

Republic doesn't have an inherent advantage above Monarchies (no higher production/commerce/food etc.).

The total commerce possible is higher with a Republic than with a Monarchy. This makes it easier to get all sorts of things from the AIs.

I haven't heard a good reason yet why Republics should be better to find quick wars than Monarchies are.

Because under Republic, you can more easily sell technology for all of the AIs gpt, sign military alliances, and acquire their luxuries and resources. Wars can easily go faster with a strong economy. Also, under Republic, one's maximum gpt is higher than under Monarchy if the tax slider gets set to maximum. That gpt can end up as part of a plan to get gold, gpt, military alliances, luxuries, resources, and even war happiness from AIs. Under Monarchy, changing citizens to tax collectors would end as optimal, and changing all citizens to tax collectors and then changing them back to regular citizens ends up time consuming.

And then I haven't even mentioned artillery/bombers yet

Why is the game even getting to bombers in the first place? Or if the AIs gets there, how do they become so relevant as a concern in war to overwhelm all the research and commerce benefits of republic? Wars can end very, very quickly with artillery proper in human hands with careful planning.

For the record, here's templar_x's games in the HoF. I remember looking at some of those saves a few years back and thinking that I couldn't accomplish what he did in those saves (not all of them). And I have and had the top spot in the quartermaster's competition in the HoF. But, according to you C0rTeZ48, he hasn't played a truly challenging game. Well, by the standards you have *imposed*, probably none of us have, including yourself. But, what game are we even taking about then? Civ III is not a game where AIs know how to use artillery effectively (not even with Flintlock's mod). Long wars happening often suggest mid to low skill in planning on the part of the human player. Multiplayer games get designed to end in a few hours or so, because players playing a game of civ III for days on end in a manner similar to the epic game isn't practical for a large number of reasons.

Nuclear power plants blowing up as a serious concern with relevance... indeed... Those have been soooooo important in soooo many space games!! All 0 of them.

Edit: If your claims have serious merit with respect to the game, then, in addition to your armchair theorizing, there could get produced some sort of scenario to test your claims in comparison to what people around here claim about Republic. In other words some sort of empirical test. A competition of sorts. Do keep in mind that players claiming Republic as superior probably aren't interested in setting up a scenario with restrictions like an Always War variant, because their claims, concern the game with as few restrictions as they find logical. But, there is no such empirical evidence at present. And the competitions that I have seen over the years suggest that the empirical evidence strongly favors Republic. Mathematical theorizing that contradicts empirical reality is bad math, and makes the mistake that just because there exist calculations and reasoning, that the real world has to work according to what those assumptions and calculations suggest. In the end though, all the math in the world, won't change empirical facts. So where are your empirical facts C0rTeZ48?

 

[C0rTeZ48]

Not quite. The right formula can be found here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/everything-about-corruption-c3c-edition.76619/

I've looked at the link, but it pretty much says what I stated. It divides waste, not corruption. The only mistake I made is that in non-communal govs it divides by 2, not 3, so I just edited this in my posts.

Well, that seems a bit like missing the point. The point is to build up a prosperous civilization like south korea, not a poor nation like north korea with a large military. All investment in the military is essentially wasted. Sure you need some military to stay reasonably save and some more if you intend to expand your territory when the opportunity is right. But later on military is mainly built to be disbanded for the shields in cities that need them.

This reasoning more often seems to be based on real life examples. There are certain scenario's in which what I said is more reliable. Think about times when better units are still many turns away, or specific game scenario's in which upgraded units are barely even better. The same goes for building up your economy: if one focuses too much on building economy, you can get destroyed by stronger civs. And after civs have conquered you, they may have gotten better economies in the end than if they would've focused more on economies themselves.

Unless you have an oversized military a republic will have a significantly larger net commerce (research output + financial balance). This can change if WW is very high, but those are only a small fraction of all up to 540 turns in one game.

So as a republic it is far easier to research techs at a pace of 4 turns per tech and to finance the 15 to 30 gtp building maintenance per metropolis. And of course it is also easier to spend gtp on forming military alliance. Why waste your own military units, when you can make AI waste their units on each other? Let war be a disease that infects every empire except your own.

But Republics have a major disadvantage which probably should be exploited more in player vs player situations: declare war on them, make their war weariness higher, refuse signing peace treaties, and they will fall in the long run.
I will admit though that military alliances are a somewhat good counter against this, but that's only when there actually are sufficient allies of your enemies to have any effect to stop you. Could also be the case that there aren't a lot of civs around anymore, or that you can turn the tables around by signing military alliances yourself or having mutual protection pacts yourself. Also, in the pre-industrial age these aren't available yet.
Btw, it's just that I myself always disable mutual protection pacts in the civ editor before playing games, because I find them always too messy in the end.

The difference is up to two turns, realistically speaking it is one turn or none. Small empires incur 3 to 7 turns anarchy, mid sized empires 4 to 8 turns and larger empires 5 to 9 turns. I donnot know the exact thresholds(probably a fraction of OCN), but chances are that by the time you have the needed tech for a government change your empire is already large enough to incur 5 to 9 turns, all of same 20% chance.

You need one anarchy period. Any additional anarchy period is to be avoided.

Of what I've seen the number of cities make a difference up to 3 or 4 turns, all the way up to 8, not 9 turns.

No, that was not the problem. The problem was that i tried the military minded approach you imply. But by the time a military large in numbers was built and moved the way to the enemy, the enemy had the tech advantage of cavalry. If i went for republic instead i could have had an advantage in ecomics and military strenght. In competitive games the tech pace tends to be high and this requires republic to stay competitive.

Could've been bad timing and wasting shields on relative useless city improvs/wonders. The disadvantage of Republics lies in them gathering war weariness. Pillage, bomb, and attack, especially with fast units. I agree though that the pacing of usual competitive games is rather high, especially in the later tech ages. But also, why not forget about teching yourself, and just go for gathering commerce and using tax collectors to buy techs of other civs?

Yes, combine the UU of the Iroquois with monarchy and you can spam the cheap and effective units without regret in terms of WW and gtp. Noone doubts that there are situations that favour monarchy over republic. But those are rather rare exceptions, much rarer than you seem willing to admit

Well, perhaps I do agree now that Republics have more advantages in certain situations before I made my first post, I'm willing to admit that.

 

[C0rTeZ48]

I think you've missed the opportunity of using those units elsewhere. 1 or 2 more military units over 6 cities makes for 6 to 12 military units. If those units go out conquering instead of becoming military police, that war against any AI where war weariness occurred goes faster. One can also attack them sooner and them throwing more units at you also becomes less of a concern. Also, since those units don't have to be in cities, the shields can get used to make artillery type units or more offensive units. Both of which can lead to a greater kill/death ratio and possibly spawning a military great leader earlier or more of them in fewer turns.

I agree with you there. However, military police limit is just a good way to counter unhappiness. Just forget about building expensive city improvements which also cost maintenance, and just go for some cheap warriors/spearman instead.

The total commerce possible is higher with a Republic than with a Monarchy. This makes it easier to get all sorts of things from the AIs.

Sure, but there is a drawback of war weariness: declare war on them, make their war weariness higher, refuse signing peace treaties, and they will fall in the long run. Pillage, bomb, and keep attacking. In the meantime Republics are probably focusing on building many relative useless city improvements/wonders and happiness, since they need to rely more on higher populations to get more out of it, whereas Monarchies can better get away with it by focusing more on cheap military police for higher populations. They may then have slightly larger economies, but you can have a large army in the meantime. And as I demonstrated large armies of Monarchies may counter this, then they actually have better outcomes as percentage of currency. And what if there already is sufficient commerce to get what you want from other real life players or AI?

Because under Republic, you can more easily sell technology for all of the AIs gpt, sign military alliances, and acquire their luxuries and resources. Wars can easily go faster with a strong economy. Also, under Republic, one's maximum gpt is higher than under Monarchy if the tax slider gets set to maximum. That gpt can end up as part of a plan to get gold, gpt, military alliances, luxuries, resources, and even war happiness from AIs. Under Monarchy, changing citizens to tax collectors would end as optimal, and changing all citizens to tax collectors and then changing them back to regular citizens ends up time consuming.

I will admit these are some benefits, but I also think you may underestimate the power of getting a larger civilization by simply destroying your enemies, not to mention the other benefits I just named above. Also, you seem to forget the importance of shields, rather than just commerce: even if you have a lot of commerce and want to hurry production/upgrade units, conversion rates are 4 to 1, even less so since some shields are then always wasted. Monarchies can just focus all their shields on units from the get go, whereas Republics have spent them on all different kinds of city improvements and wonders. And yes, tax collectors are another benefit, even though I think higher shield production is a better option in most circumstances.
Of the list you named military alliances come closest to being a relative good counter, but they are often inexpensive in the first place and can be done with Monarchies as well. Even then, AI isnt all that great in fighting wars, and can be signed peace treaties with later anyway.

Why is the game even getting to bombers in the first place? Or if the AIs gets there, how do they become so relevant as a concern in war to overwhelm all the research and commerce benefits of republic? Wars can end very, very quickly with artillery proper in human hands with careful planning.

For the record, here's templar_x's games in the HoF. I remember looking at some of those saves a few years back and thinking that I couldn't accomplish what he did in those saves (not all of them). And I have and had the top spot in the quartermaster's competition in the HoF. But, according to you C0rTeZ48, he hasn't played a truly challenging game. Well, by the standards you have *imposed*, probably none of us have, including yourself. But, what game are we even taking about then? Civ III is not a game where AIs know how to use artillery effectively (not even with Flintlock's mod). Long wars happening often suggest mid to low skill in planning on the part of the human player. Multiplayer games get designed to end in a few hours or so, because players playing a game of civ III for days on end in a manner similar to the epic game isn't practical for a large number of reasons.

Nuclear power plants blowing up as a serious concern with relevance... indeed... Those have been soooooo important in soooo many space games!! All 0 of them.

Edit: If your claims have serious merit with respect to the game, then, in addition to your armchair theorizing, there could get produced some sort of scenario to test your claims in comparison to what people around here claim about Republic. In other words some sort of empirical test. A competition of sorts. Do keep in mind that players claiming Republic as superior probably aren't interested in setting up a scenario with restrictions like an Always War variant, because their claims, concern the game with as few restrictions as they find logical. But, there is no such empirical evidence at present. And the competitions that I have seen over the years suggest that the empirical evidence strongly favors Republic. Mathematical theorizing that contradicts empirical reality is bad math, and makes the mistake that just because there exist calculations and reasoning, that the real world has to work according to what those assumptions and calculations suggest. In the end though, all the math in the world, won't change empirical facts. So where are your empirical facts C0rTeZ48?

But that's only because you're focusing on standard games: civilization III may come in wide variety of forms, there are custom made scenario's, and even game types where people start in the industrial/modern era. The point of my post is to convince others that Monarchy has a lot of different strengths they don't seem to realize. F.e., Republics rely heavily on marketplaces/banks/stock exchanges to make use of their bonus commerce, but with the presence of bombers/artillery, they are very much susceptible to getting destroyed.

And here is what I seriously doubt people have exploited well: Monarchies relative to Republics shine in the points I restated in this comment. I think Monarchies do well in putting all their shields into large armies of cheap, strong offensive units like swordsman/medieval infantry (not to mention strong unique units like berserkers), and to a lesser extent longbowman and knights, combined with some defensive pikeman units, and then just go for the kill, especially on pangaea maps. Republics likely have used many shields in building up their economy, with higher maintenance, and can't stand fighting long wars due to war weariness. Even if they manage to defend themselves well by building units quickly, by then it's likely to late for them to turn the tide. And as I calculated, Monarchies can get away easier with larger armies, and sufficient commerce anyway to get what they want by trading, if not by forming military alliances themselves. In the meantime Monarchies can also grow their cities by use of military police. This I think is a strategy ppl haven't exploited enough, especially against real life players. Unfortunately the consensus on Civfanatics for a long time has been that Republic is superior, if not always. That I think is poor judgement, since there are many circumstances in which Monarchies also shine.

 

[Spoonwood]

However, military police limit is just a good way to counter unhappiness. Just forget about building expensive city improvements which also cost maintenance, and just go for some cheap warriors/spearman instead.

The warriors/spearmen take time to build and then just sit there. More calvary, knights, trebuchets, knights, workers, or settlers make for better use of that time.

Republics are probably focusing on building many relative useless city improvements/wonders and happiness, since they need to rely more on higher populations to get more out of it, whereas Monarchies can better get away with it by focusing more on cheap military police for higher populations.

Why is a warring Republic building any wonder in the first place? More city improvements? Nope or maybe a small handful. Trade for and capture luxuries, build marketplaces, and use the luxury slider. Again, building WONDERS? And you want to talk about high level? On Sid? O. K., so the Heroic Epic and the Military Academy are small wonders. But, there is no difference between Monarchy and Republic with respect to those wonders.
Honestly, it sounds like you are one of those players who would make cathedrals, colosseums, and the Sistine Chapel thinking that the happiness benefit will pay off in a military type game.

And what if there already is sufficient commerce to get what you want from other real life players or AI?

If there is already sufficient commerce for the rest of the game, then one plays a variant or lacks knowledge of the game. Upgrade horseman to knights or cavalry. Or buy them. Upgrade trebuchets to cannons. Upgrade spearmen to muskets or rifleman. Short-rush horseman, spearmen, artillery type units, etc. Buy workers and/or settlers. Even granaries, harbors, and marketplaces.

Also, you seem to forget the importance of shields, rather than just commerce: even if you have a lot of commerce and want to hurry production/upgrade units, conversion rates are 4 to 1

Just plain wrong. Upgrading is 3 to 1 if I recall correctly, and I do remember that upgrading is less expensive than purchasing.
In a republic with a nice amount of gold in your bank, something like this:

1. Pillage one's saltpeter and/or iron (or break the trade route).
2. Change builds to horseman/trebuchets/spearman.
3. Maybe short-rush a few shields.
4. Consider getting the city to make only 10 or 15 shields, or have exactly 30 shields on the next turn.
5. Re-road the iron or saltpeter.
6. When the turn completes, zoom to the city, and upgrade the horseman or whatever. You get the more advanced unit on the upcoming turn that way, instead of needing to wait a turn with an upgraded unit that can't move. With a 10 shield city and no short-rushing that's 3 turns and the cost of upgrading for 50 shields for cavalry. With a 15 shields city it's only 2 turns. No waste for some cities is possible.

In a Monarchy, well how do you get anywhere close to the same amount of gold into the bank for doing that? Or buying armies?

In a Republic, the gold can get acquired by selling tech for gold per turn, and gold from the AIs, since getting significant commerce to research is possible, and getting commerce to acquire gold per turn and more from the AIs is easier.

And yes, tax collectors are another benefit, even though I think higher shield production is a better option in most circumstances.

I think you did not understand. I was talking about temporary tax collectors which get changed to citizens working on tiles before the end of the turn.

Even then, AI isnt all that great in fighting wars, and can be signed peace treaties with later anyway.

Why sign a peace treaty with someone you've gone to war with?

F.e., Republics rely heavily on marketplaces/banks/stock exchanges to make use of their bonus commerce, but with the presence of bombers/artillery, they are very much susceptible to getting destroyed.

The republics I have played rarely have relied on banks and stock exchanges. In fact, I remember thinking a long time ago that banks would be very useful on a Sid game even when planning for war. Looking back, I think I was wrong, and just building more units would have worked out better.

The AIs do not move artillery that they have made out of their cities in classic civ III. They only move artilleries that they have captured. In unmodded civ III the AIs using artillery offensively only happens if they have captured from some other city. In the Deity and Sid games I've played (and I have some on record), I don't recall even thinking once about the AIs using artillery to bomb my cities. If cannons get spotted coming, well capturing them first gives more offensive firepower immediately. And with more offensive firepower wars go quicker and more smoothly. Bombers?! Again, why is the game even getting there?

I think Monarchies do well in putting all their shields into large armies of cheap, strong offensive units like swordsman/medieval infantry (not to mention strong unique units like berserkers), and to a lesser extent longbowman and knights, combined with some defensive pikeman units, and then just go for the kill, especially on pangaea maps.

Mass upgrading horseman to knights is more powerful than what you have suggested for large maps. And mass upgrading and purchasing armies (via short-rushing say a worker first) later is even more powerful than what you have suggested. Especially on pangea maps, since getting luxuries, contacts, and trading is easier on those maps than other types of maps.

Republics likely have used many shields in building up their economy, with higher maintenance, and can't stand fighting long wars due to war weariness. Even if they manage to defend themselves well by building units quickly, by then it's likely to late for them to turn the tide.

If the AIs have commerce (and their commerce massively increases once they get banking), the tide can get turned later by acquiring their gold, upgrading units with "screw yourself" pillaging tactics, short rushing, and/or buying units.

That I think is poor judgement, since there are many circumstances in which Monarchies also shine.

What sort of circumstances are you even talking about?

You have said a few strange things, like claim 6) in your original post with nuclear power plants as possibly being relevant. Republics building great wonders when concerned about warring! And it seemed like you implied that skilled players would build colosseums and cathedrals in a republic! Yea, no, they don't (unless playing for a culture victory... but then they are building them for culture and there is no relevant difference between Monarchy and Republic). Skilled players also, as a rule, don't build wonders, or only build something like The Great Library... which again, has no bearing on the Monarchy vs. Republic discussion.

 

[tjs282]

Sitting here still wondering when OP is going to realise he's getting skooled by vastly better Civ3 players. We only need @EMan and @Lanzelot to complete the set...

 

[justanick]

I've looked at the link, but it pretty much says what I stated.

No.

It divides waste, not corruption.

It only applies to waste. It does not divide it.

The only mistake I made is that in non-communal govs it divides by 2, not 3, so I just edited this in my posts.

No, you still donnot properly represent what happens. What happens is that waste is reduced as if another courthouse is in the settlement. Both distance corruption and rank corruption are reduced as far as shields are concerned. The upper boundry for corruption may not be altered, though.

Think about times when better units are still many turns away, or specific game scenario's in which upgraded units are barely even better.

The pace of research tends to be high and for a republic even muskets can be favourably to pikes despite some evidence for the contrary.

I should however remind you that i tend to play a commerce oriented game. Shields can be more scarce in the short run, but in the long run commerce is the bottleneck. This is where the republic shines.

Could also be the case that there aren't a lot of civs around anymore, or that you can turn the tables around by signing military alliances yourself or having mutual protection pacts yourself. Also, in the pre-industrial age these aren't available yet.

MPPs are usually no sound choice. Military alliances however become available with writing, early in the ancient age. Once you have 10+ cities of size10+ as a repulic the early game is over and you have enough commerce to shape the diplomatic landscape to your liking. Pick the strongest enemy, declare war, sign alliances with every other tribe against the enemy and donnot waver till the enemy tribe is gone for good. The way to end a war is to end the enemy. There is no honor in peace except making AI rest in peace.

Of what I've seen the number of cities make a difference up to 3 or 4 turns, all the way up to 8, not 9 turns.

Duration of anarchy

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/frequently-asked-questions-civ3-play-the-world-conquests.170282/ The FAQ states that the anarchy duration of non-religious tribes in C3C can take values between 3 und 9 turns. That is correct. It does however also claim that at a given amount of...

forums.civfanatics.com

I checked my suspicions and confirmed them.

Could've been bad timing and wasting shields on relative useless city improvs/wonders. The disadvantage of Republics lies in them gathering war weariness. Pillage, bomb, and attack, especially with fast units. I agree though that the pacing of usual competitive games is rather high, especially in the later tech ages. But also, why not forget about teching yourself, and just go for gathering commerce and using tax collectors to buy techs of other civs?

That may work in games with AIs, not in games without AI. In games with AI it is better to use scientist rather than taxmen, even for buying techs. And even then it is often better to reserach techs you selfs as that way you can extract gtp from AI by selling techs. Make them dependent.

 

[Lanzelot]

We only need @EMan and @Lanzelot to complete the set...

Thanks for bringing this here to my attention.

But what else can I add? templar, Spoonwood and justanick have already said all there is to say.
I think, this one sums it up very nicely:

Monarchy is better in all circumstances except those that matter.

Couldn't say it any better...

Civfanatics has definitely attracted the best Civ3 players over the last 20 years, both in single-player (see the HoF tables or the GOTM competition) and in multi-player (check out the old PBEM forums; though unfortunately, multi-player is more or less dead for about 10 years now...) And the research & experience of these top experts clearly shows, that Republic is vastly superior to Monarchy. This question has been settled 20 years ago. No need to have a big discussion about it now.

Mathematical theorizing that contradicts empirical reality is bad math

However, I would like to correct this statement:

That to me shows you're not playing truly challenging games, nor do not play against other online players.

@C0rTeZ48 , you need to check better, to whom you are talking, and do your research. templar_x is one of the top HoF players here and also had top spots in the GOTM competition during his active time, so he definitely knows to play challenging single-player games, and he was also one of the best PBEM players back in the days when we were still playing PBEM. (Only his "diplomatic skills" are lacking a bit... )
Spoonwood is also a top HoF player with many Sid-victories under his belt, and justanick and myself have also played quite a few challenging games, both single- and multi-player.

But if you don't believe our "theoretical arguments", why not have a "practical test", like Spoonwood suggested?

some sort of scenario to test your claims in comparison to what people around here claim about Republic. In other words some sort of empirical test. A competition of sorts.

For example, create a map you think is favorable towards Monarchy, chose a victory condition of your liking (as you are talking about "large armies, unit support and war weariness", I assume you have a military VC in mind, Domination or Conquest? But a culture victory or UN/Space Race is also fine with me) and then post the 4000 BC start save here. You play it out under Monarchy, and one of us may find the time to play it under Republic, and then we compare the result.
Or if you are thinking mainly about multi-player (you have mentioned a couple of times that the Monarchy strategy would be especially successfull against real life players), we could setup a PBEM match.

 

[justanick]

not to mention strong unique units like berserkers

Expensive units such as berserkers, knights and most importantly cavalry work very well with republic.

Monarchy works well with cheap units such as warriors, archers and horsemen and all fast offensive UU of the ancient age. Once you have researched monarchy, you may not want to build anything slower than horsemen. But if you go for cheap units such as horsemen, why even bother with leaving despotism? 4 free unit support per town is better than 2 of monarchy.

Republics likely have used many shields in building up their economy, with higher maintenance, and can't stand fighting long wars due to war weariness. Even if they manage to defend themselves well by building units quickly, by then it's likely to late for them to turn the tide. And as I calculated, Monarchies can get away easier with larger armies,

For republics to have a meaningful disadvantage they need to suffer not only from WW or high unit support, they need to suffer from both. Monarchies may have an advantage when an unreasonably large amounts of military units have been stockpiled. But why wait till that has happened? It is more economically to start the exchange of shields, that warfare in the initial turns of a war is, before that. But at this point republics have built up an advantage that WW and high unit support would take a while to undo. Before that can happen the war may have been decided already.