Monarchy or Feudalism

[CivBound]

I don't a large difference between Monarchy and Feudalism. What am I missing?

 

[Grohan]

Monarchy has good unit support for cities and metropolises and it doesn't have war weariness. You can also cash-rush in monarchy.
Feudalism has good unit support for towns and has low war weariness.
In Feudalism you can pop-rush.

 

[El Dorko Grande]

I don't a large difference between Monarchy and Feudalism. What am I missing?

The Unit support!

Support Monarchy Feudalism

Town 2 5
City 4 2
Metropolis 8 1

If I remember correctly...

Also, unsupproted units cost 1 gpt in Monarchy and 3 gpt in Feudalism.

So Feudalism would be a good choice if you´ve got a big army and lots of small (corrupt?) cities. If your cities are mostly size 6+, then monarchy might be better.

 

[slightlymarxist]

Feudalism can be very powerful, but is trickier to play. Basically, it involves building stacks of towns everywhere and pop-rushing units (or temples if going for culture win). Monarchy is a more traditional warmongering choice.

Think of Feudalism as extended Despotism, only better.

 

[plarq]

Feudalism is an early communism,high unit support and pop rush,but war weariness and bad corruption is the weakness of that gov.

 

[InFlux5]

The war weariness is very minimal; it's less than Republic and Republic is great for waging war (unless it's every turn until the end.)

 

[gunkulator]

WW for Feudalism and Republic are the same. How you deal with them is what is different. In Feudalsim you can use military police. In Republic, you have extra commerce so are better off using the luxury slider.

I never use Feudalism and only use Monarchy if religious. Republic is superior to both.

 

[Own]

i find feudalism terrible, 3 gpt unit support, it encourages you to have small cities. it says in the civilopedia that you don't have to pay maitenecene for city improvements, but you really do. if that was true it might be worth playing.

also, war wariness is just what this government needed to make it better

 

[Peepers]

Feudalism is good for rapid military buildup if you are capturing enemy towns(1-6 pop) giving that 5 unit support each. If you're not agricultural or blessed with lots of fresh water, cities will be few and far between due to expensive aqueducts, so this lends itself to large militaries under feudalism. Dealing with popping instead of cash isn't that much of a burden when you consider that you can produce those stacks of catapults/trebs to go with your mace hordes and knights. Just don't stray far above your unit limit. It can get expensive!

I have uses for monarchy, of course. I just find that people dismiss feudalism too readily. Sometimes, on emperor and above, it's all you've got to escape despotism.

 

[gunkulator]

Seems to me Feudalism is not much better than Despotism. At least not worth the lost turns in Anarchy. You get all of 1 more unit of support in towns (5 vs. 4) but then Despotism doesn't penalize you for cities that exceed size 6. The cost for going over unit max units is just 1 gold vs. 3 - ouch!. Yeah, corruption is a bit worse and there's the tile penalty too, however chances are you're mostly working grass and plains anyway. And then there's WW. Not even an issue in Despo.

 

[Rohili]

Monarchy is definitely better than Feudalism, unless you really like pop-rushing. The unit support for Feudalism is the costliest of all goverments and there is war weariness.

 

[DamImLookinGood]

Regarding pop rushing in feudalism, that's exactly what I plan to do. Check out my mapfile here from Jan 23 2015 and tell me, after you obtain the technology for cavalry for the Portuguese, how would you begin invading others? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13654998#post13654998

 

[Theov]

Check my signature.

I made all things that are different bold.

Monarchy is a more population friendly gov. The unit support rises as cities go bigger, you pay to hurry improvements and there's no war weariness.
Feudalism on the other hand, allows a large military if your cities are not beyond 6.

Feudalism
Good for civs with small towns (under pop 6). You might actually want small towns because of the unit support - you can do that by whipping your citizens to hurry up production.
Also for countries that are behind at the start of a game and want to expand through war.
Also a popular government in 100K culture victory games.

Worker Efficiency: 100%
Hurry Method: Forced Labor
Corruption: Problematic
War Weariness: Low
Draft Rate: 2
Military Police Limit: 3
Unit Support Town/City/Metro: 5/2/1
Notes: Units over the cap cost 3 gpt.


Monarchy
The lack of war weariness (WW) can be more valuable than the commerce bonus in Republic and Democracy, if you plan to be at war for a long time.
The presence of military police can compensate a lack of luxuries and makes a good combination for small kingdoms at war and have an army a Republic can't support.

Worker Efficiency: 100%
Hurry Method: Pay citizens
Corruption: Problematic
War Weariness: none
Draft Rate: 2
Military Police Limit: 3
Unit Support Town/City/Metro: 2/4/8

 

[dgfred]

Well, by definition:

You can leave it to your 'lords' to rule your empire- Feudalism

You can rule your empire with absolute power- Monarchy

I take choice two.

 

[Empiricus]

The ideal situation for Feudalism is this: You have many small towns and want to wage a low-tech war, swamping your opponent with lots of mediocre units.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The ideal situation for Feudalism is this: You have many small towns and want to wage a low-tech war, swamping your opponent with lots of mediocre units.

I feel like there isn't much hope if you're already in that situation.

 

[Empiricus]

Hi! Glad someone is still playing CivIII! Now, I seem to have a Feudal mindset: On mid-level difficulty, spamming cities and going Feudal works for me.

Feudalism happens to be one of my favourite governments; I must be doing something very right or very wrong.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Hi! Glad someone is still playing CivIII! Now, I seem to have a Feudal mindset: On mid-level difficulty, spamming cities and going Feudal works for me.

Feudalism happens to be one of my favourite governments; I must be doing something very right or very wrong.

It depends on the play style. For me, Feudalism usually doesn't work because of the unit upkeep and the war weariness. On the other hand, I use Monarchy all the time.

 

[Lanzelot]

For me, Monarchy doesn't work, because of the reduced commerce compared to Republic. Feudalism then would even be worse: it "combines the disadvantages" of Republic and Monarchy: war weariness like in Republic and low commerce like in Monarchy... The only benefit of Feudalism (lot's of free upkeep for units, if you have lot's of small towns), doesn't make much sense either, because it is undesirable to have small towns: you want big productive cities in order to be successful.

So in my opinion, Feudalism is only a "niche" government for two very special situations:

1. You had very bad luck (start in tundra, jungle or desert) and are now stuck with lots of small towns, but need to fight a war for survival using lot's of cheap units.
2. You are playing for a 100K victory. You built up a strong empire (using Republic), and now want to switch to Feudalism, so you can use pop-rushing to build lots of libraries & temples in the totally corrupt boondocks (turning food, which is not affected by corruption, into shields).

 

[Theov]

My question would be, what would make Feudalism an option as opposed to Republic. So what needs to be changed in order to make you use Feudalism?