Domestic Consulate: Government Switching

[Ginger_Ale]

As we near the end of the ancient age, we need to get out of despotism so we can irrigate grassland and mine hills. But which government should we choose? Discuss which one (Monarchy, Feudalism or Republic), and when we should switch. Keep in mind:

* The smaller our cities are, the less effective our government will be, except for Feudalism. For Republic and Monarchy, we need to get some growth in before we go into anarchy. Having one city size 7 or above can save us 2 for Monarchy/4 for Republic gpt in unit costs AND give us more commerce.
* We need luxuries connected / trade routes set up so we can stay happy.
* We will probably have a war coming up, and Republic and Feudalism have low War Weariness, so that could affect a long, dragged out war.
* We want our GA in a new government, not Despotism.

Start the debate.
-----------------
My opinion is we need Monarchy. While Republic has the commerce bonus, WW, low unit support, and high unit costs will hurt us. Monarchy is good for small empires with medium-sized cities (around 7 or over). It'll allow us to irrigate grassland for growth and mine hills for lots of spt. Monarchy also allows Military Police, and seeing as we don't have many luxuries, that could come in handy.

 

[mad-bax]

I would prefer Republic for higher commerce and lower corruption. Republic gives some unit support.

There is a good case for Monarchy however, and I accept that my preference for Republic is mainly because it's what I've always done - and that is as good as no argument at all. Monarchy also fits better with British history IMO, and wouldn't object to a further switch to Democracy later.

If republic, I would prefer to wait until we have at least one other luxury, but preferably 2 since we can garrison now, but won't be able to in Republic.

If Monarchy then I would wait until we are halfway through our war with the Dutch. Once any new units we build cannot get to the action by the end of the war.

My only great objection would be to feudalism as it is not practical to fight wars in this government. Unit costs are crippling.

 

[RegentMan]

My only great objection would be to feudalism as it is not practical to fight wars in this government. Unit costs are crippling.

They are only crippling if we have big cities. Towns give five free units. So, if your plan is to stay small, feudalism is great for unit support. However, if your plan is to grow, then your second sentence is absolutely correct. Any extra units over the limit cost three gold per turn.

I would like to change over to a monarchy. Right now, we only have one luxury. The cost for the luxury slider will kill us. Plus, we're preparing for a war. We get one free unit per town, three per city in a republic. Right now, if I recall, we would get five units free should we switch now. Any extra unit costs two gold per turn. Additionally, monarchy has military police. Thus, I think a monarchy would prove best for us right now.

 

[mad-bax]

Hmm.. but that means putting lots of shields into units that will never do anything except make an unhappy citizen content. We'll pay 1 gpt for 300 turns for him and he'll never move, never fight a battle and never upgrade. 2 each of him in 50 cities and I get goosebumps.

 

[greekguy]

i'd go for republic but only after the wars. i think republic is better for the increased commerce, a bit less corruption. also we'd be ok with WW, if we get it after the wars. monarchy would mean a bunch of MP's, whille republic would just require the lux. slider to go up a bit. i think republic would be the most beneficial for us.

 

[cavvie]

I agree. If we can wait for after the wars, Republic is the way to go. If we can't wait that long then we'll have to consider using Monarchy but that would hurt us more in the long run for short run benefit.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Someone else brought up a good point in another thread: when in Republic, if we get Dutch/India to declare on us, we will get war happiness. Perhaps we will still get war happiness from the Japanese/Persians declaring on us.

I will put up a poll on governments, and when, tonight.

PS: Another other Domestic discussions you would like to see? I can't think of much..

 

[vikingruler]

i think both are beneficial, but i prefer republic. the low ww would mean war isn't very tough and the researching and economical increases are bigger than the other 2 govs.

 

[Ashburnham]

Since we obviously have war in our near future, I would say we need Monarchy. However, this hinges on whether or not we're willing to switch to Republic as soon as we've taken care of the Indians and Dutch.

I know some people would be hesitant about going through two periods of anarchy in a fairly short period. But, whenever I play, I try to get out of Despotism as soon as possible. Generally, I go straight for Republic, but I think we're going to go through a little too much bloodshed in the near future for Republic to be viable. Thus, we need Monarchy.

If people really don't want to go through two government shifts, then my vote goes for Republic. However, I think the benefits we gain from a short Monarchy period make up for the anarchy.

 

[zyxy]

Quantitative analysis of republic and monarchy

I have no experience with Feudalism, but it seems a government that penalizes the establishment of a strong economy, and therefore a bad idea IMO. So I will concentrate on republic and monarchy, and try to quantify the difference between those. I will ignore the effects of war weariness (WW) and MP's at first. Then the two main differences are in income and unit upkeep cost.

I will assume that the total number of units (call this U) is at least equal to two times the total number of towns (called T). I will assume every citizen works a tile that produces at least 1 gold, all income is applied to tax, and that all our settlements are towns size < 7).

Unit upkeep: monarchy pays U-2*T gpt, republic pays 2*(U-T) gpt, a difference of U gpt, or 1 gpt per unit, to be paid by republic.

Income: compared to monarchy, in a republic every citizen and town center produces 1 extra "raw gold" (this is what the tile produces, i.e., before any modifiers). For each town, this gets multiplied by a corruption modifier and by 1.5 if there is a market. Instead of doing this town by town I will use a weighted average, to get a total extra income of

(N+T)*c*m,

where N is the number of citizens, c is the corruption modifier (between 0 = total corruption and 1 = no corruption) and m is a marketplace modifier (between 1 and 1.5).

Thus republic is better if (N+T)*c*m is larger than the number of units U.
The product c*m can range anywhere from (theoretically) 0 to 1.5, but c*m = 1 is an easy and reasonable choice, if the count of N and T is restricted to fairly noncorrupt towns with markets.
If you now use the rule of thumb that "number of workers = number of towns", then republic is better if the number of citizens is larger than the number of military units.

This should be taken as a rough estimate only. For example it does not take into account the difference in corruption between monarchy and republic, and it ignores round-off errors. Also the assumption that all gold goes to tax may not be true (and the lux tax does not get the marketplace modifier).

Some consequences:

• Monarchy is more forgiving then republic. Republic gives bigger rewards, but also bigger penalties if our economy is bad. It is a good a idea to have a few 100 cash on hand when switching to republic, to pay for budget deficits for a few turns, and to rush markets.
• High population and markets are more important for a republic than for monarchy. Republic is the better government long term.
• Switching to republic requires timing. Not having markets (nearly) in place before a switch is asking for trouble IMO.
• Did I mention markets already?

What does it mean for our game?
The latest information I have seen is that we have T=6 towns, N=14 citizens, c=0.85 (15% corruption), m = 1 (no markets). That means the cut-off point between the two governments is around U=17 units. Assuming half a dozen workers that means about 10 troops, which is not much. Besides, this is only the point where republic is not worse than monarchy.

My opinion on the government switch:
I think we should have only one anarchy and switch to republic for its long term benefits. We should wait with the revolt until we have around 25 citizens and markets in all important towns. That would safely allow for an army of 20 troops or so.

War weariness:
Should be no problem if our wars are short and decisive, or phony. Republic may also get war happiness (Thank you Persia! Thank you Japan! ), I think monarchy cannot.

MP's:
This is tricky. MP's give monarchy the flexibility to pacify one or two excessively large (compared to the others) cities at low cost. Republic has no choice but to up the lux slider. I think the key to running a good republic is to keep all core cities at roughly the same size. Large fringe cities should hire taxmen and build settlers/workers.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Poll is up.

Continue to discuss if you wish.

 

[blackheart]

If we are for sure goin to war with India or the Dutch, monarchy. Republic won't be able to sustain us with its high war weariness for the ammount of time a campaign and peace would take.

 

[zyxy]

<snip> Republic won't be able to sustain us with its high war weariness for the ammount of time a campaign and peace would take.

Is war weariness different in conquests than it used to be in vanilla? I never had that much trouble with it (in vanilla). In the present situation, we'll get war happiness from two wars that should offset quite a bit of unhappiness from the wars we actually fight.

In any case, it doesn't look like we'll have the required tech for either government within 15-20 turns or so. Also, if we follow the requirements I laid out above (markets, 25 citizens) we will not be ready for a switch to republic before dealing with the two neighbors.

 

[Bertie]

Is war weariness different in conquests than it used to be in vanilla? I never had that much trouble with it (in vanilla). In the present situation, we'll get war happiness from two wars that should offset quite a bit of unhappiness from the wars we actually fight.

War weariness is the same in Conquests, zyzy. As long as one takes 20 turn breaks from war from time to time, it's pretty easy to wage war in a Republic and keep the populace happy. Good analysis earlier about republic vs. monarchy, BTW.

I'd switch to Republic after we've had our first wars with the Indians and the Dutch (we'll have a second war with each civ later in the game). I would expect after these two wars that we won't be in an active war for awhile (that is, we may be at war on the other side of the world but our troops won't be engaged) so war weariness won't be a problem anyway. After we secure enough land so we can build more cities - one of our goals in these early wars - the productive benefits of the Republic will be enormously useful.

 

[zyxy]

Bertie,

Thanks for the info, and I agree with your timing of the switch. Glad you liked my bit of analysis

 

[mad-bax]

I am not happy with the idea of switching governments twice in a short space of time. It will not only kill culture, but will also kill production in a time when we need to mass produce units.

Republic is my choice still, and war-weariness is not a problem if you keep the wars short and change the civs you are warring against. WW from a war with one civ is not carried forward to a war with another civ. So short wars, and cycling through the civs is firly straightforward.