Feudalism?

[KevinRuddPM]

Whenever I switch my government to Feudalism, my funding goes down the drain. I go from +2 to -20 whenever I switch to Feudalism. The Maya are alright with Feudalism, i get +20 each turn. The corruption is also annoying.

I'd rather stay a Republican thank you

 

[thetrooper]

IIRC Feudalism is rather odd wrt unit support. I think you should let your cities stay at max 6 pop. More experienced players are welcome to correct me here though

 

[thetrooper]

Yeah, some quick browsing:

Unit support in Feudalsim: town (size 1-6) = 5, city (size 6-12) = 2 and metro (size 12->) = 1.
Units beyond this cap cost a whopping 3 gpt per!

I bet you're having a lot of cities around and that unit support is really going to cost you?

I rarely play anything but Republic...

 

[da3dalus]

Yeah, some quick browsing:

I rarely play anything but Republic...

Myself included, with the exception of when I'm mired down in conflict(s) with no immediate ends in sight and the WW benefits of Monarchy seem pretty attractive...So I guess I'm saying I'm republican by choice, but monarchist if the strategic circumstances are just right.

I've never used Feudalism before, I find it's kinda pointless because by the time you've researched it you probably just researched Republic or Monarchy not too long before and just finished a period of anarchy in between governments...why would you go through that again for a government that is marginal at best?

Are there actually any benefits to going with Feudalism? It seems to me like it's a victim of its location in the tech tree...

 

[thetrooper]

Are there actually any benefits to going with Feudalism? It seems to me like it's a victim of its location in the tech tree...

There is one (and only one):

your way to 100k

 

[timerover51]

Myself included, with the exception of when I'm mired down in conflict(s) with no immediate ends in sight and the WW benefits of Monarchy seem pretty attractive...So I guess I'm saying I'm republican by choice, but monarchist if the strategic circumstances are just right.

I've never used Feudalism before, I find it's kinda pointless because by the time you've researched it you probably just researched Republic or Monarchy not too long before and just finished a period of anarchy in between governments...why would you go through that again for a government that is marginal at best?

Are there actually any benefits to going with Feudalism? It seems to me like it's a victim of its location in the tech tree...

About the only benefit I can see is if you are on a map with very limited water resources, which is possible given the random map generator, if set for warm and arid, and did not want to spend the shields on building a lot of aqueducts. Then is somewhat makes sense.

The other option would be to use it as the starting government for your civilization if you are into modifying the game. I have made some mods where I have set the default starting government to monarchy (I like to use a modified monarchy for the no War Weariness), so starting with Feudalism would give you a lot of unit support before you had Construction researched to allow for aqueducts. Of course, if you are into modifying the game, you can also change the Town size setting to allow you to have more than 6 citizens per town, which makes the government type also more useful. If I remember correctly, in TETurkhan's Test of Time mod for PTW, he has the town size set for 15 or 16, and the city size set for something like 55. I suspect that was to get around the population pollution problem of the metropolis.

 

[Spoonwood]

Feudalism makes for a decent pop-rushing government in mid-to-lower level 100k games.

 

[timerover51]

Feudalism makes for a decent pop-rushing government in mid-to-lower level 100k games.

I can see that too, if you are concentrating on fast expansion with some military to back it up, and do not want to use shields to build aqueducts. I can think of a couple of my early games where Feudalism would have come in handy.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Feudalism is very much a niche government, usually good for 100k. Surprisingly enough, it can be very good for war-mongering, its' unit support allows massive numbers of troops. It can be similar to Despotism in unit support, Monarchy in tech research, and Republic in war-weariness. Build a massive army and conquer fast. It surprised me in SGFN-05, a NOW where our goal was fast conquest. We had a huge debate, chose Feudalism, and did very well.

 

[Spoonwood]

I can see that too, if you are concentrating on fast expansion with some military to back it up, and do not want to use shields to build aqueducts.

Aqueducts? You've lost me here. In a mid-to-lower level 100k (which is what I talked about in what you quoted), you maybe want some troops to get more space for cities. You want settlers to found tons of cities at Smallpox city spacing. Then you want culture. On mid-to-lower levels you might have the Temple of Artemis on and not research to education. So, you have 80/40 sheild libraries, 120 shield colosseums, 60/30 shield temples, and 160/80 shield cathedrals. You want them as many places as you can get them really without going (too) broke. The food box only needs 10 or 20 food from size 1 to 6, and 20 or 40 food from size 6 to 12. So, you can get shields faster via pop-rushing in cities from size 1 to 6 than larger cities. So, why aqueducts?

 

[Aabraxan]

I believe timerover51 is saying that you do *not* want to build aqueducts.

 

[timerover51]

I believe timerover51 is saying that you do *not* want to build aqueducts.

That is correct, Aabraxan.

 

[Chieftess]

I've found Fuedalism useful (and I've only used it once) if you have poor land (thus, you can't get over size 6 anyway) and are forced to do a tight build, and build up a good sized army - almost a desperation government.