Feudalism

[Myartar]

I've just got to Feudalism for the first time in my game, and I'm kinda stumped here. What the hell is the point of this gov? According to the Civlopedia effeciency, corruption, draft rate, and police limits are the same. Feudalism is forced labor rushing, cost more for unit upkeep, and can cause war weariness, whereas Monarchy is paying for rushing and doesn't cause war weariness. The only possible advantage for Feudalism is support is 5/2/1 for town/city/metro, while Monarchy is 2/4/8. So it's good if you have lots of towns. Is that it? Am I missing something here?!

 

[Daarkseid]

In my games, I've sometimes kept my initial conquests going for so long that Monarchy and Republic just aren't viable, even in the early middle ages. My cities are small and undeveloped, so I couldn't produce enough commerce to pay for my troops(as I'd surely be going over the support given by my under 7 population cities).

I'd need Despotism to keep my army going, because of the 4 support for each city, regardless of size. I'm guessing that Feudalism would be something of an improvement for my situation, in that my cities(few, if any, ever go above 6.. I always make sure to cap their population growth if they're located by rivers) will have support of 5, not just 4. AND, unless I'm mistaken, Feudalism doesn't have the productivity penalty that Despotism has. Which means I could get more production out of my squares, allowing me to build my army faster.

WW is a big downer, however. It is at Republic level, which means its tolerable, but still there ready to cut short my conquest, which is what I needed Feudalism for in the first place.