Fix Feudalism!!!!!

[Veteranewbie]

OK Feudalism is CRAP, it is absolutely CRAP.
Firstly, I understand that the low warwariness with this 3 gold per upkeep thing is to limit war in feudalism. But then why dont we compare it to the similar Republic - Republic has 2 gold upkeep, with same war weariness. This way is to prevent people from waging too much war in republic (since low war weariness is more manageable than high in democracy). BUT, the difference between republic and feudalism is that, it cost less to support an army when ur nation grows, but in feudalism, it costs MORE to support an army as your civ grows, so if you stay in Feudalism you cannot let your civ develops? What kind of bullcrap is that?
Also, Feudalism has a higher corruption, a higher upkeep level for the army. And the basic town support level is low (only 5 the higest), even worse than communism (commy are 6 to all type of towns). Also, consider that as technology develops, the government should be better - consider, from monarchy to fascism, and republic to democracy. Therefore, feudalism should be at least equivalent, if not better, than monarchy or republic.
Also, Feudalism doesnt have the same commerce benefits as Republic or a lower corruption than monarchy.
If Feudalism is for closely packed towns, then if should be able to hold a gigantic army i.e. in despotism, I can hold a gigantic army as well as support alot of workers without having to pay 3 gold upkeep. Having a civilization unable to start effective war, can't enhance production (without higher population since my town will then support less units and will cost me too much for my current military/workers), doesnt increase commerce (like republic or Democracy) or doesnt encourage growth (again same reason), Feudalism is a rubbish government.
Maybe you will ask, why am I complaining? Because, I just played a game which I foolishly forget to get monarchy+republic and started a revolution, and the stupid mongol wont sell Republic/Monarchy to me for iron+luxury+Feudalism+300 gold. After i change from despotism to Feudalism, i suffer from +10 gold to -30 gold.
Alrite enough talk FIX FEUDALISM!!!

 

[NiteCreature]

Pop rush units

 

[ChrTh]

You're missing the point: Feudalism ISN'T for closely packed towns. Feudalism is ideally suited for a settler farm expansion plan (or Ancient Age conquest). In a game I recently played, I went with Feudalism, and I didn't have to pay upkeep costs until the late Middle Ages, because I had settled a lot of towns. Once I stopped expanding, then I switched over to Republic. (Where I then had to pay more upkeep costs, but it was balanced out by the other improvements)
The other advantage is that Feudalism is a way better tech than Republic or Monarchy -- it gives you Pikes and MDIs. So instead of wasting my time researching Monarchy or Republic, I went for Feudalism instead, and let the AI research the others for me.

EDIT: Also, Feudalism doesn't necessarily have to be better than Republic or Monarchy; those governments exist on the Tech Tree based on where they showed up historically.

 

[Veteranewbie]

As far as I know, Feudalism in China comes out first, before Monarchy. So in China, Feudalism is actually BEFORE Monarchy. Also, would you consider the city-states i.e. Athen, Sparta etc. in Ancient Greece as Feudalism?
Also, it is quite unlikely you are still expanding when you have Feudalism, unless you are have met lots of AI and play in harder level when AI trade extensively, or in a larger map. Anyway in my game, I have basically finish expanding (so there are no more place to expand) when I get currency. And my stupid science advisor doesnt tell me to research Monarchy/Literature/Republic.

 

[Commander Bello]

I partially agree with Veteranewbie.
Of course, Feudalism allows me to keep a huge army as long as my cities are small - and then it starts with it's war weariness. But, Republic I can hold throughout the whole game and do almost everything what I want. Even have long-time wars.
Feudalism at a certain point of time (at the latest when no expansion is possible anymore) has to be changed.
So, if I go for Feudalism, I WILL have at least two changes of governments which will cost me some precious turns.
So, as long as you aren't a religious civ AND there is still this crazy turn penalty of change of governments, I will stay abstinent from Feudalism.

 

[ChrTh]

Originally posted by Veteranewbie
As far as I know, Feudalism in China comes out first, before Monarchy. So in China, Feudalism is actually BEFORE Monarchy. Also, would you consider the city-states i.e. Athen, Sparta etc. in Ancient Greece as Feudalism?

Well, the Tech Tree is Western in its orientation (otherwise Gunpowder and Magnestism would show up a lot earlier), so whether or not China had it is immaterial to me--and the designers as well. (one day I'm going to build a Asian scenario with a revamped Tech Tree for their historically reality).

As for Ancient Greece, let me assure you as a Classics major (BA from Boston Univ.) that the answer is Hades No! The city-state system falls somewhere between Tribal Council and Republic (ignoring the Athenian "Democracy", which wasn't). Feudalism is the opposite of city-state: the concentration is in the rural sectors, not the urban sectors; also, both have loose confederations, but in city-state it's based on cities, not people. Different viewpoints, if you will. Not to mention the fact that in city-states the common man may have some say in government (moreso in Athens than elsewhere), whereas in Feudalism forget about it (except for maybe Dennis (Monty Python reference).
I can see where one would be tempted to draw parallels between the two, but I sure as heck wouldn't.

 

[Veteranewbie]

City-states should be more fit to civ, since if its more concentrate on urban sector, then thats what civ is all about - we build urban area (towns from settlers) and when towns grow people move to rural area and develops it(tiles around the city). Therefore, Civ should be more of a city-state.
Anyway, Feudal sux

 

[ChrTh]

@Veteranewbie:

I agree that Feudalism seems an odd choice considering the city-focus of the Civ game, but considering that Feudalism existed in the West arguably for nine to eleven hundred years (I say arguably, because there is disagreement on when Feudalism actually rose up, some trace it back to the waning days of the Roman Empire, others wait until after Charlemagne. I personally lean closer to the former), whereas the city-state system existed for roughly three hundred years at the most, so historically, there's more 'weight' to Feudalism, even if it's not obviously applicable to the game.

EDIT: What makes it oddest, is that Feudalism rocks for an Infinite City Sprawl Conquest strategy--your army could get as big as it wants--but the designers have done everything possible to eliminate the ICS strategy.

BTW, Feudalism can work with a military bent, especially if you conquer the cities you're grabbing. And the more you conquer, the bigger your army can grow. A steamroll effect is definitely a possibility.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by ChrTh

(ignoring the Athenian "Democracy", which wasn't)

Since the word "democracy" was invented to describe the Athenian government, I'd say it has the better claim to the name!

I agree on all material points, tho.

If looking for Feudalism in ancient western Eurasia, you're better off looking at Media*, Persia or Parthia. While not strictly speaking feudalistic in the High Medieval Western European sense, their internal organization certainly had certain points in common with it.

* In the Mesopotamia Conquest, they spell it "Medea" and "Medean"; I'm used to "Media" and "Median". Any classical scholar here to weigh in on which, if any, is more correct?

 

[ChrTh]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist


* In the Mesopotamia Conquest, they spell it "Medea" and "Medean"; I'm used to "Media" and "Median". Any classical scholar here to weigh in on which, if any, is more correct?

When we studied Persia, it was spelled 'Medea' ... doesn't make it correct though ...


Actually, my gripe with the Athenian 'democracy' is a linguistical one, not a historical one

 

[The Last Conformist]

Linguistic? But the term demos simply didn't include slaves and metoeci - so I am told, at least - so what's the problem?

 

[Tavenier]

Originally posted by ChrTh


When we studied Persia, it was spelled 'Medea' ... doesn't make it correct though ...


Actually, my gripe with the Athenian 'democracy' is a linguistical one, not a historical one

It is Medea. For non-Western names historians came up with names which suited all western languages. Before that a name like Mao Zedong was called Mao Ze Toeng in Dutch, Tse Tung in English (if I'm not mistaken) and so forth. It was agreed that all Chinese, Egyptian, Persian, Zulu (and so on) names had one and the same name in Latin alphabet. So the French, Dutch, Spanish, Germans, Irish all have the same names for leaders and cities of those cultures.
The agreed upon name is Medea, to make a long story short.

 

[Pfeffersack]

One way to improve feudalism would be to enable free maintenance for buildings.It was planned, but dropped because the AI likes it too much - at least, that what the developers say about it.
After I read in German forum that this was NOT case in the German version of conquests and no one there seems to experience those AI problems with free maintenance, I decided to mod it to see what happens (my version is English).In my actual game most of the AI civs have researched feudalism, but only Japan uses this government (and for them, it is the best possible government in the moment-a lot ow towns and a big army).I will test this in further games and see how likely the AI is to use this modded feudalism and if it stays forever in it.

 

[meltone1]

making it free maintenance pretty much cancels the trade bonus for republic iMO.

 

[warpstorm]

The problem wasn't that they changed to it, they didn't unless they skipped monarchy or republic. It was that if they changed to it they wouldn't leave even if they should have. Actually, I wouldn't either. You could stockpile major cash without having to pay anything for buildings or units (with an ICS build).

 

[meltone1]

i've brought this up before, but what do you guys think about using communal corruption? I've tried it for a while, and while it is powerful, you have to keep most of your cities down under 7 to maintain your unit upkeep rate, so you do sacrifice large scale city growth to perhaps improve your far off cities. IMO, it at least gives more of a reason to switch to feudalism, as anarchy is more brutal than ever. As it was before, I never thought it was worth switching to feudalism just for the extra unit upkeep considering the anarchy penalty, and also the fact that I don't want to keep my cities under size 7 for very long, so why bother, ya know.

Oh, one more thing. If you still think just having communal corruption is too powerful, you could also consider implementing forced resettlement or no hurried production to offset it more.

 

[tomart109]

i've been favoring Feudalism in c3c, because it fits my early conquest-and-growth-but-keep towns-small plan, and it worked well for a few games (when i could become dominant early.)

But now i've got an intractable opponent (on another continent,) and i see that i'll have to change govts a second time... I've hit the unit ceiling, and it's not enough to go conquer him. He's way ahead in tech, too.

So maybe i'll view Feudalism as having a certain, limited usefulness, in the early game. And with the excessive anarchy period, ya wanna switch as little as possible.

quote from meltone1:

pretty much cancels the trade bonus for republic

um, what's the trade bonus for republic? i have a nice government chart that someone posted, but for this entry, his note is not too helpful:

"TradeBonus = Standard Trade Bonus"

 

[USC]

Tomart:

Republic and Democracy get +1 trade (gold) from every square that already produces at least 1 trade.

USC

 

[Tavenier]

I only switch to Feudalism if it fits me at the time and when I am a religious civ. So in total I switch to Feudalism about 1 in every 20 games. I also do it sometimes because I don't want to end up turning republic every game, just to have different types of games.
But Feudalism overall is the worst of all govs. Especially with the war weariness. Maybe the maintenance of some buildings should be free, and not all. Like all happiness buildings, or all buildings which have an upkeep of over 1 gpt. Or all 1 gpt buildings.

 

[NHJ BV]

I think it's useful if you really plan to use it and just don't build aquaducts in your cities.