Fuedalism???

[RagingBarbarian]

I don't see any advantages in using Fuedalism, over other better government.
Has anyone ever succesfully used Fuedalism, if so tell me it's advantages, because I don't see any.
Some government are good during a war, and goverments like democracy and republic make alot of money, but Fuedalism doesn't fit into these categories.

 

[Adam7Eight]

From what I gather Fuedalism is only good early on. Once your cities get bigger then it will start hindering your civ. Personally, I have never even tried Feudalism, and probably never will.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

by the time you get Fuedalism my civilization doesn't have lots of tiny cities.

 

[Sukenis]

Feudalism works well if you have a lot of tundra cities or dessert cities and are not an agricultural civ. Many players will quit a game where this is their starting location, but if you do not Feudalism can be great. It specializes in allowing a large military with small population cities.

You can also use this for early wars where an overly large military is required by not building aqueducts.

While generally not as good as others, Feudalism has specific situations where it can be very useful.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

It is similar to Facism in the sense that it has alot of benefits in regards to warfare based on certain circumstances a player may find him/herself in.
Seems to me that Facism has the least penalties for the player in the early industrial era whom has not yet conquered other cities. They may have little to no foreign nationals in their cities and so have less to weigh up and consider than other civs who have captured cities earlier on.
I really quite like the way that works.

 

[Longasc]

There are rare occasions where Feudalism is a little bit better than Monarchy... but in general:

Feudalism -> Futilism.

 

[Brewster]

Feudalism is not better than Monarchy, however you do not need to research an optional tech to get it. If you are struggling with many small towns, this govt can be a game saver.

 

[CerberusIV]

The break even for Feudalism is if about half your civ is towns and half cities. That allows enough unit support for a decent military.

Unlike Monarchy or Republic it allows you to pop rush. If you want to do that it is better than Despotism.

If you are keen to get to Democracy it means not needing to research the other government techs but allows better outputs from your cities than Despotism.

I don't use it in every game but it has its place.

 

[Blasphemous]

I think the problem is that it comes in a bit too late to be useful in most situations...
When you get Feudalism, you'll have already started letting your cities grow beyong 6 pop, and so it's only really handy if you're so wrapped up in a war that you just have to keep pumping out more military and can't afford to build aqueducts. In such a case you'd support an enormous army at very small penalty...
But I have not yet tried this form of government, nor was I ever in a situation where I needed it.

 

[Lillefix]

I think feudalism is excellent. I never have many big cities by the time I get feudalism.

 

[Sukenis]

A city in the tundra can grow to size 2-3 without working the ocean (with a harbor). Inland tundra (without game) can have cities placed every other square (since they can not work many squares). This can allow a civ to have a massive military. Even if half of your land is fertile non-tundra with cities 13+, you can still keep a larger military than communism or democracy would allow.

This government goes "out-side the box" and allows you to win games that most players would simply quit.

 

[Longasc]

Sukenis, you have a point.

But the problem is, the player with small cities and bad starting location and less experience will probably *NOT* enjoy the benefits of this only in special cases successful government.

Well, I will probably try it in the next weeks, but right now nobody really recommended this form of government.

I would go even further and call it a nearly USELESS and superfluos government. They could have come up with more interesting ideas and specials for Feudalism.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

I have to say the same about Feudalism, it is nearly useless. If you are a civ with lots of tiny cities, and everyone else is republic with decent cities you cannot compete, you even have the same war warriness as a republic, so you don't really have any advantage of a republic or monarchy

 

[Blasphemous]

I think I'll try and start a game geared towards using Feudalism, and still winning.
I just want to get the feel for this gov't... It's settings seem too weird to be useless.

 

[Justus II]

Originally posted by Blasphemous
I think I'll try and start a game geared towards using Feudalism, and still winning.
I just want to get the feel for this gov't... It's settings seem too weird to be useless.

Check out the recent Open SG we played as the Feudalistic Mongols
The game was a good learning experience, at least for me, and we got a good handle on the advantages and disadvantages of the government. We certainly had our struggles in the early middle ages, but by the end we were unstoppable. Armies are a big help, but the unit support was incredible, and pop-rushing captured cities really helps minimize flips.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

with most cities not expanding past 6, how did you compete production wise, I'm refering to the Mongol game, especially in the middle ages, when units cost more.
Although I think I will attempt my on Feudalistic game

 

[JisL]

Well, Feudalism was intended to be improvement maintenance free, at least in the beta. Supposedly, the AI liked it too much and keeps using it and it was shrinked.

Perhaps we could start partitioning for them to bring it back to it's full potential without all the AIs clamouring for it.

 

[Justus II]

We did some upgrades, as there's not much else to use cash for (that and tech trading). There were always a few cities in the core, especially on rivers, that were productive enough to crank cav, and we didn't waste time with libraries/Univ/Banks/etc. This saves sheilds, and also on maintenance. Sun Tzu was a priority for us, obviously. Other than a market for happiness, (and occasional granary/harbor for food) it was military builds. When in danger, it was convenient to be able to pop-rush muskets or cav from corrupt cities. I think the key was focus on military, and try to win it with Cav. It was also another example of the power of the new armies, 4-cav armies can take out 2 rifles per turn pretty easily. Tech was tricky, we had to be frugal and focus on the techs we really needed (bottom row of the MA tech tree), most of the other techs were picked up well behind the AI, usually in peace deals. Not a builder's government, certainly, but it definitely has it's uses for a warmonger.

 

[RagingBarbarian]

what about the war-wariness aspect, were the wars your talking about really short.

I remember reading about the maintenance free bonus, it should be brought back, although you can always include it using CivEdit

 

[Nisku]

Feudalism is great, I just finished an emporer level game with feudalism as my only early government, I've also beat two monarch level games the same way. I actually stayed in feudalism right up until I was able to build hospitals. The unit support and forced labour are big advantages. Feudalism is far from useless, I like it more then monarchy.