Government issues, republic vs monarchy

[CraigDN]

I was just wondering if anybody has any advice on what early government i should use in my game(s). I normally begin to build up a large millitary around the time when you start researching techs like chilvalry, and normally go to war with a rivaling nation soon after, would monarchy be the most benificial government to use or would republic give more of a benificial financial benifit?

 

[budweiser]

As a rule of thumb, Monarchies are better for war while Republic is better for peace. Early in the game, a republic can have quite a struggle keeping peole happy and paying for military units. You also suffer war weariness under a republic whereas a monarchy can fight an unlimitied number of turns with out war weariness. But you get much more money if you are in a republic. I try to get republic myself unless it looks like I am gong to need to fight for resources and luxuries, then I get a monarchy and fight until I have land, resources and luxruires.

 

[Roxlimn]

Define "large."

Would this be "large" as in about 4 units per city, or large as in 6 or more units per city?

Define "early."

Would this be 230 AD or 1750 BC?

The things that Monarchy has going for it are:

1. Better unit support at mid city sizes
2. No War Weariness
3. Units can remove unhappiness

The things that Republic has going for it are:

1. Lower corruption
2. Extra commerce per tile

Based on this simplistic defintions, you should be able to decide if your situation calls for Republic or Monarchy. Generally speaking, in a situation wherein you have not really finished your expansion phase, you don't really have enough population to really take advantage of the extra commerce, and the unit support will kill your treasury. For shifting out of Despotism prior to 1000 BC, Monarchy is almost always a superior choice.

War is a complex issue. If, for example, you're China and are getting lots or Riders soon, you can expect to war with a smaller civ with little to no War Weariness. You can make a Republic work under these conditions, even with a very protracted war, especially if you have the population and infrastructure to make Republic profitable.

If you're Persia and expect to attack with multiple slow moving SODs, or expect many enemy units to be camped within your borders, your units attacked, and so on, then Monarchy is the better choice, especially if your civ isn't that large to begin with.

Luxury benefits can also ameliorate War Weariness. Generally speaking, if you can have access to 5 or more luxuries and have Markeplaces in all the major cities, then a Republic can work, even with healthy amounts of War Weariness, and especially so for large civs with off-center capitals.

 

[thetrooper]

You can do some serious warmongering in Republic too.

 

[gunkulator]

Don't knock Republic for warmongering. It can be done. With a SOD containing many artillery type units, you can suffer few casualties, which are a major source of WW.

And don't forget the luxury slider. The extra commerce and lower corruption of Republic makes the slider more effective. I play Emperor and use Republic exclusively and generally win by either conquest or domination. The only time I'll switch is if I play a religious civ, and then it'll only be to Communism.

 

[SimpleMonkey]

Given all of the above, is there a good rule of thumb to let you know when it's time to move out of Despotism into Republic? I suspect that if you're jumping to Monarchy, the sooner the better. But experience tells me that if you jump to Republic too soon (i.e. before your population and city count can really support it), you'll actually be doing worse as far as income and research goes than if you'd stayed in Despotism. I've really taken some hits by believing you get a huge advantage the earlier you jump to Republic.

 

[Renata]

Edit: responding to gunk here.

Exactly. Core towns in Republic might be unhappy at a slider setting of zero where a Monarchy would be ok. But a Republic makes so much more money that moving the slider just one notch can be the difference between two happy faces and six in low-corruption towns. And there will be more core towns as a Republic, due to the lower corruption. Plus, to get the benefit of Monarchy's military police, you have to actually build them, and keep them in all of the largest cities. This takes time and shields, and diverts units that could otherwise be at the front hammering other civs.

I like warmongering as a Republic. It feeds on itself, and gets easier and easier the further I get into the game. Monarchy just bogs down, in my experience.

Renata

 

[Roxlimn]

gunkulator:

Yeah, I play Emperor/Monarch as well. Yes, Warring on Republic is doable. However, it isn't always advisable. In a longstanding Middle Age or Ancient Age war, by far the most War Weariness tends to come from your units having to stay in enemy areas and your units being attacked. Having more artillery will not prevent this from happening. If you have a longstanding war, you have 2 alternatives: end the war and rebuild your Empire without changing Government types OR switch to Monarchy and get on with it.

In almost all cases, you're well advised only to start wars you can finish quickly, but there are certain situations in which you need to start a war you don't expect to win alone or wherein you expect a key tech to come soon and need to maintain the war because of a key MPP.

I don't necessarily reboot the game just because I get a nasty start position or am very likely to lose.

SimpleMonkey:

Generally speaking, the following should be true to make Republic profitable:

1. Most of your used tiles should have roads. It seems obvious enough but it still bears mentioning. If more than 25% of your worked tiles are unroaded, don't bother.

2. Almost all your core cities should be population 6 or higher. At least one should be over 6. Unit support will kill you if you don't have big enough cities. Big cities produce more unit support in Republic and generate enough extra commerce to offset the lower unit support. Two or 3 6+ cities with one additional 7+ city is about the minimum I'd put. You can actually go into Republic with mostly 4 population cities if your military is poor enough, like say, less than 2 military units per city, total.

3. You should have cities that have 50% native corruption rates or worse. Generally speaking, the other big thing about Republic is the improved corruption rate. Even with size 6 or 7 cities, a small concentrated civ with an appreciable military is unlikely to see benefit vs Monarchy, and may even be worse off.

4. Prepare for unhappiness. Loss of military police is often damning to a civ without luxuries to pay for it. Generally speaking, the commerce bonus also offsets the loss of military police by allowing you to shift the entertainment bar higher while remaining competitive with Monarchy. However, this is only true when you have enough supportive luxuries or a friendly enough terrain to keep the slider at no higher than 10% (with specialist tweaking for key cities, when applicable). If you have to keep the slider at 20% where your citizens were perfectly happy in Monarchy under 0%, then it's entirely probable that whatever gains you may have gotten from the extra Commerce is just funneling into Entertainment with little benefit overall.

You have to realize that this is dynamic. You may not see an effect immediately, but if your growth is continuing, you will see an effect soon enough for it not to matter. Also, acquiring luxuries in trade from gpt deals that Republic can afford will shift the balance in its favor. I've found that often, a civ will trade a luxury for what seems like an ungodly amount, but actually was less than half of what I was losing due to having to keep the slider at 20%. Be alert for these deals. This is especially true at the "break" point of increasing happiness faces from luxury trades. IIRC, the 4th luxury affords you as much as 3 happy faces in any city with a Marketplace. If your cities are large enough to need this, it's worth a pretty penny.

Marketplaces are a central fixture of Republic in the Ancient and early Middle Ages. They help to maximize the commerce benefit and ameliorate the unhappiness issues. They're not required. You can sub in Oracle, for example, and still get a good result, but they are necessary in many situations.

 

[gunkulator]

gunkulator:

In a longstanding Middle Age or Ancient Age war, by far the most War Weariness tends to come from your units having to stay in enemy areas and your units being attacked. Having more artillery will not prevent this from happening. If you have a longstanding war, you have 2 alternatives: end the war and rebuild your Empire without changing Government types OR switch to Monarchy and get on with it.

I'm loathe to switch governments unless religious. You're talking 6 to 9 turns to get to Monarchy plus another 6 to 9 turns to get out of it again. I'll run luxuries up to 40% before even thinking of switching. And presumably, I'll be winning the war so I can end it at any time if WW gets really bad.

As to attacks on units, the AI is not so keen to attack a SOD on good terrain if you give it another target. Empty a city near your border that is just out of reach of their knights or cavalry. The AI loves to head for empty cities. If you have an army with your SOD, they won't attack it at all. Once you do take their cities however, they will attack them but hopefully by then most of their units will be committed to your empty city target.

Horse tiles are a prime target. Once they are taken, the AI can no longer attack your cities without giving you the first shot. Also, each new luxury you secure helps to offset WW effects. So really, WW is only a problem, up until the time you can knock out the AI's horses. After that, you only pay the 1 WWP per turn penalty and that's not so bad. Certainly not bad enough for a government switch.

Oftentimes, the AI attacks me. If so, I get double the amount of time before any WW sets in.

 

[Zakharov]

Almost all your core cities should be population 6 or higher.

Correction: They should be pop 7 or higher. A size 6 town is exactly the same as a size 1 town when it comes to calculating unit support under Republic.

Given all of the above, is there a good rule of thumb to let you know when it's time to move out of Despotism into Republic?

I usually get out of Despotism as soon as possible. There are two key points to help overcome the recession experienced when you first switch.

1) As Roxlimn was referring to, you need to grow your towns asap. The extra unit support at size 7+ is vital to a successful economy.

2) Disband a large part of your military. Your core cities do not need to be defended under Republic as they cannot do MP duty. When I switch to Republic I usually have many warriors in my empire, most of which I will disband. I focus on quality over quantity of units once I move to Republic. I should point however that I never leave my capital undefended as this encourages the AI to attack.

Other things to do are to build a library and a marketplace in most of your cities, as well as roading all tiles of course.

The only exceptions to my rule of when to switch is if I am in a war (or likely to be in the near future), plus I sometimes wait until I have got Literature before switching as it is impossible to do any fast research straight after becoming a Republic.

 

[Own]

i switch to monarchy if im already planning an attack because monarchy is pretty good starting out, but since republic is better in the long run, i usually go to republic.

keep in mind that even with war wariness, if you have built enough infrastructure, and have improved most or all tiles, republic can actually be a better warmongering government than monarchy. that commerce bonus turns into a whole lot more with marketplaces, banks, and stock exchanges. mrktpcs, bnks, and stk exc don't effect free unit support, so the 8 gold you get from a metro in monarchy is just 8 gold, that's it. a 13 size city will give you 8 gold from unit support in monarchy. in republic, since each square gets another gold, you get 13 gold from the bonus. lets say you have a marketplace, bank and stock exchange. that 13 gold is now 38, just from the bonus! So in demo/rep you could say that each metro gets 38 free unit support.

i hope i wasn't too confusing

 

[Roxlimn]

Zakharov:

It's a rule of thumb. In my experience, the unit support issue at population 6 is made up enough by the extra +7 commerce that it's good enough to switch on that population level, but generally no earlier. You notice that I also recommend that at least one should be 7+ (over 6) in order to take more advantage of better unit support.

Re: disbanding units. Generally, I do not find this advisable. If you don't have the population to support your current military, which presumably is the way it is for real reasons (and not just because you were too lazy to think of other things to build), then you probably shouldn't be switching to Republic in the first place.

Despotism only support 2 MPs per city, and that's generally a good place to start off when determining adequate unit defense for any city. If you don't reload games and you don't quit losing games, you'll find that an ounce of prevention is usually worth a pound of cure, and defensive units in cities are a great preventive measure.

Under Monarchy, you usually have 2 MPs as well. If you're forced to use 3 MPs under Monarchy for a significant number of cities, then your luxury/happiness base probably isn't strong enough to support a switch just yet. Quality of units is, of course, a great thing, but we're talking about an average of 3 - 4 units or per city here. It's not like that's such a huge quantity of units to be dealing with.

gunkulator:

Yes, a total of 12-18 turns of completely a unproductive civ is occasionally worth the revolution, especially if you can't see the end of the was you're engaged in. This is particularly true in wars against Fascist or Monarchy AI civs who want to extend the war as long as possible, to cripple you under Republic while they prosper under Facism or Monarchy. It's an evil trick, but it does work.

Now you can use exploits like empty city lures or Settler creep, but I don't like resorting to such tactics. It offends me no end to see the AI acting stupidly. You can imagine, therefore, that I don't want to be causing any such behavior myself. This includes killzoning. I do use a "killzone" technique, but I don't exploit AI programming weaknesses to accentuate it to obscene proportions.

Horse tiles are a prime target. Once they are taken, the AI can no longer attack your cities without giving you the first shot. Also, each new luxury you secure helps to offset WW effects. So really, WW is only a problem, up until the time you can knock out the AI's horses. After that, you only pay the 1 WWP per turn penalty and that's not so bad. Certainly not bad enough for a government switch.

You're assuming that you'll be winning. That isn't always the case. In fact, it's entirely possible for you to *gasp* lose cities and resources yourself. If you win over 90% of your games, I suggest not using exploits and/or moving up skill levels. It's great.

 

[Zakharov]

If you don't have the population to support your current military, which presumably is the way it is for real reasons (and not just because you were too lazy to think of other things to build), then you probably shouldn't be switching to Republic in the first place.

The reason my population is usually low when I switch to Republic is because I have been pumping out settlers and workers during the expansion phase. You should still switch to Republic even if you don't yet have the pop to support troops adequately. Any cities over size 7 will probably starve back down to size 6 or less during anarchy, so there is no 'good' time to switch. There will be a recession period whenever you make the change.

I always find in my games that the earlier I switch to Republic, the faster I can accelerate away from the AI in production and research.

Despotism only support 2 MPs per city, and that's generally a good place to start off when determining adequate unit defense for any city. If you don't reload games and you don't quit losing games, you'll find that an ounce of prevention is usually worth a pound of cure, and defensive units in cities are a great preventive measure.

Defensive units in core cities under a Republic are a waste of time. It is much better to have extra offensive units patrolling the borders instead. Like I said earlier, the only core city that needs defending is the capital.

Quality of units is, of course, a great thing, but we're talking about an average of 3 - 4 units or per city here. It's not like that's such a huge quantity of units to be dealing with.

3 to 4 units per city is a lot of troops when you also have 3+ workers per city.

 

[Roxlimn]

Zhakharov:

The reason my population is usually low when I switch to Republic is because I have been pumping out settlers and workers during the expansion phase. You should still switch to Republic even if you don't yet have the pop to support troops adequately. Any cities over size 7 will probably starve back down to size 6 or less during anarchy, so there is no 'good' time to switch. There will be a recession period whenever you make the change.

I find this tactic generally ill-advised. If you switch to Republic at such an early time, an unfortunate attack by the Mayans, Iroqouis, or Romans could finish your game then and there. Your Republic will be reeling from the WW issue and your unit support is so low you won't be able to muster a counter-offensive.

It isn't true, either, than cities over size 7 will starve back to size 6 during the anrachy period, and I find this especially so because I make provisions for it. Cities starving at all during a government shift is unusual for me.

If you have good infrastructure and good planning, I find that you can almost always hit the ground running as soon as you shift into Republic, whether you're shifting from Monarchy or Despotism.

I always find in my games that the earlier I switch to Republic, the faster I can accelerate away from the AI in production and research.

Always with the proviso that no one's going to attack you before your cities hit size 7 and you can churn out the military. Going into Republic with a minsicule military is like sending unescorted Settlers out to found undefended cities. It's phenomenal if it works, but spectacularly game-losing when it doesn't.

Defensive units in core cities under a Republic are a waste of time. It is much better to have extra offensive units patrolling the borders instead. Like I said earlier, the only core city that needs defending is the capital.

With standard map sizes, an enemy civ overseas with a couple Mounted units can raze your core into the ground with hardly any effort. The AI actually does this on occasion. The maddening thing is that they will occasionally pull such an underhanded stunt while on RoP agreements with you. When this happens, you will bitterly regret not having units in those cities. Unless, of course, you happen to see this as an occasion to simply happily reload the game.

I can't stress it enough. Defensive units in all cities are a must in any government form.

3 to 4 units per city is a lot of troops when you also have 3+ workers per city.

3+ Workers for every city is probably overkill, especially when many of your earlier tiles were worked by early workers. 2-3 Workers per city generally works for me until I have to make about 4-5 per during the early Industrial era for Rail. Even with 3+ workers per city, 3 to 4 units per city is not at all "a lot of troops". I usually station at least 2 units per city as defensive garrison, and as a defensive unit buffer for when my production doesn't match unexpectedly swift army advances. I use 3 on Monarchy for much the same reasons - defensive unit buffer.

Aside from this, I'll usually have 1 mounted unit for every 2 cities, and possibly 1 SOD worth of components in defensive stances throughout the region for every 4 strong productive cities This includes Swordsmen, Horsemen, Catapults, and extra Spearmen. Minimum SOD is 3 Swordsmen, 2 Catapults, 2 Horsemen, 2 Spearmen. That's 3-4 units per city on the average, minimum, ideally speaking. If I'm thinking about war, I'll expand this to include 1 SOD for every major city I'm planning on taking over, serving to as much as double the unit count to as much 8 units per city. Needless to say, this costs prohibitively, even on Monarchy, and absolutely untenable on small Republics. This force, of course, is meant to wage war, not stand around, so they're projected to eventually pay for themselves in terms of additional cities, luxuries, what have you.

This is especially true when I'm planning invasion as a Republic, since I can't afford losses, and I can't afford long wars. If I can't see my way to my war objective within 20 turns of declaring war, I will not start one under Republic. The sooner the objective is met, the better. A 1 turn war in the thick of the Middle Ages is possible. Destroy the civ on the turn you declare war. Five turn successful wars are extremely doable with 8 units per city on the cusp of declaration of war.

So no, I don't consider 3-4 units plus 3+ Workers per city "a lot of troops". On Monarch and even on Regent, you'll find that you will have to take substantive losses in taking cities, whether in units, or in War Weariness. It's not unusual for a standard SOD of 3 Swordsmen, 2 Horsemen, and 2 Catapults to sustain heavy losses on the assault, especially on well-fortified cities boasting as many as 6 to 8 well entrenched defenders. It's entirely possible that they will fail to meet their objective against a city on favorable terrain, with good unit defense.

 

[Zakharov]

I find this tactic generally ill-advised. If you switch to Republic at such an early time, an unfortunate attack by the Mayans, Iroqouis, or Romans could finish your game then and there. Your Republic will be reeling from the WW issue and your unit support is so low you won't be able to muster a counter-offensive.

It is extremely rare that I will be attacked during the 30 turn recession stage of a Republic. If I do get attacked it is very easy to fend off the AI with superior tactics.

Going into Republic with a minsicule military is like sending unescorted Settlers out to found undefended cities. It's phenomenal if it works, but spectacularly game-losing when it doesn't.

I don't go into a Republic with a miniscule military. I usually have a large number of warriors left over from Despotism MP duty, which is probably another reason why I don't get attacked during the early stages of Republic. I then disband only the units in the core, but leave the border towns well defended.

Btw, I never send out unescorted settlers.

With standard map sizes, an enemy civ overseas with a couple Mounted units can raze your core into the ground with hardly any effort. The maddening thing is that they will occasionally pull such an underhanded stunt while on RoP agreements with you. When this happens, you will bitterly regret not having units in those cities.

They don't get the opportunity to go near my undefended core. I never sign ROP agreements and hostile units at my borders are easily repelled.

Unless, of course, you happen to see this as an occasion to simply happily reload the game.

I never reload unless I make a misclick.

I can't stress it enough. Defensive units in all cities are a must in any government form.

We will agree to disagree on this point. I just think that defending core cities under Republic or Democracy is a waste of units.

3+ Workers for every city is probably overkill

Personally I don't think 3 per city is enough. I always strive to keep building workers until all tiles are fully improved.

On Monarch and even on Regent, you'll find that you will have to take substantive losses in taking cities, whether in units, or in War Weariness....
...It's not unusual for a standard SOD of 3 Swordsmen, 2 Horsemen, and 2 Catapults to sustain heavy losses on the assault, especially on well-fortified cities boasting as many as 6 to 8 well entrenched defenders.

I play at Emperor and I don't suffer heavy losses. You are obviously allowing the enemy too much time to build up their defences. I like to attack early and often to keep the AI troop levels down.

My typical attack strategy is to send about 10 to 15 horsemen at a city, capture it then move on to the next city. This way my forces stick together and it is easy to tell when I should end the war. Losing a couple of units from a mixed stack is enough to make that stack useless. With several stacks attacking a city each, it is no wonder you sometimes struggle to keep an offensive going.

 

[Randy]

Well, in GOTM republic tinds to be the gov. of choise. I do a lot of all ways war in republic and get very high scores.

 

[Roxlimn]

Zakharov:

It is extremely rare that I will be attacked during the 30 turn recession stage of a Republic. If I do get attacked it is very easy to fend off the AI with superior tactics...

I don't go into a Republic with a miniscule military. I usually have a large number of warriors left over from Despotism MP duty, which is probably another reason why I don't get attacked during the early stages of Republic. I then disband only the units in the core, but leave the border towns well defended.

Btw, I never send out unescorted settlers.

Going into Republic with a sizeable military early is often counterproductive, which is why you're going into a 30 turn recession period. If you wait a bit longer and develop your towns a bit more from Despotism or Monarchy, you can hit Republic well prepared and hit the ground running. During tests, I find that this is superior in terms of commerce and production value, especially so if you're a Religious civ and want to build up during Monarchy prior to a Republic shift. No recession period at all.

They don't get the opportunity to go near my undefended core. I never sign ROP agreements and hostile units at my borders are easily repelled.

No RoP agreements? How do you expose enemy territory prior to developing Navigation? Sending in Workers? That seems a bit... ...underhanded.

Personally I don't think 3 per city is enough. I always strive to keep building workers until all tiles are fully improved.

I don't improve every tile on the map. Only the ones I plan to use immediately, or in the near future. You can significantly lower worker count and upkeep if you concentrate your Worker goals, without loss of power.

I play at Emperor and I don't suffer heavy losses. You are obviously allowing the enemy too much time to build up their defences. I like to attack early and often to keep the AI troop levels down.

On the contrary, many people who are familiar with my play style complain that I'm a bit too aggressive. Even at Monarch there will be situations in which attacking an enemy civ simply isn't a quick affair. Moreover, attacking early and often can get you in trouble with Republic if you happen to be unfortunate enough not to snag at least 2 luxury resources in your territories.

My typical attack strategy is to send about 10 to 15 horsemen at a city, capture it then move on to the next city. This way my forces stick together and it is easy to tell when I should end the war. Losing a couple of units from a mixed stack is enough to make that stack useless. With several stacks attacking a city each, it is no wonder you sometimes struggle to keep an offensive going.

I usually don't have troble keeping an offensive going if I'm lucky enough to be able to send multiple stacks to different destinations. The point of multiple offensive points is to finish the war quickly by shortening travel time.

Using horsemen to capture cities is a workable strategy but not really particularly effective in all situations. In the main, this is only useful on Plains environments. What about attacking through Jungle or Swamp? Horsemen themselves aren't particular strong on the attack. with 10-15 Horsemen against a strong city point, you'll probably lose most against just Spearmen. In attacking a strong city, I would much rather have 6 Swordsmen, 4 Horsemen, 3 Catapults, and 2 Spearmen. While not as mobile as 15 Horsemen, they will get the job done, where 15 Horsemen will not.

And, of course, you will not always have Horsemen, so it's good to be flexible.

Don't get me wrong. I assemble all-Mounted offensives all the time. I do it with Horsemen if I can, though I prefer Samurai, Riders, or Ansar Warriors, all of whom have a better attack to defense against Pikemen than Horsemen vs. Spearmen.

I sometimes even assmeble both Horsemen stacks in those numbers and the usual SOD stacks, depending on enemy terrain. My point here is that I don't send troops to capture cities with no concrete objective. If my aim to to obliterate a civ and I think it's doable, I assemble a force that can do so and make no more troops than necessary. If all I want is to capture 4 key cities that have important resources, I do that.

10 to 15 Horsemen on their own is a pretty substantive force. Assuming you also have 2 Warrior garrisons per city on Despotism, plus a few fighting Spearmen for emergency defense, plus Horsemen for border defense, that's more than 3-4 units per city on a mid sized civ in the middle Ancient Age. I do not consider a single token and specialized invasion force plus skeleton defenses "a lot of troops." Now 2 Galleys worth of Berserks per enemy civ coastal city (about 10 Galleys holding 20 Berserks) plus 4 Horsemen 5 Pikemen, 8 Swordsmen and 4 Catapults, that's a mid sized respectable force.

PS. I do not believe that 15 Veteran Horsemen can reliably defeat 8 Veteran Spearmen fortified in a size 8 city on a Hill across a River. In all likelihood, you will lose all 15 Horsemen on an enemy sortie.

 

[gunkulator]

Yes, a total of 12-18 turns of completely a unproductive civ is occasionally worth the revolution, especially if you can't see the end of the was you're engaged in.

But if you're in the middle of a war, any gov't switching is ill-advised.

This is particularly true in wars against Fascist or Monarchy AI civs who want to extend the war as long as possible, to cripple you under Republic while they prosper under Facism or Monarchy. It's an evil trick, but it does work.

I find they don't play this trick on Republics or Feudal gov'ts. Only Democracy is subject to the "let's make sure they're always at war" trick.

Now you can use exploits like empty city lures or Settler creep, but I don't like resorting to such tactics. It offends me no end to see the AI acting stupidly.

But don't you empty most of your non-border cities anyway in Republic? I do. I'm not going to leave units sitting around in a city with nothing to do just because the AI is dumb.

You can imagine, therefore, that I don't want to be causing any such behavior myself. This includes killzoning. I do use a "killzone" technique, but I don't exploit AI programming weaknesses to accentuate it to obscene proportions.

Well, you have to do something. The AI gets so many bonuses that you need to take advantage of their shortcomings in one way or another. Do you use armies? The AI doesn't and they are arguably the biggest human-only exploit in the whole game. How about the TOE -> HD slingshot? Artillery?

You're assuming that you'll be winning. That isn't always the case. In fact, it's entirely possible for you to *gasp* lose cities and resources yourself.

If you find yourself losing much, you are probably out of the running. The AI isn't keen on peace when it's got you on the run.

 

[Zakharov]

@Roxlimn, it seems that we aren't going to agree on much regarding strategy under a Republic government. All I know is that my way works for me, plus variations of my strategy seem to be how many other players here like to manage a Republic (check out some of the GOTMs or SGs). If the way you do things works for you then that's fine.

I do agree with your strategy for Religious civs though, but I don't normally use them so I don't get the chance to put multiple revolutions to good use.

No RoP agreements? How do you expose enemy territory prior to developing Navigation? Sending in Workers? That seems a bit... ...underhanded.

I expose enemy territory by sending out several exploring units early in the game, before the AI has settled the land. Of course there will be some gaps, especially near the capitals (this can be revealed later via an embassy), but on the most part I can reveal enough terrain during the early game to show me all I need to know. I don't care about civs far away from me (eg. another continent) as I will probably not be in a position to attack them before I can trade maps anyway.

One thing I do to reveal the shape of an enemy's land is to send a couple of curraghs/galleys to explore the coastline, ignoring demands to leave their territory. From some of your comments above I believe you would probably find this exploitative. Personally I think that if they can send their ships wandering through my waters then why can't I do the same thing to them?

And, of course, you will not always have Horsemen, so it's good to be flexible.

This is true, but it doesn't happen very often as horses are usually spread out over the map quite well. If I do not have a certain resource then of course tactics will change. Anyway, I will know whether or not I am likely to have horses long before I make the switch to Republic, so this doesn't really affect our government discussion.

I do not believe that 15 Veteran Horsemen can reliably defeat 8 Veteran Spearmen fortified in a size 8 city on a Hill across a River. In all likelihood, you will lose all 15 Horsemen on an enemy sortie.

Firstly, I will admit that a horseman stack is a bad example. I don't usually launch large scale attacks with horsemen as I prefer to wait for knights.

However, I do think you are exaggerating a bit here. The only AI city I would ever see 8 units in it is the capital, and usually only later in the game when they have muskets or rifles. Most AI cities will have at most 2 spears and a couple of attacking units. Do you play multiplayer? I can imagine another human player might defend a city like this.

I also make sure I do not attack across a river, even if it delays the attack by a turn or two.

 

[Renata]

For what it's worth, I agree with Zakharov. I'm allergic to playing defensively, and will only do so when forced to (for example, if I get very bad starting territory). If the worst happens and I get invaded, I'll deal with it then, but I hardly ever get invaded. Like Zakarov, I don't sign ROPs as a rule, I leave my core cities undefended (even the capital -- contrary to urban legend, I've never noticed any problems doing this), and I keep a significant number of offensive units (fast ones preferred, but a larger number of slow ones will do in a pinch) patrolling the borders.

Like I said, if I get burnt, I get burnt, but I hardly ever do. And I play more-than-comfortably on Emperor. Funnily enough, on those rare occasions when I do play defensively (usually when I'm feeling lazy and just don't feel like conquesting anything), I get invaded much more often.

Renata