Is anything better than monarchy?
- Thread starter Angelic_Tyrant
- Start date
I've reached a level where I can almost 90% of the time get Universal Suffrage and ToE etc on Emperor level, unless I get a real bad start. (And usually theGreatLibrary aswell, almost always as a Commercial Civ)
My favourite is Democracy, and I fight Offensive wars in it often. Get your enemy to declare war on you, have all or atleast 5 or 6 Luxaries. Have the resources for both research and entertainment (usually research isn't so much of a Priority during an offensive war), and try not to do the "War-weariness-causing" stuff. Like staying in enemy territory, razing cities. Take the cities in one turn and finish the war fast (with cavalry or Tanks).
In many of my recent games with non-religious civs I have stayed in Despotism until Democracy.
My favourite is Democracy, and I fight Offensive wars in it often. Get your enemy to declare war on you, have all or atleast 5 or 6 Luxaries. Have the resources for both research and entertainment (usually research isn't so much of a Priority during an offensive war), and try not to do the "War-weariness-causing" stuff. Like staying in enemy territory, razing cities. Take the cities in one turn and finish the war fast (with cavalry or Tanks).
In many of my recent games with non-religious civs I have stayed in Despotism until Democracy.
DiamondzAndGunz
Lurking
Well, indirectly. It reduces corrution/waste, therefore salvaging more of your shields from corruption. But no, it doesn't directly give you extra shields.
The only reason I research monarchy is for the Hanging Gardens, but since, at Monarch, the AI snatches it first, I rarely even research monarchy. I go first to republic and then make a bee-line to democracy. I stay in democracy unless I go to war, then I switch to republic. I've never played communism.
Strikefang
Chieftain
In my first game I won the whole thing on Monarchy (histograph win), but that was on chieften so what do you expect. So I voted Republic, not only because its got a good research rate, but the main civ I play (Germany) has it as its preferred government. It doesn't allow for an overly huge army, if you know what I mean, but if a city can't produce enough taxs to support the 2-3 units I use to defend it, it doesn't deserve defense anyway. If I feel I'm in for a prolonged war (my wars have been known to last a few hundred years) I might drop into a Monarchy. I might also do this if I feel I need a huge army, the free units per city/metro will definetly help, but then again, I could just drop science rates to get extra income, hopefully without too great a loss to research.
if you are not religous, monarchy is the best. if you are, republic is ok
in monarchy, all you have to do is have 3 warriors in each city and you dont need to biuld temples (60 shields) or cathedrals (gazillion shields), instead build attackers
everyone will be dead by sanitation anyways
in monarchy, all you have to do is have 3 warriors in each city and you dont need to biuld temples (60 shields) or cathedrals (gazillion shields), instead build attackers
everyone will be dead by sanitation anyways
I'm still not understanding why people prefer Republic to Democracy. The difference in war weariness is really small and you'll get more production out of democracy. Like other people have said it's not hard to wage a war in democracy and get little if any war weariness. On top of that you get more production and better workers.
BillChin
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 494
For solo play here is my summary of opinions, again these are my opinions:
- Despotism, great for early wars because of unit support and pop rushing.
- Monarchy, good for first switch if less than three luxuries or if playing a pure war strategy.
- Republic, good for first switch with three luxuries or more.
- Democracy, good for Religious civs, or if playing on a low difficulty level. War Weariness can be deadly for non-religious civs playing on a high difficulty level.
- Communism, pretty much a worthless tech in competitive games. Good for prettying up the empire or for role playing, not good for much else. I am stunned by the number of players who actually use it. Any player who switches to Communism in a competitive game becomes less effective. Monarchy is clearly the better war time government. The hit to gold and production is HUGE in a well built empire on levels above Regent.
On Apolyton, I campaigned to make Communism more balanced, but even with modded rules where Communism gets free maintenance on all buildings, it is still weaker than the other govs. Anyone who is curious can probably find some threads where some objective game tests are done and Communism is by far the weakest gov.
I believe the reason for Communism's weakness is that corruption got changed a lot from the initial release, and Communism was not changed to compensate for the upgrades to the other governments via the changes to corruption.
For multiplay it is a bit different as there is no war weariness, so Democracy jumps up a lot, as does Republic. Monarchy remains useful when a player lacks luxuries. Communism is basically a worthless form of government in multiplayer (though police stations can still be useful). All other things equal, with two players of generally equal ability, the one in Communism will lose to any other form of government except Despotism. Don't believe me? Check for old threads where objective tests on real saved games are done or have some new mock multiplayer test games set up.
Another idea in my head is to switch the characteristics on Communism and Monarchy. That would make Communism a useful early game option, because a player could still pop rush, and in a small early game empire, communal corruption actually works. It would also have a late game upgrade to a wartime government instead of the poor state now where Communism is almost an inside joke among experienced players.
+ Bill
- Despotism, great for early wars because of unit support and pop rushing.
- Monarchy, good for first switch if less than three luxuries or if playing a pure war strategy.
- Republic, good for first switch with three luxuries or more.
- Democracy, good for Religious civs, or if playing on a low difficulty level. War Weariness can be deadly for non-religious civs playing on a high difficulty level.
- Communism, pretty much a worthless tech in competitive games. Good for prettying up the empire or for role playing, not good for much else. I am stunned by the number of players who actually use it. Any player who switches to Communism in a competitive game becomes less effective. Monarchy is clearly the better war time government. The hit to gold and production is HUGE in a well built empire on levels above Regent.
On Apolyton, I campaigned to make Communism more balanced, but even with modded rules where Communism gets free maintenance on all buildings, it is still weaker than the other govs. Anyone who is curious can probably find some threads where some objective game tests are done and Communism is by far the weakest gov.
I believe the reason for Communism's weakness is that corruption got changed a lot from the initial release, and Communism was not changed to compensate for the upgrades to the other governments via the changes to corruption.
For multiplay it is a bit different as there is no war weariness, so Democracy jumps up a lot, as does Republic. Monarchy remains useful when a player lacks luxuries. Communism is basically a worthless form of government in multiplayer (though police stations can still be useful). All other things equal, with two players of generally equal ability, the one in Communism will lose to any other form of government except Despotism. Don't believe me? Check for old threads where objective tests on real saved games are done or have some new mock multiplayer test games set up.
Another idea in my head is to switch the characteristics on Communism and Monarchy. That would make Communism a useful early game option, because a player could still pop rush, and in a small early game empire, communal corruption actually works. It would also have a late game upgrade to a wartime government instead of the poor state now where Communism is almost an inside joke among experienced players.
+ Bill
Carbon_Copy
Elemental
Here's why many people prefer Republic over Democracy. I, for the record, voted for republic back when this thread was new.
First off, there's nothing wrong with Democracy. It's a good government, as good as or marginally better than Republic in many respects, except for war weariness. Going back to the original poster's question, it's certainly a better government for peacetime than Monarchy if you're serious about keeping the peace (and Monarchy is certainly a better wartime government than Democracy if you're in for the long haul).
The problem with Democracy is that it is only marginally better than Republic. It has its bonuses, but in order to receive them, you have to undergo a second anarchy period (from Republic/Monarchy). Unless you are religious, you are potentially throwing away hundreds of gold and shields that your cities would have made under their current government down the toilet to get corruption that is slightly less than what you experience under Republic. It's like spending a few thousand dollars to put a new engine in your car that gets better fuel efficiency so that you can save $10 per month on gasoline. You would have to stay in Democracy for a long time to truly come out ahead by the numbers just in corruption.
For the 1.5x speed workers, they're great but again, by this time most of your highly productive cities should already have their tiles fully improved (if not, you aren't building enough workers!), and IIRC, unless your civ is also Industrious, it is only workers of your nationality that get the speed bonus, captured slaves work at the same speed as before due to truncations in the way the game calculates worker speed (I am not sure of this, it's been a while since I've tried). It IS very nice, though, for putting out those rails when you get to Steam Power.
Immunity to propaganda is a nice side bonus, but you won't find the AI attempting too much in the way of propaganda (though once in a while you'll find an AI who falls in love with spying and does it all the time to you). It's not enough to make or break this deal either way.
The trade bonus is probably the best part about Democracy, but it's exactly the same bonus that you get from Republic.
And finally, the War Weariness. If you've got most of the luxuries and lots of infrastructure and one or two of the big happiness wonders like Bach's and Sistine, then you can do a lot with warfare without invoking the weariness. If you're lacking these things and only have three or four luxuries and not every city has a cathedral and you didn't get Bach's and Sistine (pretty much the situation in the late Middle Ages on a typical Deity or Emperor game), you'll feel the pain if you try to wage war.
In short, if you're a Religious civ, it's a great government since you have very little to lose from making the switch.
Now, the benefits of Republic:
-Nearly as low of a corruption level as Democracy, much earlier in the game.
-Only requires one anarchy period. Like I said before this is a trivial point if you are religious but for everyone else this is a significant bonus.
-Same trade bonus as Democracy. This thing is the king of governments. Given the same civ with the same number of military units, you will make more cash with Republic than you will with Monarchy, even for very large numbers of military units (perhaps ESPECIALLY with very large numbers of military units, depending on how many cities you control).
-Extremely resistant to war weariness if the other civ is the aggressor. There are so many ways to get another civ to declare war on you that I won't bother listing them. The "other civ has to be the aggressor" stipulation shouldn't stop anybody from getting the war they want when they want to have it, and to pursue it much more thoroughly than they could under Democracy. Also, if the AI declares war on you of its own accord (i.e. you got sneak-attacked), you are given much freer reign to deal with it than you would under a Democracy (which must work to keep the fight limited or you'll be facing ANOTHER anarchy period to drop into Monarchy). If you're playing Chieftan-Regent and find yourself half an age or more ahead of the other civs with twice the number of units, than this isn't such an important point, but on Emperor, Deity, and to a lesser degree Monarch, it's possible to find yourself facing a larger, more advanced AI army that could conceivably do some serious harm to you if it were to get itself worked up over something.
In short, the reason why Republic is preferred over Democracy is not that it is markedly better, but that it's good enough to not warrant a change. It's that much better than Despotism (which penalizes your tiles and hogties you with forced labor rushing) that an anarchy period of any length is worth undergoing to reach Republic, but the benefits of undergoing a second, potentially long period of anarchy to go from Republic to Democracy are slim enough that it's usually not worth the switch.
First off, there's nothing wrong with Democracy. It's a good government, as good as or marginally better than Republic in many respects, except for war weariness. Going back to the original poster's question, it's certainly a better government for peacetime than Monarchy if you're serious about keeping the peace (and Monarchy is certainly a better wartime government than Democracy if you're in for the long haul).
The problem with Democracy is that it is only marginally better than Republic. It has its bonuses, but in order to receive them, you have to undergo a second anarchy period (from Republic/Monarchy). Unless you are religious, you are potentially throwing away hundreds of gold and shields that your cities would have made under their current government down the toilet to get corruption that is slightly less than what you experience under Republic. It's like spending a few thousand dollars to put a new engine in your car that gets better fuel efficiency so that you can save $10 per month on gasoline. You would have to stay in Democracy for a long time to truly come out ahead by the numbers just in corruption.
For the 1.5x speed workers, they're great but again, by this time most of your highly productive cities should already have their tiles fully improved (if not, you aren't building enough workers!), and IIRC, unless your civ is also Industrious, it is only workers of your nationality that get the speed bonus, captured slaves work at the same speed as before due to truncations in the way the game calculates worker speed (I am not sure of this, it's been a while since I've tried). It IS very nice, though, for putting out those rails when you get to Steam Power.
Immunity to propaganda is a nice side bonus, but you won't find the AI attempting too much in the way of propaganda (though once in a while you'll find an AI who falls in love with spying and does it all the time to you). It's not enough to make or break this deal either way.
The trade bonus is probably the best part about Democracy, but it's exactly the same bonus that you get from Republic.
And finally, the War Weariness. If you've got most of the luxuries and lots of infrastructure and one or two of the big happiness wonders like Bach's and Sistine, then you can do a lot with warfare without invoking the weariness. If you're lacking these things and only have three or four luxuries and not every city has a cathedral and you didn't get Bach's and Sistine (pretty much the situation in the late Middle Ages on a typical Deity or Emperor game), you'll feel the pain if you try to wage war.
In short, if you're a Religious civ, it's a great government since you have very little to lose from making the switch.
Now, the benefits of Republic:
-Nearly as low of a corruption level as Democracy, much earlier in the game.
-Only requires one anarchy period. Like I said before this is a trivial point if you are religious but for everyone else this is a significant bonus.
-Same trade bonus as Democracy. This thing is the king of governments. Given the same civ with the same number of military units, you will make more cash with Republic than you will with Monarchy, even for very large numbers of military units (perhaps ESPECIALLY with very large numbers of military units, depending on how many cities you control).
-Extremely resistant to war weariness if the other civ is the aggressor. There are so many ways to get another civ to declare war on you that I won't bother listing them. The "other civ has to be the aggressor" stipulation shouldn't stop anybody from getting the war they want when they want to have it, and to pursue it much more thoroughly than they could under Democracy. Also, if the AI declares war on you of its own accord (i.e. you got sneak-attacked), you are given much freer reign to deal with it than you would under a Democracy (which must work to keep the fight limited or you'll be facing ANOTHER anarchy period to drop into Monarchy). If you're playing Chieftan-Regent and find yourself half an age or more ahead of the other civs with twice the number of units, than this isn't such an important point, but on Emperor, Deity, and to a lesser degree Monarch, it's possible to find yourself facing a larger, more advanced AI army that could conceivably do some serious harm to you if it were to get itself worked up over something.
In short, the reason why Republic is preferred over Democracy is not that it is markedly better, but that it's good enough to not warrant a change. It's that much better than Despotism (which penalizes your tiles and hogties you with forced labor rushing) that an anarchy period of any length is worth undergoing to reach Republic, but the benefits of undergoing a second, potentially long period of anarchy to go from Republic to Democracy are slim enough that it's usually not worth the switch.
Rowain deWolf
King
Well on a tiny map the corruption is that high that the switch from Rep to Demo pays very fast for itself. In a recent Game I got something like 40 gpt more thanks to the switch.
Allways war games : Monarchy is unbeatable.
Anything else Republic is the way.
Rowain
Allways war games : Monarchy is unbeatable.
Anything else Republic is the way.
Rowain
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
Democracy suits my style of play best. 90% of my games I go Monarchy>Democracy, having the revolution at the end of a long middle ages war. Since I go democracy long before my cities have hospitals, I find the worker bonus helps a lot because I haven't improved core cities beyond the 12 tiles they've been using. Really, the only downside is war weariness, and over time I've developed ways of dealing with that:
I almost never use entertainers, and always build universal suffrage (hint: rush/pre-build a factory first and you can beat an AI that starts a few turns before you). During the industrial age, I try to keep my wars under control: ie defensive most of the time; invasions planned out in advance so troops are on foreign soil for as little time as possible. At this point luxury resources take priority over strategic ones: I like to have at least 6 of 8, and plan conquests to capture a new luxury whenever possible. Wars will eventually drag the economy down (diversion of commerce to luxuries), but I find I can usually hold out longer than my enemies. Friends I sell tech to for gpt/luxury resources. This way most of the bigger civs end up communist, broke, or both, and I can maintain the tech lead. Most of my wars don't last more than 30 turns.
Anyways I'm sure that there's great ways to play all the governments. My strategy presumes both a good reputation on the part of the player (diplomacy is key), and a builder or builder-conqueror style rather than an all-out conquest campaign. Fairly lean military (I've never had more than 300 units on a standard map, usually less than 200 I think...), veterans only, high investment in research, lots of rush-building temples, libraries, courthouses and marketplaces. An expensive way to run an empire, but money is democracy's strength.
I almost never use entertainers, and always build universal suffrage (hint: rush/pre-build a factory first and you can beat an AI that starts a few turns before you). During the industrial age, I try to keep my wars under control: ie defensive most of the time; invasions planned out in advance so troops are on foreign soil for as little time as possible. At this point luxury resources take priority over strategic ones: I like to have at least 6 of 8, and plan conquests to capture a new luxury whenever possible. Wars will eventually drag the economy down (diversion of commerce to luxuries), but I find I can usually hold out longer than my enemies. Friends I sell tech to for gpt/luxury resources. This way most of the bigger civs end up communist, broke, or both, and I can maintain the tech lead. Most of my wars don't last more than 30 turns.
Anyways I'm sure that there's great ways to play all the governments. My strategy presumes both a good reputation on the part of the player (diplomacy is key), and a builder or builder-conqueror style rather than an all-out conquest campaign. Fairly lean military (I've never had more than 300 units on a standard map, usually less than 200 I think...), veterans only, high investment in research, lots of rush-building temples, libraries, courthouses and marketplaces. An expensive way to run an empire, but money is democracy's strength.
rilnator
Emperor
Try to make your wars as quick and decisive as possible. In other words have a large army and a well thought plan. Then your type of government doesn't factor into it.
Carbon_Copy
Elemental
True, I'll give you tiny maps, Rowain. I've never been a big fan of them, and really the only Tiny map I've played start-to-finish has been Epic 24 and I can't really say anything more about THAT for another two weeks (although I desperately wish I could!). Thanks for the nit.
So ... for a domination game on a tiny map - monarchy or republic?
Renata, stocking up on tips for tournament 4-3
PS It shouldn't get to democracy. If I don't win with the samurai I will be highly disappointed with myself.
Renata, stocking up on tips for tournament 4-3
PS It shouldn't get to democracy. If I don't win with the samurai I will be highly disappointed with myself.
