Communal corruption would give it some use until proper communism becomes available. Still it will have a hard time competing with republic. Making all civs religious for lower anarchy durations and making all government techs mandatory for entering the next era might shift the balance.
Monarchy or Feudalism
- Thread starter CivBound
- Start date
Perhaps some kind of production bonus comparable to the commerce bonus of Republic?
Or a military bonus like +50% combat bonus for all units.
Or a military bonus like +50% combat bonus for all units.
vorlon_mi
Emperor
I was all set to make a case for buffing Feudalism's commerce to match Republic. One could then avoid building Aqueducts, and pop-rush in cities by rivers to keep them under 6. Combine that with a near-ICS settling pattern and you can create a formidable army of swords and archers. If you have better commerce, you might be able to afford upgrading them to MDI and longbows.
But then I asked myself, "would I be willing to delay the switch out of Despotism *for the entire Ancient Age* just to get to Feudalism"? No, I answered. The key thing that would have to change about Feudalism is how early it becomes available in the game. If it were available with (say) Currency, Mathematics, or Map Making, I might consider it. If it stays a Medieval tech, and I've settled a lot of sub-size-6 cities, then the subsequent revolution from Monarchy -> Feudalism will induce a long period of non-productive anarchy.
+50% combat bonus would be overpowered. Medieval Infantry being as powerful as Berserks, Pikemen being better than Musketmen, both being far cheaper. It would make Feudalism good... but arguably too good.
What about a unique building for Feudalism, like how Communism has the Secret Police HQ? Maybe make a Levy building that would produce a Pikeman or Medieval Infantry every x turns in cities where it is built? Or a capital-only (requires Palace) building that generates a Knight every y turns? That would simulate the feudal levy system in a way, while also making it more enticing. Of course you'd have to make use of them to avoid going over the unit support cost, but that would just encourage war with some neighboring feudal lords.
Balance would be a tricky thing to get right (50% more units would be nearly as overpowering as 50% stronger units), but I suspect with tweaking, the right balance could be struck.
What about a unique building for Feudalism, like how Communism has the Secret Police HQ? Maybe make a Levy building that would produce a Pikeman or Medieval Infantry every x turns in cities where it is built? Or a capital-only (requires Palace) building that generates a Knight every y turns? That would simulate the feudal levy system in a way, while also making it more enticing. Of course you'd have to make use of them to avoid going over the unit support cost, but that would just encourage war with some neighboring feudal lords.
Balance would be a tricky thing to get right (50% more units would be nearly as overpowering as 50% stronger units), but I suspect with tweaking, the right balance could be struck.
Empiricus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2018
- Messages
- 8
In case you guys are all Sid level players, I admit I have no idea how things are balanced up there.
But playing on Monarch, Feudalism is perfectly competitive and doesn´t need a boost. I have occasional fun spamming small towns, then spamming units and steamrolling a large continent. Think historical Russia under Catherine.
But playing on Monarch, Feudalism is perfectly competitive and doesn´t need a boost. I have occasional fun spamming small towns, then spamming units and steamrolling a large continent. Think historical Russia under Catherine.
Yes, it may be "competitive" compared to Republic or Monarchism, but is it actually "better" than the two? Or to ask it the other way around: would you perhaps have been able to do the same steamrolling under Monarchy/Republic as well? If yes, then there is no reason to switch from your earlier government to Feudalism: why suffer through a second anarchy period (that could be 8 or 9 turns long...), if you only get to a government that is competitive to your previous government? In order to justify a second anarchy, would would really have to get a government that is superior to the one you had before. Otherwise you are just wasting up to 9 turns of production, growth and income for nothing...
Empiricus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2018
- Messages
- 8
Of course not better in every respect. But certainly better at saving money with many small towns and a mass army.´
My feudal civs do not produce much money. What gold they have they get from conquests. And, of course, feudalism goes well with religion, then the anarchy problem won´t pop up.
My feudal civs do not produce much money. What gold they have they get from conquests. And, of course, feudalism goes well with religion, then the anarchy problem won´t pop up.
On my latest game I also found similar use for feudalism. I think that with forced labor and town unit support it's not a bad choice for war strategy.
DamImLookinGood
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2015
- Messages
- 35
I prefer Feudalism, it's all about making lots of cities, keeping them small, drafting or forcing citizens to make workers, explorers and warriors when necessary. Or just have them make workers continuously every ten turns, as long as they get 2 food a turn.
Then, at the base, you have only a few cities with a large bit of land. These are your only productive cities under Feudalism, the rest are just to increase unit support, securing resources and producing workers. Not to mention covering more territory that may have resources pop up in the future.
Zardnaar
Deity
It has its uses it's very narrow.
Egypt for example, you still have some large cities but you use pop rush to spam a large number of units and found town's everywhere.
Then you switch to your real choice later. Generally only useful for religious types with a late ancient or early middle age uu.
Egypt for example, you still have some large cities but you use pop rush to spam a large number of units and found town's everywhere.
Then you switch to your real choice later. Generally only useful for religious types with a late ancient or early middle age uu.
theRUFFIAN
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2021
- Messages
- 6
I have only tried feudalism once so far, but I’ll give it a shot in the next game if it is feasible. It looks great on the surface of it for warmongering, idk why there’s so many feudalism haters out there. It seems great for invading an enemy, razing their cities, and using your own settlers to replace their towns. There will be virtually no culture flips, and you keep your unit support high by keeping your cities small due to settler production and pop rush. Sure you miss out on having large cities that can produce units in just a couple turns, but having more small towns makes up for it. Having 20 towns producing medieval infantry at 10 turns each is identical to having 10 cities producing them at 5 turns each in the long run.
In my mod, I gave Feudalism a Unique Wonder that gives a footknight every 5 turns, free of upkeep.
Monarchy gets a 5%money bonus like wall street. And some happiness here and there, check my mod thread for details.
Then again, Republic also gets a happiness boost, so I am still not sold that any gov would beat Republic.
Monarchy gets a 5%money bonus like wall street. And some happiness here and there, check my mod thread for details.
Then again, Republic also gets a happiness boost, so I am still not sold that any gov would beat Republic.
Ruin
Warlord
I never thought much of Feudalism, but Suede is really effective with it in this Deity game. He uses it just like some commenters here suggest: tons of crappy little towns for unit support, constantly whipping out military units. It's a good fit with the Ag trait.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMBmduXFQPGlV_DSVsCFqWfGx_a1-Zq4-
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMBmduXFQPGlV_DSVsCFqWfGx_a1-Zq4-
I think the pop rushing is the biggest factor for me when choosing monarchy. I am always trying to rush as many temples as I can before switching. Feudalism let's you prolong that. So if you have a larger empire of smaller cities that are spread out, and they're all going to take forever to build all their little buildings. Couple that with the extra unit support and it can be a interesting option.
If the first war went really well and I know many future wars will be shorter skirmishes, I will use republic. Otherwise monarchy. It is rare that I use feudalism
Similar threads
