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.
-
We created a new subforum for the Civ7 reviews, please check them here!
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.
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
Feudalism might be the best government if you're behind technology wise and plan on capturing The Great Library to go to the industrial age.
I mean, you can irrigate tiles. 4 turn growth at 5 surplus food per turn, is what... 8 turns for a medieval infantry if pop-rushed? That's much faster than producing it in a city producing only 4 shields per turn.
And then one might revolt to Democracy or Communism, I don't know.
I mean, you can irrigate tiles. 4 turn growth at 5 surplus food per turn, is what... 8 turns for a medieval infantry if pop-rushed? That's much faster than producing it in a city producing only 4 shields per turn.
And then one might revolt to Democracy or Communism, I don't know.
Well, one could revolt to republic making revolting only to republic in the first place the better option.
Due to corruption poprushes may seem attractive at first glance. But you gain one unhappiness for every citizen wipped away, while only loosing one such unhappiness every 20 turns. After 60 turns of +1 unhappiness every 4 turns that is 15-3=12 unhappiness. At some point it will be unsustainable. It may work out for 100 k culture and it has some merits in the short run. But is the price right?
Say you have 100 tiles in your terrirory. That allows 10 cities using 9+1 tiles each or 25 towns using 3+1 tiles each. Say the later "produce" 20 shields every 4 turns, then it is 20*25*60/4=7500 shields in 60 turns. The 10 cities however may only average at 10 shields per turn, resulting in 10*10*60=6000 shields in 60 turns. That would leave 1500 shields or 25 per turn that need to be made up by cashrushes. But 100 additional gtp compared to feudalism is not that unreasonable. The actual figure would probably be lower, but as feudalism cannot cashrush this matters little in terms of available shields. So the expected results would be that the 10-city-republic would have no fewer shields than the 25-town-feudalism, but the later would fare better in terms of research. Which does have merits, but does not fit well with the Great Library. The unhappiness debt will however cripple the 25-town-feudalism in the long run.
TLDR: Food surplusses are better spend on scientists than on poprushes. There are exception, but they are somewhat limited.
I don't disagree with this. Poprushing is not sustainable longterm as a strategy. Cities won't produce as much or have as much commerce due to the unhappiness. Poprushing at best is a crutch. However, if you're very far behind in technology... like you're early medieval or barely medieval and the AIs are industrial, catching up by The Great Library elevator could be worth it even with the unhappiness from poprushing.
Maybe. But that is a lot of if. Does it really take that approach, or does a different approach with lower long term disadvantages work as well? How did you get the tech feudalism, but not republic or monarchy? And if you are really pressed for short term gain, why not simply stay in despotism? A 25-town-despotism may be worse than a 25-town-feudalism, but not by that big of a margin. The costs of anarchy, unit support and war weariness may make despotism the better bet.
Also using the Great Library to get into the industrial age or even the modern age can be sort of fun. But is it really a smart strategy? Staying only a few techs behind may have better results. Instead of aiming to capture the Great Library you could take territory that betters suits your economy and thereby increase your net commerce to buy cheap techs at a rate higher than 1 tech every 4 turns. This will get you into the industrial age reasonably cheap if 2 or more AI have reached the industrial age.
So my prefered approach to a sitiation similar to the one you implied would be to buy republic, become a republic, either buy feudalism for better units or even use mere horsemen to capture enough territory for a strong economy. Stay in despotism till enough territory is captured is a last resort. Sometimes this can be necessary, but not having to draw that card is preferable.
Because you can't irrigate for more food on grassland tiles without a food bonus in despotism. Feudalism can yield more food, and that food could turn into units for conquering The Great Library.
For sure, no. If you're behind in technology that the Great Library elevator makes sense, then the better strategy consists of the following:
1. Only have one roaded tile in the 8 adjacent tiles to your capital (or only one on your borders). Also, no harbors if you have a coastal capital.
2. Get some lump sum of gold.
3. Get a trade network with your neighbors.
4. So you can trade for a luxury or resource? Then loan out your lump sums of gold for any AI gpt at the maximum rate. At least aggressive, that's 1 gpt for 18 gold.
5. Then come back to the same AI and pay gpt for the luxury + gold + any technologies (and later maps) from the AI(s).
6. Then cut your sole road next to your capital.
7. Then re-road that tile.
8. Finally, reacquire all luxuries and/or resources you can get with gold per turn, so that on the next turn you can:
0. Pillage the road and start again on getting any gold, gpt, or technology that the AI(s) with a luxury or resource have.
Then there's likely no need for the Great Library, and one can get the AIs gold and gold flow for buying improvements and upgrading units.
Is stealing technologies via the espionage screen (which doesn't require The Intelligence Agency, only Writing and an embassy) less expensive than buying a technology? This does vary somewhat. I think sometimes buying a technology is less expensive, and sometimes stealing is less expensive.
Interesting discussion. I think the main point (of whether Feudalism for pop-rushing many units can be a "useful strategy") is this:
The important question is: how did you get into that desperate position of being that far behind in technology? I can think of only two reasons:
The important question is: how did you get into that desperate position of being that far behind in technology? I can think of only two reasons:
- You "played badly" in the beginning.
Ok, in that case, instead of learning a "crutch strategy" that helps you fix the consequences of your previous bad opening strategy, learn a better opening strategy. Then you won't get into that desperate situation in the first place... -- So in that case this hypothetical Feudalism strategy is not needed. - You are playing on Sid level or you had a really really bad tundra start, and are still trying to win that seemingly hopeless game.
In this case, such a Feudalism strategy might be useful, but I think it applies to only like 0.0001% of all games that are played: not many people will attempt a Sid victory or play out tundra island start. And additionally: I think for such a situation (Sid game going badly, or not having been able to recover from a tundra start) there are alternatives that might work as good or even better than the Feudalism-poprushing strategy. (Like the Lord Emsworth deals and other trade-route related tricks that Spoonwood documented so well in his strategy article about "Sid strategies"...
)
Similar threads
