monarchy vs republic

[civ2003]

while waiting for democracy, which is the better transitional government, monarchy or republic?

Monarchy has a little more corruption than republic, however it allows you to have free units, so its like the corrupted money goes to unit maintenance.

so what are the points to consider when deciding which one to choose?

Thanks for help

 

[Mishrack]

That point of the game, I find that the AI usually goes crazy with unit building, and as such is an excellent time to get a bit ahead tech wise, which IMHO is most efficient with Rep.
I despise medieval wars as the pikemen are too strong against my knights and med inf. so I mainly focus on a small but skilled defensive army, and aim to just go for Arty and Cav early.

 

[civ2003]

ya, i prefer to build up for now, going to war will drain resources and slow my tech research.

 

[Belisar]

If you have build up your economy, republic is far better than monarchy (your extra income will easily support yor army). I try to avoid monarchy, unless i'm religious. Even short wars are no probolem in republic
.

 

[civ2003]

i will go for republic then, thanks for advice

 

[R3dKnight]

but monarchy gives more happiness doesn't it? with the 3 happiness given from the 3 garrisoned units? *thinks abt it* i think i didnt' use Republic at all. what's the advantage of Republic?

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

Extra Commerce generated in each square (essentially giving you more money for science/entertainment/military support)

 

[R3dKnight]

hmmm i gotta try that on a new game. =D hahah i always went for monarchy, no wonder i'm behind those civs. xD