Monarchy

[eyrei]

In my last few games on Monarch level, I have decided to experiment with Monarchy. What I have found is that it is a very stable government because of military police and lack of war weariness. With about four luxuries, disorder is almost forgotten. Monarchy allows you to upkeep a large military in the middle ages, when your civ is not very developed, so that you are able to make a decent amount of money, and set your science rate very high. On Monarch and higher levels it is imperative that you have a large military, or your game will quickly become hopeless. The most interesting effect that Monarchy has on a game, is that, since you should have a large military, and are not forced to make peace because of war weariness, you can simply remain at war with civs that do not share a border with you. The effect of this is that the entire world becomes unstable, most civs are forced to use monarchy or communism as a government, and those that don't, may get a slight tech lead, but inevitably get wiped out. It seems that wars between AI civs are far more likely when the human player remains at war. The other effect is that the tech advancement for the entire world slows down for obvious reasons. Thus, you remain in the middle ages for a very long time, which I enjoy tremendously.

I am sure some of you will object, saying that democracy and republic give huge commerce and science bonuses, but my point is that if noone uses these governments, it doesn't hurt not to use them either. You just have to be willing to skirmish on a regular basis with AI civs from across the continent.

Another thing I have noticed in these games, which I am not sure relates to the government choices, but maybe to the constant warfare, is that the AI civs sign ROP agreements with just about everybody. I have fought many large battles in the middle of another civs territory where both myself and my enemy are able to use the roads. The advantage you gain if you are the only one with a ROP agreement is tremendous.

If you enjoy playing militarily, which I have come to enjoy more recently, try this out.

I forgot to mention another fun result of this strategy is that you don't have to take anybody's ****. If someone threaten you, unless it is your immediate neighbor, you can tell them to shove it, and their declaration of war (if they have the guts) actually plays into your hands.

 

[Peteus]

Yep, Monarchy is a lot stronger than some seem to think!

I tend to be at war about the time that Monarchy and Republic might become available, so Republic really isn't an option. The advantages don't balance the war weariness.

Common solution to slow tech advancement with Monarchy = Great Library! Set science to 0% if a couple of civs are racing ahead and feeding you tech. 0% luxuries too, because your military police are repressing the plebians. Free support for your nice big military, and Phat cash flow from 100% taxation. Typically you could choose to wait for the expiration of the GL, then immediately declare war on one of the Science guys and flatten them with ease! In Monarchy, war weariness is your strong ally...

 

[Hobbes]

While it does have it advantages, less corruption and the benefit of using 3 units to keep the population happy, there are some drawbacks. Under despotism, you get 4 free units per city, regardless of size, under Monarchy your get 2 for a city of size 6 or less and 4 for a city of size 7-12, so before you switch to monarchy make sure you have some decent size cities. You also lose the ability to whip the population for rush improvements, which can provide some difficulties. A strategy that I have been employing recently, especially when playing a non-religious civ is to stay in despotism until the switch to democracy

 

[eyrei]

In these games I generally stay in despotism only until the end of the ancient age. By this time, at least 5 or 6 of my cities have exceeded pop 6, and the rest will soon afterwards. Cities grow at about the same rate as the military expands, so I never really had to pay for upkeep until the mid industrial era, when I have nothing to build but units. My problem with staying in despotism until democracy is that each time you rush build something, you lose a small amount of income, assuming it is not a completely corrupt city. I will eventually switch to democracy in these games, but probably not until the modern age, once most of the wars are over and there are only 5 or 6 civs (out of 12) left.

 

[dannyevilcat]

I've also found that, unlike Civ 2 where going from Monarchy to a Democracy was a rough transition, switching to democracy from monarchy in Civ 3 is smoother. Maybe it's just me though.

 

[WarKiwi]

I think the introduction of trade luxuries like silk, ivory and gems etc have made this transition a lot easier (darn fine idea). They handle the happiness of the citizens if you are linked with roads and harbours very effectively, giving you the chance to build Temples and Cathedrals under Monarchy until you can switch to Democracy.

Personally I have only played about 10 meaningful games and have never bothered with Republic or Communisim (I only use Despotisim by default).

There is a post about switching directly from Despotisim to Democracy because of the financial issues with unit support, but I have found that in 'far-flung' empires (opps, civilizations), the corruption is so bad you are always reduced to one shield production and sweet FA taxes, so the switch to Monarchy is well worth as soon as you get it. IMHO.

 

[Cerryl]

Originally posted by dannyevilcat
I've also found that, unlike Civ 2 where going from Monarchy to a Democracy was a rough transition, switching to democracy from monarchy in Civ 3 is smoother. Maybe it's just me though.

No, I've found it to be the same way. I think it's because the model for unhappiness under represenative types has changed, before just having a guy outside the 3 SQ radius of a city would cause unhappiness, so I would bring every unit back, set my luxeries up and hope I can get through the first couple of turns.

Now, I've found by the time you discover it, it's pretty painless to move to it.

 

[Alphidius]

I agree. Monarchy is the government for war, especially when at war with a few neighbours. You'll need plenty of troops and yet have to balance the buget which is tough when using democracy.

With a minimum of 2 free units each city and up to 8 free units for metropolis, there'll be no problem of troop maintainence. Corruption is lowered and growth will increase if there're plenty of irrigation.

Yup, monarchy is my choice of government for the worst case scenario

 

[eyrei]

Actually, I prefer communism for the worst case scenario, when a bunch of people suddenly attack you, and you are unprepared. In this situation, you will run out of money very quickly, but, if your land is properly terriformed, you will not run out of population. I use monarchy when I intend from the beginning to play militaristically for most of the game. Building an empire is more difficult with communism, because each time you rush build something, your empire gets smaller, and you lose production and commerce. When your only goal is to survive a massive assault, communism is best.

 

[rodgersmc]

Someone else mentioned this in the "worker bonanza" thread and it works great.

If you intend to stay at war, communism can easily be the best government. Rush building is essentially free rather than costly with monarchy. True you lose a population point; if, however, you are consistently razing enemy cities, you will have hordes of free workers. On a standard map I'm playing now I have around 40 foreign workers on the enemy continent which I control a third of (my continent is my own).

I'm a monarch (its only 1260Ad) but when communism comes around, I'll switch and start rushing by wipping those workers. (IE, build a pop point with them then rush it).

 

[Hurkyl]

One solution for Communism is to pack your cities closer together. This way, you can work your land despite the constant depletion of your cities' population.

Hurkyl

 

[LayZMan]

Personally I like to stick w/ despotism and go to war. That 4 unit support despite unit size comes in handy as my military support grows w/ every citiy I seize. On top of that being able to crack the whip to get that temple built is always better than dipping into my treasury, and it gets rid of a couple foreigners (only gets rid of one though for religious civs). Also use pop to build a barrack and walls (if I don't have the Art of War, which I will use a GL to get if I can). Only when I'm happy w/ my empire do I switch govs and even then it's either Monarchy or Democracy (this is why religious civs do rule, lol). Monarchy is great since the garrison keeps the people in their place and as mentioned before, w/ luxuries and markets the people will keep their mouths shut (although the pouty face of the unhappy Greco-Roman is sorta cute).