repblic changes

[ybbor]

okay, i've been looking around the forums, and there is something that aparently changed about republic (allows free units????) can someone tell me the specifics on what these changes are?

 

[Tacit_Exit]

Unit upkeep now 2 gold/unit, but now has some free unit support; 1/3/4 (town/city/metro).

 

[ybbor]

interesting, do you guys think it's worth it (compared to the old republic), at first glance, i don't

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

It's a good change IMO because there is now a difference betwen peacetime and wartime governments. Before you could still easily hold a large standing army in a Republic, now it you still can but it will cost you big.

 

[Master Shake]

I had a monarchy, and my only army was two defensive units in each city. I had roaded every relevant square so I figured it was as good a time as any to go to republic. I did and... my income stayed identical, and my science went from "38 more tunrs" to "32 more turns."

I mean, it was a *little* better but hardly worth the between-government anarchy...



-mS

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Master Shake
I had a monarchy, and my only army was two defensive units in each city. I had roaded every relevant square so I figured it was as good a time as any to go to republic. I did and... my income stayed identical, and my science went from "38 more tunrs" to "32 more turns."

I mean, it was a *little* better but hardly worth the between-government anarchy...



-mS

You must have just stumbled upon an equilibrium point between the two governments based on the size of your empire and army at the time. If you scrapped half your army under monarchy, you wouldn't see any change - under republic you would have seen a boost. Similarly, if you had doubled your army under monarchy you would be fine, but under republic you'd be in trouble.

 

[Master Shake]

Hmm... So is Republic better when you have fewer cities, then?

-mS

 

[dvandyke]

No, republic is better if you have a small army.

 

[Master Shake]

Dvandyke, I guess you read the part in this thread where I mentioned my only army was two defending units per city? I'd consider that a minimal army, wouldn't you?

So *assuming* one keeps only a minimal army, the point is to ask whether under *those* conditions smaller civs are favored over larger ones.

 

[Brewster]

In Civ3 and PTW, it was possible to spend the entire game (except for the start) in Republic. WW was manageable and unit costs were low. With the changes in C3C, it is much more difficult to have a large standing army and still be able to keep the research levels high. At this time, I'm experimenting with some of the newer govts and haven't found a clear cut winner (like Rep. used to be). I think the changes balance the game and provide more challenge when deciding your govt type.

 

[Aztek]

What I dont notice is any big change from Republic to Democracy.

I have found if you fight several decent size wars its easier to manage things under republic the Democracy.

Any one have any thoughts on this?

 

[budweiser]

I think some civs are now better suited for a republic than others. You dont want to go into repbulic too soon unless you are setup to handle it. Most of your cites should be size 7 or close to it to afford you the most free units. That means you need some decent terrain early on to grow pop. The more cities you have that are big, then the bigger your army can be. You can still have a big army if your empire is big, just stay near the free limit and only pay for extras as you see fit. Civs that have UUs that are good on offense and defense like the legion should do better under republic as well. You have to plan ahead to make the best use for republic.

 

[The Economist]

In a monarchy and despotism, there's a tendancy to take advantage of the military policing benefit that you can use. However, if you're switching to republic or democracy, you don't need to have those units in your cities! You'll want to move all of your defensive units from your interior cities and shift them towards your coast and/or your border cities. In republic and democracy, it is best to have a lot of offensive units. War weariness increases wether you win or lose a defensive battle, but it doesn't increase at all when you win an offensive battle.

When you've got a small amount of free support, you've got to make each unit count! Disband those warriors hanging out in your capital! I preffer having offensive capacities, because I can use them to either invade, or to repel an invasion. I use a few defenders to protect my offensive units and to guard my border cities, and a navy to protect my coasts from invading deep into my territory (the AI seems to love sending a lone boat all the way around your whole empire and then unloading 1 - 2 offensive units in a desperate attempt to capture a city).

 

[Seanirl]

That means you need some decent terrain early on to grow pop.

So... Civs like the Celts who are agricultural would have an advantage with making republic work?

 

[budweiser]

The Economist - You are pretty much right on. However I sometimes find myself wanting defensive units in my army. Especially on higher difficulty levels. The way I see it, there are two ways to skin a cat; attack and defense. On my turn, I can only kill so many ai units with offense. Now, if I only have offnse in my army, then when the ai takes its turn, it will damage my offensive units. But if I have a balanced force, then I am just as likely to win against his attacks as my defense can soak up the damage, leaving my offense fresh for more action next turn.

I must admit, one of those boats landing in my home core is sometimes ehough to bring me to the peace table in a hurry if I dont have a way to counter it. Luckly, that problem goes away after you get the draft.

Seanirl - I would say that the Celts, or any aggrarian might be good. The only problem with the Celts is that dont start with alphabet so they are one tech more away from republic. Not a big deal though.