Republic/Monarchy

[Tukker]

I know there have been alot of threads about this yet but somehow I still dont understand how Republic can be a better government as Monarchy.

If i change to Republic early in the game I always make like -40 loss per turn because of my army. All my units are up to date and im still just average to my ai opponents so I shouldnt have too many militair units.

I tried to switch to Republic when the game was almost finsihed around 2000AD and I only made like 30 more gold per turn so I dont really see whats so good about republic.

Monarchy also dont have war weariness and with Republic you only make a little bit more income

am I seeing this wrong?

T.

 

[Aegis]

In my experience, I have never gotten Republic to be a boon for me either. I too run into the -679 gold per turn problem because of the size of my army and workers. I end up disbanding 2/3 of my military, eliminating all from my core cities and outer ring, having only two units in each of my fringe cities, pushing the luxury bar up two or three slots so my cities will not starve because of unhappiness preventing a worker from working their tile, and I'm still researching much slower than I was in Despotism. Oh, and because I have a piss army, all the AI's suddenly begin demanding tribute, making things that much worse.

It is only an option if I have a large number of cities, 4-5 luxuries, marketplaces everywhere and one of the happiness wonders. Even then, I cringe at the thought of switching to Republic. It most definitely is not something I like or want to do. IMO, it is the worst government choice in the early stages of the game. Maybe it's better after getting banks and universities to help offset the science loss, but then it's just an alternative to Democracy, which I can just trade/rape from another nation and I do not end up having to pay +2 gpt for each person of my military/workforce.

 

[Chieftess]

Simply put - Lots of units under a republic = lots of maintanence. Make sure you have enough markets, banks, etc.

 

[Tukker]

I have lots of marketplaces and banks in my cities even tough im not exactly sure at what size a city could use them to make profit. Bank also requires maintenace if im right.

are there any players that use Monarchy or a other government system at the higher diffiiculty levels? Ive only played untill regent now.

I like Monarchy quite alot since they also allow me to have a nice army and income also increase.

 

[eldar]

Generally, anyone with cashflow problems in a Republic has fallen into the "must-have-2-Spearmen-in-every-city" trap. This is fine for the AI (above Regent) who get sufficient free unit support per city to handle it... but for the Human player, it kills.

Don't waste shields and unit support on defensive units. Active defence (i.e. Archer, Swords, even better mobile units such as Horses, Knights, etc.) is far, far, more effective anyway.

Also don't waste shields and support for buildings such as Temples, Colosseums, Granaries (in every city but the main Settler/Worker producing ones), Courthouses in first-ring cities, etc.

[Edit] Marketplaces are good, if you have lots of Luxuries. Other than that, Markets, and Banks, are only a drain on maintenance if you run at 0% Tax slider most of the time!

 

[Own]

road every square, get marketplaces and banks, have all cities grow to size 12, you'll be pouring in the ca$h. i once made 600 gpt, while still supporting an insanely large military.

when you enter republic, it will suck at the beginning, you'll have to disband most of your military, but once you have done what i said at the top, you can start building military and even researching yourself

 

[Renata]

In one of my current games, I'm playing as Monarchy out of necessity. At one point, I had a total income after maintenance costs of about 300 gpt. About two-thirds of that was going to research. I also had an army of about 100 units over the support level -- in other words, I was neither making nor losing any money. My biggest cities were balanced at 6 happy, 6 unhappy with a temple, a marketplace, and four luxes (getting more was not an option at that point).

Republic would have given me an extra commerce on every tile that already had commerce --which was nearly every tile I was working, since I had roaded all of my core territory. Most of the tiles I was working had only one commerce each, since I was short on rivers. So by going to Republic, I would increase my income by more than 2/3 by the addition of extra commerce alone; add in the lower corruption, and my income would be almost doubled.

So 600gpt total income after maintenance instead of 300gpt. Unit support costs would go from about 100 to 150 extra units, so from 100gpt to 300gpt. And to maintain the same research rate as previouly, I'd need to allocate 200gpt to that. And finally, I'd need 10 or 20% lux tax to maintain happiness (but I'd free up all those stuck-in-the-middle-of-my-territory-doing-nothing-but-keeping-folks-happy units for other tasks) until I got cathedrals built in my best cities (6-12 turns for said best cities at that point). Or better yet, I could build the cathedrals first. So worst case, it's a loss of about 20gpt for ten turns to switch to Republic, after which Republic comes out ahead by a large margin. And as I stated initially, I had a truly insane number of units.

Besides what eldar said, which in my experience is quite accurate (I'd never have been keeping so many units if the variant I was playing hadn't forced me into it), I think the main thing that Monarchy advocates are missing is workers and roads. If only half my worked tiles had been roaded in the above example, the equations would work out quite different.

Renata

 

[bonscott]

With Conquests Republic has a much higher unit support. So if you have a big army you now need to choose what is best for you. No two games are alike and your play style will also dictate what gov't you choose. There is no "best" answer for each game.

Before Conquests I'd usually do Republic => Commie/Demo (depends on situation)
After conquests I'll usually do Monarchy => Commie because my play style has a pretty large army and pretty large empire. If I played with a smaller army then Republic would become an option again. Again, really depends game to game.

 

[killercane]

Both are situational. Most people will say that republic's the greatest, but that aint really so true. If you can identify your victory condition, that will help greatly in your choice. You really only see the benefit of the free unit support for rep with cities size 7+ and later 13+; if you want to be a builder that works out perfectly. You can switch to rep early and stay there the rest of the game, working on space, 20K, or a diplo win. The ancient age republic slingshot is very easy to accomplish at emperor and below, and gives great benefits right away unless you're running around with 8000 immortals or something.

On the other hand, if you are cramped with a coupla other hostile civs on a landmass, and war is needed, its monarchy all the way. Even an oscillating war back and forth would find monarchy as the better choice. I believe Sir Pleb in his "Going for Sid" thread crunched some numbers, compared the two, and found monarchy was his best choice in that game; but again, that was situational. On a higher difficulty level, you usually need to fight to survive, and no matter how many catapults and whatnot you tote around you'll lose units. This = war weariness for your people. Supporting a purely offensive army of say horsemen, and your workers, can add up to a lot in republic, and god help you if for some reason you build spearmen and such everywhere. I think in the end republic needs more close attention/management than monarchy, which many people dont care/dont know how/are too lazy to give.

One thing funny I've noticed about using republic without many luxuries, is that your people arent very happy to start with, you see a new tasty lux right across the border in AI land, decide to go take it, and war weariness sets in bc you are acquiring more luxes for those silly corrupt-floodplain-grow-too-fast-Ijustrushedamarketandyouarestillnothappy clowns. According to the war weariness study in the War Academy (I do not remember the author), each time one of your units is attacked weariness accrues, especially if you are the aggressor. So it becomes a losing gambit if you overestimate how strong you are and how quickly you can take the AI out, and get into a tit for tat skirmish.

In short, republic is the trader/builder/lighter warfare way and monarchy is the heavier warfare option. It sometimes is a tough choice when a game situation falls in between the two types, and thats just a choice you have to make. Though I tend more toward republic, it is a fallacy to blindly go that route without assessing your situation, and too many people follow that path.

 

[jb1964]

I think one thing that's coming out in these threads, and is something I have discovered of late, is that you don't need to be in a rush to Republic. I'm staying in despotism later these days until the infrastructure is built up to the point where Republic pays off. And if I have plenty of luxes (smaller pangea map) I'll stay w/ despotism and take advantage of the uncorruptable food and the 20s I get from throwing my people under the wheels of progress.

Additionally I can get into the Middle Ages and find that there's some poor AI out there w/ Republic that I can pick up cheap. That is, I have a tech that I have sold and then want to dump on the rest of the world to suck up all the nickles I can I can get Republic and a nickle instead of just the nickle.

However, one situaltional moment I have been hit with is a start that has zero wheat, cows or game and the subsequent glacial growth. In this case a quick switch to Rep allows you to irrigate the grass and get the extra food.

 

[Renata]

I disagree that Monarchy is the government of choice for heavy warfare. I've frequently played GOTMs as all-out warmongering, finishing up with Cavalry at about 1000 AD, give or take a couple of hundred years depending on the map and the level. All of those were in Republic. Typically, by the end, my home continent has next to no units left on it: my entire army is cavalry and workers.

Monarchy bogs down for me. Sure, no warweariness, but you have to build so many more units to use as MP just to match the same happiness you can get in Republic with a 10% lux tax. I can get up to 40% lux tax in a pinch and still be no worse off than I would as Monarchy. And when things are going smoothly, it's just no comparison. Researching to get those cavs in the first place takes twice as long in Monarchy, and gives the AI civs a chance to build more units to make the takeover take longer as well.

Renata

 

[FeelGood]

It`s all depends on your situation. Of course going for republic right away before have improvements in place will kill you. It`s just a fact (I think ...) that republic need a good condition to be beneficial. Have lots of cities ( 7+ pop), markets and luxes, then you`ll be going in the positive route to victory. Republic can be better than demo sometimes when you have a large empire with metros and have most of improvements built. I usually stay in republic throughout the game now than before.

Well, it just my opinions based on my experience. Hope it helps!

 

[Tomoyo]

I agree with Renata, eldar, and all other who preache mobile defense, roads, and Republic. As a general rule, Republic with max weariness (with the lux tax at 50%) is usually the economic equivalent of a Monarchy under the same situation, assuming fully improved terrain and sufficient infrastructure. Monarchy is good for AW games because you probably don't have enough time to buld infrastructure, and because you need an insane amount of units, even defensive ones.

Of course, Monarchy is also good when you are in Democracy, get overthrown, and need to choose a government in vanilla. That was the only time (except AW) I thought Monarchy was the best government, and oddly enough, the team didn't think so and delayed our victory a few turns.

 

[Renata]

SGOTM5?

The situation I described in my first post up above is indeed an Always War game.

Renata

 

[Tomoyo]

No, not SGOTM5... My team won the vanilla award in SGOTM5... it was Ank11... a passive domination victory when we went to Demo for the flips and propaganda and then got overthrown.

 

[vmxa]

Wow -697gpt after a switch from Monarchy to Rep! So you had some 600 extra gold in unit support. I give something for the extra corruption you get in monarchy vs rep (significant vs low).

Some made up for the extra lux cost. Maybe even lower to 500 for units. That is a lot of units, more than I will have at the end of conquest on sid or about the same (400 units ~ for me, often less).

Seems to me the real thing is if I had all those units I would have killed all the civs. Oh, but wait, those MP's have to stay home or you are in the same boat as the Rep guy. Paying with the slider for happy faces.

I would probably have only a few defenders types (spear/pikes/musket) and rely on my fast movers to cover any landings. Many cities will be empty as no one can get to them in an empire of say 15-20 cities. This is about what I would hope to have soon after a switch to Rep, on shared land mass, at Demi (sorry I forgot the level being discussed).

I want my attackers up front and prepared to do some annexing. Now the killer comes in when you feel you need a temple in every city. Libs in cities that will not make more than 1 beaker and are not needing expansion of culture. Those cost money. Later banks are in the same boat, if you have a corrupt city. Cath are not to be build at all, unless in a metro and I won't have any of those most of the time.

I do want markets, IF I can get 4 lux or in core cities that are making commerce and low corruption.

The real reason to get to Rep, is to free up those troops so they can attack someone. It is brutal in Monarchy to have to keep two or three units for MP and still make enough forces to make war. What good does it do to have a WW free gov, if you cannot afford to fight or do not intent to fight.

Rep is a low WW form, so do not sweat it, just do not stay at war for long periods and try to get them to declare (not required, but nice).

 

[Renata]

No, not SGOTM5... My team won the vanilla award in SGOTM5... it was Ank11... a passive domination victory when we went to Demo for the flips and propaganda and then got overthrown.

Oh, I had thought you were on Xteam last round. I thought I vaguely remembered some sort of government or war weariness disaster of some kind in that game. I'm remembering something else, apparently.

Renata

 

[gskyes]

I think that it really depends on your playing style. I think that most of the good players here actually changed their play style to fit republic so that they get the best advantage. Republic's major benefit is more gold, and gold=power. Almost any problem in the game can be overcome with $$$. This becomes much more important at higher difficulties. So these players have learned to use republic's power to it's full potential while minimizing it's drawbacks.

I would suggest learning to use republic if you want to climb up in difficulty and be the best player you can be. If you are a casual player (like me), monarchy is good when you want to use it. I can keep up in science and power below emperor difficulty fine in a monarchy. Would republic be better? Probably. But I just want to have fun with the game and monarchy works just fine for early warmongering. I wouldn't use it if I wanted to play a peaceful game, though.