Use of Governments

[zenmonkey12]

I tried a search of the forums to answer my question, but found no firm answer. Basically, I am unsure as to the effectiveness between Monarchy and Republic. I realize this depends on alot of other factors, but in general, I assume that Monarchy is good for compact empires bent on war, while Republic is good for sprawling empires of peace. What - if any - is a general number of cities limit for Monarchy before one should consider Republic?

 

[vmxa]

Really the only time to consider Monarchy, is if you intend to be at war a great deal. The lack of WW is the only thing it has over Republic, regardless of size of the empire.

Republic is far better, even for wars, as long as they are fairly short or you have plenty of happy stuff, like lux and slider.

 

[zenmonkey12]

Really the only time to consider Monarchy, is if you intend to be at war a great deal. The lack of WW is the only thing it has over Republic, regardless of size of the empire.

Thanks for the reply, vmxa!

Republic is far better, even for wars, as long as they are fairly short or you have plenty of happy stuff, like lux and slider.

I guess I am confused them, because I thought I recalled reading somewhere here on the forum about a limit of the number of cities you should have in Monarchy as opposed to Republic. I like Republic normally except for the war weariness it brings.

 

[Hellfiredoom]

It's really not a question of number of cities, as much as play style. Monarchy (and Communism if your game goes that long) supports long drawn out wars for Conquest and Domination victory conditions because you have no war weariness. Republic generates tons of commerce used to keep up with the AI in research or for cash rushing units and city improvements, but you have to deal with war weariness.

To your point, either gov't type benefits from more cities. Heck, the whole game of Civ is all about expanding your empire (except for variant games) regardless of gov't type.

...while Republic is good for sprawling empires of peace

The question is how do you gain your sprawling empire in Republic without going to war? As a war-monger, there's a level of complexity in winning a Republic Conquest or Domination game you won't find in Monarchy, learning to balance expansion vs. war weariness... but that just adds to the fun.

 

[Snarkhunter]

Really the only time to consider Monarchy, is if you intend to be at war a great deal. The lack of WW is the only thing it has over Republic, regardless of size of the empire.

Ah--also more unit support & more MP's, if you need 'em. But yeah, it's a warmonger's government, basically.

kk

 

[rollo1066]

In the middle ages if you rule a large undeveloped empire with lots of towns of pop 6 or less you should consider Feudalism. Towns support 5 free units, cities 2 and metro's (which are not possible at this point only 1). Rush is by sacraficing people (like Despotism) but you don't face the production penalties of Despotism. Also war wearyness occurs at the same level as Republic.
So don't start some long war to make your younger brother King of some distant place which your people care nothing about (like Henry III of England did). Eventurally you will need a different government as when you towns grow to 7 or high military support goes way down and costs go up (unit support is 3/turn so you don't want more than you can get for free if possible). About the time that Feudalism becomes unworkable Democracy is available.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

I guess I am confused them, because I thought I recalled reading somewhere here on the forum about a limit of the number of cities you should have in Monarchy as opposed to Republic. I like Republic normally except for the war weariness it brings.

I've never heard anything about the number of cities, but I definitly wait till my populations in my core cities are well on their way to 12 so that my income can provide enough gpt for unit and maintenance needs.

 

[Opies]

Basically republic is all you need, even in conquest only. Just keep the wars fast and deadly, and even if you don't a little lux slider (with all that extra cash) can keep your citizens in line.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

If I'm playing a Religious Civ I prefer the Democracy/Monarchy/Democracy flips for wartime.

 

[Opies]

If I'm playing a Religious Civ I prefer the Democracy/Monarchy/Democracy flips for wartime.

Does the decrease in corruption from democracy outweigh the costs of unit support? assuming you are playing for conquest

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

Yes, my income is always higher with Democracy. With worker efficeincy doubled its a no brainer for me. The only caution is to remember to check city happiness every turn, it will turn suddenly and most cities will go into Civil Disorder in one turn.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Yes, my income is always higher with Democracy. With worker efficeincy doubled its a no brainer for me. The only caution is to remember to check city happiness every turn, it will turn suddenly and most cities will go into Civil Disorder in one turn.

Your income will be a little higher, yes. Worker efficiency is 150%, isn't it? My main question would be: is it worth the 2 optional techs? I used to love Democracy until I read the forums and realized the 2 optional techs were a big price. And Democracy tech is expensive.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

It's a choice that only comes up when I go with a Religious Civ. What makes the game more fun, for me I'll take the zero war-weariness of Monarchy and the improved worker efficiency with Democracy every time.