rschissler
King
Actually I don't think it is, but I'd be interested if someone could convince me otherwise. I am definitely a warmonger and always go for conquest victory.
Why is Republic better than Monarchy?
- Thread starter rschissler
- Start date
Dreadnought
Deity
I have that arguement too, with the unit support a big issue, but it is better economy wise
Tomoyo
Fate
1. Gold bonus.
2. Less corruption.
The WW can be easily combatted with a little gold.
The military costs don't matter if you don't build defenders.
You don't need MP because you're rolling in money.
2. Less corruption.
The WW can be easily combatted with a little gold.
The military costs don't matter if you don't build defenders.
You don't need MP because you're rolling in money.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
And Feudalism, hmmm?
No?
I go right away: Dep>Feud>Fasc
No?
I go right away: Dep>Feud>Fasc
the money bonus is HUGE 
i know i've mentioned this about 100000 times, but in monarchy, a city gives 4 gold in military support. that's it. in republic, a minimum 7 size city will give you 7 gold (one extra gold for each citizen/square), thats already more than monarchy. but if you have a marketplace, it's now ten. a bank, it's now 15. a stock exchange, it's now 22 (though corruption is a factor, it's not big enough to make up for 18 gold). this is all just from the bonus!
i know i've mentioned this about 100000 times, but in monarchy, a city gives 4 gold in military support. that's it. in republic, a minimum 7 size city will give you 7 gold (one extra gold for each citizen/square), thats already more than monarchy. but if you have a marketplace, it's now ten. a bank, it's now 15. a stock exchange, it's now 22 (though corruption is a factor, it's not big enough to make up for 18 gold). this is all just from the bonus!
citizen001
Banned
Does that mean Monarchy is redundant in C3C?
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
I never use it. Feud is better for warmongering. Repub for growing/culture. So...
Monarchy has it's uses. You don't suffer from war weariness. And if your civ is small enough, or lacks infrastructure, then it's better than Republic. Republic's downfall is that it comes early enough that you may not be set up for it. But if you can afford to grin and bear it, it doesn't take long to get it up to speed.
So if my infrastucture is bad, I consider Monarchy first. Espeically if I start out with Warrior Code and/or Ceremonial Burial. Otherwise I beeline for Philosophy, and try to pick up Republic from my free tech.
So if my infrastucture is bad, I consider Monarchy first. Espeically if I start out with Warrior Code and/or Ceremonial Burial. Otherwise I beeline for Philosophy, and try to pick up Republic from my free tech.
I agree with Turner. Monarchy is good sometimes. An early republic can really get into trouble. But when you're done expanding and your cities begin to grow and build marketplaces, then Republic is almost always better. Even though Monarchy has no war-weariness, fighting wars in a Republic will make you a better warmonger. You have to learn to fight quick, efficient wars that accomplish a set goal.
Monarchy is still not useless. Good reasons to use Monarchy are if you have no luxuries, or you know you are going to fight a long, slow war. If I am playing a religious civ, I will use Monarchy early then Republic.
I think the biggest complaint against Monarchy would not be that it sucks, but that anarchy sucks. It's usually not worth it to go Monarchy, then Republic, then another government later with all those turns in anarchy. Playing a religious civ makes this better, but we don't always play religious civs. That's why most players get into Republic right away and stay there the rest of the game. In my games, 90% of the time I use Republic, then either stay in Republic the rest of the game, or switch to Communism when it's available.
Monarchy is still not useless. Good reasons to use Monarchy are if you have no luxuries, or you know you are going to fight a long, slow war. If I am playing a religious civ, I will use Monarchy early then Republic.
I think the biggest complaint against Monarchy would not be that it sucks, but that anarchy sucks. It's usually not worth it to go Monarchy, then Republic, then another government later with all those turns in anarchy. Playing a religious civ makes this better, but we don't always play religious civs. That's why most players get into Republic right away and stay there the rest of the game. In my games, 90% of the time I use Republic, then either stay in Republic the rest of the game, or switch to Communism when it's available.
Mt.Everest
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 11
Is there any use for Democracy? I (a newbie obviously) always go to democracy when I get it.. Are most of you saying you stick with Republic or Monarchy for most of your game?
MT
MT
Khan_Asparuh
Just a Bulgarian Eddie
The biggest advantage of the republic is the gold (above monarchy), WW above Democracy and all aspects above despotism.
Still, if I can get Monarchy earlier then republic (phil gambit) I rarely refuse to become a King. And depending of the game advancement, I go in demo or communism.
Still, if I can get Monarchy earlier then republic (phil gambit) I rarely refuse to become a King. And depending of the game advancement, I go in demo or communism.
Mt.Everest said:
Democracy is good in peaceful games, where you have little WW to worry about. In fact, with courthouses, police stations and US, you can manage war in Demo. Make sure you're the winner, you don't loose too many units, and you don't loose cities. That causes WW to go pretty high. But in a peaceful game the extra fast workers come in handy.
It should be noted that War Weariness does accrue in all governments, but it's only an issue if you switch to Rep or Demo while WW is still high. So it's more accurate to say that gov'ts such as Monarchy don't suffer from WW, as opposed to not having it.
Rambuchan
The Funky President
"I stick with Republic all game through. Allows gold , wars and reasearch.
Monarchy----too little gold.
Democracy ----problems with war weariness"
I agree with Drakan.
However! When I am not playing a religious civ and going for a clear domination or conquest victory (which is most of the time), I can often go the whole game as a Monarchy. I just go hard at taking everyone out so the need for extra cash or research doesn't really count. The size of the army and the ability to wage long, ugly, painful wars are the prime factors. And you can still advance down the tech tree at a good pace in a well groomed Monarchy. I find the Chinese are particularly good at staying in a Monarchy till the end game, just warring throughout.
When playing as a religious civ and anarchy isn't a worry then I'd prefer to use a Republic or even Democracy if luxuries are in abundance.
Monarchy----too little gold.
Democracy ----problems with war weariness"
I agree with Drakan.
However! When I am not playing a religious civ and going for a clear domination or conquest victory (which is most of the time), I can often go the whole game as a Monarchy. I just go hard at taking everyone out so the need for extra cash or research doesn't really count. The size of the army and the ability to wage long, ugly, painful wars are the prime factors. And you can still advance down the tech tree at a good pace in a well groomed Monarchy. I find the Chinese are particularly good at staying in a Monarchy till the end game, just warring throughout.
When playing as a religious civ and anarchy isn't a worry then I'd prefer to use a Republic or even Democracy if luxuries are in abundance.
But Democraty comes after useles advances and one anarchy time. Oh so many wasted turns
As for the topic: Republick gives more gold, though still you can easily fight against WW. With Demo it maybe difficult, if you don't own so many luxs. And you need only one anarchy time in whole game. These are my views.
As for the topic: Republick gives more gold, though still you can easily fight against WW. With Demo it maybe difficult, if you don't own so many luxs. And you need only one anarchy time in whole game. These are my views.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
WW isn't an issue on levels where you are not in danger of loosing cities. But, loose 2 small towns, and the whiners will show up massively.
In general, Rep/Mon depends on the level.
Emperor+, Republic is always better. That is, always except for Always War Games.
Why? Because you can fight even on Sid effectively in Republic. But, you cannot keep up in research or commerce in Monarchy.
On the lower levels, with the broken AIs and low tech costs, Monarchy is fine.
Democracy? Only for REL Civs. And only when your army is considerably bigger than the Republic support. Or you need the faster Workers (say, you only have a small empire of metros).
Communism rocks for huge empires; but still, another period of anarchy rarely is worth it.
Feudalism can be useful. For 100k victories, or lots of jungles (but usually only for REL Civs again, since you will revolt one more time later).
Fascism is utterly and completely useless for the human. Period.
In general, Rep/Mon depends on the level.
Emperor+, Republic is always better. That is, always except for Always War Games.
Why? Because you can fight even on Sid effectively in Republic. But, you cannot keep up in research or commerce in Monarchy.
On the lower levels, with the broken AIs and low tech costs, Monarchy is fine.
Democracy? Only for REL Civs. And only when your army is considerably bigger than the Republic support. Or you need the faster Workers (say, you only have a small empire of metros).
Communism rocks for huge empires; but still, another period of anarchy rarely is worth it.
Feudalism can be useful. For 100k victories, or lots of jungles (but usually only for REL Civs again, since you will revolt one more time later).
Fascism is utterly and completely useless for the human. Period.
Republic is more versatile. You can get about any victory type using it. You can engage in long wars, short wars, no wars, whatever you like. (I've played 20-30 turns at a time with maximum or near-max war weariness (40% lux, typically) and still made as good headway as I would have in Monarchy, simply due to me having almost twice the income to start with. And once the war's over, Republic research kicks into a gear that Monarchy just doesn't have.)
Monarchy gets rough at the higher levels unless you're fighting all the time and keeping AI civs at war almost as often, hence slowing the tech pace. Trying to keep up in a space race is very hard. Of course, I don't have very much experience playing as a Monarchy recently, so I'm sure I don't have optimum strategies using it.
Renata
Monarchy gets rough at the higher levels unless you're fighting all the time and keeping AI civs at war almost as often, hence slowing the tech pace. Trying to keep up in a space race is very hard. Of course, I don't have very much experience playing as a Monarchy recently, so I'm sure I don't have optimum strategies using it.
Renata
gunkulator
Emperor
Switch to Republic. Stay in Republic. I rarely find a need for Monarchy. I would have to be religious and in a chronic state of war to even bother with it.
While you can survive the Ancient Era with it, Monarchy's tech rate is just too slow to continue with in the Middle Ages.
While you can survive the Ancient Era with it, Monarchy's tech rate is just too slow to continue with in the Middle Ages.
