The New REPUBLIC

[rah]

After a quick glance at the Civ III tech tree, a thought occurred to me. (I know, Dangerous)

Monarchy now had 4 pre-reqs. Ceremonial B, Warrior Code, Mysticism and Poly. (one more than before) Republic also has 4 pre-reqs. Alpha, writing, code of laws, philosophy.

We also have heard that unit support will now be at the national level and based on gold not shields.

Now let's assume (big, but lacking anything to the contrary) that everything else is about the same. (except for a few of my guesses, of course)

I predict that monarchy will go the way of the dinosaur and no longer be the primary goal in most games.

Why?

The goal is still to get out of despotism as quickly as possible to get the extra food/shields for growth. (settler spitting) The faster you get to pop 3 the faster that settler can be popped (or wltkds if they're still included). Without the shield support penalty associated with REP/DEM The Republic is going to look a heck of a lot more attractive. And the extra trade bonuses associated with Republic will probably make up for the increased gold needed for unit support (especially with reduced corruption). Granted you still would have no martial law, but I have the sneaking suspicion that Like the CTP series, while it will be less than Monarchy, there will still be some martial law component. (and even if there isn't, there are other ways to solve the happiness problem. And if the unit support is handled at the national level, how they address the "unit out of city" for happiness purposes will have to be modified from the current setup. (and even if they don't, you'd still get one free per city so exploring would not be overly hindered)

What do you of you think. Have they maybe not considered this aspect of game balance?

RAH

[KrazyHorse]

I think that Republic was very weak for expansionary civs (which almost all are at the time you discover it), so a change for the stronger could be helpful, though not too much of one. Unhappiness should be a real killer; almost all the republics through history have been extremely small (Greek city-states, Dutch, early Rome, etc).

[splangy]

monarchy will have 3 free units, and martial, rep will have 0 free units no martial. this is what i beleive, they WILL not make a super govement that early.

[rah]

The cost of support won't be shields, it will be national treasury. (based on everything I've read) so the extra trade should make up the difference.

And I'm not saying a super government, I'm just saying that it will be better than it is now, and that with the same number of pre-reqs as monarchy, it will be one heck of a lot more attractive.

RAH

And maybe they haven't figured out how the changes are going to affect it yet.

[loinburger]

A relatively minor point is that perhaps the prereqs for Monarchy are more useful than the prereqs for Republic, and that this is supposed to provide the play balance.

[Ribannah]

My guess is that they have cancelled the We Love days.
At least I hope they have. I have never understood where all these new
citizens were supposed to come from.

[Inverse Icarus]

well it's simple, apply it to modern days.

whenevrer things are going swimmingly, and people have more luxuries (cars etc), they get happier.

and when they have more money and extras, they have bigger families (baby booms).

and each turn is 20 years early game, or 5 mid game. 1 year is a bit of a stretch, 10,000 people being born.

[Inverse Icarus]

it is really cheap though...

just throw on 80% luxuries for like 10 turns and carefully manage ure cities, making unhappies entertainers, and all ure cities are 10 sizes larger!

(unless they starve)

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by splangy
monarchy will have 3 free units, and martial, rep will have 0 free units no martial. this is what i beleive, they WILL not make a super govement that early.

put simply, but that is exactly the point.. no martial law is a big disadvantage from republic in comparison to monarchy...

[rah]

But will the advantages outweigh that. Up to now the biggest discouragement has been the extra pre-reqs and the shield support. There are ways around the happiness. (lord knows it doesn't present a problem now in MP games)

technophile
Yes, the monarchy pre-reqs are more war related. But if you can get to rep quick, researching the others shouldn't present a problem at the increased rates. But you're going to have to research writing at some point anyway. (good point though, I considered that but since most of them are base techs that you're going to need eventually, I didn't put as much importance to it) That's why we post this stuff though, to get the opinions of likewise open minded people.

RAH

[Bird]

rah, if units cost money instead of shields and the first 3 units remain free under monarchy, there will still be a significant hardship in going republic early. Between having to keep luxuries higher (usually 0% in monarchy) and taxes higher (to pay for the units), there should certainly be a reduction in science capabilities. Either that or you wouldn't have any gold to rushbuild anything, particularly the infrastructure that you really need to make republic work well. It is possible that early Republic will be even less attractive in Civ III, although more quickly attainable.

[rah]

Bird, maybe, that's what I'm trying to get a feel for. Many games have unit support costs for troops, and the way they're set, it keeps you from having a large army, but a medium size one has never been a problem. The increased trade arrows over monarchy may make up the diff. And on the luxury issue, Think about a modified ICS strat, your cities will be small so once you have a temple built, that should minimize what you need for luxuries. I don't know. But my point is, minor tweeks, (like changing small things in the tech tree, and the move to national gold support for units) could make a major difference. And since there is no public beta test, some of those things could be overlooked.

Some people are very successful going straight to rep instead of monarchy. It wouldn't take much modifications to make it look even more attractive.

RAH
My personal belief is that with possible stacks on the board, more units are going to be needed to defend.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by rah
That's why we post this stuff though, to get the opinions of likewise open minded people.

I am offended that you consider me "open minded."

On a tiny world the order of the initial prereqs would probably make a tremendous difference in the game, but in almost any other situation I agree that the differences in prereqs does not provide sufficient play balancing (unless for some reason Writing/Philosophy/whatever is made prohibitively expensive to research...)

Bird: The percentage of trade that is dedicated to science would certainly be reduced by switching to Republic for the very reasons that you mention, but the total amount of trade combined with the increased population growth would most likely make up for this (and likely lead to an increased Science output from Republic immediately or within a few turns of making the switch).

Ribannah: The population mechanics for Civ has always been screwy; population growth is exponential or logistical, not linear. Compared to that reality tweak, "we love" days are relatively minor.

[Bird]

rah, you are of course correct, the bottom line is we don't know and likely won't know until the game comes out. Anything's possible.

Sort of reminds me of the debates on sports radio about whether this trade or that trade was a good one. Only time will tell......

Looking forward to next season, though.

techno: it just depends on how much units cost. You might be right, but who knows (see above).

[rah]

technophile,
Well since I'm really only interested in MP and we usually play on small worlds, your issues is very relevant. But depending on how fast you could backfill the war techs. (and all you really need is wheel for an offensive pop to defend with) maybe you could do it quick enough before you're overwelmed.

Bird,
(Lou Brock)

See what happens when the game isn't out. We still find a way to discuss strats without enough knowledge. And Jeff responded to the city on mountain comment I made. I'd appreciate any additional feeds of info here

[d_dudy]

i think rah has a point. i always liked republic more than monarchy for tech and trade. but i'm never an expansionist

[Urban Ranger]

Hm.

Now that settlers cost 2 pop each it seems that any government forms that promotes population growth is something that's sought after.

Since now that Polytheism doesn't give you the Elephant unit anymore I say Republic now makes an interesting alternative, esp if Philosophy still gives you an extra advance if you are the first civ that gets it.

[Jon Miller]

I first use to go only for republic

then I noticed that going for Monarchy allowed a decent level of expansion for longer

basically though, if they fixed ICS then Monarchy has lost its attractiveness in the Civ2 sense

they had better have replaced it with something else

especially since in Real Life, Monarchy has been arguably better then Civ2s Republic

why for stability

maybe the republic nations will be a lot less stable and be easier to rebell

also perhaps there will be a culture bonus in monarchy

remember Civ and Civ2 had military and trade infasit

this can be seen in the governments

trade - republic, democracy
military - depotism, monarchy, communism, fundamentalism

civ3 has 3 important infasists, trade, Military, and Culture

so maybe some governements would be ebtter for culture

Jon Miller

[rah]

A lot of good points folks.

Pro-rep. Freebie for Philosphy is a consideration.

Pro-Mon. Culture - if temples will increase culture since cerimonial b is on the path to monarchy.

Another big consideration will be how they handle the senate for going to war.

And of course the big one is still wltkds, which we haven't heard much about.

Or will they end up being about the same from an expansionist outlook and it will depend on the first free tech you get from a hut.

RAH

Any other considerations?

[Father Beast]

It depends on what type of game you are playing. If you're not much of an expansionist, you don't have all that many units, so the gold won't hamper you that much. if your science is good enough, you can get by with fewer units because of their higher defense.

This really DOES change things. in the old days, expansionists would always stop at monarchy on the way to republic, just to get the hell out of despotism. Warmongers would generally stay in monarchy (with a quick run to republic for growth spurt if they have the time) until communism.

it looks like now we can get to republic as easily as monarchy, other strats will come into being.

[rah]

I'm not as worried about the gold support.

They can't change it from one shield (old way) to one gold. Heck most early cities don't produce 1 gold. I'm guessing that the new one gold will be replaced by a higher unit like 100 or 1000 so it's easier to use parts of it. (similar to CTP and other games) Depending on what percentage of the unit is needed to support a unit, the extra trade arrows from Rep, may make up the difference. Even if it doesn't, I refuse to believe that a city won't be able to generate the funds to support 2 warriors. etc.

RAH

If anyone knows any specifics, (hint, hint)
Feel free to interupt this thread. Just like my mountain comment.

[ancient]

Originally posted by UberKruX
well it's simple, apply it to modern days.

whenevrer things are going swimmingly, and people have more luxuries (cars etc), they get happier.

and when they have more money and extras, they have bigger families (baby booms).

and each turn is 20 years early game, or 5 mid game. 1 year is a bit of a stretch, 10,000 people being born.

erm then whats all that about people in africa who are poor as all hell and have like 15 children? population there is growing very rapidly and almost every one is poor, and hungry..



not every one values the same thing..

i think it would be better if each person (face icon) has his own wants and needs out of a assortment of different choices.

Every one needs the same basics, food, (market place, supermarket) water, (aquaducts, sewer system) people would only vary in wants.
If a city is militaristic and is a size seven. 2 of the people would (for example) want military things, but these things are secondary to what people need. They might want barracks, and city walls in earlier times but once they recieve that theyll inevitably want more, so later you can get a SAM or Naval Port, Airport.


But let

[Odin]

I think the Republic should be better at war; look what the Roman Republic did to Carthage!!!

[Inverse Icarus]

ancient, the people in afriuca have large families because they need more workers in the family, just to survive.

[Inverse Icarus]

also, in the colonies tutorial, notice your borders dont expand until u have built a temple.

you'll need cere early.