Monarchy vs. Republic

Flinx · August 28, 2002, 17:54

So which is better, Monarchy or Republic? I find that paying for all my units grinds my science to a halt when I switch from Despotism to Republic while under Monarchy the free units and extra content faces more than makes up for the increased waste/corruption. I do not remember that last time I have been a Republic.

Do you use Republic? How does it fit into your strategy?

Catt · August 28, 2002, 18:31

If I'm a religious civ, I will use Monarchy as my warring government, Republic as my peacetime governement (which includes wars for as long as I can hold war weariness off). Late game it's Democracy and either Monarchy or Communism.

If I'm not a religious civ, I try to move from Despot to Republic and then never switch again. If I don't have access to a pair of luxuries with at least the hope for trading for another later, and/or my infrastructure is woefully behind I might consider Monarchy as an interim between Despot and Republic, but the anarchy between governement switches is far more painful to me than is staying a Despot for 5 or 10 extra turns to accomplish what I think is necessary in order to make the jump to Republic.

I find that there is simply no way for me to keep up in science if I stay in Monarchy throughout the Middle Ages (*nods to Arrian's Game of Ultimate Power as a counterpoint, however *) - the huge extra commerce offered by Republic and Democracy is far too valuable to pass up.

Catt

Tuberski · August 28, 2002, 21:16

How many forums are you going to post this Monarchy vs. Republic thread?

3 so far.

Trying to get that custom avatar?

alva · August 29, 2002, 04:20

i've have played complete games in monarchy. If you need to fight alot it's not that bad.
So Unless I know there's going to be peace for a very long time, I stay king

(this is when I'm not religious, else I do the same as Catt does)

hr_oskar · August 29, 2002, 06:58

Tuberski: Why so hard on him?

Maybe he really wants to know

Flinx: Your economy shouldn't be doing worse in Republic than Monarchy; the following reasons for that problem are likely:

a) Your army is too large; for this to be the main reason, it would have to be extremely large

b) Your cities are too small

c) You have too few roads (too many tiles not giving any trade), so you miss out on the trade bonus

d) Your empire is too small, so the reduced corruption doesn't help that much

e) Most likely, a combination of the above

---

In terms of economy, Republic is very simply superior to Monarchy, as long as the civ is advanced enough (usually by early Middle Ages it is).

The key thing about Republic is the trade bonus (+1 trade in all tiles that already give trade). That's huge. Also less corruption, that makes a difference. The extra cost in unit maintenance will normally be less than those benefits.

Wait till your core cities get fairly large (say, larger than size 6) and your infrastructure (especially the roads) is strong. Get at least three luxuries (by conquest or trade) and some other improvements to secure happiness in the large cities (marketplaces and/or cathedrals). Banks, Marketplaces, and Courthouses are very beneficial for your Republic. If you have a happiness problem initially, increase the luxury % a bit, set taxes high and rush-buy those Marketplaces/Cathedrals. Then go for research when things settle down.

I seriously recommend you try to master the liberal governments (Demo/Rep) - they are critical to your success in this game. Monarchy simply can't cut it, unless you focus on warfare, and win those wars consistently.

Giovanni Wine · August 29, 2002, 08:22

I too, like Catt, switch directly from Despotism to Repubblic.

The good thing about Repubblic is that it has a lot of the advantages of Democracy, but (unlike Democracy) it has less war wearness, allowing you to throw yourself into a few quick wars.

On the other hand, if you usually are always at war, then it is better to stay in Monarchy.

If you are a Religiuos civ, than gov't should not be a problem:
Repubblic or Democracy in peacetime.
Monarchy or Communism in wartime.

Saluti

DrFell · August 29, 2002, 08:41

If you're going for fast science with little war, it's best to go republic. Turning to 10-20% lux will solve all your happiness problems. For all out war, go monarchy. Simple as that.

Panag · September 1, 2002, 17:13

hi ,

if you want to build , republic is the best , for a long way in the game , .....

it also depend a bit on what civ you play , ....

monarchy is something that you can get free with the GL , so why bother going after that tech , ....

have a nice day

Adam Smith · September 3, 2002, 09:49

Did a little playing over the weekend, and my first impression is that the techs you need to get Monarchy are often nearly useless (eg., Polytheism), while the techs needed for Republic lead to many good things in the near future (eg., maps). Does this seem generally correct??

Does anybody know the total accumulated beakers needed to reach Republic vs. Monarchy? Are they roughly the same? If so, and you have the luxuries, why not go straight for Republic?

Lastly, is there a Civ III Great Library or its equivalent? I did not see one in a quick check of the forums, and the manual and strategy guide are often nearly useless. Specifically, I am looking for a listing of the beaker cost of each discovery.

Flinx · September 8, 2002, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Specifically, I am looking for a listing of the beaker cost of each discovery.

Techs get cheaper to research as more civs learn them.

Also, they require more beakers as you increase map size IIRC.

nbarclay · September 9, 2002, 01:30

It's very difficult for Monarchy to beat Republic as a peacetime government. Yes, Monarchy provides free unit support, and yes, Monarchy can use units as MPs. But the extra gold Republics get can generally pay for both unit upkeep and the use of the luxury slider to help fight unhappiness. If you have enough units that it can't, you probably ought to consider going to war to trade some of those excess units for territory. (Of course this assumes that your territory is essentially fully roaded so each pop unit is bringing in an extra gold under Republic. If that isn't the case, you aren't building enough workers.)

Monarchy is important if you want to prosecute a long war, and that's especially critical on larger map sizes where it takes a longer war to capture the same percentage of an enemy's territory. I rarely use Monarchy, but it was a life-saver in a large-map Emperor-level game where I felt a need to devour a large opponent all at once for fear of culture flipping.

As someone else noted, religious civs can fairly easily flip back and forth between governments going from a peace-time footing to a war footing (although the anarchy still stings a little). With non-religious civs, it is best to commit to a long-term strategy as part of the process of choosing governments, since shifting gears is horriffically expensive. Personally, even as a religious civ, I love strategies built around using Republic to build up a tech advantage and then using that tech advantage to win wars quickly enough that war weariness does not become a problem.

Nathan Barclay

JNL · October 13, 2002, 17:49

After having read lots of stuff on monarchy vs republic vs democracy (isn't this the 5th thread on this topic :-) ?), I decided to make up my mind by myself, on a real game.

I'm a Rexxer. I had 62 cities at this time, with usually two tiles of land between cities. My FP was built, around 50% of my empire was developed (marketplaces, banks, etc..).
I had been at war as a Democracy for several dozen turns when my citizens decided to overthrow my government.

I saved the turn before being allowed to change govt, tried all of them, went through all the cities to optimize them (no civil disorder, maximized number of citizens working on tiles - food 1st, then shields -, no unnecessary entertainers, no scientists). Then, I collected data : some through the game UI, some by looking at all my cities, one by one.

I was ar 0% science, 0% luxury for all governments. Here are the numbers for Anarchy (if available on previous turn) / Despotism / Communism / Monarchy / Republic / Democracy (if anybody could put it into a table...thanks in advance) :

Net gain (without interest & trade with other civs) : ? / 234 /168 / 332 / 605 / 648
Unit Cost : ? / 0 / 0 / 0 / 100 / 100
GNP : 901 / 1230 / 1235 / 1309 / 1860 / 1856
GNP (delta) : 25 / 95 / 95 / 95/ 52 / 57
Mfg goods : 0 / 697 / 664 / 845 / 801 / 807
Annual income per capita : 13 for all 6 govts
Productivity : -4 / 1446 / 1690 / 2035 / 2197 / 2233
Approval rating : 79% / 78% / 78% / 78% / 55% / 53%
Corruption : ? / 513 / 584 / 494 / 629 / 587
Buildings maintenance : 578 for all (new) 5 govts
Wasted production : ? / 273 / 363 / 283 / 225 / 210
Family size : ? / 1 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2
Net stored food per turn : ? / 32 / 375 / 375 / 165 / 157

My conclusions :
I already knew that communism was only useful for poprush construction, and for heavy drafting if you're a religious civ.
Monarchy is cool, especially for big wars (lots of units), but I usually prefer to stick to Republic for science (see difference for GNP).
Democracy is simply disappointing, and too difficult to manage.

JNL · October 13, 2002, 18:15

One thing I forgot to say : I was only making this comparison to decide which governement type is the best for a long running war ("Is it a good idea to switch to monarchy, even where you're not a religious civ ?" The answer is clearly : "No").

punkbass2000 · October 14, 2002, 01:46

I find it odd that the approval ratings came up in the order they did. I would have guessed the exact opposite.

JNL · October 14, 2002, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I find it odd that the approval ratings came up in the order they did. I would have guessed the exact opposite.

Probably due to war weariness in Republic & Democracy ?

MoonWolf · October 14, 2002, 10:49

With a strong, fast-moving army, you are able to take out enough cities before war weariness becomes a real problem, especially with using the luxury rate and with some luxuries. The problem is if you are engaged in battles with other civs as well (being in war without battles doesn't not cause WW in my experience)

I see many here skip monarchy; so do I often. Maybe it should have been easier to get and not so "wasteful" to research (or trade)?

Jethro83 · October 15, 2002, 23:15

I usually go from Despot -> Monarchy -> Democracy

However, in my latest game, on Regent, as Persia I am having a go at going Despot -> Republic. It seems to be going well at the moment.

I am alone with China on a large continent, managed to build up huge numbers of Immortals (by cranking out overwhelming numbers of warriors, then hooking up the iron and upgrading them).

I beelined towards Currency (one of the last techs the AI gets before they go medieval, so I got a good price for it when I traded it with China), and built markets in my core cities. Then I researched republic and had markets in the most important cities by the time I was finished. Since I managed to get the Great Library, I've set the tech to 0% and luxury to 20%, and I am making more than enough gold to hurry libraries and temples in cities I conquer.

I have taken four of China's core cities already (within four turns. This is only a standard map BTW), gaining their supply of incense. I quickly bought temples and libraries in these cities (afforded with the huge commercial boost of republic). All is going very well at the moment. Unhappiness is a thorn in my side, but not a huge problem, and there is no war weariness yet.

So currently, I am undecided over whether I shall stick with my usual strategy of going for Monarchy and Democracy, or become a convert and favour Republic all the way to the end. By the time the game finished I'll know for sure, but until then I can only safely say that I'm waiting on the fence in this matter.

MoonWolf · October 16, 2002, 09:48

LordAzreal,
What I normally do, is first wipe out my neighbours on my continent, or if they are too strong/big, take some cities from them time to time and keep myself as the strong part, and then switch do democracy. I'll try to this this before the industrial age for real starts as my citites still are small enough not to suffer too much from anarchy. If you get some peacetime and time for improving your empire, you will probably have enough strength for wars under democracy when you're ready to encouter other civs.

Jethro83 · October 16, 2002, 18:51

Normally, I'd be warmongering in the earliest stages of the game, under Despotism. However, I was using Persia and didn't want to waste the golden age by sending my immortals after my enemies. I could have built up horsemen as well, but that would mean less immortals for when I'm ready to fire up my golden age.

Anyway, I think I'll be sticking with Monarchy. My technological lead was huge, and I was making more money than I usually do in that part of the game, but the gains of any wars I fought were scarce (two or three cities at best, all without access to resources I actually needed), and the people were hardly in the mood for a 'We love the emperor' day, even with the Sistine Chapel and Hanging Gardens built.

I prefer stability, and it is much easier to accomplish with Monarchy than Republic.

Enriquillo · October 18, 2002, 17:16

It takes a lot less time to research monarchy than it is to research republic. The faster you switch to an advanced government the better IMO. This is why I often prefer monarchy over republic.
The techs leading to it might be useless, but the Hanging Gardens make up for that. It gives you one outrageously happy and productive city, more than outweighing any advantage the republic will give you for a long time.
Consider also the fact that monarchy is much better for waging wars, and I think it's clear the king rulez

Aeson · October 18, 2002, 17:52

Monarchy tends to be better the bigger the map. On some huge maps I've gone Republic->Monarchy->Democracy, then switching to Monarchy whenever WW topples my Democracy. Early on I didn't have many units and most of the cities were productive, so Republic gave quite a boost in overall income. Upgrading 100 chariots to Mounted Warriors and then Knights is expensive!

Once I start building up the army and expand far past the optimal number of cities Republic becomes unfeasible though. Democracy still works because by that time my standing army is much smaller, there aren't 50+ settlers constantly running around, much of the worker force is captured, and the decrease in corruption.

Only for use with a Religious Civ of course, otherwise I'd just stick with Monarchy until the warfare was done with.

Theseus · October 18, 2002, 18:08

Warfare? Done with?

vmxa1 · October 18, 2002, 18:17

I think the two most cogent issues are, what level are we talking about and what traits do you have. If you are not religous, you really need to try to only switch once. If you are talkig about the lower level, then you can do whatever you like, but at the higher levels, I do not like your chances of making many of the early wonders. You get to maybe make 2, choose wisely. Well if you get a leader in the acient age, you can do more.

Aeson · October 19, 2002, 09:37

Quote:

Warfare? Done with?

When the AI is down to it's last city and the milking begins.

Theseus · October 19, 2002, 14:07

ArmaGeddin · October 21, 2002, 17:24

Im also one of those that goes for Monarchy first while im in an early war-time expansion mode, then I switch to Republic as soon as I have run out of easy targets. I will wait for tanks, then I set up MP's with everyone but the one A/I civ that is my biggest problem.

Then I declare war and wait for them to attack me. At that time all the other civs in the game declare war on them and I go in with my tanks. After I whack that one big guy down to size, I will switch to Democracy and finish out the game in with no problems.