The forbidden Monarchy.

Kramsib · May 1, 2003, 06:24

In the Ancient Times I never use Monarchy if Republic is available. IMHO, Monarchy is useless, the 3 free units in Monarchy are substituted by the less corruption and commercial bonus of the Republic, enough to maintain my units.

The only difference are the war weariness and the "hurry production".

In Civ II was different, it was impossible to be in Republic until the discovery of industrialization because all your units needed shields to be maintained, that made sense, like in real History, first Monarchy and then Republic. ( Of course, except for Greeks, Romans, and .... Iroquois Ribannah? ).

Do you think Monarchy is discriminated against Republic?.

Cruddy · May 1, 2003, 06:45

One factor is how big your cities are, and how many luxuries are available. Don't get me wrong, I hate being in monarchy rather than republic. But sometimes I have to delay the switch a few turns, and if an important wonder is in production I may delay it longer. This isn't an example of good play, rather the oppposite.

Kramsib · May 1, 2003, 07:31

That is what I mean, nobody wants Monarchy because Republic is better even in the Ancient Times.

I was thinking about a simmilar restriction like the one there was in Civ II, I am keen on CTP's solution, maintaining units with a percentage from the shield production in cities, in addition, in order to prevent small cities from getting colapsed, the percentage should be applied on cities which are bigger than 3.

MoonWolf · May 1, 2003, 07:44

I would say it's more beneficial with monarchy in the early stages of the game where you think more of expanding your empire and securing good locations rather than keeping the people happy with temples and luxuries. BUT it's too expensive to research! I try to get monarchy as it's more natural and beneficial for me. You get the techs mysticism and polytheism on the way, but what are they really good for? In civ2 mysticism at least gave you more happiness...

So as it is today, monarchy is unfortunately quite useless unless you get it in a goody hut or from an other civ

Maybe I'll do something about this in my mod...

Kramsib · May 1, 2003, 09:31

In fact, it is not worthwhile wasting 4 turns of production because of monarchy and then another 4 turns because of Republic, I prefer waiting a bit more with Despotism and then switch to Republic.

MoonWolf · May 1, 2003, 09:44

You got a point there; if republic is not far away, it's a waste to bother switching to monarchy first, but if it was available earlier, I would.

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 1, 2003, 12:30

I disagree with all y'all, but you're most likely better players than me.

I skip Republic entirely. What's the point? Don't you have some wars you want to wage?

By the time I switch gov'ts my empire is not well-developed enough that Republic will generate enough gold to pay for the units I want... and often my people will be miserable as I won't have enough marketplaces up and running.

Monarchy can last me a good long time, until Democracy, when I switch. By then, my empire will be so huge that I'll have the money to keep my people happy...

gunkulator · May 1, 2003, 12:57

I too bypass Republic. Despotism-Monarchy-Democracy. Unit support and war weariness just kill it for me. Even if I try hard, I always seem to be at war with somebody. Oh, and three content citizens from martial law ain't bad either.

Arrian · May 1, 2003, 14:10

I use Monarchy a lot.

I tend to fight a lot, and cannot afford the war weariness. That, coupled with the free unit upkeep and MP happiness effect, often makes Monarchy the choice for my civ.

Once my major wars wind down, and I get markets + cathedrals in my cities, plus hopefully Sistine and/or Bachs, I can then switch to republic or straight to demo. If I'm non-religious, I will probably go straight to demo.

As a religious civ, I've gone Despot -> Republic -> Monarchy -> Democracy before.

Monarchy is an excellent government for the warmonger. Long, sustained wars in which I'm fishing for Great Leaders as much as I'm trying to actually destroy the enemy civ would cripple a republic or demo (at least until Univ Suffrage + Police Stations).

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 1, 2003, 14:16

Besides, if you put marketplaces off in the building cue (at least until after temples and libraries), then the military police aspect of monarchy can be very helpful even if you're NOT at war. I sometimes build cathedrals before marketplaces, if the price is right, though this is rare.

OT: Arrian, are you going to contribute to the Persian strategy thread?

Arrian · May 1, 2003, 14:25

I typically prioritize marketplaces, because they bring two seperate but important bonuses to the table: more money and more happiness.

"More money and more chicks and more money and more chicks and AAAAAH!" [/Beavis]

Plus, when warmongering, I am typically not doing my own research. I'm beating it out of the AI and/or getting it from the Great Library (built or captured). Therefore, libraries are a bit of a waste during that stage of my games. If I'm running 80-90% taxes, markets are the better option.

OT: I thought about it, but in all honesty, I'm not a big fan of Persia, and haven't played them in a long time. My first ever Monarch win was with Persia, but that was a long time ago, and since I never play them, I can't really comment from experience.

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 1, 2003, 14:29

I guess I can see this style of play, but I would seriously flip if someone build Sistine's, Sun Tzu's, Leo's or Bach's whom I wasn't able to conquer...

Hence all the libraries... to get to those wonders first.

Murtin · May 1, 2003, 14:41

I don't think monarchy is that useless either. Although I usually try to reach for republic, I've noticed quite a few times when it just turned out to be a very poor decision, and I really should have gone for monarchy instead.

The last time felt like kicking myself for such a horrid outcome of a revolution I had still done some (sloppy and inaccurate) math before choosing the form of government. I figured that I had a relatively small empire, so the money saved by not having to pay upkeep for 2/4 units per town/city (the sum ending up somewhere at 40 gold) shouldn't be an argument for monarchy. Lower corruption and higher incomes would surely pay off better than that.

I was wrong. The newly instated republic had to cut back dramatically on science spending in order to pay for unit upkeep and luxuries and as a result the research times didn't change much compared to the earlier despotism. To make matters worse, soon enough I got dragged into a war...

But as I said, I too have been under the impression that republic is a much better government than monarchy under almost every possible set of circumstances. I guess I get taken in by the promise of all those extra trade revenues and tend to dismiss the advantages of monarchy as insignificant in comparison. I suspect others are vulnerable to that misjudgment too.

Arrian · May 1, 2003, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
I guess I can see this style of play, but I would seriously flip if someone build Sistine's, Sun Tzu's, Leo's or Bach's whom I wasn't able to conquer...

Hence all the libraries... to get to those wonders first.

Come to think of it, I should have added something to my last post:

"When warmongering, I typically don't do my own research... UNTIL I hit the early medieval age, unless I have the GL, in which case I will probably turn science off until education unless I do so much damage to my neighbors that I feel I must research myself to avoid falling behind civs I don't know yet."

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 1, 2003, 15:05

ah, i SEE.

So, are you typically the first to research feudalism, theology and invention? Or do you "pick those up" as well?

Arrian · May 1, 2003, 15:10

Yahweh,

It depends. If I have the GL, probably not. I will probably beeline for Invention and allow the GL to get me monotheism, feudalism & theology.

If I don't, I will be doing my own research, but getting to those techs first isn't a huge priority. If an AI civ gets it first, it's research cost drops, making it cheaper for me. Not a big deal so long as I'm close. It's production I'm more concerned with.

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 1, 2003, 15:19

So you rely on leaders to get you the wonders first? Or you conquer them?

Jaybe · May 1, 2003, 15:54

Saw a post over at CFC which struck a chord with me: While there may have been republics in ancient times, they were 'ancient' enough that they did not afford the financial benefits of the Republic of Civ3. Any exceptions were minor states.

So The Republic gets moved in the tech tree to Democracy's location (requires Banking & Printing Press). Democracy gets moved to the Industrial era (requires Nationalism). I intend to move Communism to require Industrialization or The Corporation (referencing the social turmoil which gave rise to Karl Marx).

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 1, 2003, 15:56

excellent historical context, Jaybe.

Arrian · May 1, 2003, 16:01

It's a combination of things, Yahweh.

1) - I can be reasonably certain that I can simply out-produce the AI to 1-2 of the early medieval wonders (Sistine, Leo?), but sometimes no if the cascade wasn't broken (some civ started the HG and built up a bunch of shields and then got feudalism before someone else finished the HG... then I've got a real race on my hands).

2) - In order to nail all of the medieval wonders I want*, I need some or all of the following:

-ancient wonderbuilding cascade broken
-GA
-3 good production cities
-Leader(s).

In my current game, I built Sun Tzu & Sistine. I rushed Leos. I could have built it (and every wonder from here on out) before any of the AIs, but it was faster to use the leader on Leos and switch my Leos city to Bachs. Then again, the game I'm playing now is not typical... it's getting ridiculous (in a very good way. When you get 6 leaders as Carthage, the civ gods are with you).

In AU207, I built the big three during my GA. But I used leaders for Bachs & Smiths.

-Arrian

* - Sun Tzu, Sistine, Leo, Bach, Copernicus, Smith, Newton, Magellan. Or, to be brief, everything but Shakespeare's.

Arrian · May 1, 2003, 16:07

Jaybe,

Yeah, I think that might make sense from a historical perspective. Then again, as a warmonger player, I'm not sure it's a good idea. I use Monarchy and use it well. I'm not so sure the AI can, though. Moving Republic back will slow the overall tech pace down, which I think favors the human.

It might be fun anyway, though, and that's the point, right? Could be interesting to try and see the results...

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 1, 2003, 16:08

I'd be happy (though not utterly) without Magellan's, Copernicus', and Newton's. Same goes for Shakespeare's (why it isn't just called "the Globe" is beyond me).

But when the Koreans or Iroquois overseas beats me to Sun Tzu's or Sistine's, it's generally ctrl+shift+q for me.

Frank Johnson · May 1, 2003, 17:03

Hm. I have to put myself in the never use monarchy catigory.

It simply has to do with the free number of units per city. Despotism allows 4 per city, no matter the size. Monarchy only allows 2 per city, if they are under size 7. And only 4 for ones over 7. There's only a real advantage if your cities are over 13.....and uh that requires sanatation.

Simply put, the way I usually play the loss of the unit support I don't get since most cities will still be size 6 when I get monarchy......outweights any advanatage due to less corruption. The policing is only marginally better, but really in the ancient era when you're fighting who has the paticence to garison each city with 3 units? Espically when they are probably still size 6?

I stay with despotism, and max out my units, and go for great leaders. Monarchy is a fighting government for a well developed civilization, not an early one, so I've only used it when forced to by an AI who wants to fight pre-commuism, but after the normal ancient war phaze.

Kramsib · May 1, 2003, 18:02

Perhaps, we should configurate an Ancient Republic and balance the three government types:

1. Making Monarchy and Republic better than Despotism.
2. Focusing Republic for builders and Monarchy for Warmongers.
3. Monarchy and Ancient Republic should have the same importance.

Kramsib · May 1, 2003, 18:04

In addition, Republic had some handicaps erased, as you can see, now, there is no senate and no penalisation for having your units out of your cities, perhaps these penalisations should return to give Monarchy a chance.

pedrojedi · May 1, 2003, 18:51

Ah, Leaders... I'm always amazed to see how they can be often forgotten to be given to me. A fine example would be my last Chinese game: almost 6.000 years of development, a Space Race Victory, and yes... NO LEADERS. And I warred, oh Lord, I warred a lot, and all my elites were there, winning and surviving, but no, NO, the AI just could not give 1, 1 miserable leader to me. Of course, during the middle ages the different AI civs got all wonders, and I had to be just a good boy and be thankful to have the Pyramids. And, of course, the Theory of Evolution (known as The Great Big Tech Jumper, Tech-Trading Wonderful Wonder), Hoover Dam, and so so so...

Frank Johnson · May 2, 2003, 00:00

If you want a suggestion for a minor tweak rather than an all out new government I suggest simply increasing the unit support per "town" from 2 to 4 for Monarchy.

That allows a monarchy to enjoy the same military support as a despot, while also getting the 3 food from irrgation on grassland, and slightly better corruption and policing rates.

If you want to limit republic as well, its not as easy to modify it. I think if monarchy could fight as well as a republic there might be some reason to go to it, at least for religous civs.

Perhaps the ideal number of cities can be decreased for republic and increased for monarchy? This would represent a republic's inability to properly address issues "in the provinces" which could be over come with the more modern democracy.

Kramsib · May 2, 2003, 06:18

Yes Frank, your idea can be a good solution for the current editor, but we should readjust Communism too.

Spiffor · May 2, 2003, 09:12

I'm a builder, yet I sometimes use monarchy.

Monarchy helps me tremendously to finance my throngs of workers and defensive / counteroffensive units, and these units in turn give me a free and movable cathedral in each city (happiness-wise).

It is possible to keep up with research in monarchy with agressive tech whoring and lots of libraries or universities. Scientific civs are excellent in this regard.

The low upkeep costs allow to pour huge funds in science, and you can avoid to raise the entertainment slider, as well as buying too many luxuries from abroad.

Besides, monarchy allows to fight a war when the need arises, which gives more flexibility than Republic.

The real problem with monarchy is that you cannot get much money from it, if you intend to have a good research. Hence, rush-buildings suck, which is problemtic from a builder's perspective.

jshelr · May 2, 2003, 12:17

"Saw a post over at CFC which struck a chord with me: While there may have been republics in ancient times, they were 'ancient' enough that they did not afford the financial benefits of the Republic of Civ3. Any exceptions were minor states."

Idonno. Maybe the game developers were impressed by Rome as a republic that did pretty well economically and on the trade front for quite some time. What do you think?