why feudalism is better than republic

[ZEE]

.

[Jon Miller]

I hardly ever pay anything for my military (of course, I don't play late game)

you don't have enough cities

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I play republic btw

the only time I would do feuadlism is if I had no sources of freshwater near (and was religious)

JOn Miller

[ZEE]

.

[vmxa1]

If you have 20 towns you will have a lot of trouble getting to 120 units, it seems to me.
If I have 20 cities by fuedalism, at least 10 will either be 12 or close to it. That give about 40 units free support. If I have 60 total, I will pay 40 gold. That is no strain for a republic. 60 units seems about right, if many are workers.
I don't want 120 troops in the ancient age. If I had that, I would have killed everyone on the land mass already.

What WW will I have, if have 120 units? I would not have a war. No one will attack me and when I attack I will eliminate them quickly. Anyway if I am in the ancient age and getting Fuedal, I am probably in Despot and they don't have WW.

So when do I have 120 units? Well it will be very late in the game and I may be better off going to Communism.

[ZEE]

.

[vmxa1]

I guess my real point is that you will not have 120 units in the ancient age.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I guess my real point is that you will not have 120 units in the ancient age.

maybe not, but certainly in the early medieval age if you 'have' to win by conquest...

[Mountain Sage]

as in this pic (1305AD)

[player1]

Feudalism is better if having up to 6 pop cities, while republic is better in other case.

[ZEE]

.

[Jon Miller]

you are getting bigger than you need to be to win (you don't need that many troops to be dominant)

also, still being at that tech at 1305 AD?

you are not learning fast rnough, really

Jon Miller

[vulture]

Isn't it a little crazy to address this without considering your play style for the game in question? My first (and only, to date) C3C game netted me a smallish area with plenty of rivers plus the pyramids. Before I even got as far as researching the republic, more than half of my cities were over size 6. It doesn't take a genius to spot that under those conditions not only do you do better in terms of both upkeep and excess cash for research in republic than in feudalism, but you get to go to republic sooner.

Of course it would have been possible to take advantage of Feudalism by shrinking my towns, founding lots of new ones to take advantage of the unusde space, and built up an army to go and beat up on Aztecs to the south (who have a monstrously large army). Whether that would have worked out better in the long run is anyone's guess. But since I felt like playing this game in a more builder fashion, republic was clearly the only choice worth considering.

[Jon Miller]

in republic in the anceint age

lets say you have 10 7-12, and 10 1-6 (so pretty early in the game) - so ~40 free troops?

and this is probably earlier than feudalism, at feudalism time frame you would probably have 15+ 7-12s in a 20 city empire

5 coastal cities, 5 defensive troops
20 cities, 20 workers
if you are attacking, you don't need boderguards, that leaves you with 15 free attackers + (however many you want to pay for)

and much much better science and money than feudalism

not only would you have bigger cities, but also you would have more trade per square

Jon Miller

[ZEE]

.