Is Feaudilism useless?

[Prot]

There's war weariness, forced, labor, corruption just a step below Despotism, and it costs 3 gold for every unit over support. The only advantage is the high unit support for towns, which is good if your kinda small or weak. But other then that, the government sucks.

Is it meant for people that tech raced and never even researched Monarchy or Republic? Or is it worthless?

[Switch]

From what I can tell, it's good for a civ without any rivers. To keep that working, though, you'd have to only have short, quick wars, otherwise your WW will fly through the roof.

[notyoueither]

It increases the value of Religious civs, because it can be a very useful government if your military has to be too large in proportion to your cities/pop prior to conquering a neighbour and going into Republic.

I played a game as Rome where I had to go into Feudalism for wars of conquest. They did not stop until I went into Democracy.

WW can be managed better than no room or lack of resources can.

[DrSpike]

Not worthless, just pretty rubbish.

[player1]

It is for those civ who have small cities (up to 6 pop) and small number of luxuries (so MP matters).

In those cases Republic is suicidal (especialy in C3C becuse different unit support), Monarchy is worse due to lower unit support for small cities.

Anyway, it is an upgarde from Despotism, but with some war warines.

[WarpStorm]

It can be used very well if you plan for it. The trick is to have large numbers of units and lots of small densely packed cities. You don't need (and shouldn't build) aquaducts.

The downside is that you have to try to win in that era as this strategy won't allow you to build the later era expensive units and buildings quickly (although this can roll into the very effective Communism).

[DrSpike]

Just how bad is the WW? Big land with bad terrain is the suitable setup........and as you highlight winning early is the plan. But if the point of the govt is conquest in the situation described then why have bad WW? Beats me.........feudalism seems badly thought out.

[UnOrthOdOx]

The WW is equal to republic, but for the fact you are offered police as an additional method of dealing with it, it seems far less so.

I am playing through one right now as the Mongols, and was really surprised how valuable it can be as a govt in the right circumstance.

[DrSpike]

Hmm maybe I'll try a feudalism-commie bounce with aggression at some point and see how it goes.

[lethe]

I find the mixture of The Great Wall and Religious trait to be a strong allure to go for Feudalism. (I'm also obsessive about starving down captured cities to pop 1.) Feudalism is really wicked for those medieval wars.

Using knights as your offensive force cuts down on WW quite a bit. On many turns you can move in and take a town from outside their borders. Remember, WW goes up 1 every turn you end with a single military unit on enemy territory. (And 2 _each_ time one of your units gets attacked.)

If you are good at the maneuvering you can stay in pretty long wars. Off course, it all comes crashing down the round the AI's 47 knights finally finds you and you get over 100 points of WW all in one happy hug.

[CerberusIV]

Feudalism as a government is great if you skip the other government techs, go for the feudalism tech, switch out of despotism and head into a big war of aggression and grab as much territory and as many AI towns as possible.

I don't pop rush but it can be a good way of getting rid of foreign citizens in those captured cities and getting something back.

If you have a decent ancient or early medieval UU and can get into Feudalism before triggering your GA you get the full benefits.

Really quite a useful government once you get the hang of when and how to use it.

[Capt Dizle]

Using Feudalism is like hammering a square peg in a round hole.

[Nisku]

I've used feudalism in every conquest game I've played except for one. You don't have to waste time to research monarchy or republic and it fits my style of play excellently. You just need to make a lot of small cities, the unit support doesn't matter when your support is so high that you are almost gauranteed not to hit it. I rarely find a situation where Republic or Monarchy would be better. I especially hate republic, maybe it's my style of play but I can almost never find a way to make it usefull.

[lethe]

If you plan a game around using Feudalism (ok, this is stretching it a bit, but maybe you got bored out of your skull with always being in republic?) it can be very useful on higher difficulties.

It allows you to accept impossibly cramped city spacing. As your cities don't need much in the way of expensive city improvements you don't have to feel bad about abandoning them later on. (If you don't win a conquest in the medieval era you are going to switch out of feudalism. Ok, this will hurt if you aren't religious.)

All that said, it's still the second worst government, but far, far after fascism. Why is anyone ever fascist? It boggles the mind.

I think it's possible that MoO3 is a better game than fascism a government.

[lethe]

Edit: Double post.