What's the point of Feudalism govt?

[Fistleaf]

The manual says that all building maintenance is free but that is incorrect.
The only advantage is greater unit support for towns, but countered with war weariness and monarchy corruption. How can it be any good?

[Last Conformist]

It could be good if you've got plenty of units and mostly little towns.

Never had a situation in-game in which it seemed like a sensible option.

[Mace]

I used to think this way, until, as was said, I found myself with a game with lots of small towns and a big military. Then, Feudalism was superior to Monarchy in money production and advancement.

Now, I still have issues with Feudalism...namely why it has War Weariness in the first place...seems as though in the Middle Ages, the serfs wouldn't dare rise up because of a war they didn't like. And the nobility saw war as a chance for glorification and personal gain.
So IMO Feudalism ought to have no WW as Monarchy has. Perhaps it's a game balance feature. But as it is there are no too many instances where Feudalism is better than Monarchy.

[Phoenix]

In the middle ages serfs tried to overthrow their landlords all the time. Usually this was inspired by high taxes and drafts, which I suppose you could call war weariness.

I think it's ridiculous that any government has no war weariness.

[DrSpike]

Feudalism is underpowered, and should rarely, if ever, be used.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Mace
And the nobility saw war as a chance for glorification and personal gain.

Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.

In feudalism the nobles and the monarchy are in direct contention with each other. If the nobles can find a way to weaken their ruler (e.g. helping one of his enemies during a war) then that is to their benfit... the ruler is weakened, and their control is strengthened.

I find it a very accurate representation of that, at least much as can be implimented in Civ 3.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Phoenix
I think it's ridiculous that any government has no war weariness.

It's more of a gamebalance issue than a historical one. WW is the main balancing factor for Republic and Democracy (and even then it doesn't do all that much to hinder their use).

[Phoenix]

I undestand, but I think they could have made the game more interesting if there were levels between 'high' 'low' and 'none'.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Phoenix
In the middle ages serfs tried to overthrow their landlords all the time. Usually this was inspired by high taxes and drafts, which I suppose you could call war weariness.

Well in most places that was true...
But I meant, for the most part, the serfs were never able to actually *overthrow* the monarchies that ruled them, that is, until the dawn of the industrial age. But an attempt at overthrow causes civil disorder so you're right--from a WW standpoint that is the best way for the game to emulate such behavior.

[gunkulator]

Feudalism is too seriously flawed to be useful IMHO. In order for it to be worthwhile at all two things must happen: Remove WW and move it back to the ancient era before aqueducts are available.

[DrSpike]

It's a tack on govt and it shows. It's hard to justify moving it earlier without reworking the tech tree, and hard to make it worthwhile at the time it comes now. Still, I'd have thought they'd try a little harder. The new traits for instance are the most overpowered.

[Fistleaf]

I don't think the new traits are that overpowered. If it is true, then we would expect the Dutch to win all the time since they have both traits.

[DrSpike]

Well that misses the point, since although agricultural AI civs fare well the AI will never use seafaring as well as a human.

[KenderBane]

Never had a situation in-game in which it seemed like a sensible option.

I am involved in a game where Fuedalism does seem like a good idea.

World 60% land, continents, average age, temp and humdity. Map has been enlarged to 250x250 with 31 civs and raging barbs.

I'm playing the Celts and sent my warriors out to recon and find other civs. Luckily I started on the continent with most other civs and began immediately to to be a 'tech whore' (facilitated by the fact that I was near the center of the continent and the northern civs hadn't contaced the southern civs, yet). So despite the rdiculous cost of tech, I had managed to acquire all the mandatory ancient techs by 1000 BC and had to decide whether to research Republic, Monarchy, or Fuedalism next.

When I looked at the map, there was plenty of space to my south and west (which was't great territory, but could contain valuable minerals later) to continue REXing into. I decided that Fuedalism would help me improve my economy and allow me to continue to expand (by supporting my settlers, workers and combat troops even with small cities). Additionally, I was expanding a small tech lead by pursuing Middle Ages tech while other civs hadn't quite completed Ancient techs yet.


So far it seems to be working fine ... but maybe I'll have to keep you guys posted on the results.

[jomateix]

I always do monarchy -> republic -> democracy. Never tryed communism, fascism or feudalism. So, it has any point ?