Monarchy vs Feaudalism

[player1]

Well, that's the point.

No single government is uber. Monarchy, feudalism and republic all have thier palces in the game.

[Tripledoc]

One more point is that perhaps feudalims is best for militaristic civs with a medival age UU such as Vikings, Mongols, Japanese and Chinese.

It is the worse option if you are commercial or agricultual, because keeping your cities at town level will not give you the commercial bonus to the city square and it also takes away the point of the agricultural trait which is having large cities.

[kevinchink]

I like Feudalism, but im constantly supporting a warrior economy and at war at least once every 10 turns

[ZEE]

.

[Strollen]

I think that Feudalism is a far worse builder government than Republic, because of the lack of trade bonus and having to rush pop improvements. It is probably comparable but slightly inferior to Republic as warmononger govt.

Feudalism is much worse than Monarchy as warmongering, for the simple reason that Feudalism suffers from war weariness and Monarchy doesn't. Under many circumstance the support cost for Monarchy will be less than Feudalism when fighting a big war.

One things is clear is that over time a Monarchy or Republic emperor population will grow bigger than Fuedalism because of Pop rushing, and the incentives to get bigger cities and disincentive to do so for Feudalism. A bigger population means more money, production, and science


Lets take a couple of examples. Say you have 12 town/cities with 50 units, say 18 workers (1.5 workers/city) 12 garrisons and 20 other units for fighting MPs etc.

Support cost
Towns/Cities Feudalism Rep. Monarchy
9/3 0 64 20
7/5 15 56 16
5/7 33 48 12

So unless your empire is constantly expanding over time it will be fairly quickly cheaper to be in either Republic or Monarchy. There in lies the catch, the war weariness of Feudalism make being at war constantly virtually impossible.

[ZEE]

.