Monarchy or not?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Simple question.

Should we change to Monarchy when we get it in a few turns or not?

The obvious advantage of changing is that it is a better government hands down, and we would (hopefully) be the first nation to change to a better govt allowing us to grow economically quicker.

The disadvantages are random and obscure.

We are a non-religious civ. This would mean that changing from Monarchy to Republic would be potentially painfull.

Allot depends on how long it takes folks to research Republic and how long before we get it. A random mess of variables.

Going through 4-6 turns of Anarchy now for Monarchy will be pretty pointless if we are to do it again in 20-30 turns again for Republic.

Typically, I suck it up and play through despotism until Republic as a non-rel civ. I also am a big fan of the pop-rush, though. I can already taste all those juicy Iriquois cities that will hopefully be size 4+ when we conquer them (especially if the Iriquois somehow get Monarchy ) I like nothing better than to put a nice cheap temple in all those for the mere cost of two worthless Iriquois civilians myself...

[Rhothaerill]

I'd say it depends on our future war plans. If we plan on warring for quite a while with a few different civs then go for monarchy now and hit democracy later if possible. If we're only planning for moderate wars then suck it up and wait for republic.

[OPD]

I don't know very much about this could someone estimate how long under monarchy it would take to make up the lost production/commerce from the anarchy. ie the point where it starts paying off.

[Kloreep]

IIRC, higher difficulties have much higher anarchy times. I don't know specifics, but I'd imagine we should assume 4 turns anarchy minimum.

The main benefits of monarchy are:
Penalty to tiles producing three or more of one resource removed, which means irrigation is worthwhile on any tile, and hills, once mined, are production powerhouses (those two complement each other nicely)
Reduced corruption (this and the removed tile penalties are the biggies)
Up to three units may be used as military police (each MP unit produces one content face, as if it were a temple). Under despotism, only two MPs are allowed per city.
Ability to goldrush (I wouldn't call this a benefit in our case; we need all the money we have for upgrades and trading.)
AI civs that prefer Monarchy or hate Despotism will like us a little more

Cons to monarchy:
Reduced amount of free support; towns (size 1-6) only support 2 units each, whereas despot town support 4 units. Cities (7-12) support 4 units under both despotism and monarchy.
Anarchy time to switch
AI civs that prefer Despotism or hate Monarchy will dislike us a little
Inability to poprush in those outlying, corrupt cities. (Poprushing in core cities is inefficient and generally shouldn't be done, but it's a good idea in more corrupted cities.

Still not sure which would be better...

[Octavian X]

I'd just go for monarchy straight off. I don't think that our civ can tolerate a despotism much longer. In the long run, the lessened corruption will be worth it.

After monarchy, I'd almost recommend not fooling around with The Republic (screw war weariness at this point - we don't have the infastructure at this point to supress unhappiness). Wait until democracy to change, when we can supress the weary.

That, or stay in monarchy the entire game - that's what we did in CFC DG2.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Republic? We need not worry about that! We will be at almost all-out war for so long that will be a distraction.

Assuming we get Philosophy from someone, get Monarchy, CoL and Republic on our own research, it would take about 90 odd turns with our current trade at 100% rate! Even assuming for growth and other civs getting them, Republic will be a guaranteed 40 turn tech. Never mind having some cash for upgrading warriors!

I say go Monarchy as soon as we can, and sticking to it until we are large enough and luxury-rich enough to make Republic worthwhile. We are the Vikings, and we are in this to kill. There are 23 other civs out there and we gotta get them before they get us. And our attributes - Militaristic and Expansionistic! Not suited to building, but TAKING.

[GodKing]

I agree with MWIA - kill and take what we want / need.

Republic offers no unit support, and we want a large army.

We also need the policing ability with our units to keep our people content. Under monarchy we can let our cities grow up with another pop, meaning better production.

I think monarchy is the way to go, and we can switch to democracy if it apprears to be reasonable in the future.

[joncnunn]

Min anarchy time : 4 turns
Max anarchy time : 8 turns

I sugest worst case analysis of 8 turns be done.

As a non-religious civ though, I strongly suspect that making a switch from Monarchy to Republic is rarely worth it, especally when it's considered that on high levels Republic is often discovered by an AI before all cities have their temples and the resulting delay between the discovery of Republic and when the empire is ready for it.

So the question boils down to do we plan on having a lot of short wars with different empires one at a time on a rotating cycle that makes WW a non-issue until we have sole possesion of our landmass and perhaps a neighboring one or else a long war with empire A to take them out followed by a long war with empire B to take them out and so forth until we have sole possesion of our landmass and one or two neighboring ones?

[Panag]

hi ,

republic or nothing , .....

have a nice day