Special Economic Report: Monarchy vs. Republic

[Arnelos]

I don't remember what thread it was in, but I recall Aggie and Shriber working out that one of our cities with current luxuries and a temple (other than Uber Isle cities) could make it to size 6 w/o revolt and a city a Cathedral and temple (along with our luxuries) could make it to size 14 or something like that w/o revolt (because of Sistine's).

This is apparently due the number of happy citizens created by each luxury (and happy citizens counteract unhappy citizens on a 1-for-1 basis) and the additional # of unhappies made content by using temples and cathedrals (we won't even need colloseums until we get hospitals because of Sistine's, apparently).

As such, I'd think we wouldn't need a luxuries *rate* AT ALL. Rather, for the Uber Isle cities, we just make citizens entertainers if it's really necessary.

So if we make more money under Republic even WITH a luxuries rate and we don't actually need one, then why not switch?

[Aggie]

Also here's another question under GA where would be come out ahead. If the answer is republic then we switch before ga and switch after ga over. I forget the exact benifits of ga.
Aggie

[Zero]

we should first mop up the war agst persia and finish off america for good. then if we want to switch to rep. We should have a nice 20 turn peace building period with GA (agst americans). Perhaps we can renegotiate all peace treaty as possible to time the end of GA so we can resume war activity after GA

[Zero]

The most oddest glitch on explorer...... my post had Arnelo's mugshot.... freaky... must have been table error

[Reddawg]

yeah, don't forget that war weariness is going to be a *****; just a nother reason to implement the Pax Apolytonia!

[Bolverk]

Aggie had made a suggestion in another thread about waiting until 520 to hit the remaining few US cities, and that will probably go fast (if the Aztecs don't eat them first...) Two things: 1) if Republic is better for building infrasturcture, then sooner is better, and 2) if we want to culture bomb the Aztec scum that take the US cities, then its better to do it with Republic.

Is Republic better than Monarchy for building?

[zeit]

if we change to Republic and then go to war with america for the GA, we're going to have a major weariness problems, from all the years of previous wars. but going to GA in Monarchy then switching to Republic will mean we're wasting one GA turn in anarchy. Hmm... a dilema.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I believe the plan allowed for a few turns in between stopping war on Persia and switching to Republic, then starting war on America so the people 'forgot' the War Weariness of the Persian Wars.

[Sheik]

We shouldn't switch until we know we can make money and we are not at war.

[joncnunn]

Unless we want to wait until the middle of the industrial era for the next Industriial wonder adviable (Hoover Dam), we have to trigure a golden age with our unique unit. (Well actually there is a theory that states that the next time we build any Great Wonder we get a Golden Age but the only way we can do this anytime soon requires a Great Leader, Education, and Music Theory.)

So we are going to have to be breify at war as a Republic unless we want to be a Monarchy thru the Golden Age. (Or lose one turn Golden Age in Anarchy.)

For most combat purposes, our War Chariots are already obsolete, and are only really reliable attacking against Archers, Long Bowmen, and any left over warriors. Once Calvary are built, it will be extermely difficult to get a golden age with them as every unit on the combat field will have a higher defense rating that the War Chariots attack rating.