The forbidden Monarchy.

[Arrian]

Yahweh,

It depends. If I have the GL, probably not. I will probably beeline for Invention and allow the GL to get me monotheism, feudalism & theology.

If I don't, I will be doing my own research, but getting to those techs first isn't a huge priority. If an AI civ gets it first, it's research cost drops, making it cheaper for me. Not a big deal so long as I'm close. It's production I'm more concerned with.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

So you rely on leaders to get you the wonders first? Or you conquer them?

[Jaybe]

Warning: Sacrilegious Content

Saw a post over at CFC which struck a chord with me: While there may have been republics in ancient times, they were 'ancient' enough that they did not afford the financial benefits of the Republic of Civ3. Any exceptions were minor states.

So The Republic gets moved in the tech tree to Democracy's location (requires Banking & Printing Press). Democracy gets moved to the Industrial era (requires Nationalism). I intend to move Communism to require Industrialization or The Corporation (referencing the social turmoil which gave rise to Karl Marx).

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

excellent historical context, Jaybe.

[Arrian]

It's a combination of things, Yahweh.

1) - I can be reasonably certain that I can simply out-produce the AI to 1-2 of the early medieval wonders (Sistine, Leo?), but sometimes no if the cascade wasn't broken (some civ started the HG and built up a bunch of shields and then got feudalism before someone else finished the HG... then I've got a real race on my hands).

2) - In order to nail all of the medieval wonders I want*, I need some or all of the following:

-ancient wonderbuilding cascade broken
-GA
-3 good production cities
-Leader(s).

In my current game, I built Sun Tzu & Sistine. I rushed Leos. I could have built it (and every wonder from here on out) before any of the AIs, but it was faster to use the leader on Leos and switch my Leos city to Bachs. Then again, the game I'm playing now is not typical... it's getting ridiculous (in a very good way. When you get 6 leaders as Carthage, the civ gods are with you).

In AU207, I built the big three during my GA. But I used leaders for Bachs & Smiths.

-Arrian

* - Sun Tzu, Sistine, Leo, Bach, Copernicus, Smith, Newton, Magellan. Or, to be brief, everything but Shakespeare's.

[Arrian]

Jaybe,

Yeah, I think that might make sense from a historical perspective. Then again, as a warmonger player, I'm not sure it's a good idea. I use Monarchy and use it well. I'm not so sure the AI can, though. Moving Republic back will slow the overall tech pace down, which I think favors the human.

It might be fun anyway, though, and that's the point, right? Could be interesting to try and see the results...

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I'd be happy (though not utterly) without Magellan's, Copernicus', and Newton's. Same goes for Shakespeare's (why it isn't just called "the Globe" is beyond me).

But when the Koreans or Iroquois overseas beats me to Sun Tzu's or Sistine's, it's generally ctrl+shift+q for me.

[Frank Johnson]

Hm. I have to put myself in the never use monarchy catigory.

It simply has to do with the free number of units per city. Despotism allows 4 per city, no matter the size. Monarchy only allows 2 per city, if they are under size 7. And only 4 for ones over 7. There's only a real advantage if your cities are over 13.....and uh that requires sanatation.

Simply put, the way I usually play the loss of the unit support I don't get since most cities will still be size 6 when I get monarchy......outweights any advanatage due to less corruption. The policing is only marginally better, but really in the ancient era when you're fighting who has the paticence to garison each city with 3 units? Espically when they are probably still size 6?

I stay with despotism, and max out my units, and go for great leaders. Monarchy is a fighting government for a well developed civilization, not an early one, so I've only used it when forced to by an AI who wants to fight pre-commuism, but after the normal ancient war phaze.

[Kramsib]

Perhaps, we should configurate an Ancient Republic and balance the three government types:

1. Making Monarchy and Republic better than Despotism.
2. Focusing Republic for builders and Monarchy for Warmongers.
3. Monarchy and Ancient Republic should have the same importance.

[Kramsib]

In addition, Republic had some handicaps erased, as you can see, now, there is no senate and no penalisation for having your units out of your cities, perhaps these penalisations should return to give Monarchy a chance.

[pedrojedi]

Ah, Leaders... I'm always amazed to see how they can be often forgotten to be given to me. A fine example would be my last Chinese game: almost 6.000 years of development, a Space Race Victory, and yes... NO LEADERS. And I warred, oh Lord, I warred a lot, and all my elites were there, winning and surviving, but no, NO, the AI just could not give 1, 1 miserable leader to me. Of course, during the middle ages the different AI civs got all wonders, and I had to be just a good boy and be thankful to have the Pyramids. And, of course, the Theory of Evolution (known as The Great Big Tech Jumper, Tech-Trading Wonderful Wonder), Hoover Dam, and so so so...

[Frank Johnson]

If you want a suggestion for a minor tweak rather than an all out new government I suggest simply increasing the unit support per "town" from 2 to 4 for Monarchy.

That allows a monarchy to enjoy the same military support as a despot, while also getting the 3 food from irrgation on grassland, and slightly better corruption and policing rates.

If you want to limit republic as well, its not as easy to modify it. I think if monarchy could fight as well as a republic there might be some reason to go to it, at least for religous civs.

Perhaps the ideal number of cities can be decreased for republic and increased for monarchy? This would represent a republic's inability to properly address issues "in the provinces" which could be over come with the more modern democracy.

[Kramsib]

Yes Frank, your idea can be a good solution for the current editor, but we should readjust Communism too.

[Spiffor]

I'm a builder, yet I sometimes use monarchy.

Monarchy helps me tremendously to finance my throngs of workers and defensive / counteroffensive units, and these units in turn give me a free and movable cathedral in each city (happiness-wise).

It is possible to keep up with research in monarchy with agressive tech whoring and lots of libraries or universities. Scientific civs are excellent in this regard.

The low upkeep costs allow to pour huge funds in science, and you can avoid to raise the entertainment slider, as well as buying too many luxuries from abroad.

Besides, monarchy allows to fight a war when the need arises, which gives more flexibility than Republic.

The real problem with monarchy is that you cannot get much money from it, if you intend to have a good research. Hence, rush-buildings suck, which is problemtic from a builder's perspective.

[jshelr]

"Saw a post over at CFC which struck a chord with me: While there may have been republics in ancient times, they were 'ancient' enough that they did not afford the financial benefits of the Republic of Civ3. Any exceptions were minor states."

Idonno. Maybe the game developers were impressed by Rome as a republic that did pretty well economically and on the trade front for quite some time. What do you think?