Republic vs Monarchy

[Artifex]

Pro's and Con's. Is there a clear cut choice here? Which is the most prefered early form of government for the consensus of civ players. Do most of you rush to one type of government or the other? To get out of despotism asap? In civ 2 I remeber my mian startegy was to RUSH to Monarchy and get out of Despotism at all cost..that was priority #1. I wonder if this has changed much in Civ III.

Or is literacy a good choice to get libraries and boost science (before heading out of despotism). I am at a point where I could go literacy and work to Republic or go try to head to Monarchy. Two very divergant paths I must say..

[twistedx]

Re: Republic vs Monarchy

I prefer to shoot for Republic and trade for Monarchy. For whatever reason, the AI seems to always research Monarchy early in the game. AND, since so many AI civs usually have Monarchy researched, you can usually get it pretty cheap.

I've never been much of a Monarchy kind of guide myself. I suppose it would be decent if you were in the midst of an early war, but I've never found any other reason I couldn't wait. The only thing I find it useful for is the Hanging Gardens.

-- twistedx

[Artifex]

I am playing as Iroqois and find it tempting to "start" an early war with those beautiful mounted warriors. Sad to let those guys go to waste hehe.

[~Vodka~]

If you are planning on an early conquest, I'd say go for monarchy asap. But, on the other hand if you aren't going to be able to pillage enough from the victorys to break-even tech wise(in other words, if the early war is going to leave you far behind in tech) you probably want to go strait for Lit and get the Great Library ASAP then head for a republic.

Despotisim isnt all that bad for early wars and the like, you can bum-rush or "whip" out new units from your citys and this can give you a great millitary advantage. If you can get away with conquring your neighbor b4 switching, do it and then reap the benefits of the new government after you have your enemy's former city's to ejoy them with.

Despotism isnt the "to be avoided as the plague" That it once was in Civ2. Read some posts in the strategy forum relating to the subject and you will find that there are a lot of easy ways to take advantage of the quirks of despotism.

Remember, when you have Mounter Worriors... Conquest gooood

[Playa del Carmen]

I usually go for monarchy as soon as I can and switch from depotism, but I don't do it if I've gotten myself into a big war. Whoo, learned my lesson on that one.

[BillChin]

My rule of thumb is that Republic requires marketplaces in the core cities and at least three luxuries. If these conditions can not be met, Monarchy or Despotism is a better choice. The three military police with Monarchy help a great deal if a player can not conquer or trade for more luxuries.

In general, Monarchy is a better war time government because of the lack of war weariness. Republic with Universal Suffrage is almost as effective. Another thing to consider is unit up keep. A quick check of the F1 and F3 screens can give a player an idea whether Monarchy, Despotism or Republic will yield the most gold per turn. If the amount of gold per turn(under Despotism) before corruption is more than double the number of units, then Republic is viable. If less, a player is usually better off with a government with unit support.

In my opinion, Democracy is a mediocre government and only worth switching to from Republic if playing a Religious civ (no anarchy). The only real benefit is faster workers to build railroads, but war weariness is deadly for Democracies playing on a competitive difficulty level. 9 times out of 10, I prefer Republic over Democracy.

It is also my opinion that Communism is a mediocre government and only useful in limited situations, such as huge sprawling empires with no real industrial heartland. 9 times out of 10, I prefer Monarchy over Communism as a war time government.

On standard size maps, I prefer to research Iron Working and the Wheel so I can claim these vital resources early and possibly prevent my neighbors from claiming any. Without iron and horses, it will not matter much what government I choose.

[Lazy Jay]

I generally go for Republic myself. But I play on Warlord, so my advice is pointless.

[Inverse Icarus]

until recently, i have always gone straight from despotism -> commuism.

in my most recent game i tried despotism -> republic -> democracy and it's actuallt working a little. (war weariness BLOWS)

[Ethelred]

I go for Republic as soon as I can manage the switch which means having enough money and either cathedrals or coliseums or enough luxuries. Then I stay there and don't ever change except for war induced anarchy.

However when I recently switched to playing on Emperor I also tried a relgious civ for the first time. In that case changing governments does not bring many turns of anarchy. So I find with a religious civ its better to switch to monarch since I can mangage to do it sooner. Later I switch to Republic when I have cathedrals and marketplaces. I also switch to democracy when its available. The faster workers sure are usefull and I can always switch back without much pain.

[chiefpaco]

I always go Monarchy until I've carved out the land I want. If you asked me, my game almost always goes like this:

- Starting off: Despotism (obviously). A mad dash for food to grow the cities, especially since the most valuable asset is the odd pop rush. Grab as many cities as possible in your area.

- As soon as it's convenient: Monarchy. I'm not going for an early tech lead, but a dominance lead that will turn into a tech lead later. Anyway, the economic structure of Republic doensn't suit my early game because I don't have enough luxuries or marketplaces yet and I have a military to pay for. By the time I could choose Republic or Monarchy, I still feel like expanding.

Remember, Monarchy's advantage over Desp is the money rush, lower corruption, & no tile penalties. It's not a big deal because there isn't much terrain that incurs the tile penalty. However, as soon as I don't want to do any more pop rushes, I usually switch.

IMHO, Republic is indeed the best peacetime govt, but agressivley expanding & conquering civs is better than just expanding, isn't it? To win the game, I think it's best to be dominant and I believe that usually means war, war, war. Not that it can't be done in Republic, but I'm not able to do that as well as when I'm in Monarchy.

- Whenever I'm finished conquering: Republic. Enough benefits after I have my large empire. War weariness won't kill me too fast if some rebel civ decides to spoil my Utopia.

As for techs, it depends on your starting tech & what you can aquire free or by trading, but other than Monarchy, I find the Currency path works well (you know, I haven't seen much mention of people going this way). Since I'm not going for an early tech lead, I could use extra money. I find it is not as often researched by the AI either. Mapmaking would be my 2nd choice for most maps.

Edit: I find for just about every govt thread, I agree with what BillChin says 100%. So, any time he posts something, count it as 2 votes