Monarchy or Republic

[PsionicMind]

Which early government is better, and why?

[ixnay]

I always seem to end up getting them around the same time, and I always go to republic, though I'm not exactly sure what advantages it has...I do know that republic doesn't give you free support for military units while monarchy does...

[Cyclotron]

Republic is a must if you want to stay competitive for tech with the AI. Monarchy's trade is just too poor to pay for science and all that other stuff you need money for.

[Jethro83]

I always work towards Monarchy right away. Not only do I get the government, but I also get the Hanging Gardens.

When there's still land available for expansion by that time, Monarchy functions better than republic, as it is less expensive to build up extra military to allow greater stretching of military resources.

Once I get to the middle ages, and have discovered Chivalry, I'll go off and annex one of my neighbours. By this time, my settlements will have grown into cities, and have plenty of free unit support, making war less costly. As well as that, there's no problem with war weariness, making it possible for you to wage a war that lasts centuries. You could be at war the rest of the game, and none of your citizens could give a damn.

Of course, by the time I've swept across the entire continent and hold an empire that spans from coast to coast, north to south, east to west, I'll be ready to switch to Democracy and build up infrastructure.

In my strategy, republic has no place. I just find it easier to expand both through settlers and conquest under Monarchy, and then build up my infrastructure under a democracy so I have a strong base with which to build up my forces to invade overseas when I decide to switch to Communism (or even back to Monarchy).

[SpencerH]

Since I'm a builder I go for republic. I dont research anything heading for monarchy, why bother. Besides better production I think that there is a culture benefit that promotes flipping to republic (although this seems diminished with 1.21).

[nationalist]

I go Monarchy, set Science to 0, buy and trade to get Techs, conquer as many neighbors as possible until I get Democracy. Then I finish my conquests, make peace, and switch to Democracy.

[Giovanni August]

I sometimes stay in Monarchy my entire game.

Just keep warmongering around build up military by tech from the few independent AIs.

Than in the early/middle Industrial Age I have so many cities and slaves that i made up the extra trade of Repubblic and speedy workers Democracy have.

If you are builder just go straight for Repubblic and than Democracy.

Saluti

[Txurce]

Maybe the most important aspect of this decision is whether you're a religious civ, or not. If you're not, you probably only want to make one government switch, and that is most likely going to be republic, since it's the most flexible government, and effective once your civ has some infrastructure.

If you're a religious civ, however, and playing on a higher level, you may not want to wait until your civ has built all that infrastructure to lose some of despotism's handicaps. In that case, as Ethelred said, monarchy makes an excellent interim government before republic (or democracy, if you're not warring too much).

[Heartsurgeon]

The problem with republic is that you can't be fighting with anyone, and I usually use the ancient and early middle ages to have wars, especially if playing Rome, Persia, or the Iroquois. I've found myself staying in monarchy until Democracy comes available. By then I've got a big lead in cities and workers, and switching to Democracy just lets the commerce explode.

[Grrr]

Monarchy. Republic I don't really like, mainly because of the lack of Martial Law.

[BillChin]

Both Monarchy and Republic are good and each have their place. In general, for a Republic to be viable, a player needs three or more luxuries and marketplaces in the core cities, and expect some time at peace. Monarchy is a good war time government because there is no war weariness. Monarchy also allows the use of three military police per city to make up for any lack of luxuries. Despotism is an alternative when a player needs to field as large an army as possible and has few large cities (pop 7+).

Communism, and Democracy are relatively weak governments and are more suited for special situations and religious civs. Otherwise the additional turns of anarchy and other negatives of each make Monarchy and Republic preferrable (Monarchy for war, Republic for peace).

Democracy is a fragile government on competitive difficulty levels (Regent and above). An unexpected war can collapse a Democracy in a few turns. The only real benefit of Democracy is faster workers to build railroads--not worth the problems associated with increased war weariness. The difference in corruption sounds significant (4/9 vs. 2/3 for the distance factor), but in practice usually only yields one more shield to a handful of cities.

Communism dilutes the production power of core cities. Again on lower difficulty levels, this is not as big a deal, but on Regent or above it can be. On Emperor level, the industrial core might go from 10% waste to 40% waste after a switch from Monarchy to Communism. A potentially huge price to pay for better spies, one more military police and a few shields in outlying cities.

[Txurce]

I disagree that you cannot fight in Republic. More accurately, you cannot fight constantly in Republic.

On Emperor, I switch from despotism to monarchy as soon as possible if playing a religious civ; otherwise, I wait until I have temples and either enough luxuries or a happiness wonder, then go to republic. I almost always play for a space-race win, but engage in enough fighting to usually have the largest civ by mid- to late-game. The very fact that you're fighting ought to mean that you have enough of those critical luxuries that keep a republic happy during wartime - I've never fought a war where I had to raise my luxury tax past 30% while in republic. I suppose it might be different if your goal is a domination victory, and intend to achieve it by fighting every single turn. But my only domination game - won in 1415 - was played in republic. I had all of the happiness wonders and all of the luxuries and... more importantly... each war didn't last that long. Why? the tech lead I built up not playing in monarchy.

All of the above refers to playing Emperor, standard everything, including the map - larger maps may require a different governmental strategy.

[centrifuge]

If you want to be a warmonger, Monarchy is much better than Republic. Mainly due to martial law I'd say.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

republic warmongering

Only if you're playing non religious civs, monarchy really matters, especially for long warring purposes.

But as a religious civ, you'd want to enjoy the richness of rep/demo as long and as much as you can, only switching to mon. when war weariness increases 20% luxuries. (I almost never give lux. though)

Warmongering and playing republic? Of course you can and should, on any level. You just have to time your attack moments and goals (conquer civ or major part of it in a short war) and be aware of the diplomatic consequences of your actions.

AJ

[Zoid]

I play Babylonians and I´m a builder (with the occasional warmongering fit ) so Republic it is...