Monarchy vs. Republic

[Flinx]

So which is better, Monarchy or Republic? I find that paying for all my units grinds my science to a halt when I switch from Despotism to Republic while under Monarchy the free units and extra content faces more than makes up for the increased waste/corruption. I do not remember that last time I have been a Republic.

Do you use Republic? How does it fit into your strategy?

[Catt]

If I'm a religious civ, I will use Monarchy as my warring government, Republic as my peacetime governement (which includes wars for as long as I can hold war weariness off). Late game it's Democracy and either Monarchy or Communism.

If I'm not a religious civ, I try to move from Despot to Republic and then never switch again. If I don't have access to a pair of luxuries with at least the hope for trading for another later, and/or my infrastructure is woefully behind I might consider Monarchy as an interim between Despot and Republic, but the anarchy between governement switches is far more painful to me than is staying a Despot for 5 or 10 extra turns to accomplish what I think is necessary in order to make the jump to Republic.

I find that there is simply no way for me to keep up in science if I stay in Monarchy throughout the Middle Ages (*nods to Arrian's Game of Ultimate Power as a counterpoint, however *) - the huge extra commerce offered by Republic and Democracy is far too valuable to pass up.

Catt

[Tuberski]

How many forums are you going to post this Monarchy vs. Republic thread?

3 so far.

Trying to get that custom avatar?

[alva]

i've have played complete games in monarchy. If you need to fight alot it's not that bad.
So Unless I know there's going to be peace for a very long time, I stay king
(this is when I'm not religious, else I do the same as Catt does)

[hr_oskar]

Tuberski: Why so hard on him? Maybe he really wants to know

Flinx: Your economy shouldn't be doing worse in Republic than Monarchy; the following reasons for that problem are likely:

a) Your army is too large; for this to be the main reason, it would have to be extremely large

b) Your cities are too small

c) You have too few roads (too many tiles not giving any trade), so you miss out on the trade bonus

d) Your empire is too small, so the reduced corruption doesn't help that much

e) Most likely, a combination of the above

---

In terms of economy, Republic is very simply superior to Monarchy, as long as the civ is advanced enough (usually by early Middle Ages it is).

The key thing about Republic is the trade bonus (+1 trade in all tiles that already give trade). That's huge. Also less corruption, that makes a difference. The extra cost in unit maintenance will normally be less than those benefits.

Wait till your core cities get fairly large (say, larger than size 6) and your infrastructure (especially the roads) is strong. Get at least three luxuries (by conquest or trade) and some other improvements to secure happiness in the large cities (marketplaces and/or cathedrals). Banks, Marketplaces, and Courthouses are very beneficial for your Republic. If you have a happiness problem initially, increase the luxury % a bit, set taxes high and rush-buy those Marketplaces/Cathedrals. Then go for research when things settle down.

I seriously recommend you try to master the liberal governments (Demo/Rep) - they are critical to your success in this game. Monarchy simply can't cut it, unless you focus on warfare, and win those wars consistently.

[Giovanni Wine]

I too, like Catt, switch directly from Despotism to Repubblic.

The good thing about Repubblic is that it has a lot of the advantages of Democracy, but (unlike Democracy) it has less war wearness, allowing you to throw yourself into a few quick wars.

On the other hand, if you usually are always at war, then it is better to stay in Monarchy.

If you are a Religiuos civ, than gov't should not be a problem:
Repubblic or Democracy in peacetime.
Monarchy or Communism in wartime.

Saluti

[DrFell]

If you're going for fast science with little war, it's best to go republic. Turning to 10-20% lux will solve all your happiness problems. For all out war, go monarchy. Simple as that.

[Panag]

hi ,

if you want to build , republic is the best , for a long way in the game , .....

it also depend a bit on what civ you play , ....

monarchy is something that you can get free with the GL , so why bother going after that tech , ....

have a nice day

[Adam Smith]

Did a little playing over the weekend, and my first impression is that the techs you need to get Monarchy are often nearly useless (eg., Polytheism), while the techs needed for Republic lead to many good things in the near future (eg., maps). Does this seem generally correct??

Does anybody know the total accumulated beakers needed to reach Republic vs. Monarchy? Are they roughly the same? If so, and you have the luxuries, why not go straight for Republic?

Lastly, is there a Civ III Great Library or its equivalent? I did not see one in a quick check of the forums, and the manual and strategy guide are often nearly useless. Specifically, I am looking for a listing of the beaker cost of each discovery.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Specifically, I am looking for a listing of the beaker cost of each discovery.

Techs get cheaper to research as more civs learn them.

Also, they require more beakers as you increase map size IIRC.

[nbarclay]

It's very difficult for Monarchy to beat Republic as a peacetime government. Yes, Monarchy provides free unit support, and yes, Monarchy can use units as MPs. But the extra gold Republics get can generally pay for both unit upkeep and the use of the luxury slider to help fight unhappiness. If you have enough units that it can't, you probably ought to consider going to war to trade some of those excess units for territory. (Of course this assumes that your territory is essentially fully roaded so each pop unit is bringing in an extra gold under Republic. If that isn't the case, you aren't building enough workers.)

Monarchy is important if you want to prosecute a long war, and that's especially critical on larger map sizes where it takes a longer war to capture the same percentage of an enemy's territory. I rarely use Monarchy, but it was a life-saver in a large-map Emperor-level game where I felt a need to devour a large opponent all at once for fear of culture flipping.

As someone else noted, religious civs can fairly easily flip back and forth between governments going from a peace-time footing to a war footing (although the anarchy still stings a little). With non-religious civs, it is best to commit to a long-term strategy as part of the process of choosing governments, since shifting gears is horriffically expensive. Personally, even as a religious civ, I love strategies built around using Republic to build up a tech advantage and then using that tech advantage to win wars quickly enough that war weariness does not become a problem.

Nathan Barclay

[JNL]

After having read lots of stuff on monarchy vs republic vs democracy (isn't this the 5th thread on this topic :-) ?), I decided to make up my mind by myself, on a real game.

I'm a Rexxer. I had 62 cities at this time, with usually two tiles of land between cities. My FP was built, around 50% of my empire was developed (marketplaces, banks, etc..).
I had been at war as a Democracy for several dozen turns when my citizens decided to overthrow my government.

I saved the turn before being allowed to change govt, tried all of them, went through all the cities to optimize them (no civil disorder, maximized number of citizens working on tiles - food 1st, then shields -, no unnecessary entertainers, no scientists). Then, I collected data : some through the game UI, some by looking at all my cities, one by one.

I was ar 0% science, 0% luxury for all governments. Here are the numbers for Anarchy (if available on previous turn) / Despotism / Communism / Monarchy / Republic / Democracy (if anybody could put it into a table...thanks in advance) :

Net gain (without interest & trade with other civs) : ? / 234 /168 / 332 / 605 / 648
Unit Cost : ? / 0 / 0 / 0 / 100 / 100
GNP : 901 / 1230 / 1235 / 1309 / 1860 / 1856
GNP (delta) : 25 / 95 / 95 / 95/ 52 / 57
Mfg goods : 0 / 697 / 664 / 845 / 801 / 807
Annual income per capita : 13 for all 6 govts
Productivity : -4 / 1446 / 1690 / 2035 / 2197 / 2233
Approval rating : 79% / 78% / 78% / 78% / 55% / 53%
Corruption : ? / 513 / 584 / 494 / 629 / 587
Buildings maintenance : 578 for all (new) 5 govts
Wasted production : ? / 273 / 363 / 283 / 225 / 210
Family size : ? / 1 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2
Net stored food per turn : ? / 32 / 375 / 375 / 165 / 157

My conclusions :
I already knew that communism was only useful for poprush construction, and for heavy drafting if you're a religious civ.
Monarchy is cool, especially for big wars (lots of units), but I usually prefer to stick to Republic for science (see difference for GNP).
Democracy is simply disappointing, and too difficult to manage.

[JNL]

One thing I forgot to say : I was only making this comparison to decide which governement type is the best for a long running war ("Is it a good idea to switch to monarchy, even where you're not a religious civ ?" The answer is clearly : "No").

[punkbass2000]

I find it odd that the approval ratings came up in the order they did. I would have guessed the exact opposite.

[JNL]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I find it odd that the approval ratings came up in the order they did. I would have guessed the exact opposite.

Probably due to war weariness in Republic & Democracy ?