Monarchy vs. Republic

[MoonWolf]

With a strong, fast-moving army, you are able to take out enough cities before war weariness becomes a real problem, especially with using the luxury rate and with some luxuries. The problem is if you are engaged in battles with other civs as well (being in war without battles doesn't not cause WW in my experience)

I see many here skip monarchy; so do I often. Maybe it should have been easier to get and not so "wasteful" to research (or trade)?

[Jethro83]

I usually go from Despot -> Monarchy -> Democracy

However, in my latest game, on Regent, as Persia I am having a go at going Despot -> Republic. It seems to be going well at the moment.

I am alone with China on a large continent, managed to build up huge numbers of Immortals (by cranking out overwhelming numbers of warriors, then hooking up the iron and upgrading them).

I beelined towards Currency (one of the last techs the AI gets before they go medieval, so I got a good price for it when I traded it with China), and built markets in my core cities. Then I researched republic and had markets in the most important cities by the time I was finished. Since I managed to get the Great Library, I've set the tech to 0% and luxury to 20%, and I am making more than enough gold to hurry libraries and temples in cities I conquer.

I have taken four of China's core cities already (within four turns. This is only a standard map BTW), gaining their supply of incense. I quickly bought temples and libraries in these cities (afforded with the huge commercial boost of republic). All is going very well at the moment. Unhappiness is a thorn in my side, but not a huge problem, and there is no war weariness yet.


So currently, I am undecided over whether I shall stick with my usual strategy of going for Monarchy and Democracy, or become a convert and favour Republic all the way to the end. By the time the game finished I'll know for sure, but until then I can only safely say that I'm waiting on the fence in this matter.

[MoonWolf]

LordAzreal,
What I normally do, is first wipe out my neighbours on my continent, or if they are too strong/big, take some cities from them time to time and keep myself as the strong part, and then switch do democracy. I'll try to this this before the industrial age for real starts as my citites still are small enough not to suffer too much from anarchy. If you get some peacetime and time for improving your empire, you will probably have enough strength for wars under democracy when you're ready to encouter other civs.

[Jethro83]

Normally, I'd be warmongering in the earliest stages of the game, under Despotism. However, I was using Persia and didn't want to waste the golden age by sending my immortals after my enemies. I could have built up horsemen as well, but that would mean less immortals for when I'm ready to fire up my golden age.

Anyway, I think I'll be sticking with Monarchy. My technological lead was huge, and I was making more money than I usually do in that part of the game, but the gains of any wars I fought were scarce (two or three cities at best, all without access to resources I actually needed), and the people were hardly in the mood for a 'We love the emperor' day, even with the Sistine Chapel and Hanging Gardens built.

I prefer stability, and it is much easier to accomplish with Monarchy than Republic.

[Enriquillo]

It takes a lot less time to research monarchy than it is to research republic. The faster you switch to an advanced government the better IMO. This is why I often prefer monarchy over republic.
The techs leading to it might be useless, but the Hanging Gardens make up for that. It gives you one outrageously happy and productive city, more than outweighing any advantage the republic will give you for a long time.
Consider also the fact that monarchy is much better for waging wars, and I think it's clear the king rulez

[Aeson]

Monarchy tends to be better the bigger the map. On some huge maps I've gone Republic->Monarchy->Democracy, then switching to Monarchy whenever WW topples my Democracy. Early on I didn't have many units and most of the cities were productive, so Republic gave quite a boost in overall income. Upgrading 100 chariots to Mounted Warriors and then Knights is expensive!

Once I start building up the army and expand far past the optimal number of cities Republic becomes unfeasible though. Democracy still works because by that time my standing army is much smaller, there aren't 50+ settlers constantly running around, much of the worker force is captured, and the decrease in corruption.

Only for use with a Religious Civ of course, otherwise I'd just stick with Monarchy until the warfare was done with.

[Theseus]

Warfare? Done with?

[vmxa1]

I think the two most cogent issues are, what level are we talking about and what traits do you have. If you are not religous, you really need to try to only switch once. If you are talkig about the lower level, then you can do whatever you like, but at the higher levels, I do not like your chances of making many of the early wonders. You get to maybe make 2, choose wisely. Well if you get a leader in the acient age, you can do more.

[Aeson]

Warfare? Done with?

When the AI is down to it's last city and the milking begins.

[Theseus]

[ArmaGeddin]

Im also one of those that goes for Monarchy first while im in an early war-time expansion mode, then I switch to Republic as soon as I have run out of easy targets. I will wait for tanks, then I set up MP's with everyone but the one A/I civ that is my biggest problem. Then I declare war and wait for them to attack me. At that time all the other civs in the game declare war on them and I go in with my tanks. After I whack that one big guy down to size, I will switch to Democracy and finish out the game in with no problems.