 |
| |
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
Playing on Monarch level has opened my eyes to a new strategy i have realized, or maybie should have realized sooner, involving key differences and advantages of the two governments.
I believe that to survive on such a level you must have constant city growth, as well as proper city management. so then IMHO you must turn off the city governor. yeah they give reletively decent advice as to what to build, but they wreak havok on your labor force.
civil disorder is a big issue. and it invlolves big decisions. by managing this important task, on a city per city basis, you can increace your income, and fend off those resistors and malcontents. cathedrals and colloseums will help as well. and if you have a high luxery import, marketplaces will increase your happiness exponentially.
having said all that is where the governments come in.
on feaudalism your troop support is high for small cities, but that is as far as it goes. monarchy gives decent support on cities size 7 or higher, PLUS you will have more citizens on the labor force, making you $.
another benefit or monarchy is the pay citizen rushes, where you buy improvenments rather than killing off those precious citizens.
So in this particular analysis Monarchy is the government of choice on the difficulty levels Monarch and above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
Feudalism has its place and Monarchy has its place. I generally found during the Beta test when I was playing around with this issue that Monarchy was increasingly useful if your empire was more "urbanized" with a high-population central core all over pop 6. I would typically go for Monarchy over even Republic because of the reduced support costs for massive armies, assuming I was fighting protracted wars. If my wars were going to remain relatively short and my army was relatively small, I went with Republic.
The times I found that going for Feudalism helped a lot was when I had a massive spread-out empire of tons of itty-bitty little corrupt cities and a massive military rampaging around the board. Under those circumstances, the ENORMOUS boost to unit support would actually yield better net income than the same empire under Republic - sometimes amazingly so.
If you do not have enough key improvements (granaries, aqueducts, markets, libraries, etc.) in your core and a built-up population in your core to support a large military (and you have one), Feudalism makes a lot of sense until the point where your core is making enough income to make Republic or Monarchy (if you're REALLY going to be at war nearly constantly) more cost-efficient.
The problem, of course, is the longer anarchy times in C3C. When they decided to expand the anarchy times, it put a severe damper in the Feudalism swapping strategy I'd been playing around with (bee-line to Feudalism, switch govs, run with that for a while during early Middle Age warmongering... eventually switch to Democracy). Waiting around in Despotism for you to get Feudalism and make the switch - or even worse switching more than once (Despotism to Republic/Monarchy, Republic/Monarchy to Feudalism) can be BRUTAL. Then being stuck in Feudalism can be quite disadvantageous if you get your Golden Age or otherwise greatly expand your core's productive and income capacity before gettin Democracy.
This said, I've seen a few interesting strategies out there of late for using Feudalism throughout the game on harder difficulty levels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goethe80
|
 |
Leicester, UK
Jul 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
I'm going to pre-face this by stating that I'm a big fan of monarchy, but I think feudalism is heavily underestimated.
Feudalism is actually a very powerful 'war' government. The ability to pop-rush, coupled with the high unit support for 'small' cities means that each and every one of your newly conquered cities are instantly 'productive' in the sense that they reduce your unit cost.
Imagine, you've just captured... say.. Madrid (which I actually just did in a painful game w/o iron or saltpeter anywhere in sight). It's size 12, and will probably be size 9-10 by then time you bring it under control. What are you going to do with a size 9, highly corrupt, city that is on the verge of culture flipping? Pop-rush it down! You ought to have a few shields by the time it's out of resistence, so sac 3 citizens, rush a temple. Then sac a few more citizens and rush out a spearman (pikeman, whatever). Then what do you have? A size 3 city, with a temple, a defender, which contributes heavily to your unit support! All without costing you a cent.
It's less extreme when you capture smaller border cities, and you probably won't use the pop-rush as much, but whatever the case, when I can, I'm quite happy to pop-rush as much as I can out of captured cities. They're going to be unhappy anyway, so who really cares? And if you manage to rush/starve the city down, when you finally rebuild, the new citizens will be 'natural' citizens.
The above method of trimming down newly captured cities obvious can work in any government. Even on 'pay-rush' governments, you can still starve your cities down while gathering some bonuses from specialists (obviously far less efficient production wise. 20 shield vs. 2 gold per citizen). BUT, it is by far the most effective on feudalism as it is the only government that rewards you for having small cities (plus if you pop-rush garrison troops, then they help towards MP as well).
A final note though. In the late game, where you should have a reasonably large number of size 12 cities, a far superior version of feudalism is facism (another underestimated govt!). Pop-rush. Super-workers. No war-weariness. 4 MP per city limit. I have fond memories of draft/pop-rushing newly captured metros to little villages...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
Arnelos:
for a feaudy flip strategy to occur succesfully IMHO it would be critical to play as a RELIGIOUS civ. Then you can pop between govts in a relitively short time.
Goethe80:
a way to reduce all those pesky foreign nationals in a republic or a monarchy govt is to buy settlers from the aformentioned city then disband them to hurry the next settler you build. you can significantly reduce city size as effectively as if you POP rushed improvements under feaudy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MotownDennis
I must say Feudalism kinda rocks! I'm supporting a HUGE army right now with no maintenance costs. I'm in the Middle Ages with tech parity and my military is strong compared to everyone else's.
|
thats the main benefit of feaudalism. but the BIG problem is that you will have to keep your cities small in order to support such a military. under monarchy your cities grow, and you can support AS MANY or more than you could support under despotism. by the time you hit democracy your cities will be ready, and so will your economy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goethe80
|
|
Leicester, UK
Jul 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AAHZ
a way to reduce all those pesky foreign nationals in a republic or a monarchy govt is to buy settlers from the aformentioned city then disband them to hurry the next settler you build. you can significantly reduce city size as effectively as if you POP rushed improvements under feaudy. |
well yes, you would reduce the city size that way, but you'd get absolutely nothing in return (apart from having spend money on pay-rushing settlers which you subsequently disband). The reason why I think pop-rushing improvements/units under feudalism rocks is because:
1. Pop-rushing helps to reduce city size in newly captured cities (equally applicable to any non-capitalist government)
2. In feudalism, you're rewarded for having small cities, so the 'bonus' from pop-rushing in a newly captured metropolis is increased.
3. The 'bonus' mentioned in point 3 is the size reduction coupled with whatever units/improvements you've squeezed out.
quote:
Originally posted by AAHZ
but the BIG problem is that you will have to keep your cities small in order to support such a military. under monarchy your cities grow, and you can support AS MANY or more than you could support under despotism. by the time you hit democracy your cities will be ready, and so will your economy.
|
Actually, under feudalism, the best way to organise your empire is to allow your low corruption cities to max out to size 12, and keep all your corrupt cities at size 6 (and pumping out military units for that massive invasion). Which shouldn't really affect your economy that badly.
Anyway, like I've mentioned, I typically switch to monarchy reasonably quickly (once I have a couple of size 7+ cities up), and hang in there until I switch to Demo or Facism(!). BUT, I would say that only reason I don't regularly use Feudalism is because it comes at a rather strange time for me. I don't want to stay in Despotism all the way until Feudalism (for some reason, Monarchy seems to be quite a popular choice for AI research, so it's not hard to pick up via trade/GL), but I do note that everytime I switch to Monarchy, I dearly miss the ability to pop-rush, and I find massive unit support actually quite difficult to achieve.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goethe80 Actually, under feudalism, the best way to organise your empire is to allow your low corruption cities to max out to size 12, and keep all your corrupt cities at size 6 (and pumping out military units for that massive invasion). Which shouldn't really affect your economy that badly.
|
this was one of my earlier points in different thread about a good way to manage feaudalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Goethe80 BUT, I would say that only reason I don't regularly use Feudalism is because it comes at a rather strange time for me. I don't want to stay in Despotism all the way until Feudalism (for some reason, Monarchy seems to be quite a popular choice for AI research, so it's not hard to pick up via trade/GL), but I do note that everytime I switch to Monarchy, I dearly miss the ability to pop-rush, and I find massive unit support actually quite difficult to achieve. |
i totally agree here. staying in despotism until the middle ages is a good way to destroy your economy and fall behind quickly. going to manarchy ASAP and having a steady stream of growth will allow for a productive civ that will support more troops than you would originally think.
as far as pop-rushing goes, i prefer to pay for my improvements. im all about growth, and growth is good for monarchy. spending a measly 50 gold or so for a temple i need on a border, will increase my culture in the area, and keep my citizens ALIVE so they can grow and make me even more $.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
Costs are somewhat offset by the fact that anyone going directly for Feudalism will be bypassing all optional ancient era techs.
|
true but if you go monarchy, you will get the anarchy out of the way early, then jump right to democracy. by the middle ages i usually have a large army anyway, PLUS i wont have to worry about war weariness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
It is strange because in all the games I have played recently I have switched to Feudalism.
I think especially on the higher levels, such as emperor, since there is usulaly a lot of warring going on as you scramble for territory.
Also you starting position is usually less than good, so you core will not grow that fast.
Since you need to fight and expand at the same time, the high unit support for towns is usefull as you pump out settlers.
The absence of the despotims tile penalty is also good, especially if you are in a golden age.
The only problem is the warweariness issue, but by keeping 3 military police in each town and hooking up to some luxuries it is usually not a problem.
The fact that you can poprush means that military units can be created in unproductive cities close to the enemy.
Poprushing also comes in handy if you are scientific or religious .
Finally the fact that Feudalism is a required tech, and usually the one you go for when at war (Pikemen and Med. Swordsmen).
So summa summarum Feudalism is the best war government for the Middleages in my oppinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
So summa summarum Feudalism is the best war government for the Middleages in my oppinion. |
i agree if you are a warmonger feaudalism is a better govt than monarchy or even republic on ANY difficulty level.
but if you are a builder, and concentrate on city growth, esp in your core, your unit support will go up. graneries and early aquaducts will ensure fast growth, so even if you pump out a few settlers, your citys will catch up quickly.
starting area all depends on map generation. i agree i have had some less than optimal start locations, but i have also had some fantastic ones.
ALSO i am usually done or close to being done REXing by the time i get to feaudalism anyway, and by that time i am focusing on my growth, and my economy.
by the time i hit democracy, i will have large cities, with my luxeries and my cathedrals making my population happy, and my economy will thrive. whereas if i was feaudalism i would have a LOT of catching up to do as far as my growth, aquaducts, and economy is concerned.
so monarchy isnt as bad as you think, unit support will climb as your cities grow. in fact i have supported MORE troops in a late monarchy than i did in my early despotism. and how many troops do you actually NEED if you are a builder? monarchy can cover all those bases as well as set up a future democracy rather well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
One more point is that perhaps feudalims is best for militaristic civs with a medival age UU such as Vikings, Mongols, Japanese and Chinese.
It is the worse option if you are commercial or agricultual, because keeping your cities at town level will not give you the commercial bonus to the city square and it also takes away the point of the agricultural trait which is having large cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kevinchink
|
|
Hoffman Estates, Illinois
May 2004
time: 05:36
|
|
I like Feudalism, but im constantly supporting a warrior economy and at war at least once every 10 turns
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
One more point is that perhaps feudalims is best for militaristic civs with a medival age UU such as Vikings, Mongols, Japanese and Chinese.
|
agree here, but it all depends on player style.
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
It is the worse option if you are commercial or agricultual, because keeping your cities at town level will not give you the commercial bonus to the city square and it also takes away the point of the agricultural trait which is having large cities.
|
also agree, but one more point is if you have the pyramids where your cities grow like a roach colony. in this case you would have to forego building your aquaducts to keep your cities small to support a feaudy. and that, IMHO is a horrible idea anyway.
i guess i agree with player1 in that all govts can be useful in certain situations and player style. i just want to push the point that monarchy can be superior to both if you want to strike a balance between a complete warmonger (feaudalism), and a pacifistic builder (republic). monarchy is AFAIK a good balance between the two, where you can build and grow, AND have a sizable military.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Strollen
|
|
I think that Feudalism is a far worse builder government than Republic, because of the lack of trade bonus and having to rush pop improvements. It is probably comparable but slightly inferior to Republic as warmononger govt.
Feudalism is much worse than Monarchy as warmongering, for the simple reason that Feudalism suffers from war weariness and Monarchy doesn't. Under many circumstance the support cost for Monarchy will be less than Feudalism when fighting a big war.
One things is clear is that over time a Monarchy or Republic emperor population will grow bigger than Fuedalism because of Pop rushing, and the incentives to get bigger cities and disincentive to do so for Feudalism. A bigger population means more money, production, and science
Lets take a couple of examples. Say you have 12 town/cities with 50 units, say 18 workers (1.5 workers/city) 12 garrisons and 20 other units for fighting MPs etc.
Support cost
Towns/Cities Feudalism Rep. Monarchy
9/3 0 64 20
7/5 15 56 16
5/7 33 48 12
So unless your empire is constantly expanding over time it will be fairly quickly cheaper to be in either Republic or Monarchy. There in lies the catch, the war weariness of Feudalism make being at war constantly virtually impossible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AAHZ
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Strollen
Feudalism is much worse than Monarchy as warmongering, for the simple reason that Feudalism suffers from war weariness and Monarchy doesn't. Under many circumstance the support cost for Monarchy will be less than Feudalism when fighting a big war.
|
good point, quite similar to the one i was trying to push before everyone kept telling me how WONDERFUL feaudalism was. im glad im not alone in this.
quote:
Originally posted by Strollen
One things is clear is that over time a Monarchy or Republic emperor population will grow bigger than Fuedalism because of Pop rushing, and the incentives to get bigger cities and disincentive to do so for Feudalism. A bigger population means more money, production, and science
|
this is also a great point. i build my aquaducts and graneries ASAP when im monarchy, a suicide strategy if you are feaudalism, as big cities=less unit support, whereas monarchy big cities= MORE unit support. PLUS you are setting yourself up for democracy.
quote:
Originally posted by Strollen
So unless your empire is constantly expanding over time it will be fairly quickly cheaper to be in either Republic or Monarchy. There in lies the catch, the war weariness of Feudalism make being at war constantly virtually impossible. |
war weariness is a killer, and with monarchy having NO war weariness is is a HUGE advantage over feaudy along with the other points i mentioned above.
FINAL NOTE: as i am preparing to go on vacation tomorrow, this will be my LAST post in this thread, although i thank ALL of you for all the wonderful posts. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-05-2004 23:42
Mwuhahhahaha!
|