 |
|  |
 |
|
Xmudder
|
 |
California
Sep 2001 time: 21:15
|
|
Both Monarchy and Republic can be obtained early in the game; in fact, you have to obtain both of them to leave the ancient era. In Civ 2, Monarchy was superior in the early game, because you could support three free units and not lose 3 shields. Now that units cost Gold and not Shields, wouldn't Republic be more useful than Monarchy? The +1 trade per square will offset the cost of maintaining units.
I wonder what they did to balance Monarchy. 3 free units per city are quite useful, but boosting trade/commerce, and paying for your units from that, is far more useful. I also wonder what they did to make Republic a useful choice in the late game - in the new screenshot, it's 1760, they're researching Refining, I'm going to guess they have access to Democracy... what's so good about Republic?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Nemo
republic was always better than monarchy. but putting them close together time wise is odd, albeit realistic. i, too, wonder how they will acomidate the use of monarchy when republic is also available. will monarchy be a quick jump instead of a time lasting governement? hmmm... |
lol i could never last a turn in republic
i am fully expansionist. you just cant say one is better than another. republic sucked ass for me because of the way i play.. maybe the way you play is different, but just dont go around declaring that one is better
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|