Lately I've been thinking, which of the government types is better.
Personally I prefer monarchies, Legitimacy isn't very hard to manage and it gives great bonuses. Like -3 revolt risk, -10% stability cost. And +1 tolerance to each religion, all great. And also being able to get into personal unions is also very powerful.
Discuss
I understand the appeal of republics. I really like the option to get rid of retarded rules and no legitimacy problems, however i do like legitimacy bonus and the chance to get PU. Its not that hard to get max cultural tradition and that dude that gives legitimacy bonus.
And also, for me it's never been a problem getting a ruler killed off, just make him a general, and he'll automatically die off within 10 years. And there are plenty of heirs, the pop them out if you know what I mean.
What about Noble Republics?
Its for life, so same thing as Monacy, just cant inheriet, but form RM.. No Legemicy thou. like BAD and BAD from both, unlike IRL where is was GREAT.Originally Posted by KillingMeSoftly
its not for life, its for 8 years then you can pick a new guy.....
Noble Republics have eight-year terms. It's Republican Dictatorship and Bureaucratic Dictatorship that have Presidents-for-life.
Nothing scares infantry like tanks that can see them. Nothing scares tank crews like infantry they can't see.
If you think someone's trolling, PM a moderator.
Monarchies have PU's.
/thread
Ahh.. I only play MMU, and there its for life.. Nice to know.. :-) Cant even chose what kind of "king" you want like all else republics
Quite right. Personal unions are so powerful, it makes putting up with a 3/3/3 king once in a while worth it. The capability to diplomatically vassalize people and be elected HRE are also points in monarchy's favor.
you shoud try MMU, then you know why 3/3/3 is beyond BAD, and why Rep. RULES over Monarchy, but in Vanilla, MAnarchy´s RUles, no doubt about it.. unless your doing it for some unike reason, like Rev. Empire
The BB reduction bonus from Enlightened Despotism is too good to pass on if you like expanding, IMO. Absolute Monarchy is fun too for the freedom from slider restrictions.
I don't absolutely prefer monarchies over republics or the reverse. I use whichever is situationally best for the nation and situation I am playing at the time. If there is a situation in which I need rulers with certain stats I tend to favor republics. If I am trying to expand rapidly with minimal warfare I tend to favor monarchies.
Last game I played as the Byzantines I just got too fed up with monarchies. I just don't like bad rulers (and I always make them generals, still no luck getting rid of them quickly) and regencies, things I usually completely forget about when playing a republic. Expansion is slower as a republic, yes, but usually I don't expand much in Europe anyway: I limit myself to my culture group (Nationalism CB) and areas I can conquer through missions. Legitemacy is nice I suppose. I don't care for personal unions, inherting a big player like France takes all the fun out of the game. I also don't care much for the HRE, whenever I become the emperor myself I try to get rid of the title as fast as possible.
The appeal of getting much better rulers in republics is very great, because (1) High diplo rulers make boundary dispute events fire like crazy and (2) high admin rulers makes it harder to get the dreaded overextension modifier. I'd say staying as republic is good for the first 100 years or so when PU's are not something to rely upon. I'd probably go as far as waiting for absolute monarchy before switching.
I also agree that switching to a noble republic or any republic is very powerful at the beginning of the game, just because you're a little weaker, and boundary disputes are awesome!
Monarchy, not matter what forms have legitimacy. Legitimacy gives -4 RR, +1 growth rate, -10 stability cost and +10 infamy limit if you got it at 100. Also few decisions(example militia act, which is pretty must decision) are tied to monarchy. Also it gives you the ability to PU some countries. Also, Empire gives +0.25 to morale, and absolute monarchy gives +5% discipline. Also admin monarchy gives you +10% production(quite nice boost, still i like absolute monarchy more anyway)
Things republics give you - Elections. Good way to change ruler when he is bad, but you won't keep him if he is high skilled for more than 8 years(and monarchs can). Also, Admin Republic give you +10 TE, and Merchant Republic give you trade leagues.
So weights is more in favour for monarchy.
Noble republics can get PUs as well. I got a few myself. Of course it's harder since you don't know who has low legitimacy, but it is possible.
Nationality: British
Religion: Sikh
Ideology: Radical Liberalism
Issues: Civil Rights, Environmentalism, technology
Current Occupation: University Student! Upgrade!
Sadda Haq- the film goes ahead!
Paradox Sikh Sangat
Deg Tegh Fateh development thread- SUSPENDED
...no, wait. You can reelect your ruler until he dies of old age. ňo
The same ruler can indeed be reelected until he dies.
I also like republics for colonizing: high admin stats mean you'll have less failed colonists. Also, when someone suddenly declares war, you can elect a military candidate and have a good chance of getting a good general.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
