When you have a lot of PU's you want your monarchs to die quickly for chance to inherit countries. So, if you want them dead, they will live LONG LONG LONG time.Is that true
When you have a lot of PU's you want your monarchs to die quickly for chance to inherit countries. So, if you want them dead, they will live LONG LONG LONG time.Is that true
It must be an unwritten law in the code that 3/3/3 rulers live forever while 9/9/9 rulers live for a couple of years. Oh irony...
Me and a friend sometimes play together. AKA playing the same country, but chaning player everytime a monarch dies. His monarchs often last +50 years... While mine sometimes die in 10...
all monarchies have max infamy over republics? i thought it was just despotic bonus
Well +10 max infamy for legit. Legit + despotic + 9 diplo leader = massive conquest as long as we can.
To Iwanow
You are wrong describing best way to deal with the Hordes. Best way is tech superiority coupled with steady influx of money and colonists for rapid province grab. Large manpower can help at the start, but it mainly depend on luck and how well Horde's opponents are doing. Contrary, good tech will allow for steady and relatively effortless grinding of nomad armies. Money and tech are bit more plentiful for republics.
While high BB limits help, high BB (10+) hurts, and it's not that important if that's 15 or 25. Almost always early republics will be quick in reducing BB, plus have more reconquest CB due to events. Again, monarchies need legitimacy, and high BB makes it harder to maintain.
And you are so wrong...
I as muscowy->russia, can defeat golden horde in 1450(when forming russia in 1415), while novogorod is highly unlikely to do it before 1500. Best way to deafeat horde is faster way. Because gaining their land quickly means -> faster bordering china -> lot of low infamy (and high production)provinces -> great wealth.
This may mean low tech atb, but you will anyway just go full on land and if you do you might catch up with it(aspecialy due the fact that forming russia = lot of free cores and great income increase). Also doing thing this way allows you to build big COT in moscow, and just trade on your own.
EDIT:
Also if you will be trading nation, your expansion JUST WILL BE slow. Even if you get lucky cores, you might get like 5 of them for 50 years. Unless you will take unam sanctam(and you won't) all other provinces will just cost 4 infamy. And you will conquer max 2 provinces per 8 years, while a such moscow will conquer all russia in 15 years, and then proceed to colonize GH, and possibly take the rest of it's cores plus take provinces it gets from missions.
Yes, but but but. When you are monarchy you can gain +9 vassals/provinces in few years, without using any CB(taking all the badboy). And it is when you have diplomatic skill of 3. Using heathen CB it is 38 provinces (plus the 0.3 year). Republic can take 34 infamy plus 0,9 yearly(IF you will be VERY lucky with diplo skill). But as all republic start small(Biggest = venice and switzerland - but swiss got not much place for conquest), and changing govt, aspecialy early on, is very costly, plus the fact none republic starts with 9 diplo ruler, and the fact there are at least few monarchies that start with high diplo ruler, and the fact monarchy can use the PU's for conquest, it makes me think, that it is better to play as monarchy, as they are just stronger.
Also i doubt TO would easily take on GH, and poland got no real chances for doing that before some serious conquest(for forcelimit) and inheriting lithuania(well...).
And actualy hungary is not realy country that have any chances with GH early too(unless they defend in mountain with a good general, and got lucky rolls).
But nevermind that all of those countries just need to grow big in order to have any changes with the golden horde. And big infamy limit helps in any conquest, so they gain by being monarchies.