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
Republic Vs Monarchy
- Thread starter marat271
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
One thing I've always noticed is Bohemia's ruler tends to take along time to die. In my most recent England>France game I was all set up to become the HRE but the guy wouldn't die. I went through three monarchs before the guy finally croaked. Oh and to make it more frustrating, he had 46 IA for a long time and shortly before he lost the crown he got over 50 and wasted it attempting to pass the 2nd reform while everyone in the HRE hated him.
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...
I prefer republics most of the time, because I just feel like choosing your own ruler far outweighs not having PU's and such. Also, is there some sort of genetics system in this game? For example, I played as Leinster the other day, and just kept getting one mediocre king after another. Is it more likely to have a certain stats if the previous ruler has certain stat? It's probably just that I'm unlucky.
i usually have one good ruler and then 5 bad ones then a good one then bad ones it is very hard to get a good one
Republic for me, if it's at all practical (which it isn't very much in my current death and taxes Byz game). The most important argument for me is always "no regencies". I don't know when I'll want to shwack somebody.
That being said, see the Herodotus quote below - as long as the one king is a bloddy-handed badass or a genius organizer i'm fine with him/her.
That being said, see the Herodotus quote below - as long as the one king is a bloddy-handed badass or a genius organizer i'm fine with him/her.
Monarchy it is for me. Absolute monarchy, that is. No slider limitations, discipline bonus, imperialism, PUs, all good stuff. I stop PUing if I run out of same culture group nations though, so in that case I might go for a republic, but 99% of the time I'll go with absolute monarchy (and in the HRE, that's 100%).
Republic is far better for colonial expansion and conquest outside of religious group. Good diplo ruler will reduce BB quick and is more reliable than random PU hunt. Good administrative ruler prevent overextension, that can be extreamly severe when one get to 400+ provinces by 1600. One can easily assume that having 50% cores is more reasonable for quick republican expanders than minimum of 75% for a bad 3/3/3 monarch. Overextension hit negate all positive bonuses of high legitimacy at once.
While royal Austria is great while expanding in the HRE, it's not as great when facing the Hordes and Ottomans when comparing to republican Venice. Different games, different means. Muslim rulers are even more limited in this respect, since number of eligible Muslim rulers is a fraction of Christian.
Anyway, my favorite is Constitutional Monarchy coupled with Bill of Rights
While royal Austria is great while expanding in the HRE, it's not as great when facing the Hordes and Ottomans when comparing to republican Venice. Different games, different means. Muslim rulers are even more limited in this respect, since number of eligible Muslim rulers is a fraction of Christian.
Anyway, my favorite is Constitutional Monarchy coupled with Bill of Rights
Well, actualy when facing hordes feudal monarchy is far better than merchant or admin republic, just because you got more forcelimit. Best way to kill off horde is having big force(near theirs) and allowing them to eat attrition, then killing all their armies. When you kill their armies, they are ussualy being eaten by everyone.
Also while republic is good for tech, and ruler stats, it does not wins automaticaly with monarchy. Ussualy it is otherwise as monarchies just spawn armies and bully around when republics do nothing and trade.
Also most countries start as monarchies, and changing govt is quite costly.
Actualy i don't get too much 3/3/3 kings anyway. Sometimes i do, but a republic can get crappy ruler too(sometimes).
Also the fact all monarchies have +10 max infamy makes them much better for any decent conquest.
Also while republic is good for tech, and ruler stats, it does not wins automaticaly with monarchy. Ussualy it is otherwise as monarchies just spawn armies and bully around when republics do nothing and trade.
Also most countries start as monarchies, and changing govt is quite costly.
Actualy i don't get too much 3/3/3 kings anyway. Sometimes i do, but a republic can get crappy ruler too(sometimes).
Also the fact all monarchies have +10 max infamy makes them much better for any decent conquest.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Chronicling much? There are many circumstances in which a horde is involved. For smaller countries (i.e. Russian minors), a few extra force limits can be important, but for larger ones, it may not that important (OE, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, TO, etc). In addition, Muskovy is a bit unique in that it has so many free cores to start with and yet more free cores from forming Russia. As a result, boundary disputes are not that important for them as it would be for Hungary and Latin gtech countries.
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.
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.
You assume too much about playing styles and such. Muskovy and Russians in general are quite hard to play, but have General Winter on their side, who helps immensely with GH. Again, forming Russia by 1415 requires far more luck than more conservative strategy with republics. Having good leaders with monarchies is harder. Moreover, republic != trade. Hansa and Venice have very respectable incomes without any trade, plus will trade efficiently at their CoTs even with high BB. When Crusade is called for, any Catholic nation can get a hold near infidels and enjoy quick expansion. Add HRE benefits to three Catholic MRs (Venice can get into HRE during first few years) and rare monarchy can compete.
Again, you assume too much describing Hungary and Poland. Both are strong, and can blob easily, especially when human-controlled. Both will have trouble dealing with strong GH early on, but, as I said, it's luck dependent.
I switched to Republican Dictatorship for the first time (from Absolute Monarchy) to get rid of ADM 3 ruler that did not want to die.
Why there were no elections? And when he finally died after around 50 years in total, there were no elections too...
Why there were no elections? And when he finally died after around 50 years in total, there were no elections too...