Considering the game relies so much on your Monarch now, and with Republics you get to pick a ruler focused in the stat you need, and then they get +1 to all stats on re-election, why wouldn't you want to turn your country into a Republic ASAP?
Down side to Republics?
- Thread starter wolfing
- 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.
You miss out on PU's, legitimacy & RM safety. PU's can grant you large tracts of land for only a single war, legitimacy gives a good number of bonuses, and royal marriages grant you a bit of safety if you marry threats.
Yes you get +4 to a stat at the expense of the other ones. Everything is being paid for.
Well you lose the benefit of Royal Marriages and Personal Unions, and I think Monarchies get the Aristocry Idea tree.
I'm sure decisions and events differ....
So choice of play style.
Also for Republics - No regency, and 1 free general all the time, unless you get someone so good you can't risk it.
I'm sure decisions and events differ....
So choice of play style.
Also for Republics - No regency, and 1 free general all the time, unless you get someone so good you can't risk it.
Republics can also beeline the Diplomacy idea group and get that tasty Revolution/Counterrevolution idea a lot earlier than it was possible in EU3, so that's one of the first things I'll be trying out in the full game. Although given that infamy is gone, unless you get a pretty serious discount on the aggressive expansion relations penalty, it probably won't be nearly as overpowered.
I hope with the Rev/CounterRev idea we'll have the option to install a monarchy or republic appropriately as part of a peace deal. In EU3 the casus belli only gave you the chance to take provinces and annex, but not actually change government types.
(I know that it won't)
(I know that it won't)
Last edited:
The obvious downsides to Republics are (a) if you don't reelect the old doge, you get a selection of 3 mediocre rulers (4/1/1 stats), and if you do, you get a hit to Republican tradition, which seems to rebuild very slowly, especially with getting dinged by random events. As others have said, you also don't get personal unions and royal marriages, which can be annoying. So there are definitely tradeoffs.
You get 4/1/1 (any combination) leader at any time. Sure, you´ll never end up with 0/0/0, but still 4 is exactly in the middle of the scale and 1 is deep under the average (and you get two of those). Re-election forces you to drain republic tradition (but it also gives some sum of points right away, so that is acceptable). But a ruler with 6 out of 24 isn´t really great. After one re-election, it is fine leader with 9 out of 24. The catch (and may I say really Machiavellian one) is that after this re-electioning you want that leader to stay (he´s 50% better than the new one) and may re-election him over and over which may be dangerous.
I think it is manageble to pull this off and it is more save than risk a dreadful monarch, but I believe I would be angry all the time my leader is only below-average. Really looking up to Novgorod now, where you can re-elect all day long.
I think it is manageble to pull this off and it is more save than risk a dreadful monarch, but I believe I would be angry all the time my leader is only below-average. Really looking up to Novgorod now, where you can re-elect all day long.
I played as Venice in the demo and started out with a pretty good ruler. Then come election time, I can either improve him significantly - or ditch him for one of three rather poor choices, compared to what I already had. And I can't do RMs or PUs.
So I'd rather ask: is there any good reason not to just keep re-electing this first ruler, who pretty much becomes a GODLY ruler in the end, untill you lose all your republican tradition and your uber ruler becomes an ever-lasting monarch...?
So I'd rather ask: is there any good reason not to just keep re-electing this first ruler, who pretty much becomes a GODLY ruler in the end, untill you lose all your republican tradition and your uber ruler becomes an ever-lasting monarch...?
You risk terrible ruler in the longterm and may get some stb hit in the short term, other than that, this could be vital strategy for making tons of ruler points and get ahead.
Actually...
"war_goal = war_goal_change_government_mutual"
Might be in luck!
Isn't he really old? At least if they make doges historical, they all got elected when they were like 90. So he'll die pretty quickly anyway.
With that said it is fine you can have a ruler who is at least average in one thing, but I hate the fact you can´t have "good candidate". Yeah, it is true you can´t re-elect anybody forever, everybody dies at some point. On the plus isde that will save you some republican tradition, which is always good.
Yeah, it is true you can´t re-elect anybody forever, everybody dies at some point. On the plus isde that will save you some republican tradition, which is always good.
90 might be pushing it just a bit, but they certainly did seem to value age when electing rulers.
He lasted for most of my demo game, actually.
I'd like republics much more if the candidates were random.
Yeah, I was a bit surprised at the non-random candidates. I get what they are going for, but it kinda makes all monarchs too samey. I would have preferred the weighted-random options and got rid of the whole stat boost when you kept the same one.
What's the effect of having lower republican tradition? And is the penalty worse than having +1 to all stats?
In eu3 I never did PUs, I think I still like doges better, but guess I'll need to playtest it in the real game next week to see.
In eu3 I never did PUs, I think I still like doges better, but guess I'll need to playtest it in the real game next week to see.
Another (small) difference I noted between republics and monarchies (and theocracies): They only have a +10 relations bonus for same religion, instead of a +25 bonus.
Higher revolt risk, and if your tradition is too low you revert to a monarchy (which then means you have to lose to revolutionary rebels to get back to being a republic again).