Noticeably Big Disclaimer!!!
This is mostly based on educated guess work and what information that was gleaned from dev diaries, articles and of course life streams. If I get anything wrong or, you know, I'm just overall wrong
please do voice your own thoughts.
The goal here is just to start a discussion about the government types and to get an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each.
The Republic
"I Love Democracy. I Love The Republic"
A system of checks and balances. Where (hopefully) everyone is invested in the greater good of the nation.
Of the three, Republics are the one that limit the player's agency the most. For example, ALL diplomatic actions need the approval of the senate. So say there is a particular opportune time to war a powerful enemy in the throes of a civil war, but because of character relations and not deftly politicking, you could end up missing out on an coup de grace on said enemy. Anything war related from declaring to calling in allies to even calling for peace require approval.
(And all of this by the way, while potentially limiting agency, is AMAZING and I love it)
Now you can garner the support of the Senate, but i think as the game goes on and the larger you become it will be much more interesting/difficult trying to manage the Republic effectively.
Also it seems to be a sort of favor system involved now along with events and decisions that affect party influence. I would love to have another look at republics to see how that will work. I hope it becomes a sort of system where you have to pass certain laws, make certain diplomatic decisions and interact with certain characters a certain way based on party agenda. All I'm saying is Republics have A LOT of DLC/Patch potential.
I have seen concern about republics not having their own civil war mechanics. That is because republics are probably the most stable form of government in the game. The only worry you would have is disloyal characters and rebellious provinces. While it is true that the same could be said about the other two types, this disloyalty is really your only worry. And better yet since loyalty is to the leader of the nation, because of the election mechanics (which you can influence, sort of) the leader changes constantly. Meaning the very powerful general/governor of yesterday is today's greatest friend and ally.
Of course this is not going to be a constant.
You should always be proactive in making sure your greatest general doesn't end up having your main army be loyal only to that general.
It should be noted though powerful characters still might be difficult to deal with. Since, again, you need approval for most character actions, a particularly powerful threat to the republic could have many friends in high places making the senate not so keen on dealing with the problem.
Your leaders stat wise are often fairly capable. The four parties have four leaders; the most prominent members of the party and in turn these leader's charisma stat determines the size of the party. And popularity is also a major factor in elections. There is also the bonus you gain from the actual party in power as well.
Outside of other factors, the parties more often then not that gain power are those parties led by decent characters. And since prominence and popularity are gained through accomplishments and since more often than not you want to employ those who are capable... well you can see how that works out.
Sons (or daughters if the republic allows female leaders) of accomplished fathers (or mothers), who themselves are lesser than their sires, might still be a problem in republics. Especially if that character is from a powerful family.
TL;DR: High stability and fairly capable but has a good chance of stagnation and not getting things done. Will require the most internal management of the 3 government types.
The Monarchy
"It's Good To Be The King"
Absolute Power. As the divine leader of the nation, the monarch bows to no one. Except for when they do
As for as agency is concerned, of the three, monarchs have complete control of what they can do. From diplomatic decisions, character interactions, all the way to changing the laws of the nation. Monarchs can do it all. Of course the loyalty of those in your nation is still something to monitor, as having so much power is sure to rub some people the wrong way. But luckily you have a king sized tool box to deal with these problems when they do arise. After all, as the slogan goes: l'état, c'est moi
The character management in a kingdom is a lot easier to to well... manage. You're looking out for you and your heir, everyone else comes second. And because of this, you have a good idea who might become a problem and who is a good asset to further your own goals.
Pretenders are monarchies unique civil war mechanic. And as true to history, pretenders can cause a lot of damage to any prospecting heir of the nation. While not a problem if the pretender is loyal, a disloyal pretender can become a beacon for other disloyal/opportunistic characters and with their growing army, can become a big problem fast. And while you can try and mitigate the problem, other nations can exacerbate it by funding your pretender.
On the whole, in fact, monarchies are interesting as far as stability is concerned. Stability is closely tied to how capable your ruler is. A great king will have a way easier time managing his kingdom compared to a not so great king.
Which brings me to a monarchs greatest strength as well as its greatest weakness: there is no cap to how good or how bad a monarch can be. With high legitimacy and good stats, you really have not a thing to worry about. But the same can not be said for your successor. You really have no choice who will rule next and they end up ruling for all of their life. All it takes one bad ruler to bring a whole lot of trouble to your kingdom.
TL;DR: No celling nor basement to how good a monarch can be which is directly linked to how stable your kingdom might be; absolute control over the nation and is able to deal with almost any problem it may face as long as its lead by a skilled ruler.
The Tribe
"Conan, What Is Best In Life?"
Might makes right. Or does it? Tribes are flexible and have lots of paths to choose to what they may become.
Of the three, tribes come off more of a transitionary government. After all, depending on how centralized you are determines what you become. You can reform into a Monarchy or Republic, and that seems to be the end goal of the tribe; reformation. However you can go full on "Assemble the clans" mode. Which will be my main focus here on the overview. To see how might staying a tribe play like.
As clan chief, you are free to make what diplomatic decisions and interact with other characters as you like; similar to how a monarch . However in order to change the laws, you need to have the loyalty of all your clan leaders; similar to a republic.
Here is where being more centralization starts coming into effect. The more decentralized you are, the more power your clan leaders have. And with a the number of clan leaders tied to country rank, a large, decentralized tribe could have quite a few powerful leaders, who's loyalty would need to be closely monitor if you want to not only pass certain laws, but also maintain a stable chiefdom.
But its not all bad. In such a tribe, those clan leaders would have large armies that you could use in your wars. And not only do they not come from your own manpower, but they are also cheaper to maintain. Also you can pretty much guarantee that your successor will always be capable. Tribes are much closer to a meritocracy then any other of the government types, with character ability determining who rules the clan, rather than status or heritage.
But there are some weaknesses of such a play-style. One, clan leaders can become a loyalty problem with their large retinues being solely loyal to them. Second, while your tribes men pops will have a large bonus to their output (Gold and Manpower) and slaves are unaffected (Gold), your citizen pops will have abysmal output (Commerce Income Bonus and Tech Points). And while the tech advancement difference between nations might not be an issue early one, as we saw from the Q&A livestream that a gap WILL grow as the game progresses. Level 4 vs Level 10 is something to worry about.
But a tribe is flexible. You can through some finesse, still manage your nation effectively and react to your situation as needed; probably better than the other two government types. Might need to see more about tribes to see if there is more to them and how a full decentralized playthrough would look like. Whatever the case may be, the idea of leading the barbarian hordes south sounds very appealing
TL;DR: Super Flexible. Sort of a in-between government when compared to the other two. High potential for conquest and expansion early on, but probably difficult to keep together.
This is mostly based on educated guess work and what information that was gleaned from dev diaries, articles and of course life streams. If I get anything wrong or, you know, I'm just overall wrong
please do voice your own thoughts.The goal here is just to start a discussion about the government types and to get an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each.
The Republic
"I Love Democracy. I Love The Republic"
A system of checks and balances. Where (hopefully) everyone is invested in the greater good of the nation.
Of the three, Republics are the one that limit the player's agency the most. For example, ALL diplomatic actions need the approval of the senate. So say there is a particular opportune time to war a powerful enemy in the throes of a civil war, but because of character relations and not deftly politicking, you could end up missing out on an coup de grace on said enemy. Anything war related from declaring to calling in allies to even calling for peace require approval.
(And all of this by the way, while potentially limiting agency, is AMAZING and I love it
)Now you can garner the support of the Senate, but i think as the game goes on and the larger you become it will be much more interesting/difficult trying to manage the Republic effectively.
Also it seems to be a sort of favor system involved now along with events and decisions that affect party influence. I would love to have another look at republics to see how that will work. I hope it becomes a sort of system where you have to pass certain laws, make certain diplomatic decisions and interact with certain characters a certain way based on party agenda. All I'm saying is Republics have A LOT of DLC/Patch potential.
I have seen concern about republics not having their own civil war mechanics. That is because republics are probably the most stable form of government in the game. The only worry you would have is disloyal characters and rebellious provinces. While it is true that the same could be said about the other two types, this disloyalty is really your only worry. And better yet since loyalty is to the leader of the nation, because of the election mechanics (which you can influence, sort of) the leader changes constantly. Meaning the very powerful general/governor of yesterday is today's greatest friend and ally.
Of course this is not going to be a constant.
You should always be proactive in making sure your greatest general doesn't end up having your main army be loyal only to that general.
It should be noted though powerful characters still might be difficult to deal with. Since, again, you need approval for most character actions, a particularly powerful threat to the republic could have many friends in high places making the senate not so keen on dealing with the problem.
Your leaders stat wise are often fairly capable. The four parties have four leaders; the most prominent members of the party and in turn these leader's charisma stat determines the size of the party. And popularity is also a major factor in elections. There is also the bonus you gain from the actual party in power as well.
Outside of other factors, the parties more often then not that gain power are those parties led by decent characters. And since prominence and popularity are gained through accomplishments and since more often than not you want to employ those who are capable... well you can see how that works out.
Sons (or daughters if the republic allows female leaders) of accomplished fathers (or mothers), who themselves are lesser than their sires, might still be a problem in republics. Especially if that character is from a powerful family.
TL;DR: High stability and fairly capable but has a good chance of stagnation and not getting things done. Will require the most internal management of the 3 government types.
The Monarchy
"It's Good To Be The King"
Absolute Power. As the divine leader of the nation, the monarch bows to no one. Except for when they do
As for as agency is concerned, of the three, monarchs have complete control of what they can do. From diplomatic decisions, character interactions, all the way to changing the laws of the nation. Monarchs can do it all. Of course the loyalty of those in your nation is still something to monitor, as having so much power is sure to rub some people the wrong way. But luckily you have a king sized tool box to deal with these problems when they do arise. After all, as the slogan goes: l'état, c'est moi
The character management in a kingdom is a lot easier to to well... manage. You're looking out for you and your heir, everyone else comes second. And because of this, you have a good idea who might become a problem and who is a good asset to further your own goals.
Pretenders are monarchies unique civil war mechanic. And as true to history, pretenders can cause a lot of damage to any prospecting heir of the nation. While not a problem if the pretender is loyal, a disloyal pretender can become a beacon for other disloyal/opportunistic characters and with their growing army, can become a big problem fast. And while you can try and mitigate the problem, other nations can exacerbate it by funding your pretender.
On the whole, in fact, monarchies are interesting as far as stability is concerned. Stability is closely tied to how capable your ruler is. A great king will have a way easier time managing his kingdom compared to a not so great king.
Which brings me to a monarchs greatest strength as well as its greatest weakness: there is no cap to how good or how bad a monarch can be. With high legitimacy and good stats, you really have not a thing to worry about. But the same can not be said for your successor. You really have no choice who will rule next and they end up ruling for all of their life. All it takes one bad ruler to bring a whole lot of trouble to your kingdom.
TL;DR: No celling nor basement to how good a monarch can be which is directly linked to how stable your kingdom might be; absolute control over the nation and is able to deal with almost any problem it may face as long as its lead by a skilled ruler.
The Tribe
"Conan, What Is Best In Life?"
Might makes right. Or does it? Tribes are flexible and have lots of paths to choose to what they may become.
Of the three, tribes come off more of a transitionary government. After all, depending on how centralized you are determines what you become. You can reform into a Monarchy or Republic, and that seems to be the end goal of the tribe; reformation. However you can go full on "Assemble the clans" mode. Which will be my main focus here on the overview. To see how might staying a tribe play like.
As clan chief, you are free to make what diplomatic decisions and interact with other characters as you like; similar to how a monarch . However in order to change the laws, you need to have the loyalty of all your clan leaders; similar to a republic.
Here is where being more centralization starts coming into effect. The more decentralized you are, the more power your clan leaders have. And with a the number of clan leaders tied to country rank, a large, decentralized tribe could have quite a few powerful leaders, who's loyalty would need to be closely monitor if you want to not only pass certain laws, but also maintain a stable chiefdom.
But its not all bad. In such a tribe, those clan leaders would have large armies that you could use in your wars. And not only do they not come from your own manpower, but they are also cheaper to maintain. Also you can pretty much guarantee that your successor will always be capable. Tribes are much closer to a meritocracy then any other of the government types, with character ability determining who rules the clan, rather than status or heritage.
But there are some weaknesses of such a play-style. One, clan leaders can become a loyalty problem with their large retinues being solely loyal to them. Second, while your tribes men pops will have a large bonus to their output (Gold and Manpower) and slaves are unaffected (Gold), your citizen pops will have abysmal output (Commerce Income Bonus and Tech Points). And while the tech advancement difference between nations might not be an issue early one, as we saw from the Q&A livestream that a gap WILL grow as the game progresses. Level 4 vs Level 10 is something to worry about.
But a tribe is flexible. You can through some finesse, still manage your nation effectively and react to your situation as needed; probably better than the other two government types. Might need to see more about tribes to see if there is more to them and how a full decentralized playthrough would look like. Whatever the case may be, the idea of leading the barbarian hordes south sounds very appealing
TL;DR: Super Flexible. Sort of a in-between government when compared to the other two. High potential for conquest and expansion early on, but probably difficult to keep together.