How to buff republics

[AnguyTheArcher]

So basically everyone knows it is much more advantageous to play as monarch in EU. You can royal marry, PU, diplovassalize, average royal stats are better, than rookie republic leaders, lack of legitimacy is not as damaging as RT, etc.
So it's obvious, that republics should be made more powerful for beterr balanced gameplay.
My suggestions :
1. reduce the influence of lack of RT on stability cost. 200 % is really much.
2. Republics should have lower war exhaustion, when fighting defensive wars, especially with high republican tradition. (It's pretty logical - free people don't want to lose their freedoms).
3. Maybe republics shouldn't suffer tradition hit when annexing vassals. It can be really painful. But if negative effects of lack of RT are reduced it might not matter that much.
4. Plutocracy should be exclusive to republic. Want to switch back to monarchy?
Enjoy your aristocratic ideas .

So what do you think? Do you have any other ideas, that are both logical/ historical and allow better gameplay as republic?

 

[smellymummy]

So basically everyone knows it is much more advantageous to play as monarch in EU. You can royal marry, PU, diplovassalize, average royal stats are better, than rookie republic leaders, lack of legitimacy is not as damaging as RT, etc.
So it's obvious, that republics should be made more powerful for beterr balanced gameplay.
My suggestions :
1. reduce the influence of lack of RT on stability cost. 200 % is really much.
2. Republics should have lower war exhaustion, when fighting defensive wars, especially with high republican tradition. (It's pretty logical - free people don't want to lose their freedoms).
3. Maybe republics shouldn't suffer tradition hit when annexing vassals. It can be really painful. But if negative effects of lack of RT are reduced it might not matter that much.
4. Plutocracy should be exclusive to republic. Want to switch back to monarchy?
Enjoy your aristocratic ideas .

So what do you think? Do you have any other ideas, that are both logical/ historical and allow better gameplay as republic?

1- I find the stability cost fine as is. Personally I never invest ADM points in stab unless I'm going to go over my max. Events and so on are fine for beefing up stability.
2- I like the idea of extra buffs to high republican tradition. A lower WE for high tradition might be too much, still an interesting idea.
3- I agree! 10 points is brutal, but then maybe that's the whole point, don't play as a monarchy
4- How is this a buff to republics?

My only experience with republics has been with Friesland-Netherlands. Granted, that's a rich area with the best trade node which obviously helps, but I did three things in my last play through as them (1.5) and I noticed by the late 1500s these three changes made my nation really powerful.

1 Took plutocracy first for all the varied bonuses and most importantly 10% cheaper tech
2 Switched to noble republic once available for the 10% morale and 8 year election cycle, i.e. only -2 republican tradition per re-election
3 Converted to protestant. I really wanted to RP and go Reformed but random conversions kind of forced my hand

Luck is a factor here in getting a young ruler that you can push up to near 6/6/6, but the savings on ideas + tech means swimming in monarch points. Plus you can royal marry as noble republic, meaning you can be a claimant in a succession war. Just to add, being in the HRE makes tech that much cheaper, but most republics are in the HRE to begin with.

Given that experience I don't follow exactly how inferior republics are or rather how much more advantageous monarchies are. If anything though, republic tradition ought to give more than just RR and stab costs.

 

[solidprice]

Im for any republic buffs. The world is mostly republics now for a reason... not many kings in 2014

 

[TheMeInTeam]

After experimenting with republics in 1.5, I will assert that republics being materially weaker than monarchies is inaccurate on the following grounds:

- Early in the game, spamming re-elections will let you reach an idea group very quickly. For nations like Venice, Genoa, or the Hansa you could use the Connaught route to get to Greenland by 1480.
- Republics have no regencies. Ever. They don't even have a tiny chance of regencies.
- Republic "rookies" have a floor of 6 monarch points. You can't possibly get worse once elections start. Once re-elected once, they produce average MP. Twice, and they're above average. In practice, their output is about what you'd expect on average from monarchies, but far more controllable.
- Re-electing is worth it as long as your ruler will live through the re-election. There is an event at <50 RT that gives you 20 RT for a stab hit. Even without religious ideas, this isn't a bad deal. With them and their -25% stab cost and +stab events, re-election spam is in full swing.
- Low RT has an event that trades 2 RT for 2 Mercantilism. Republics can realistically attain huge mercantilism values, such that their trade power goes crazy.
- If you really, really need RMs, you can use Noble Republics and still get them, at the price of a bit less MP income overall compared to merchant but better morale.

The sheer flexibilty of choice in MP distribution, re-electing into ~average or above MP income, 0% regency chance, and mercantilism gouging make the republics in EU IV a solid government type. I'd take them over monarchies.

The main problem with them is that there aren't any truly powerful ones in the 1444 bookmark. The strongest is Venice, which is an unorthodox nation to take to the new world but a grossly powerful one should you do so. Genoa, the Hansa, Tibet, and possibly Denmark (for later) all have something going on too. Tuscany is reasonable but small...Ulm is painful as it is locked into some of the game's odder tactics to play out.

Keeping Tibet a republic is pretty interesting. You can open 4-1-1 and rotate 1-4-1 --> re-elect rulers whenever you think they'll survive (generals otherwise) and wind up with the ability to colonize pretty early. Once you have it, just re-elect military constantly to get OK income in ADM/DIP and gross income in military that nobody will match. Not only will you be able to colonize, you will also be able to completely and utterly roll everyone in Asia and non-Ottoman Middle East...won't be long until you start seeing stuff like tech 9 vs 6 or 12 vs 9.

At this point, all other factors being equal I'd pick a republic over anything but the lulzy native council and of course the steppe horde, which can manipulate their heirs/rulers something ridiculous...but both of those are limited to inferior tech groups.

 

[Conch]

Republics dont need a buff. For what? Historically there were only a few succuessful republics in the timeframe, and those were only successful because they were rich enough to fight their aggressors. All the other republics eventually died.

 

[sigeena]

After experimenting with republics in 1.5, I will assert that republics being materially weaker than monarchies is inaccurate

Yes. Republics are not materially weaker than monarchies. They handle differently and do not require any buffs.

 

[Tub]

MeInTeam outlines the right way to play republics. On the other hand, it would be nice if there were some deeper mechanics behind re-election - having a defeated candidate come back in a second election, having become a better ruler, for example - and having a building for Republican Tradition would also be great. Just a 0.5 bonus, like Monarchies have with the Royal Palace.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes. Republics are not materially weaker than monarchies. They handle differently and do not require any buffs.

I would like to see more of them, however. There are so few, and almost every single one is western. In the east, even tribals that eventually become republics are scarce.

 

[hyeondrugs]

As I always say, something you don't like, go mod it or get a mod.

 

[DanubianCossak]

So basically everyone knows it is much more advantageous to play as monarch in EU. You can royal marry, PU, diplovassalize, average royal stats are better, than rookie republic leaders, lack of legitimacy is not as damaging as RT, etc.
So it's obvious, that republics should be made more powerful for beterr balanced gameplay.
My suggestions :
1. reduce the influence of lack of RT on stability cost. 200 % is really much.
2. Republics should have lower war exhaustion, when fighting defensive wars, especially with high republican tradition. (It's pretty logical - free people don't want to lose their freedoms).
3. Maybe republics shouldn't suffer tradition hit when annexing vassals. It can be really painful. But if negative effects of lack of RT are reduced it might not matter that much.
4. Plutocracy should be exclusive to republic. Want to switch back to monarchy?
Enjoy your aristocratic ideas .

So what do you think? Do you have any other ideas, that are both logical/ historical and allow better gameplay as republic?

Republics should not be equal to monarchies, if anything, they should be inferior.

2.) - not every form of government thats classified as "republic" automatically equals to our modern understanding of a republic - meaning there isnt necessarily "personal freedom" that common people would wanna defend. It might just mean its pretty much an oligarchic monarchy (where kind is not replaced by his heir, but by a chosen/elected noble).
4.) I think rather plutocratic should be renamed / reshaped into something else. For example "meritocracy". Your idea could work as well, but i think if we can avoid making stuff exclusive thats probably for the best.

Also id give both republics and monarchies ability to diplo vassalise each other. Republics should be able to do that to monarchies, if they are much bigger. So, you go into a sort of relation with some OPM kingdom, once its ruler die, you inherit them.

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

4- How is this a buff to republics?

It's more aimed at players who switch to republics to get pluto and then switch back to monarchy.

Generally speaking the lack of good diplomatic options for republics is the biggest killer. Hell even something like royal marriage might get you that crucial +25 relations you need to ally some important power. No PU, diplovassalization and problems with vassal annexing (RT hit) just make it even worse.




[/QUOTE]

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Noble republics can RM and diplovassal, however.

RT hit on vassal annexing is minimal unless you're spamming little guys.

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

Noble republics can RM and diplovassal, however.

RT hit on vassal annexing is minimal unless you're spamming little guys.

If you are in HRE (Netherlands, Hansa, Italians) you'll have many small vassals, especially with high post 1.5 AE in Empire. Also while Noble republics have more diplomatic options, their 8 years long election cycle is too long. Most of my leaders seem to begin in 45-55 years old range, that's one reelection at most.

 

[Conch]

Also id give both republics and monarchies ability to diplo vassalise each other. Republics should be able to do that to monarchies, if they are much bigger. So, you go into a sort of relation with some OPM kingdom, once its ruler die, you inherit them.

Thats the most a-historical idea I have read of for quite a while. No monarch in Europes feudal system would ever accept a republican overlord. How in hell can one suggest that?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Thats the most a-historical idea I have read of for quite a while. No monarch in Europes feudal system would ever accept a republican overlord. How in hell can one suggest that?

I prefer such suggestions accompanied by "our military thinks it would be a good idea".

 

[DanubianCossak]

Thats the most a-historical idea I have read of for quite a while. No monarch in Europes feudal system would ever accept a republican overlord. How in hell can one suggest that?

Say youre a German OPM surrounded by France eating German OPMs and you also have 50 provinces sized Hansa as your only neighbor. Whats better? Being Hansa's vassal or being eaten by France?

 

[aitaituo]

I would like to see more of them, however. There are so few, and almost every single one is western. In the east, even tribals that eventually become republics are scarce.

In a Ming game, by the time I discovered Europe there was about 15 republics and Bavaria kept using R&CR to make more OPM republics. Most of them were noble republics, of course, but half a dozen switched to merchant republics later.

 

[smellymummy]

In a Ming game, by the time I discovered Europe there was about 15 republics and Bavaria kept using R&CR to make more OPM republics. Most of them were noble republics, of course, but half a dozen switched to merchant republics later.

I wonder what happens if every member of the HRE become republics. Would the HRE just disappear?

 

[aitaituo]

I wonder what happens if every member of the HRE become republics. Would the HRE just disappear?

Republics can be Princes and Prince-Electors just fine. I think I've heard that the Emperor can be a republic if Erblkaisertum is passed or there are no electors when the Emperor's nation switches governments.

 

[gaius valerius]

So basically everyone knows it is much more advantageous to play as monarch in EU. You can royal marry, PU, diplovassalize, average royal stats are better, than rookie republic leaders, lack of legitimacy is not as damaging as RT, etc.

Ehm no.

- Noble Republics can RM. But other Republics are better anyway.
- Diplovassalising you are correct, but you can still vassalise through war easy enough, the former mechanic has been subjected to change by default anyways in recent patches.
- Lack of RT? Just keep it above 70-80 at all times, is easy as pie.
- Stability is always better as a Republic due to good events and overal lack of negative ones compared to monarchies (you constantly take stab hits when your retard monarchs die - even worse when at war).
- Plutocratic Ideas. Nuff' said.
- Tech... It is insane how easy it is to be the best in all tech levels and Idea groups throughout the game. You can continuously alter your leader to suit your needs in terms of ideas or tech levels. Fan-friggin-tastic.
- Monarch are better? Not by a longshot. A given if you'd receive the occasional Caesar, Alexander or Johan so to speak, but no... they really aren't. For all those good monarchs you'll be lumped with utter retards more than once as well. Plus: 0 control. So if your monarch sucks balls in military points (even if he is otherwise 4-5-1), you'll lag behind when it matters, while if you were a Republic you'd simply switch leaders as it suits your needs.


The lesson learned? Republics are "once you've gone you know what" material. Monarchies just sucked afterwards. Bad leaders... regency councils... stab hits all the time... bad events... always behind in tech...

Republics on the other hand:

- positive stability all the way
- a good free military leader that can die in a war it doesn't matter at all... you can also continuously pick a new one and never worry 'that he might die faster and cause a stab hit oh noes'...
- what is this stability hit you speak of herp derp?
- always ahead in tech levels and Idea groups. I can keep them up at the same time without ever lagging behind in either (amongst others cause you don't need to care for stability).
- Plutocracy.

Republics are just da bomb. Monarchies have RM as an advantage. RM compared to all the above meant nothing to me though, couldn't get past the frustration of not being the best in my tech and ideas.