How can you say you can control RT? There is no way at all in the hands of a player to do it - ways that are available for monarchies, instead.
Increasing Republican Tradition?
- Thread starter Tub
- 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.
How can you say you can control RT? There is no way at all in the hands of a player to do it - ways that are available for monarchies, instead.
RT automatically increase +1 each year or more. There are, as I remember, almost no event to drop RT, only event for you to choose to drop RT or lost something else (and you should choose to lose something else). And RT only drop when you choose to keep the old leader in election. Don't be greedy on elections, too!!
Electing new leaders, choosing +RT instead of -RT in events?
That said, to me RT is a resource to be spent, unlike legitimacy, which is a resource to be kept high. If I have 100 legitimacy, I am happy. If I have 100 RT I need to spend more.
One sad side-effect is that vassal-fed expansion is rather more expensive for a republic; annexing 5 vassals when your king is old is a perfectly useful way to use his heir's claim strength, but for a republic kills off monarchpower. So a republic has to settle for expanding more focused in rich lands, while a monarchy can just spam annexations whereever it goes; taking over Germany via vassal-feeding is possible for a monarchy, but a republic will probably want to insert more direct annexations (since 10 RT can give easily more than 1-3 provinces' worth in ADM while also adding MIL and DIP power).
Nah, the Ambrosian Republic is just sneaky: free chance to get a 6/6/6 (or close) ruler by re-electing him quickly, and then go straight back to monarchy.
Ok I see. I still think republics are not worse than monarchies. One can choose the path to follow, e.g. if I picked a group of military ideas, I can elect and re-elect the Military candidate and get that group researched really quick. There's no regency councils, stab hits upon monarch death, bad kings ruling for 40 years.
They don't suck, they're just not supposed to stay as Republics. The Ambrosian Republic is amazing as a stopover on the way to monarchy. You can take plutocracy, then reelect your same ruler, and with the short election cycle, you end up with a young monarch with great stats and the best idea group when you convert back.
I feel it would be more compelling in terms of gameplay (and also more historical) if holding a republic together becomes extremely difficult as your empire explodes in size. Conversely, it should be much easier when you're small to elect the same person to office for multiple terms.
Also, decisions giving you the option to put a more impressive candidate into office would actually incentivize re-election. As it stands, the only time I ever opt for re-election is to keep the starting ruler in there an extra term. For the other 98% of the game my RT goes into vassal annexation.
Also, decisions giving you the option to put a more impressive candidate into office would actually incentivize re-election. As it stands, the only time I ever opt for re-election is to keep the starting ruler in there an extra term. For the other 98% of the game my RT goes into vassal annexation.
However, the initial Republic doges are pretty bad, 4-1-1 is pretty bad, and on top of that you have to give up republican tradition, which increases your stab costs, to go higher. Thats not even considering the government and legitimacy bonuses which are superior to Republics.
This would just make Republics even worse and Monarchies more of a default nobrainer choice.