Because Republican Dictatorship is the ONLY republic without elections - think Cromwell. You chose the ONLY republic that hasn't them.
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.
Because Republican Dictatorship is the ONLY republic without elections - think Cromwell. You chose the ONLY republic that hasn't them.
Because Republican Dictatorship is the ONLY republic without elections - think Cromwell. You chose the ONLY republic that hasn't them.
Cool
So is there any reason (apart from role playing) to choose it over Absolute Monarchy?
You take quite a small stabhit (-1) if you go there from administrative Republic, so when you get the inevitable 9-9-9 leader and have reasonable stabrecovery you can just switch to a dictatorship. Going back however is a different matter.Cool
Did it twice. This does not need so much luck, just one core in either smolensk or chernigov(If you take smolensk early, along with bryansk, while you could not get core on those provinces, you can just rely on luck to get core on chernigov - and if you don't you will still be able to form russia around 1460). Count that you should just conquer smolensk in first 10 years, so if you don't get core quickly you can just forget waiting for the mission, and take it anyway, and take bryansk in order to be able gain a core on chernigov. So then novgorod won't form russia before like 1490 imho(they need some time to get cores on other russian countries, and i doubt that they would try to conquer too fast(infamy here - and infamy kills trade, so even if you can burn 1 infamy per year, you will conquer like 4 non core porvinces in 8 years, and as you won't rather attack without CB, i means you will spent few years for finding it on muscowy, and it will take at least 2 wars (for 24 infamy, or if you get 1 or 2 lucky cores for 16 infamy) it will take like about 20 years at least. you will get cores on those provinces by 1470. Also it is very propable that golden horde will troll and eat muscowy and all the russian minors, that you did not ate, which mean you will have to wait to 1450(to get enough big tech gap) which mean you won't form russia before 1510(few years are needed for colonization). And even if they don't eat the minors, there is a big chance you will lack few cores needed to form russia before like 1490.
I have never had any problem with hitting the roof in terms of infamy until the 1600's. The main problems in early game is lack of safe targets to declare on (especially if start as a minor with no foreign cores).
It's not that relevant. We are comparing government systems and not comparing Switzerland with say.. France.
PU's only come out big in later game when you are in a good position to force PU on larger countries. Otherwise, the potential benefits of early boundary disputes is too good to pass up on.
Also, nobody said one should stick with republic forever. For instance, I went Noble Republic -> Absolute Monarchy in some of my games.
TGH is not that hard to deal with if you are a larger country, especially if they are also at war with others. I've dealt with them and the Timurids countless times when I pulled early invasions on Anatolia.
Yes, ask around and see who actually sticks close to their infamy limit most of the time. I don't, except for the scramble for China/India right before 1650.
Well here monarchy got better chances due to PU's. Also any monarchy can become the HRE, and because so, it means another gain here.
Well actualy it is because goverment is not only a thing of what, but where, and when.
Actualy PU's are easier to aquire early on when there are lot of empty thrones, and early PU is just better as it gives you chance for earlier inhertance. Also boundary dispute are completly random (you might get none despite having 9 diplo ruler for whole game, or get 50(ok not realy) of them each year somehow) while you are almost guaranteed to be able to gain few PU's right from the start if you focus on them(because you can claim the thrones).
Easy if you are turkey which got quite good units, but not realy as western/eastern countries which unless extreme cirtumstances, got little chances with GH. And GH i starts at war with:
Muscowy which is weak and will give up quickly.
Georgia which is surrounded by 3 hordes.
Genoa which got 4 provinces, 2 of them bordering, and got no chances fighting it.
Poland-Lithuania, which does not have army big enough to kill them off - and as lithuania is AI, when player is poland, it means AI will just kill off it's armies and poland if it is AI will just be derp, and if player, it will just peace out.
So at best hungary, will border poland, and moldavia, at worst, it will border GH, and be THE ONLY country fighting it. Or there will be also OE, but as AI just lose as OE, we may just ignore it.
Well sometimes you just need to gain infamy, for example to not let someone else to take your things. Or to form russia in 1414.
PU's are flimsy things that are not really to be relied upon. And nobody said you shouldn't switch to monarchy when you want to be the HRE.
Like Pommerania switching to noble republic after leaving the HRE to get boundary disputes/conquest missions?
i suppose that'd be the case for larger countries (which are boring to start with anyway). I always start with minors these days, so early PU's are usually not an option. You are right that boundary disputes are pretty random, but I usually quite consistently get them with a 7+ diplo ruler.
I don't always build Muslim units when in Turkey. There's definitely a luck factor involved (i.e. whether or not they pile all the troops on you), but there's always an option to concede defeat/pay tribute.
Yeah like DoWing Byzantium on day 1 with no CB.
Well i may be pretty lucky cause i tend to get good diplo ruler from time to time being just a monarchy. Also, monarchies are quite entertaining with pretender rebels spawining when you got low legitimacy ruler.
Also just found out something that is important for middle sized and bigger countries:
Merchant republic, got 0,4 magistrates yearly.
Feudal monarchy, got 0,5 magistrates yearly.
So as we see Feudal monarchy is better in magistrates. Same we got for absolute monarchy and republican dictatorship. Same with constitutional republic and constitutional monarchy(see - separation of powers).
Actualy biggest bonuses Republican gov have is +10% to TE(Admin Rep)(With the 5.2 patch if you will make like 100 T6 builidngs it is useless bonus - if not then it means ur quite weak) and +20% to PE(I say quite usefull)(Const Rep). Rest is just elections.
Also just found out something that is important for middle sized and bigger countries:
Merchant republic, got 0,4 magistrates yearly.
Feudal monarchy, got 0,5 magistrates yearly.
So as we see Feudal monarchy is better in magistrates. Same we got for absolute monarchy and republican dictatorship. Same with constitutional republic and constitutional monarchy(see - separation of powers).
Actualy biggest bonuses Republican gov have is +10% to TE(Admin Rep)(With the 5.2 patch if you will make like 100 T6 builidngs it is useless bonus - if not then it means ur quite weak) and +20% to PE(I say quite usefull)(Const Rep). Rest is just elections.
Last edited:
Sure that means you get 1 extra magistrate per every 10 years. It may mean a little after early game.
And as I've said before, the preference for republics (noble republics in particular) is mainly prior to absolute monarchy.
And as I've said before, the preference for republics (noble republics in particular) is mainly prior to absolute monarchy.
Well still until PU's became no more random, and legitimacy kicked in, republics were better mostly, except for few decisions only for monarchy in IN.
You're trying to force your viewpoint on everyone.
Again, I played both Muscowy and Novgorod and find last easier if forming Russia is not my top priority.
Sorry for hijacking thread to other folks.
Early colonial expansion, being it into horde lands or simple colonization, is a costly undertaking and will pay earliest 100 years later. If you prefer extensive expansion by conquest, diplomacy or colonization, logistical problems will arise. Smaller nations are easier to defend unless facing something like France that doesn't have anything else to do. You can focus on BB free expansion and development of your provinces. One well developed province with base tax 8 is far better than 3-5 colonies, many of which are in 1-2 base tax range (most of Siberia, Canada, parts of S.A., Africa). Add to that growing tech and stability costs and even ~4 lvl 6 trade buildings will have hard time to compensate for aquired crap. Again, this is not a new discussion. I played different types of games, and prefer medium sized countries with well develped infrastructure to a colonizing/conquering monsters having 400+ underdeveloped provinces, where 50%+ of the army is guarding against rebels or 'friends'. Again, even with half as many magistrates, 20-30 province nation is far easier to fully develop than is to build lvl 6 trade in 200+ empire. Even trade increase will hardly compensate for tech slow rate beside other assorted problems, since with reasonable trade policy smaller nations will have far better trade income percent-wise. With ever existing tech gap, every military tech advance giving tactical bonuses and/or better units give an opportunity to cripple a blob a bit, even if their combined armies are 3-4 times larger than yours.
Well, tech is not everything, also sibir =/= colonies. Also remember that tech cost increase stop becoming bigger from 8 provinces size. So even those underdeveloped provinces might actualy increase your tech speed, aspecialy if you got nice trade goods in those provinces(IE gold, furs, iron, cooper). Also, all altaic(one reason to colonize all hordes as russia) provinces, when they get converted to "right" religion easily change to russian culture. Also this allows you to monopolize great part of whole world trade(whole russia, siberia, astrakhan, possibly china, korea, and so). I see no way how it would be wrong income wise.
I prefer monarchy in real life over democracy. Considering who wins on election... guy who has most money so he can advertise him self like some kind detergent: "Vote for me and I promise better life!" ...at the end of mandate, he is full of money but situation in country is the same or worse. So having that in mind I always play as monarchy even if I have to bear 50 years with a retarded monarch. The best monarchy for me is a constitutional monarchy! With that I can maintain 100 prestige also taking decision Separation of Powers it gives more bonus.
P.S. I play role play.
P.S. I play role play.
Sorry i am wrong : I ment : After 8 provinces tech cost stop to grow so fast as when it grow from 1 to 8 provinces. And the growth compared to income increase stop matter at some moment.
If my memory serves, it still increases linearly, which makes chomping on grain/wool provinces a bad idea until post offices.
Yes, but only by a little value. And some provinces you take NOT for the income. Some provinces you just take so that other won't take them. And except the path from tambow to astrakhan there are many nice provinces in crimea(2 salt provinces, kaffa with wine, and iron voronezh), and sibir with fur provinces, and kazakh with another salt provinces (and do you know : Who is biggest salt producer atb of the game? Kazakh of course somehow).
If I'm a small state that focuses on trade, I also find it very important to switch over to a republic early on, because a 3-5 administration ruler really hurts your trading :S Also colonization.
Well thumbs up, but if i am big expansionic country it is better to be monarchy, as it saves you revolts, and brings higher infamy limit. So muscowy russia is MUCH better than novgorod(if you play well).