But the trade novgorod gets helps very much in staying up in tech with other players in multi as well
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.
The main reasons for Muscovy to be better than Novgorod are:
1. Better starting monarch
2. Missions
Add to this :
Decisions(militia act, librium veto)
-4 RR
+1 growth
-10% stab cost
much better position to form russia
Better economy because of missions (+1 to tax and + to manpower in provinces you conquer + cores)
You still can trade if you want (actualy novgorod is not the greatest trader).
More Magistrates
So... do you still think novgorod is better anyone?
It's not because it doesn't have Muscovy's super missions.
The perks of being a republic are election and faster slider moves, which make it easier to deal with overextension and Westernization. At start, magistrate growth doesn't really matter and RR is usually not a big problem until you get big. While PU's are great, forming Russia doesn't seem that hard for Muscovy or Novgorod and just eating the BB isn't so bad considering how all those free cores and horde lands are going to make it very hard to find things to burn BB on for a while.
Also nobody should take librium veto ever, its basically one slider move away from westernization....
Well it is not so bad, also if you have 8+ WE(which is one its requirements), you clearly gain from taking librium veto (and the army it brings, is very helpfull).
EDIT: And mostly i reach required sliders before i can westernize ussualy anyway, due to the fact you need to be 20 techs behind.
Interesting, so you do 7 Centra-slidermoves+whatever amount of Inno you will need (probably 3 or so, but there is always patron of the arts) before you get 20 techs behind as muscovy, interesting.
Yes, exactly. But don't forget formin russia gives you +2 centralization or something?
Plus if you got PoA, well...
He must be an excellent player. I always fall behind greatly when I blob, so being 20 techs behind is easily achievable.
Personal unions and random inheritances are so incredibly powerful choosing monarchy is really a no-brainer, if you intend on doing any expanding. Republics really need something to counteract that.
Monarchies are usually best because of PU's and royal marriages. I only use republics for roleplay reasons or if I'm a colonial power and don't expand into Europe, like an isolationist GB.
Well, nope the problem is just that i don't fall behind quickly enough - and the fact my western neigbours, are not so good at tech.
Also as I sad, poland just need to take bohemian lands. The reason is - tech - free univeristy in Prague, and nice tax boost does help for teching. Also i just easily get 6 land tech advisor due the fact i fight a bit. And this is reason why you take crimea. Actualy i would trade Crimea for Ruthenia(this is most crappy province poland got).
Also, as poland you can reach sliders for westernization in like 1460 or something around. As russia i am not sure, didn't played yet long enough in DW.
Well it isn't about westernization either.
Still, it is about monarchies. Which imho win for every country, that is not small like a peanut shell.
Monarchies are good for large, stable powers who do a lot of diplomacy (royal marriages are awesome) and operate heavily within their own culture group. The ideal situation for a monarchy of this sort is to have a tight network of allies and be able to get involved in everything that goes on in their region on one side or another. Monarchy allows for diplomacy by royal marriage, and for high legitimacy to give high tolerance, low RR and a stability discount. Also, once you hit the midgame, Absolute Monarchy changes the entire game by allowing you to effectively act as a crusader in-religion. Finally, if you have a chance to go for the Imperial crown, then go monarchy immediately and don't look back (is this even a question?).
Republics are good for microstates (who have nothing to gain from Monarchy unless they're trying to go for a PU), for colonizing powers in America and Africa (who need skilled rulers much more than they need to be able to dip with European states) and for HRE powers (who want DIP 9 for boundary disputes). Colonizers have a very different playstyle from in-religion expansionists; they don't need to deal with PUs or royal marriages, they don't have as much interest in fighting Europeans, and a low-ADM ruler is exceedingly bad for them. In addition, while it usually doesn't matter by this point, Constitutional Republic is a gift from God if you're going to colonize. (One exception, however. America's production values are insanely high. A case could be made for using Administrative Monarchy; in fact, if I'm planning to stay in Europe after colonizing, I often go for Administrative Monarchy until I get a junk monarch or my legitimacy collapses, whichever comes first.)
Now, the really tricky part is crusading powers. If Sweden, Castile, Byzantium or the Mughals want to march east, or the Ottomans or Vijayanagar want to march west, there's an argument for either monarchy or republic. A high-legit monarchy is very good for quelling revolts, and this is one of the few situations where a high Infamy limit matters (because if you're gobbling Asia wholesale, you will be getting infamy faster than you can burn it). Also, Absolute Monarchy. On the other hand, overextension because of low-ADM rulers sucks, maintaining legitimacy at high badboy and high WE is a royal pain (pun intended), and a Republic always has top tolerance for heretics and heathens. Here, I think it comes down to individual cases. Byzantium wants a monarchy if it's going to tangle with the Muslims, while I'd argue that the Mughals will have an easier time if they switch to Administrative Republic.
Republics are good for microstates (who have nothing to gain from Monarchy unless they're trying to go for a PU), for colonizing powers in America and Africa (who need skilled rulers much more than they need to be able to dip with European states) and for HRE powers (who want DIP 9 for boundary disputes). Colonizers have a very different playstyle from in-religion expansionists; they don't need to deal with PUs or royal marriages, they don't have as much interest in fighting Europeans, and a low-ADM ruler is exceedingly bad for them. In addition, while it usually doesn't matter by this point, Constitutional Republic is a gift from God if you're going to colonize. (One exception, however. America's production values are insanely high. A case could be made for using Administrative Monarchy; in fact, if I'm planning to stay in Europe after colonizing, I often go for Administrative Monarchy until I get a junk monarch or my legitimacy collapses, whichever comes first.)
Now, the really tricky part is crusading powers. If Sweden, Castile, Byzantium or the Mughals want to march east, or the Ottomans or Vijayanagar want to march west, there's an argument for either monarchy or republic. A high-legit monarchy is very good for quelling revolts, and this is one of the few situations where a high Infamy limit matters (because if you're gobbling Asia wholesale, you will be getting infamy faster than you can burn it). Also, Absolute Monarchy. On the other hand, overextension because of low-ADM rulers sucks, maintaining legitimacy at high badboy and high WE is a royal pain (pun intended), and a Republic always has top tolerance for heretics and heathens. Here, I think it comes down to individual cases. Byzantium wants a monarchy if it's going to tangle with the Muslims, while I'd argue that the Mughals will have an easier time if they switch to Administrative Republic.
Westernization was mentioned because of the faster slider changes of republic. OTOH, Polish conquest of the slawic kingdom of Blobhemia or wassalization of minors are totally irrelewant subjects.
The gentleman after you explained the pros and cons quite well. There's also the Revolutionary & Counter Revolution CB.
Well, coming up on Government 53, there's actually an incentive for European countries to become a monarchy.
Temporarily, as it were.
Monarchies are better if you wish to expand inside of the HRE as a German country, as inherited PU's give you free cores. I'm playing as a blobby Brandenburg now with Austria and Prussia in a PU. Couldn't do nearly this well as a republic.
Something to remember is that the first "real" Republic becomes available at Gov 19, so in general you have plenty of time to inherit the first batch of PU's before you are even able to switch. And if you play your cards right then you have probably run out of viable PU-Targets before that.