So can somebody tell me whats so good about Plutocratic?

[PhroX]

Plutocracy's saving grace is its boosts to mana. When you combine its technological bonus with Pluto-Administrative policy (increase republican tradition, which is very hard to come by), you are able to get more monthly mana and expend less mana for increasing tech, allowing you to get the money bonuses for being ahead-of-tech.

Just to note, that policy is utterly awful. The MP gained from re-electing is vastly smaller than the MP spent keeping the policy running.

 

[Me_]

My understanding was that this policy was pretty much the major reason for taking it. Republican Tradition is almost impossible to build up ordinarily. If you can find an artificial source then you'll be swimming in MPs because you can keep re-electing leaders.

+2 republican tradition over the course of 10 years for 120 monarch points is NOT getting you anywhere. It costs more than it gives.

 

[Pornek]

It used to be better when it had -10% techcost. This got gutted and IIRC the events got changed negatively aswell. The boni as youre saying are just average overall and nothing gives you something crucial. Even worse it has no place to be chosen right now.
If I want a military group I pick defensive/offensive, if I want to use it as an economic ideagroup I take quantity.

 

[Aries666]

+2 republican tradition over the course of 10 years for 120 monarch points is NOT getting you anywhere. It costs more than it gives.

This is wrong its costs you 120 adm over 10 years but the +RT means that you get back the adm points and gain 120 of both dip and mil.

Additionally combined with high PP and being Novgorod means you can re-elect almost indefinitely.

 

[Me_]

This is wrong its costs you 120 adm over 10 years but the +RT means that you get back the adm points and gain 120 of both dip and mil.

Additionally combined with high PP and being Novgorod means you can re-elect almost indefinitely.

How exactly is 2 republican tradition going to give you any monarch points? Is there some exploit in play that I don't know about?

The lowest possible cost of reelection is 7 with Ambrosian republic. For those who don't know 2 is less than 7 by 5. The policy does not allow even one reelection in the most opportune situation. It's worthless.

Reelecting in Merchant republic costs 12 RT. The policy would need to be run for 60 years to pay for one reelection. That means 720 points. I'm sorry, but the strategy suggested strategy hurts way more than it gives. This policy is nothing more than a superstition. Some people think that it works, but it's better to just abandon this silly belief.

 

[Aard Vark]

My understanding was that this policy was pretty much the major reason for taking it. Republican Tradition is almost impossible to build up ordinarily. If you can find an artificial source then you'll be swimming in MPs because you can keep re-electing leaders.

You can re-elect your leader almost every time and never have a problem with RT. Just take every +RT option.

 

[Grimgor]

Briefly regarding the republic tradition policy: The point of it, imo, is to allow you to keep your reelected leaders longer. It's not about how long it takes to pay back one re-election, since almost any modifier in that regard will fall on its face, but about longer stretches of re-elected 6/6/6s or the like. Since you can turn the policy on when you want, you can turn it on when your tradition is high anyway and your leader is young, then turn it off if you need the extra bird mana. Additionally, higher tradition decreases unrest

Regarding the idea group itself: It's one of my favorites though I agree that it's not the best. They have permanent manpower reduction, but they have permanent mercantilism increase as well. Also, the idea group events are drawn from a pool of all available events, which increases as you unlock new ideas, so the likelihood of this happening often enough to really impact your game decreases as the game goes on. My point here is not that it's not a shitty event to get, but that the impact of it is surmountable.
The idea group itself is pretty jack-of-all-trades and as a result most of the ideas worse than what you find in more specialised groups, but there are three shiny ones:
The -2 unrest is incredible and stacks monstrously with Humanity, easily resulting in having little to no unrest in newly conquered wrong-culture-and-religion-provinces.
The additional merchant is, I would argue, better for non-merchant republics who WILL take Trade anyway, as well as probably Expansion, and will be rolling in merchants. Rather, it benefits those not normally focused on trade since it allows a 50% increase in available merchants, allowing you to control your local trade for some extra bucks without having to run a country mile for that benefit.
Finally, manpower recovery, the last of the group's good ideas: Recovery is so good. It basically works as a 10% increase in manpower, yes, but it's also a buffer against Peasant's War, since you get back above 25% manpower faster, as well as overall allowing you to completely recover from a devastating war in 9 years instead of 10. 10% is less than you can get elsewhere, yes, but like unrest, it's all about stacking. Hansa with Quantity, Innovation and Plutocracy can go from 0 manpower to party time in 5,5 years, have reduced war exhaustion, extra leaders, plenty of mercs and money to fund the whole thing. They are the Duracell battery of human meat grinders.

 

[fleetothemoon]

Just to note, that policy is utterly awful. The MP gained from re-electing is vastly smaller than the MP spent keeping the policy running.

Good point. For some peculiar reason I thought that was +2 RT per year, instead of +0.2.

Briefly regarding the republic tradition policy: The point of it, imo, is to allow you to keep your reelected leaders longer. It's not about how long it takes to pay back one re-election, since almost any modifier in that regard will fall on its face, but about longer stretches of re-elected 6/6/6s or the like. Since you can turn the policy on when you want, you can turn it on when your tradition is high anyway and your leader is young, then turn it off if you need the extra bird mana. Additionally, higher tradition decreases unrest

Do you think you can come up with a particular scenario where it actually is worth the cost? Since I think even with longer stretches of 6/6/6s, it still won't really return its costs. The whole point of 6/6/6s is to have more get more mana. Unless if the mana expended is less than what we gain from keeping the 6/6/6s, the policy is probably not worth it.

It may still have some value, as a method for converting sword mana into bird and paper mana, but this would be quite a stretch unless if we know the returns and the distribution etc.

 

[Aard Vark]

I can't stress how good +50% available mercenaries is. As a republic with 6/6/6 rulers, at many points in the game you will have a surplus of MP. With good morale, you can chain assault huge countries like France and end wars quickly whilst continuously replenishing your infantry with mercs. Early in the game, this is usually expensive, but early in the game the +6 force limit is a big boost so it's still a great idea.

 

[Grimgor]

Good point. For some peculiar reason I thought that was +2 RT per year, instead of +0.2.



Do you think you can come up with a particular scenario where it actually is worth the cost? Since I think even with longer stretches of 6/6/6s, it still won't really return its costs. The whole point of 6/6/6s is to have more get more mana. Unless if the mana expended is less than what we gain from keeping the 6/6/6s, the policy is probably not worth it.

It may still have some value, as a method for converting sword mana into bird and paper mana, but this would be quite a stretch unless if we know the returns and the distribution etc.

With a 4-year election cycle, without the policy it costs 10 RT to re-elect and you gain 4 back over the years, so 6 per cycle. With it, it's 5,2. This means eight re-elections is 48 RT or 42, giving you an extra re-election for the same RT. That's 32 years, not a completely unreasonable lifespan for a ruler who starts at 30, which quite a few of them do (I have no numbers regarding ruler age, though). 12*32 is 384, the amount of mana you spend keeping the policy in place but one cycle of a 6/6/6 brings in 18*12*4=864 mana, earning you 864-384=480 mana, plus 32 years of 10% increased taxes, which the policy also gives you (though that's not part of the question).

I am not a supermather, so if I did anything wrong do point it out, and I agree the situation requires a bit of luck, but it doesn't seem out of the question for me.

Edit: Added a bit more math, proof-reading and quoting the post I'm responding to.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

With a 4-year election cycle, without the policy it costs 10 RT to re-elect and you gain 4 back over the years, so 6 per cycle. With it, it's 5,2. This means eight re-elections is 48 RT or 42, giving you an extra re-election for the same RT. That's 32 years, not a completely unreasonable lifespan for a ruler who starts at 30, which quite a few of them do (I have no numbers regarding ruler age, though). 12*32 is 384, the amount of mana you spend keeping the policy in place but one cycle of a 6/6/6 brings in 18*12*4=864 mana, earning you 864-384=480 mana, plus 32 years of 10% increased taxes, which the policy also gives you (though that's not part of the question).

I am not a supermather, so if I did anything wrong do point it out, and I agree the situation requires a bit of luck, but it doesn't seem out of the question for me.

Edit: Added a bit more math, proof-reading and quoting the post I'm responding to.

over 4 years with .2 RT/year, you get 4.8 RT back, not 5.2.

But that doesn't matter. 120 ADM for 2 RT is a terrible deal. Republic events are common, and virtually every single one gives you a more favorable trade, even seemingly bad ones. Maintaining a ruler from his 30's until he dies as 6/6/6 is not that difficult to achieve without +RT modifiers, though having them is nice of course.

Edit: While the pluto/economic policy sucks because it costs ADM, if you have a glut of military points you could make a case for the aristocratic/diplomatic one since it costs MIL, effectively channeling MIL into ADM (inefficiently, but still useful if you have almost no useful way of spending excess MIL as an alternative).

 

[Grimgor]

over 4 years with .2 RT/year, you get 4.8 RT back, not 5.2.

The calculation is that you pay 10-4=6 RT under normal circumstances. With the policy, it's 10-4,8=5,2. That was the number I was using.

I will freely admit it's hardly a super deal, but I wouldn't call it terrible since it's a net gain in the end and it has the bonus of being reliable (I also didn't start thinking hard about it until I had to math in the above post). Again, would not call it terrible since it ends in a net gain.

Regarding what type of points it costs, with leader selection and national focus I'd almost say that's irrelevant since you can shift the cost around if you want to. It only becomes relevant if you need the very big numbers.

 

[ChildeR]

(In multiplayer, so this was sort of key.)

You should probably have mentioned that in the OP. Idea group strengths change a lot between MP and SP.

In single player plutocratic gives you good stuff quickly without wasting more valuable ADM/DIP points and so eating into your early game expansion. During the first two ideas its at least as strong as any other MIL group, helping you win wars, while later on it helps with both unrest and money, plus saves a small amount of monarch points as well. It's an easy first choice for many republics, even if not always the best.

 

[ChildeR]

Regarding what type of points it costs, with leader selection and national focus I'd almost say that's irrelevant since you can shift the cost around if you want to. It only becomes relevant if you need the very big numbers.

I'm not so sure. I think the aristocratic-diplomatic policy that gives you RT for MIL is decent precisely because it allows dumping MIL. When I go on a reelect spree I usually have even more extra MIL than monarchies.

 

[Grimgor]

I tend to MIL-dump into Armories and Harsh Treatment. And while the Plut-Econ policy gives +10% taxes as well, while the Ari-Dip gives RT and Legitimacy, making only half of it useful.

EDIT: That being said, I will admit calling all of the points even is jumping the gun a bit and any way you can ease your ADM use is generally good. But when I'm going for 3x6's, I generally find I make enough of any of them that it doesn't really matter.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The calculation is that you pay 10-4=6 RT under normal circumstances. With the policy, it's 10-4,8=5,2. That was the number I was using.

I will freely admit it's hardly a super deal, but I wouldn't call it terrible since it's a net gain in the end and it has the bonus of being reliable (I also didn't start thinking hard about it until I had to math in the above post). Again, would not call it terrible since it ends in a net gain.

Regarding what type of points it costs, with leader selection and national focus I'd almost say that's irrelevant since you can shift the cost around if you want to. It only becomes relevant if you need the very big numbers.

You are claiming a net gain when there is no net gain. To get 10 RT (one re-election) you pay a whopping 480 admin. A 4 year term, even at 6/6/6, is giving 288 of each monarch point stat. In essence, you are funneling ADM into diplo and mil.

But it's not that simple. For example, you get a republic event costing 1 stab or 10 RT. Taking the stab hit and buying it back, even at 40 RT, still costs less ADM than this policy does for one re-election. The trial where you pay 40 of each stat to get 5 RT? IMMENSELY stronger return. The republic is sacred (20 RT for -1 stab)? This is so much better than the policy that it's a laughingstock.

So, for this policy to work out, it must manage the following:

1) You must have a ruler survive long enough to get an extra re-election when you wouldn't have had it otherwise.
2) You must be willing to sacrifice ADM in favor of a bit more diplomatic and military.

All in all, this isn't a significant consideration in choosing plutocratic.

 

[RyanX]

Plutocratic is great for republics because it gives immediate results early game when it matters the most. Is your forcelimit shit? Here's +6FL from the merc pool. Early conquests? Have -2 revolt risk! Need to squeeze more money from trade but trade ideas are dumb and useless? Here's a merchant. Starting your game next to France? Have +0.1 morale. But that's not all folks, when you finish the group you get a nice discount on all further tech!

There aren't all that many groups that would give immediate bonuses to small nations. All other military groups rely on you being already a regional/world power to be of any real use, while most administrative ideas don't give that many bonuses considering your small size early in the game. The only other idea group worth taking as your first would be diplomatic if you're in the HRE.

Plutocratic ideas are a jack of all trades that provide decent (but not great) ideas early on in the game, while retaining some usefulness into the mid/late game as your empire grows.

 

[Grimgor]

You are claiming a net gain when there is no net gain.

There is a net gain in the transfer in the form of additional points. At any rate, I don't think we're in that great of a disagreement. You think it's useless, I think it's marginally useful. It has minor strengths in being reliable (since you decide when it happens) and giving additional tax income. The reliability comes into play if you're doing well, since the Bodyguard event won't fire above 80 RT and the +20 RT won't fire over 50, leaving the Trial of the three real RT giving events and the policy stops none of them from happening. Marginally useful but not worth an extended debate.

 

[Me_]

In the best circumstances (6/6/6) ruler you get 3*72*4+50=914 points from 1 reelection, which costs 5*120=600 points, so it's a gain of 314 points, but you need to get at least to 5/5/5 first, you are getting all 3 points at the cost of 1 type. It's also a net gain at 5/6/5, 4/6/4 and 3/6/3, but the gain diminishes fast, so I guess marginally useful is a good description. A way to control your RT without having to rely on events, but hardly a gamechanger, when all three events offer a much better trade-off and aren't all that rare.

The policy really shines at 6/6/6 and 5/6/5, which means than republics with shorter election cycles that can get there fast, before ruler gets old, benefit from it more. Bad for american republic, weak for merchant, strong for ambrosian, average for the rest. Useless for dutch and bureaucratic despotism.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is a net gain in the transfer in the form of additional points. At any rate, I don't think we're in that great of a disagreement. You think it's useless, I think it's marginally useful. It has minor strengths in being reliable (since you decide when it happens) and giving additional tax income. The reliability comes into play if you're doing well, since the Bodyguard event won't fire above 80 RT and the +20 RT won't fire over 50, leaving the Trial of the three real RT giving events and the policy stops none of them from happening. Marginally useful but not worth an extended debate.

Your claim of net gain only holds true IF the RT allows an extra re-election, which due to other (better deals) means of collecting RT is frequently not the case. If it's not even half the time (and it's hard to get 6/6/6 rulers to live more than a term or two) then rather than a "net gain", you lose. Losing is not a net gain.

Why would you ever be over 80RT? Ideally you're hovering 40-60, and the only time you go higher is if you can't get a ruler in his 30's (long run of bad luck). This isn't always "marginally useful", if you're managing RT decently otherwise it ranges from "bad trade of monarch point emphasis" to "actively harmful".