• 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.

Tornadoli

Cool custom title
23 Badges
Apr 22, 2008
1.351
249
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Stellaris
  • Semper Fi
  • Island Bound
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
One thing the game is missing is the fear of losing power. Generally, going republic is the obvious choice: you can choose your leaders, the leaders are better, and the bonuses are better. In real life though, republics didn't prevail until very late, because the ruling class didn't want to lose its power. What if EU4 would implement a similar mechanic? Republics would be better, but the player couldn't do whatever he wants. For instance, he might need parliament's consent to declare war. Creating a too large army might spark protests against militarization, or a too small army might spark protests against the weakening of the nation (depending on what the public mood is). Prestige should also fall quite often due to "scandals", lost wars (more than in non-republics), even lost battles. Perhaps restrict player's ability to just change investment from eg. 100% land to 100% naval. In general, the player should want to balance more bonuses vs. losing power.
 
What about merchant or noble republic? In those you dont exactly need a "parliament", its more like a group or wealthy and powerful merchants/aristocrats who choose ruler among themselves (there are even some historic cases of feudal monarchies where nobles would pick the ruler, i understand thats the case in Scandinavian countries and Poland/Lithuania). As you can see, its very hard to generalize about things. Most of the stuff you mention would apply for something like constitutional republic (which one of the last forms of government i believe?).

But yeah i agree, some level of internal dynamics within all forms of government, not only republics, would be a very nice thing to have indeed.
 
EU Rome's republic system would be great. Maybe simplified a bit more
 
Less power for republics? I'd think the inability to benefit from legitimacy and the inability to have PUs/inheritences is a pretty damn fair tradeoff for more control over rulers.
 
Monarchs are also able to diplovassilize at no BB cost if they have a royal marriage, great relations, same religion, and an alliance with smaller states. You can't do that as a Republic because of the royal marriage requirement, which I found a real disadvantage, and one that doesn't really make sense to me. Republics should be allowed to diplovassilize just as monarchies can.
 
In EU3, Republics lag behind Monarchies - monarchs have little to no real effect, so trading their choice for legitimacy/PU/RM is a bad choice. I DO regularly switch to republic, but it is personal preference - there's no real reason to do it.
 
Monarchs are also able to diplovassilize at no BB cost if they have a royal marriage, great relations, same religion, and an alliance with smaller states. You can't do that as a Republic because of the royal marriage requirement, which I found a real disadvantage, and one that doesn't really make sense to me. Republics should be allowed to diplovassilize just as monarchies can.

Seconded. Imagine Ulm or the Hansa with the ability to diplomatically annex other nations..
 
In EU3, Republics lag behind Monarchies - monarchs have little to no real effect, so trading their choice for legitimacy/PU/RM is a bad choice. I DO regularly switch to republic, but it is personal preference - there's no real reason to do it.
The ability to choose and the high turnover can be very useful if you need a certain quality of leader for a certain reason, but yeah.
 
Another advantage for monarchs is that you can see how good your heir is. So i you can see your heir is AMAZING, yo can just make your current king a commander and send him off to his death. Likewise, if your heir is incompetent, you can choose event ptions where he's likely to die.

As a republic, you can't really control how good your next leader will be, ultimately.
 
A simple fix would be to give the earlier forms of republic higher chances of getting civil war or coup events. The Italian city states were anything if stable.
 
A simple fix would be to give the earlier forms of republic higher chances of getting civil war or coup events. The Italian city states were anything if stable.

Monarchies already have disproportionate stability enhancing modifiers relative to republics. I can dig up the post where I detail all the stab-hit reducing things restricted only to monarchies

Edit: Sorry I meant Revolt Risk

Anyway, I found it:

Legitimacy gives -3 RR and Tolerance gives -4 RR (instead of -3 for republics). On top of all that, three decisions are available only to monarchists: Formalization Separation of Powers (-2 RR), Combination Act (-1 RR), Dissolution Act (-1 RR). So That's a 8 point reduction of revolt risk that republics can never have. Meanwhile, Republics only get Republican Cultural Sufference, which gives -0.5 RR!
 
Last edited:
The biggest thing I'd like to see is that early republics can select a leader, but not get to change them every 4 or 8 years. Select the leader once, then you're stuck with him, just like history. Doges were elected for life, as were the other early republics in Europe.
 
People amaise me.

Republic allows you to select leader every 4-5 years, and re-elect high-stats ruler untill his death.

It means, in particular, you`re very easy to pass certain reforms, requiring the ruler skill, you het huge bonus to BB reduction, since you can be at very good diplomacy ruler all the time. Even 3 level stat difference, which is hardly a stretch, gives you -3.3BB every 10 years, and -33 BB over 100 years, and ~-140bb over the course of the game. The difference is huge.

While Monarchs can have PUs, unless you go into the gamey PU-abuse, you will not get that many PUs, maybe 1-3, which doesn`t make up for high-diplomacy rullers that you will get a plenty with Republic.

While you get -RR with monarch, you usually have negative RR anyways.

Also, there is Noble republic, that afaik allows marriage.

The diplovasalise may look cool, but it is only usefull in rare circumstances.

Not to mention that, if you play non-western nation, you need to westernise, and the elective ruler becomes golden.
 
On the one hand: chosign your leader.

On the other: Personal unions (even if you don't abuse them, they happen, and are a significant advantage), diplomatic vassalization (same), legitimacy (huge!).

I'm amazed that someone would even think the comparison in any way favor republics.
 
People amaise me.

Republic allows you to select leader every 4-5 years, and re-elect high-stats ruler untill his death.

It means, in particular, you`re very easy to pass certain reforms, requiring the ruler skill, you het huge bonus to BB reduction, since you can be at very good diplomacy ruler all the time. Even 3 level stat difference, which is hardly a stretch, gives you -3.3BB every 10 years, and -33 BB over 100 years, and ~-140bb over the course of the game. The difference is huge.

While Monarchs can have PUs, unless you go into the gamey PU-abuse, you will not get that many PUs, maybe 1-3, which doesn`t make up for high-diplomacy rullers that you will get a plenty with Republic.

While you get -RR with monarch, you usually have negative RR anyways.

Also, there is Noble republic, that afaik allows marriage.

The diplovasalise may look cool, but it is only usefull in rare circumstances.

Not to mention that, if you play non-western nation, you need to westernise, and the elective ruler becomes golden.

You're underestimating diplovassilizing and RM. I managed to own the entirety of France and Spain as Burgundy while controlling the position of emperor in the HRE without declaring a single war, or gaining infamy.

Sure, from a total conquest standpoint, there is a definite advantage for a republic. If you don't want to go on a massive conquest spree, monarchies are typically better, as they allow you to expand peacefully, gain vassals and provide a boost to relations through RM.