Less power for republics

[unmerged(7537)]

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.

Legitimacy and royal marriages carry their own drawbacks (low legitimacy and succession wars, respectively). Not having access to a monarchy-specific game feature and a minor diplomatic option isn't exactly a drawback.

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.

Inheritance is chancy and more often than not you're going to find yourself in a succession war rather than inheriting France.

 

[Sir Tornado]

A senate system for Republics (like Rome) would be awesome. There can be different factions: Bureaucratic/Military/Mercantile each with faction leaders generated like Monarchs are (so you can see their exact stats at any given point) and then the national leader to be elected from among them depending on which faction has the power in the Assembly/Diet/Senate or whatever.

Advantages: Since leaders now have bigger effects, you could manipulate the senate and select the exact leader you want from among the faction heads.
Disadvantage: Senate's approval would be required for things like declaring a war, signing agreements etc...

 

[Alerias]

Ehh, less power for republics?

I feel whats needed is the other way around. I was a proponent of a new EU3 expansion giving Republics what HTTT gave monarchies; unique mechanics letting them be potentially stronger, because as it stands right now, only time I want to switch to a Republic is to avoid decades of regencies if say a young heir dies, and I go back to Monarchy ASAP.

Legitimacy and royal marriages carry their own drawbacks (low legitimacy and succession wars, respectively). Not having access to a monarchy-specific game feature and a minor diplomatic option isn't exactly a drawback.

Its a HUUUGE drawback. Legitimacy is easy to keep up, and gives big bonuses. ALOT of early expansion is driven by royal marriages. Finally, monrachies enable PUs, the best form of rapid expansion in the game. Republics dont even come close. They need much more to be competitive.

 

[Tornadoli]

Republics are rather late-game developments anyway, when PUs matter far less. The reason why countries didn't switch to republics was that the ruling power didn't want to lose power, and this could be simulated by giving the player himself less power, so he'd have an incentive to actually fight against turning into a republic.

 

[vyshan]

Republics are rather late-game developments anyway, when PUs matter far less. The reason why countries didn't switch to republics was that the ruling power didn't want to lose power, and this could be simulated by giving the player himself less power, so he'd have an incentive to actually fight against turning into a republic.

the italian city states during the renaissance may dissagree with you there. they were republics after all.

 

[Atlanteax]

the italian city states during the renaissance may dissagree with you there. they were republics after all.

City-states, yep ... not 'nations' as the general EU3 state behave as.

 

[Merrick Chance']

the italian city states during the renaissance may dissagree with you there. they were republics after all.

And they turned into Duchies over time because they were dreadfully unstable.

 

[Derp]

Legitimacy and royal marriages carry their own drawbacks (low legitimacy and succession wars, respectively). Not having access to a monarchy-specific game feature and a minor diplomatic option isn't exactly a drawback.


Inheritance is chancy and more often than not you're going to find yourself in a succession war rather than inheriting France.

Low legitimacy is a valid point but considering how easy it is to raise I assume most players will spend the majority of their time in the upper ranges.

As far as succession wars go I have not seen a single one despite having clocked roughly 2000 hours in EU3. On the flip side I've inherited quite a bit of territory over the course of that time.

In any case, it helps to distinguish the two forms of government:
Monarchies can be extremely powerful but are very random in nature
Republics are much less dependent on luck but miss out on the powerful options monarchy brings

I feel this is a pretty good dichotomy in terms of gameplay. Both have their benefits and both have their drawbacks.

 

[Kingepyon]

Inheritance is chancy and more often than not you're going to find yourself in a succession war rather than inheriting France.

I would agree, except I've never had an inheritance war, and I've inherited quite a few countries. So it can be while chancy, but most of the time nothing happens.

It's still not enough reason to say republics are OP. They both have definite advantages, but it depends on play style and the type of game you want to play.

In any case, it helps to distinguish the two forms of government:
Monarchies can be extremely powerful but are very random in nature
Republics are much less dependent on luck but miss out on the powerful options monarchy brings

I feel this is a pretty good dichotomy in terms of gameplay. Both have their benefits and both have their drawbacks.

Yes, this.