Why Change from Republic to Monarchy?

[al Roumi]

Why do you want to shift from a republic to a constitutional monarchy?? A republic has the clamour for reform and a research bonus. Const Monarchy has no penalties or bonuses -but longer lived ministers.

Starting as a republic is a definite advantage IMO, despite the bad-will (-15) it generates due to everyone else being an absolute monarchy.

[al Roumi]

sorry, a republic has the lowest clamour for reform of all gov types.

[anweRU]

But a republic has happiness penalties for industrial advances, like absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchy does not. Hence, as a C.M., I can upgrade all of my mines, farms, ports and industrial buildings with almost no garrison units required in my region capitols.

It is yet another one of those game design choices that irritates me, but we won't go there in this thread.

[al Roumi]

But a republic has happiness penalties for industrial advances, like absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchy does not. Hence, as a C.M., I can upgrade all of my mines, farms, ports and industrial buildings with almost no garrison units required in my region capitols.

I have to say (as you can see from my post at the top) that I had understood otherwise; that there was a declining scale of discontent, going from worst to best: Abs. M, C.M., Republic.

Where have you seen that a C.M. gets zero industrial discontent?

And how does that work? I assume schools/universities still cause unrest? So are they the only sources of discontent in a C.M?

If so, I'm appalled and will have to add that to my list of grievances... as you said:

It is yet another one of those game design choices that irritates me, but we won't go there in this thread.

Once we have confirmed what the hell is going on, it would be nice to pull all the data on Govts together...

[SpiritFox]

I haven't been keeping track, but Constitutional Monarchies DEFINITELY receive discontent from schools and universities (Red Flag, Desire for Change). Konigsberg is nearly bursting with revolutionary anger. But that being said, my garrisons are all minimal yet, despite having upgraded everything I have to the 3rd tier (below Factories), I have not experienced any serious trouble in any of my settled provinces. Thus far, I have only upgraded metalworking craft centers in my largest provinces (Warsaw, Konigsberg, Vilnus) to Factories. All three have small garrisons - Warsaw has 6 Winged Hussars, 4 6pdr. Gallopers, 1 Light Dragoon, Vilnus has 3 Uhlans, Konigsberg has 2 Light Dragoons. Konigsberg is also Protestant rather than Catholic owing to my focus on converting the heathen Muslims to my south with my limited religious capacity.

I cannot compare with any of the other government types as I've only played extensively as Poland, but I'm experiencing negligable discontent in most of my cities at this point (Poland, 1749, 98% Industrial Research completed). Some, such as Morovia, aren't garrisoned at all.

[al Roumi]

I think (unable to check at the momment) that it's mostly only the enlightenment techs that have a direct effect on (dis)content. Industrial techs in themselves don't cause discontent until you build whatever they enable -it's the improvement on the campaign map itself that creates industrial discontent.

Enlightenment buildings on the campaign map also cause discontent (like the industrial ones) but enlightenment techs themselves also cause clamour for reform/discontent accross the regions of your empire.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i want to be a cons monarchy so i can get rid of those damned crappy ministers. it is so annoying having to only kick out 1 per turn, and then either
A) another minister with same stars replaces him
or
B)have my well-groomed ministers taken out in elections >:(

[Monk]

Moved from guides' forum.

[SpiritFox]

As far as I'm aware, the same limitations apply to Constitutional Monarchies. I play Poland and I have to run elections every 9 - 10 turns with the risk of having powerful ministers taken out. I can also only eject one minister per turn. Fortunately, I've been lucky so far and I've only ever had three really crappy ministers, all of whom I ejected swiftly.

Perhaps the only thing that doesn't change is the Head of State - but then I haven't had much chance to test out Absolute Monarchies or Republics.

[Megas Methuselah]

Being in an absolute monarchy gives you divine right and POWER.

[Subotan]

Being in an absolute monarchy gives you divine right and POWER.

Also, it's terrible fun to slaughter your populace when they ask for basic needs e.g. the right to vote, free speech, food etc.

[Mr Frost]

Why do you want to shift from a republic to a constitutional monarchy?? A republic has the clamour for reform and a research bonus. Const Monarchy has no penalties or bonuses -but longer lived ministers.

Starting as a republic is a definite advantage IMO, despite the bad-will (-15) it generates due to everyone else being an absolute monarchy.

Absolute monarchies have a big advantage when it comes to ministers . Not only are there no elections as you correctly noticed , but you can freely swap around ministers and choose which "opposition" member you wish to place in your ministry of choice {simply click and drag} .

Have a lackluster treasurer whom would however make a cracking good naval minister then swap them .
The ex-naval minister {now treasury minister} isn't really good for anything but one specific minister has cornered the market of treasury qualifications , swap him up .

You can only boot one minister per turn , but you can swap as many ministers as you want and swapping for an opposition member has the same effect as booting {bad minister gone , new one next turn or so} so in effect you can boot as many as you want each turn .

You can get quite exceptional ministers by careful selection as Absolute Monarch and keep them far longer {especially if you pick them young} thus your empire can actually be more prosperous and stable with some sensible management .

[al Roumi]

Absolute monarchies have a big advantage when it comes to ministers . Not only are there no elections as you correctly noticed , but you can freely swap around ministers and choose which "opposition" member you wish to place in your ministry of choice {simply click and drag} .

Have a lackluster treasurer whom would however make a cracking good naval minister then swap them .
The ex-naval minister {now treasury minister} isn't really good for anything but one specific minister has cornered the market of treasury qualifications , swap him up .

ahem, sorry to contradict you old bean but all government types give you the right to shuffle the ministers in office as you like, for the best or worst effect (i.e. put a crap minister in charge of justice to prompt a revolution).

You can only boot one minister per turn , but you can swap as many ministers as you want and swapping for an opposition member has the same effect as booting {bad minister gone , new one next turn or so} so in effect you can boot as many as you want each turn.

Absolute monarchies can fire all ministers in a single turn, but are limited to a finite "stock" of replacements (visible below the list of ministers in office, where the opposition would be in a republic) that refills itself over time.

A republic can "boot" one minister per turn, but as i mentioned above, you can give those ministers already in government, with a job, a different one as many times as you like in a turn.

You can get quite exceptional ministers by careful selection as Absolute Monarch and keep them far longer {especially if you pick them young} thus your empire can actually be more prosperous and stable with some sensible management .

That certainly is true and is the primary advantage (IMO) of an Abs. Monarchy. Republics can also keep their minsters, as long as they are re-elected every 8 years.

[Mr Frost]

all government types give you the right to shuffle the ministers in office as you like, for the best or worst effect (i.e. put a crap minister in charge of justice to prompt a revolution).
.

Not from the opposition they don't .

Fire up a U.P. game and try to "promote" an opposition member to office without an election .
I'm pretty sure Constitutional Monarchies cannot either .

The advantage is you aren't taking pot luck like you do when you merely boot a bad minister {you still get rid of the bad minister permenantly when swapping for an opposition member} so you get effectivly twice the ministers to chose from and can have the exact opposition minister you want whenever you wish .













As for the booting/turn thing , I didn't realise that because lag in the game after booting means it was several seconds before I could boot annother {just tested it} so when I tried it in play previously , it looked like I could only do one per turn {the button isn't really much brighter when "good to go" than when greyed out} .

[Relic]

I wish it were possible... :(

[Fisherking]

Once you know how to manage the techs and the unrest an Absolute Monarchy is grand.

The other two have those darned elections and you can only replace one minister at a time.

In the Absolute Monarchy you only need to check when they die…though some times the Monarch can be a real drag.

The only time I had a real problem was with Sweden. I had to change, at least at the time, but it was my first go at an Absolute Monarchy and I don’t remember how I handled the techs.

With Austria I had few problems in keeping the old government and building the total tech tree. It just required a close eye on the techs, the buildings, and the garrisons.

The clamor for reform only happens in regions where there are schools. Some regions can be immerging factions and have a higher likelihood to rebel. You don’t want schools there and keep a good garrison along with watching the buildings. You may end up with a church or pleasure palace in quite a few places but it beats loosing control.

[Prussian to the Iron]

absolute is the best IMHO. with republics, you have to be lucky to get good ministers, and if you kick one out and get a worse one, your screwed. with absolute monarchy you can just keep kicking til you find a good one. the only disadvantage i think government wise is probably the fact that if you get a bad king/queen, your stuck with them until death. this is okay if they give no penalties, but when yu have a king giving yuo negative 6 relations, it kinda pisses you off.

[Smellycat]

you can still shuffle ministers between posts in const. mon. I usually kick the worst one every turn untill i an happy with the traits

[Prussian to the Iron]

you can still shuffle ministers between posts in const. mon. I usually kick the worst one every turn untill i an happy with the traits

yeah, but it is only one a turn. and if you kick out a 4 star and get a 3 star its tough toenails. plus you might have a well-groomed cabinet of high star ministers, only to have them replaced every 8 turns. AM you can keep them til death.

[Smellycat]

Ok but even AM gets just one new candidate a turn. If you check the penalties for the govt type you can see that AM has positive impact on nobility and negative on lower classes. Const mon. on other hand has positive impact on both nobility and middle classes. Lots of the traits that are bad in AM like harsh reputation or status quo are good in cons mon since the negatives apply to a class that does not count. Winning an election is essily achieved by giving everyone a tax break just before election hey you only need 51% approval