Why Change from Republic to Monarchy?

[lars573]

It's a game, not an 18th century political simulator. CA took it to where they wanted it. And you and they don't agree on the final outcome. Really your choices are 1) live with it 2) see if it can be changed and change it.

[al Roumi]

It's a game, not an 18th century political simulator. CA took it to where they wanted it. And you and they don't agree on the final outcome. Really your choices are 1) live with it 2) see if it can be changed and change it.

Yes indeed and frankly I've no choice but to lump it and exploit it.

[Subotan]

Revolutions need to be fixed, as if the population rose up against a government, not only would

A. Some soldiers switch sides
B. The revolution would have more support than a few guys with ancient arquebuses

But the whole political climate of the world would change. Countries you are allied with won't just think "Oh, there's been a revolution of the populace in one of the world's superpowers, good thing ideas can't spread and my populace won't get any republican ideas of their own." In my opinion, unrest should spread to other countries after a successful revolution; why do you think everybody in Europe frantically tried to destroy the French revolution? The defeat of such a revolution, e.g. by taking the home region, would automatically put the autocratic monarchy back in place, quell unrest in other countries, and ye olde alliance would be restored.

Besides, there are plenty of examples of revolutions spreading in history, e.g. 1848, 1917 etc. However, the game doesn't represent this at all, and just continues the alliances exactly as before, despite the fact that that would never have happened in reality.

[Fiddling_nero]

Republics don't have access to Household Cavalry. Makes sense, most cavalry are from the noble classes and they are the best sword cavalry in the game.