Verified:

Suicidal Game profile

Member
2256

Mar 11th 2015, 21:12:23

Either bitten by the noob bug, or taking pity on us Stoners: (Monarchy?)

War Machine (#8)
(Monarchy)
Clan: SoL
Rank: 106
Networth: 9,844,405
Land: 10664
Successful Attack Percentage: 100%

Over The Hill Game profile

Member
509

Mar 11th 2015, 22:28:32

Actually it's most costly to maintain a "Tyranny" gov't than it is to maintain a "Monarchy" gov't.

A "Tyranny" gov't doesn't get the 20% attack bonus on special attacks....only on SS & PS attacks

A "Tyranny" gov't spends more turns to re-gain it's readiness than a "Monarchy" does. In reality a "Monarchy" gov't can make the same number (if not a tad more) attacks and regain 100% readiness the same as a "Tyranny" can.

A "Tyranny" gov't has an advantage over a "Monarchy" gov't only if it has a huge amount of missiles to fire off and if it doesn't have missiles than a "Monarchy" gov't may have a slight advantage over a "Tyranny" gov't as a warring country.

Take this country for example...Suicidal#466

This is a "Tyranny" gov't with greater upkeep costs than if it was a "Monarchy" and has only fired off 2 missiles. This country would have been able to make the same number of attacks if it was a "Monarchy" and spending less money to do it.

Perhaps this country was bitten by the noob bug :)



justtaint

Member
664

Mar 11th 2015, 23:20:31

Originally posted by Over The Hill:
Actually it's most costly to maintain a "Tyranny" gov't than it is to maintain a "Monarchy" gov't.

A "Tyranny" gov't doesn't get the 20% attack bonus on special attacks....only on SS & PS attacks

A "Tyranny" gov't spends more turns to re-gain it's readiness than a "Monarchy" does. In reality a "Monarchy" gov't can make the same number (if not a tad more) attacks and regain 100% readiness the same as a "Tyranny" can.

A "Tyranny" gov't has an advantage over a "Monarchy" gov't only if it has a huge amount of missiles to fire off and if it doesn't have missiles than a "Monarchy" gov't may have a slight advantage over a "Tyranny" gov't as a warring country.

Take this country for example...Suicidal#466

This is a "Tyranny" gov't with greater upkeep costs than if it was a "Monarchy" and has only fired off 2 missiles. This country would have been able to make the same number of attacks if it was a "Monarchy" and spending less money to do it.

Perhaps this country was bitten by the noob bug :)





Or if they're teching...
SlashMD

Suicidal Game profile

Member
2256

Mar 12th 2015, 10:28:48

Yeah, over the years, I have seen all the countries switch to Monarchies for war WTF

tellarion Game profile

Member
3906

Mar 12th 2015, 13:10:08

Yeah, the point of Tyr in war is they spend those extra turns to be productive, whereas a mon(or any other non-demo) just spends it on the same number of attacks...

farmer Game profile

Member
1199

Mar 12th 2015, 13:23:57

if you are a restart it forces you to build with some of your turns or during a war to generate cash. but over all i do not like it.

Hawkster Game profile

Member
429

Mar 12th 2015, 15:47:54

Is it really that much more costly?

I mean I know it has -25% max PCI, but it also has -10% mil upkeep too. During war with the much higher MMR's I would have thought they pretty much cancelled each other out. No?

Really dont know nor really bothered to check as I am not huge fan of running Tyr due to readiness. It just bugs me watching it drop so quickly.

But even if all that is true, I still do not understand why run monarchy, when you can run Dict which is cheaper to run than monarchy. Can either hold less military and/or send less military. So it can make the same number (if not a tad more) attacks than a Monarchy can. Readiness should drop tad less than Monarchy can too since it needs to send less military, less oil which will go further, etc.