[Feedback reqest] Monarchy politics idea

Hmm it does sound interesting, Though admittedly it won't be of any use to me because all my towns are at least 5 cells away from each other :(

Though I guess for some other people it will come in pretty handy.

i think it's a great idea.... finding benefits in keeping a compact country size, that's still powerful. a good option for those that get blocked in

I am deleting Carliana for this very reason.  It is a very small domain and although I managed 4 towns (barely)  they are all very close to each other and this might have been a good alternative to work towards.  Interesting and worth further consideration.

Would you still go into Anarchy if you changed your politics or is this only through the research of Monarchy

Having in the middle of my own country a small collect country with 3 towns disposed in triangle 2 cells far from each others is not a thing I would appreciate...because this kind of country will have something like 100% defense bonuses...How we are supposed to attack them , not speaking about how we will be able to get stripes in these conditions, knowing that today is already very difficult?

In my opinion Monarchy in this form will be another improvement for collect players...

Any idea for dictatorship with bonuses for leaderism players?

You are not paying attention to what I said. You are going to attack the same way as you attack collectivism as this is a separate politics, bonus defense is not on top of collectivism bonus, but instead of it.

My mistake, sorry :) So,  you gonna replace 30% collect bonus by another  X% defense bonus. A small player will stay a small player ...which means a target ...except those bonuses are really more interesting then 30% collect bonuses and it worth to switch to Monarchy. If more than 30% will be even more difficult for leaderism to attack them, right?

As I really don't go for expansion and any global resources that sounds good to me. But we'll see how it will work out when it's implemented.

So, now you will actively encourage border building, thus increasing antagonism between players and the incidents of total town destruction.  I've done my share of taking out towns and discourage border building by my alliance because it's a passive, yet very aggressive form of play.  The more border building that is done the more we will hear about "bullying" and such.  Competition is fine, but fostering animosity is something else altogether, imo.  I think we can safely say my vote is no, not in the present form proposed.

Did I misread?  Are you saying towns within a domain that are close together gain a bonus?  or towns close to a neighbor take points from the neighbor?  If the latter, I'm not in favor.  If the former, I can see this mainly benefitting collectivism players more, so I'm ambivalent at best.

 If more than 30% will be even more difficult for leaderism to attack them, right?

Yes, but at least they will not be stealing away the resources from neigbors taking into account their compact placement.

May I remind you that ressources are not the only reason for attacking a player ?  We are supposed to fill a Trophy Hall will trophies obtainable by attacking another players...(well, supposing that one day we will be able to get enough stripes to built it LOL). As you said big "peacefully" players will stay collectivism - difficult already to be attacked because of 30% defense bonuses. With Monarchy ( in this form) small players will be protected by 40 or 50 % bonuses defense ( or more ? )

So, River has completelly right, Monarchy will be just another way to protect more and more "farmers" type players...

So, now you will actively encourage border building

How so?

lol Read the edited portion.  I should know never to read anything you write without coffee first, lol.  Thor did warn me.  ;-)  I take the first paragraph back.  I stand by the second.

Choosing Monarchy as proposed would definitely rule out winning the expansion victory, would it not?  I'm curious about that.

Hey Bers ---why don't you reconsider what was proposed last stage------Make monarchy a happy medium between both Collective and Leaderism player?  War is an evil necessity lol  and for those players who want a few more attack points or a few more defensive points Monarchy would be the way to go.    Don't give more defensive points for a small player  let them have more attack points to attack back.   On the same hand if a Lead player is being hit all the time give them the option to have more defensive points.   Makes most happy.    

Make monarchy a happy medium between both Collective and Leaderism player?  

I would rather take the idea of small countries because its different. If we make monarchy an offense/defense policy, it's just more of the same we already have. It may make people happy, because both strength and protection sounds tempting, but it's just the same boring, linear idea of gameplay based in war.Now, you are "good" at attacking, or you are "good" at defending. With an intermediate monarchy you are so-so at both... I'd rather have something that breaks with that line, as having border size affect the bonuses you get, so it's not the same attack or defense bonus all the time, and makes you actually think if you should take that policy not just with "i will/won't attack" in mind but also with your current country state.

I am trying to determine which victory type would most benefit from Monarchy politics. I would like to consider the proposed plan based on that information. Could you please share your thoughts regarding that so we can think about it terms of a specific type of victory?

As Chao said, I like the idea of a politics that would go in another direction than defense-attack and something special for those boxed in would be cool. But I don't think this would actually be a step in that direction. Quite the oppsite - it will exactly be something "in between". Collectivism players have 300% defense, so even if they could get  up to 200% with monarchy they would probably not switch (unless they want to be somewhere in the middle - if I understand correctly, monarchy would not have attack penalty). Some leaderism players might switch as this would give them additional defense bonus without limiting attack. This will be the same - something in between. So it would just create a middle point between coll and lead.

I think a better option would be to give those kingdoms some incentive towards another victory - not expansion (obviously...) or war. For example, a bonus to resource production so they could persue wealth victory or a bonus to science - so they could persue science victory (if there is one such...). This way you would have small but wealthy or advanced kingdoms. Both would have their price though - wealth could attract plunderers and science - stripe hunters. So I think it would be a nice balance between pros and cons for such politics.

On a side note - how about giving some incentive so that more players chose leaderism? So far the choice is between nothing and defense (it is not exactly a choice between attack-defense). As I can see there's really very few leads players and it would be much better for those to attack others that play the same style then to attack colls. But so far finding another lead player on the map seems to be a very rare occurance... So maybe some bonus too? Like faster unit/upgrade production? Less res needed for unit training?