@#$@ Anarchy!

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Jaybe
WHAT are you going to DO?!? Those choices are what the game is all about.

Originally posted by ErikM
With all my due respect, what choices are you talking about? With 8 turns anarchy, there is absolutely positively no way I'd ever want to leave Republic unless I'm playing a religious civ.

So, you have made your choice. My choices may be different, for better or worse. Also, I had intended to point out in my previous post that I play at Regent (my current game is my first at Monarch).

BTW, JesseSmith (Firaxis) has indicated that the goal is to limit anarchy to 8 turns, weighted to 3-5 turns. Back just before the beta-patch came out. It is still topped over at CFC.

[Konquest02]

I think it also depends on the difficulty levels... I was teaching one of my friend to play civ and she just got 2 turns of anarchy while playing the Mayas. She was playing on Warlord.

Never seen nothing like it on the higher levels...

--Kon--

[ErikM]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
If you're going to be at war most of the game, you need to think of an alternative to republic.

Not necessarily... If you are on a defensive side and can avoid major disasters (like losing cities) you can warmonger almost indefinitely in Republic. If you are weaker than AI and refuse their demands they are very likely to declare war on Emperor+ even if they have no means of actually harming you (ie they are on a different continent). If you never end these "phony wars", -30 war happiness basically stays forever which goes a long way towards maintaining happiness in "real" wars.

Originally posted by Arrian
Empire size does matter, apparently. I do not know whether it's based on actual size (# of cities) or size relative to the other civs.

I *think* I've read somewhere that it is
[1-4 turns from RNG] + [1-4 offset turns based on the city count]
(don't remember if the second term is randomized or not).

With an ultra-early Republic path in C3C it seems possible to get Republic at a point where you only have 5-7 cities. Anarchy is really quite bearable if your empire is that small. In my first try-out C3C game with the Byzantines (Demi) I revolted to Republic circa 1500BC with maybe 6 cities and get only 3 turns in anarchy. Never had less than 5 turns anarchy with vanilla Civ but it was impossible to get Republic that early there.

If this can be pulled off consistently, then religious trait loses a lot of its appeal in C3C.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by ErikM
Not necessarily... If you are on a defensive side and can avoid major disasters (like losing cities) you can warmonger almost indefinitely in Republic. If you are weaker than AI and refuse their demands they are very likely to declare war on Emperor+ even if they have no means of actually harming you (ie they are on a different continent). If you never end these "phony wars", -30 war happiness basically stays forever which goes a long way towards maintaining happiness in "real" wars.

!

I wasn't laying down a golden rule, I was just making a suggestion.

And I can't say that I've played many games on emperor and up where I was mainly the defender throughout the game. i find that passive defense is the surest way to a loss.

[lethe]

Originally posted by ErikM

Not necessarily... If you are on a defensive side and can avoid major disasters (like losing cities) you can warmonger almost indefinitely in Republic. If you are weaker than AI and refuse their demands they are very likely to declare war on Emperor+ even if they have no means of actually harming you (ie they are on a different continent). If you never end these "phony wars", -30 war happiness basically stays forever which goes a long way towards maintaining happiness in "real" wars.

I'd like to state that the opposite is more true. You can wage an eternal offensive war in republic, but not a defensive one. (However keeping a 'phony war' going is always a good idea. Just Wag the Dog.)

You get +2 war weariness points _each_ time one of your units is attacked. But only +1 ww point if you end your turn with 150 units in enemy territory. (It's 1 point for having any amount of troops in enemy territory.) Yes, this means that it's possible to go from no war weariness to anarchy in one single bad turn in democracy.

Even with a slow moving force you can maneuver things so that you in general only get a single point of ww from each city you take. Attack from the corner, one turn in enemy territory, next turn you take the city.

The real danger is that you mess up positioning so the AI SOD gets to attack your SOD. Though that usually means so heavy losses that it's time to sue for peace anyway.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
i find that passive defense is the surest way to a loss.

I agree. But I was not arguing about being passive - some civs will make demands even if they cannot realistically harm you. A typical example is a civ on a different continent in Ancient/Medieval. Worst case scenario, they will land 2-3 troops from a galley/caravel, which is hardly a major threat.

I refer to this as "phony wars". They cannot do you any harm and you cannot hurt them either for a long time due to insufficient naval capacity. You cannot trade with them for resources prior to Astronomy/Navigation, so they are useless for practical purposes. They, however, provide you with a 30 war happiness points for the duration of hostilities. Which will be gone if you make a peace. Thus, there is no reason to try to end this particular conflict. Moreover, you can use 30 wwp bonus to wage an agressive war on your immediate neigbours.

In fact, phony wars are one of the best deals in Civ III. Negative war weariness gives you 25% extra happy citizens (iirc). This is better than Sistine+cathedrals. Correspondingly, your phony war enemies are remarkably more useful than your so-called allies. And thankfully, you can always count on the likes of Bismarck to demand proverbial 30gp from you If Bismarck is not particularly close, this may be a beginning of a beautiful game-long relationship

[Xorbon]

7 to 9 turns of anarchy is way too much. It should be reduced to 3 to 5 turns. If designers want to reduce frequent gov't changes (I heard somewhere this was a reason for increasing anarchy time), 7 to 9 turns of anarchy isn't the answer.

I propose having 3 to 5 turns of anarchy, at which point the player picks a gov't type. Then, there would be several turns of increased corruption/waste and/or some other penalties (to represent a period of time during which things settle down from being in anarchy).

[Commander Bello]

As far as I remember, the additional 1 turn of anarchy was introduced, since prior to C3C you could have almost 0 turn of anarchy with religious governments.
I think, it was done somehow like switching before turn's end (with at least 1 unit to be moved). Then, as soon as the next turn came back to you, you already were able to choose the government.
For any non-religious civ, the turns are calculated with an algorithm (3-5 turns + 3-5 for empire size), or something like that.

I agree to everybody who is complaining about the duration of anarchy. It is much to high. At last, we are talking about an epic game of 540 turns. Since in most cases you won't have any chance to change governments prior to turn#100, and it wouldn't make any sense after turn#500 (since everything should be decided then), you have 400 turns in which you might change governments.
If you do it 3 times (which doesn't seem to be that often), you will easily spend 24-27 turns in anarchy. That would be almost 10% of the "useable" time...
Much to high, and definetely something which should be reconsidered. At best, already in a patch to come...

[vmxa1]

I was looking to do a switch in a recent game and it was going to be 9 turns. This was a Sid game, so no way I could take that big of a hit. I wait until it was a 6 turn one.

[gunkulator]

IMHO, anarchy should either be reduced in length or reduced in its effects. I can live with no commerce and starvation but why NO production at all in anarchy? Besides the danger of AI invasions, anyone in a wonder race is unlikely to ever want to change gov'ts.

The way things are right now, Religious really means you have the choice of any gov't, while non-religious means you only get one de facto alternative to despotism with maybe a second choice under special circumstances. That's limiting gameplay quite a bit.

[GarP2]

Originally posted by ErikM

I refer to this as "phony wars".. ...They, however, provide you with a 30 war happiness points for the duration of hostilities. Which will be gone if you make a peace. Thus, there is no reason to try to end this particular conflict. Moreover, you can use 30 wwp bonus to wage an agressive war on your immediate neigbours.
...
In fact, phony wars are one of the best deals in Civ III. Negative war weariness gives you 25% extra happy citizens (iirc). This is better than Sistine+cathedrals. Correspondingly, your phony war enemies are remarkably more useful than your so-called allies.

Stupid Question: What is war happiness?
Better Question: Can someone recommend a good thread on war weariness?

In my current game (Dutch), two of the other 3 remaining AI tribes declared phony war on me very early in the game, and occasionally land 1-3 units on my continent in a half-hearted attack. But I have been in Monarchy most of the time, while they are in Republic. We are just ready to go into the industrial era, I am several techs ahead (regent), and they seem anxious to get the war over with. However, I just ask what I know will be an unreasonable price (an optional tech that I passed over - republic , they get insulted, and the war continues. I've been going on the assumption that this is harder on them than it is on me (not to mention the 10 or so immortals and 5 or so galleys that I've killed). Is this true, and how does that work quantitatively? I'm not trying to hijack the thread and will settle for a link or even a "get lost!".

GarP2

[vmxa1]

You do not suffer any WW in Monarchy so you do not have to be concerned. They will suffer some WW as the war goes on and if they get Feudalism will likely switch.

If you ever noticed after someone declares war on you, the level of happiness goes up. This is the concept of people ralling around the flag. At regent, it may be hard to see as you have two content citizens to start. At EMP or higher you only have one, so it will be seen quickly.

[vmxa1]

Here:

Bamspeedy from CFC

Length of war did not seem to be a factor (only the # of turns you end your turn with units in their territory).

War weariness kicks in at various thresholds.
First threshold: 25% of your people become unhappy (Republic)
50% unhappy (democracy)
Second threshold: 50% unhappy (Republic)
100% unhappy (Democracy)
Third threshold: 100% unhappy (Republic)
Government overthrown (Democracy)
*Republic can never be overthrown

Units you lose, cities you lose, ending your turn in enemy territory contribute to WW.

Universal Suffrage makes 1 person content in all cities (1 person that would have become unhappy because of war weariness).

Police Stations allow 25% of your people to not become unhappy from WW. (so, in republic at the first threshold, you would see no unhappiness).

I guess I should add:

+1 for each turn you end your turn with a unit in their territory
+2 for each unit you lose
+15 if you have a city of yours razed (or captured?)

*possible ones, that haven't fully been checked:
pillaging, starvation of your citizens due to enemies having control of your former cities

First threshold: 30 war weariness points (WW)
Second threshold: 60 WW
Third threshold: 90WW (Democracy)
120WW (Republic)

[Theseus]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I was looking to do a switch in a recent game and it was going to be 9 turns. This was a Sid game, so no way I could take that big of a hit. I wait until it was a 6 turn one.

Huh? How did you know?

Re the general discussion: I played out AU 501 staying in Monarchy, and that was just fine. Admittedly, with the AU Mod... but changing govs was just going to be too painful while in the thick of competition. Needs balancing.

[GarP2]

Thanks vmxa1, that's perfect! Since I kill the units as soon as they land, they must get 1 ww pt for ending their (?) turn in my territory, and 2 more pts for losing the unit. So if my estimate of kills is correct (I'll check tonight), they should be in stage 1 ww, i.e., past the first threshold, and hurting a little. Also means that greater expansion of borders beyond the city means greater cost to the invader.

Would this be considered an exploit, since the AI seems compelled to carry out some sort of periodic attack, even if futile? (sorta serves 'em right for declaring war and attacking me - kinda like the monkey trap of strategy games)

GarP2

(edited for spelling)