@#$@ Anarchy!

[TheArsenal]

Last night’s game: Because I was always well in the hunt for wonders, I waited until I was a few turns from Motorized Transportation to switch from Republic to Democracy. When I did I got nine turns of anarchy.

Nine.

First off, I can never remember it lasting more than 7 (but I’ve never made a gov’t switch that late with a non-Religious civ.). Is this a change in C3C, or has it always been variable? If so, what determines those variables? Empire size?

It is definitely a strong incentive to play a religious civ. There’s no way in the world I would switch govs more than twice without one.

[Fatwreck]

know the feeling, I just meade the switch from despotism to republic and got 7 turns of anarchy

think I´m gonna stick to religious civs from now on...

[CerberusIV]

I usually change to Democracy in the very late medieval and it always takes 7-8 turns. The only time I tried to go commie in the mid Industrial took 8 turns.

AFAIK the bigger your civ the longer it takes so the penalty is greater the better you are doing.

At monarch I change government twice but never more than that unless religious.

[Fake Boris]

Unless you switch gov repeatedly, even the 7 turns anarchy is not that bad. When you calculate the extra money, it almost usually pays in the long run.

It's just that watching your civ vegetate is so irritating.

[SirOsis]

Yes it is. Especially when the AI decides that it would be a good time to launch an invasion.

[Boracks]

Yup, switched to democracy late in order to get a wonder done and had it tell me nine turns. Brutal but worth it. Mind you, I had made sure things were relatively stable before going for the switch.

[Jaybe]

Firaxis increased anarchy of religious civs by 1 turn. Anarchy of non-religious civs also increased, though I do not know that was desired (perhaps it was just "expedient").

[gunkulator]

Does anyone else think that Civ3 Anarchy is overly harsh? I mean, no production, no trade, mass unhappiness and starvation - that's a pretty bitter pill to swallow. And for what? The heinous crime of Switching Gov'ts! You can betray your allies and wage war in democracy with less of a penalty.

What was wrong with the Civ2 Anarchy model? It also had no gold or science plus starvation, however waste was only 100% in remote cities.

C3C has added new gov'ts but who wants to waste the time switching? By discouraging gov't switching, Firaxis has limited gameplay similar to the way Espionage has been nerfed to be all but useless now.

[Brundlefly]

I'm playing Hittites on 1.12 and my late-medieval switch from Monarchy to Democracy took only 4 turns

[pvzh]

Why on Earth anyone want to switch out of republic if you are not religious? I mean really? 7-9 turns of anarchy for mere 10% decrease in corruption at best. Even if it was 10% increase in output of shields/commerce it would take 7/0.1 (70) to 9/0.1 (90) turns to reach even point. The game will be over by that time more or less.

If you are not religious stick to one choice (republic) or monarchy if luxuries are problem and you need to wage an eternal war.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Does anyone else think that Civ3 Anarchy is overly harsh? I mean, no production, no trade, mass unhappiness and starvation - that's a pretty bitter pill to swallow. And for what? The heinous crime of Switching Gov'ts! You can betray your allies and wage war in democracy with less of a penalty.

What was wrong with the Civ2 Anarchy model? It also had no gold or science plus starvation, however waste was only 100% in remote cities.

C3C has added new gov'ts but who wants to waste the time switching? By discouraging gov't switching, Firaxis has limited gameplay similar to the way Espionage has been nerfed to be all but useless now.

It’s pretty harsh - and as mentioned, particularly harsh when the AI launches an invasion. In the game I’m playing, I have fairly aggressive neighbors who have not liked me since the dawn of time. So to absorb any potential AI shenanigans I built up a much larger defense force of infantry and arty than I normally would that close to getting tanks. But generally I don’t even do that and have been burned. I can get away with creating an oversized defense force going from Republic to Democracy, but a switch from Despotism to say Republic with a large army and I have to run 10% science for too many turns while I get my economy up to speed. Hate that.

I don’t mind Anarchy, because you can get around by playing a religious civ, but nine turns is just insane.

[Arrian]

The last government switch I made, last night, took 8 turns. I feel your pain.

I was going despot -> republic. I just waited a long time. I had managed to research code of laws and philosophy before the AI, taking republic as my free tech, but then I researched most of the rest of the ancient age tech tree in despotism, while REXing. The reason I did this was that just across a small strait, on somebody else's landmass, was a source of ivory that I wanted to claim. I decided that I wanted to build on it, get the harbor built (all coastal tiles, trade possible right away) and have Zeus built to make sure I got it, BEFORE switching governments. In retrospect, that might have been overly paranoid of me. I would still have gotten Zeus.

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. Either way, a late-game switch in a relatively successful game is likely to be painful for non-religious civs. Which is why I almost never do that.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

IF the increased anarchy was intentional, then it was obviously a balance/CHOICES issue. If you have a large empire do you want to use a representative government, get a roaring economy yet risk a major war; or do you stay with the other gov types?

Personally, I will sometimes just stay in monarchy if I am anticipating warfare; or I might go democracy during the rail-building period and voluntarily switch again when I anticipate warfare approaching (offensive or defensive).

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

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Jaybe
IF the increased anarchy was intentional, then it was obviously a balance/CHOICES issue. If you have a large empire do you want to use a representative government, get a roaring economy yet risk a major war; or do you stay with the other gov types?

Personally, I will sometimes just stay in monarchy if I am anticipating warfare; or I might go democracy during the rail-building period and voluntarily switch again when I anticipate warfare approaching (offensive or defensive).

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

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.

For this matter, it is not very clear to me what would be the reason to ever leave Republic even if your civ is religious.

Democracy reduces overall corruption by something like 5% but has a major drawback in an increased war weariness. In C3C, it will also have higher unit maintenance costs. [5 units per city/7 units per Metro is cheaper to maintain in Republic rather than in Democracy. I cannot recall ever exceeding this level when Demo becomes available]. Decidedly not worth it.

I have not tried Communism in C3C yet and it looks like it offers the lowest corruption, but reduced commerce would pretty much negate any gains from the reduced corruption. And pop rushing is a major drawback of course. Why would someone want to kill 5 citizens to rush build a tank is beyond me. So Communism is also not worth it.

Fascism we won't even discuss as it looks downright silly.

So for all practical purposes late governments may not even exist. If so, what are the "choices" offered by long anarchy? None whatsoever. Despotism->Republic and maybe, just maybe, Despotism->Monarchy->Republic if your civ is religious. That's it. Long period of anarchy actually reduces my choices rather than expands them.

For government switching to be worth it, either late Governments should be significantly better or the anarchy period should be seriously shortened.

FWIW, I'd advocate max 4 turns anarchy (as in Civ II) and no anarchy at all for religious civs. However, shorter anarchy period is a part of the AI advantage on higher difficulty levels so I do not think it would be even considered by Firaxis.

[asleepathewheel]

I've switched to communism before as a non religious civ. Helped tremendously as the war weariness was killing me. Plus its really a boost for some outlying cities production wise.

If you're going to be at war most of the game, you need to think of an alternative to republic. Communism is great. Sure you can't rush anything, but if you're at war you are probably just churning out tanks or whatnot. Before I would switch, I would of course try to have a good infrastructure already built up, banks, unis and factories.

Communism + mobilization=scary