You know, it suddenly occurs to me...

[tmarcl]

It's four o'clock in the moring here, and I've just finished playing Civ for the day. As I was exiting the game, it struck me (a thought, not the game-not this time anyways (In your face Cleo!!), why is there anarchy between changing governments?

I mean, think about it. The leader of the government is supporting a change in how things work. S/he keeps his/her position when the new government is in place, and even keeps the same advisors.

When Russia held it's first democratic elections, there was no revolution-Gorbechev allowed free elections, and people voted, and lo and behold, they became a democracy (Well, a Republic, really).

So why is there anarchy in Civ? There is no war. There are no rebel forces forcing me to switch governments, so there really shouldn't be any anarchy, IMO.

Marc

[Altuar]

well, think about it yourself. You are not the leader of the government. You are the omnipresent, omniscient (as far as your civ is concerned, at least) invisible being. Over the course of the game, there are countless governments formed. The governments, as they are in Civ, represent profound changes, not "overnight" reforms like what happened in Russia - and, to make the record clear, there was a coup attempt by the hard-liner Communists, which failed, during Gorby's rule. (and dont confuse Republic with Democracy - it is easy enough to do if you apply Civ terms to their real life applications, which you seem to be doing: communism is a republic, so Russia, since 1917 had been a republic)

For a better picture, think what happened in Iran in 1979, or, even better, the French Revolution. In Civ, Anarchy is not a government but the lack of it. It is playing with terms somewhat, but reflect a bit on it and you'll escape the apparent paradox.