Winning the war but STILL went into anarchy?

[cerebros]

Was wondering if anyone could point out something i've missed...

On a large map, warlord level, and I'm at war with the Egyptians (they started it). They're trying to take the three cities of mine closest to them, but as I'd manned my entire empire with infantry all the way round, i was able to pull plenty of units into the arena of combat to stop them actually being able to attack the cities.

Anyway, my government is democracy, and I'm also theoretically at war with Zululand who are allied with the Egyptians, although apart from a few naval skirmishes, which i won, I haven't seen hide nor hair of them.

Initially a few of my cities went into civil disorder.

Due to forgetting to fortify units on my resources, the Egpytians, using bombers or cruise missiles, knock out my oil supply. This forces me to declare war on Japan so i'm no longer trading my oil to them.

3 few turns later and I've just paid off the Zulu's to get an alliance against Egypt, Japan has done nothing against me, and I've just sorted my cities so that i should have a few turns before any more go into civil disorder.

SO what happens? My civ goes into revolution! WHY! By any objective terms i'm winning the war (Egypt was having to throw conscripts into the battle to try and wear down my defences, after having wasted most of their modern armour and mech infantry on futile attacks on heavily defended map tiles). I could understand it if all my cities were in civil disorder, but they were all stable!

Can anyone explain why that happened?

[KrazyHorse]

It's called war weariness; it happens whether or not you're losing the war. Since you're a democracy it'll hurt you more than if you were under communism, monarchy, etc.

Either take the pain and switch governments, ratchet up your luxury rates, or get peace treaties. It doesn't help if you're at war without actually fighting; you'll still suffer from it.

[FrantzX]

In other words, Vietman.

[cerebros]

but surely war weariness only makes citizens unhappy? If you're keeping all your cities out of civil disorder by making use of entertainers, why should your civ go into revolt? In previous Civ games, that would only happen if a siginificant number of your cities were constantly in civil disorder - and happened after only a couple of turns in a democracy.

My luxury rate was at 40% - couldn't go any higher without losing money (and hence units). And no way was i going to give Egypt tech in exchange for peace.

Changing government is too risky now there's no Statue of Liberty to build. From other games in similar stages in Civ3 its typically taken 4+ turns to change government type - not very helpful when you need to be producing units to fight off the enemy.

The only option in a game would seem to be to go from Republic to Comunism as soon as its available and wipe out any Civ's on your continent before switching to Democracy - but you're going to have to be aggressive early on else you'll be badly down the tech chain compared to your neighbours (wish you still got techs when you capture a city, or that espionage didn't cost so much...)

[KrazyHorse]

War weariness increases as time goes on. It seems to go in chunks, so you'll have some turns where half your cities go into disorder without any growth. All I can think of is that so many of your cities went into disorder at once that you went into revolt in the space of one turn.

[cerebros]

but that would have meant about 5 or 6 citizens going from happy to unhappy in most of my cities... I'd not seen that happen in any turn before, and don't see how/why that many would have done, since I'd got rid of all bar one or two unhappy citizens in my cities.

[Venger]

Re: Winning the war but STILL went into anarchy?

Originally posted by cerebros
Can anyone explain why that happened?

Bad gameplay design. I mean, we all remember how the US revolted during the successful campaign against the Japanese in the Pacific right? And the burned streets and fallen capital after prosecuting the Gulf War...

I think I may have been the first victim of this way back when - I posted a screenshot. I had been prosecuting a very successful war, when - the government revolts. Stupid, stupid, stupid. It was one of the biggest reasons I stopped playing Civ3. Now, with the patch coming out, I will likely retry it and see what we get...

Best suggestion - change the war weariness of Democracy in the editor. I hate changing the rules, but this is one of the lamest parts of Civ3, so think of it as fixing the game for them...

Good luck...

Venger

[cerebros]

Or to use an example closer to home (for me), the mass riots and overthrow of government in the UK during WW2... I mean, we were getting bombed/doodle-bugged, but we just rallied round and got on with things.

In fact, I think the game system has things the wrong way round. Surely there's more likely to be open revolt in an undemocratic society, since your barons or whatever would eventually get p***** off paying higher taxes for a war that means nothing to them?

[SpencerH]

For the short term, switch to republic if you have cathedrals, banks (ie infrastructure). If not switch to monarchy. End the war by taking some enemy cities (dont raze them unnecesarily) then build up your infrastucture and trade for luxury resources. You shouldnt need to have your luxury rate above 20-30%. I usually play republic at monarch and up with all civs and I have no problem fighting protracted wars with the usual cabal of AI troublemakers .

[cerebros]

but again, you have to waste valuable turns switching to another form of government. and the trouble with capturing cities rather than razing them is
a) Having to plonk loads of units in to quell resisters (and still not being sure of it not reverting back to its original owner)
b) You have to keep shifting your defensive border which means more defensive units costing you money

[SpencerH]

You've already got civil disorder! Its less efficient to stay with democracy and to be forced to turn up luxuries (and eventually even that wont work) than to change governments. Razing can piss-off the AI so they wont make peace with you and it effects the other AI civs attitude to you. If you're trying to play as a democracy (why?) you have to negotiate a fast peace if your citizens are showing the level of war weariness you describe. Either force the AI to negotiate (and some wont if you raze their citeis) or surrender and pay for peace.

An alternative to razing is to starve the citizens by turning them all to entertainers then you dont have to maintain huge garrisons.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by cerebros
but again, you have to waste valuable turns switching to another form of government. and the trouble with capturing cities rather than razing them is
a) Having to plonk loads of units in to quell resisters (and still not being sure of it not reverting back to its original owner)
b) You have to keep shifting your defensive border which means more defensive units costing you money

First, you could try a religious civ.
Or, use Republic. It is easier to control.
Nevertheless, it is possible to war and stay in Democracy. You just need to keep the wars short.