Are you supposed to experience anarchy for civics changes while in a golden age now? It wasn't in the BTS 3.13 changelog. Is this an RFC change?

Ouch, just ouch.

Edit: Also, not new, but what's up with people DOWing you when you enter a GA? More often than not, someone does it...

GA anarchy works as intended.

GA anarchy works as intended.

I thought you were supposed to be able to switch civics without anarchy during a GA. It certainly worked that way pre-BTS 3.13.

it still works that way in bts 3.13, but not in RFC as intended.

it still works that way in bts 3.13, but not in RFC as intended.

Why is this "intended" or even desirable?

The rule for GA is consistent with the Vanilla and Warlords versions of civ.

I'm sure there's some way to disable the rule change though. Right?

I thought you were supposed to be able to switch civics without anarchy during a GA. It certainly worked that way pre-BTS 3.13. No. This problem appeared in RFC 1.07 already.

I think having anarchy during a GA as in the lastest version is a retrograde step. One of the game (as opposed to history)-related aspects of RFC I really appreciated when first playing the mod was it was possible to avoid the anarchy with appropriate planning/action.

Cheers, Luke

The GAs were overpowered, so they got changed. With the Dutch, you could easily live 64+ turns of perpetual golden age, with increased stability and free civics switch

The GA should be overpowered. It's Amsterdam that is too strong, it's certainly the best city (in the hands of a player) of the whole map.
Also if GA should be consistent with Warlords and Vanilla then the Mausoleum of Mausollos shouldn't be there.

Its not so much the GA that's overpowered as switching civics thats really overnerfed. The stability hit for anarchy is *permanent* - i'm in the middle of a game with Ethiopia where I had to wait till i built Cristo Redemptor so I could switch civics for the first time since Representation became available because of stability concerns. Without no anarchy during GAs, its really not possible to switch to new civics because you will collapse yourself, meaning i find i'm playing monarchy/vassalage/slavery/decentralization/organized religion/xxx most of the game, even after i have other superior options. (Oh yeah, and that happiness penalty for emancipation while i'm still running slavery because i can't afford the stability to switch? Ouch).

It's only -3 permanent stability points per turn of anarchy, which in the grand scheme of things is not much as long as you only make necessary and incremental switches. The non-permanent -25 for being in anarchy is hard to absorb if you are already shaky, but it is partially offset with being in GA.

It's only -3 permanent stability points per turn of anarchy, which in the grand scheme of things is not much as long as you only make necessary and incremental switches. The non-permanent -25 for being in anarchy is hard to absorb if you are already shaky, but it is partially offset with being in GA.

I don't think you understand the kind of knife's edge that some countries are on in RFC in terms of stability. Ethiopia is hard to keep it at stable or better for a long track between ~1400 and ~1800. (Specifically, industrializing + biology saved my bacon by letting my economy boom). Mongolia is running along the razor edge for a good bit of their game. I've played mostly ancient civs other than that (where the UHV often kicks in before interesting civics decisions come up), but i imagine there are european civs that have serious stability issues.

I don't think you understand the kind of knife's edge that some countries are on in RFC in terms of stability. Ethiopia is hard to keep it at stable or better for a long track between ~1400 and ~1800. (Specifically, industrializing + biology saved my bacon by letting my economy boom). Mongolia is running along the razor edge for a good bit of their game. I've played mostly ancient civs other than that (where the UHV often kicks in before interesting civics decisions come up), but i imagine there are european civs that have serious stability issues.

Most of the late era civs dont have that problem with stability, the only modern euro civ that might have problems with stability are the viking after 1800ad. I know what your saying though, with civs like China/Japan/Ethiopia etc you cant change civics more then once or twice or you´ll collapse.

(Oh yeah, and that happiness penalty for emancipation while i'm still running slavery because i can't afford the stability to switch? Ouch).

I read on the guides that this also is a stability hit though (I mean having Slavery while knowing Democracy).

I read on the guides that this also is a stability hit though (I mean having Slavery while knowing Democracy).

Well, that's you knowing democracy - not a requirement for other people to run emancipation. I think its Liberalism, actually.

Regardless, the small hit from civics/tech mismatch is liveable. The -25 for being in anarchy is not. For ethiopia, that's asking to collapse right then and there in the mid game.

I think the reason the anarchy during GAs was put back in was because no anarchy during GAs is unfair to India in this scenario, as "no anarchy during civic or religion" is their entire UP.

I think the reason the anarchy during GAs was put back in was because no anarchy during GAs is unfair to India in this scenario, as "no anarchy during civic or religion" is their entire UP.

If you think that you aren't switching your civics often enough. Being able to avoid anarchy just in a GA allows for vital civics switches for long term use. Being able to avoid anarchy all the time lets you switch to whatever is best right then, plus diplomacy bonus from always changing religion/civics when your neighbor asks you (or if you just want a bonus/no penalty when you want to talk with them). Those are two horses of entirely different colors. Even with no anarchy during GAs, india still has probably the strongest UP in the game.

Requiring 2 GPs for the first golden age is also annoying for civs that really have to work at getting GPs, like the Aztecs.

Cheers, Luke

Requiring 2 GPs for the first golden age is also annoying for civs that really have to work at getting GPs, like the Aztecs.

Cheers, Luke

Yeah, it took me longer to realize that had been changed too. If i wanted to play with Warlords or Vanilla rules, i'd play warlords or vanilla. If i'm playing BTS, i'd like to use the BTS ruleset. I don't suppose both of these could be returned to BTS defaults?