Anarchy in between Governments

[sabo]

I remember in Civ II there was a wonder to eliminate Anarchy in between switching governments, am I missing something? I havent found it in Civ III. If there isn't one can someone tell me how to make the Anarchy time shorter?
Thanks

 

[BCLG100]

yeah if u are a religious e.g. japan, babylon civ you can miss out anarchy in between turns

 

[Gumby3000]

I thought the hapiness of all your people matters too. Happy people --> shorter anarchy!

 

[T-hawk]

Someone determined a while back that anarchy (for non-religious) lasts 1-5 turns based on the size of the empire, plus a random number from 1-3 turns. So for shorter anarchy, switch earlier in the game. That's all you can do, though.

 

[RX2000]

I REALLY hate the anarchy between governments, cause the stupid people always manage to destroy some needed improvement, or the 3000 year old temple that has tons of culture in it. Its a real headache. Almost enough to make me wanna play a religious civ...... almost.

 

[sabo]

Yeah I think the next game I'll play with NO religious civs, if you ask me winning by culture is unrealistic and also kinda wimpy, I believe a religious civ could win the game without creating one Military unit, if they dont' go to war that is. Am I right?can anyone tell me the last time a Civiliztion did that in the real world which I'm slowly losing contact with?? Is there a 12 step group for civiholics?

___________________________________________________
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case, coincidence? I think not..

 

[mauiduck]

I agree with sabo10 about the city flipping thing in Civ III. I laughed when I saw it happen because no where in history have I read about a city that deposed it's leaders to embrace another nationality only because of its culture. Usually a large military force threatening to destroy the city caused the people to riot against their leadership and I would think to make it more like the real world that a strong culture would make it so that if a country under a representative form of government where not to trade with you or join your alliance that people in the cities next to your would become unhappy like crazy because they love ya so much. That would be more like the real world. e.g While the Germans would never switch to being American even though American culture is very preminent in their society, if the German government weren't to join an alliance with the US against terrorism their people would be very upset and probably vote the current leadership out of office. Anyway that just my thoughts and even though I build up on culture like crazy in my games I turn of the cultural win because it is kind of a wimpy win.

 

[Trinity]

I think anarchy is too short between governments in Religious societies. The only time it should be 1 turn is switching to fundamentalism. Switching from fundamentalism to any other form should be normal anarchy. Switching between normal governments should be normal anarchy duration.

 

[bradbowen]

<no where in history have I read about a city that deposed it's leaders to embrace another nationality only because of its culture.>

Perhaps the Republic of Texas joining the U.S. would be an example.

 

[Trinity]

They settled in Texas, and claimed the land even though it belonged to Mexico at the time, against the wishes of the US Government. Then they couldn't hold out forever against the Mexicans. Their currency was worth kindling. So they joined the US to get US military protection. The US defeated the Mexicans and got the area now known as New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado if I recall correctly (it's been like 35 years since I studied this stuff).

These were rogue settlers from the United States who decided to claim land that wasn't theirs. They get their patooties in a sling. The United States accepts them, and wins the war against Mexico. But no good deed goes unpunished. They turn around and join the Confederacy in the Civil War.

 

[bradbowen]

<These were rogue settlers from the United States>

No, Stephen F Austin applied to the Mexican Government and was granted the right to settle the area.

I don't think it a far reach to say that they joined the U.S. because of it's dominant culture.

 

[alexander dumas]

<no where in history have I read about a city that deposed it's leaders to embrace another nationality only because of its culture.>

How about English settlers creating American Culture?
How about the creation of Singapore from Malaysia?
How about Hong Kong joining China?
How about Palestine right now?

I know there are different stories to each, but I like to think that culture flipping is the game interpretation of things like those above, especially Palestine.

 

[Maple]

alexander dumas- (nice name)

English settlers did not create american culture. English settlers settled in American for various reasons, and then generations later revolted because they were being treated unfairly. Taxation without representation was a term coined back then about the taxation of american colonies and no representation in the English Gov't.

After they broke away, and after the war of 1812, Americans experienced a swell of national pride. Over time, the two cultures spread further and further apart.

English settlers did not create american culture, they created culture that evolved into american culture.


--Sorry for grammar and spelling errors, I just got back from a party--

 

[alexander dumas]

Maple,

You mention "English settlers did not create american culture, they created culture that evolved into american culture." It appears that the culture they created was different from the culture in England. I don't care what you call it, as it seems you think there was some interim other culture. That's good enough for me.
I would think the swelling of national pride was significant around the time of the Declaration of Independence.

Another thing to think about: There are around 200 sovereign countries today vs. 16 civs on a huge map. It would be useless to have cities revolt and start a new civ, they would be too weak, so the game has them switch to the locally dominant civ.'

Why is it that Canadians love US history?

 

[KWENCHJEANPI]

« Why is it that Canadians love US history? »





Whoa...
Canadians have their own culture and history and we like it way more than US history and culture. Especially in Quebec where our culture and history are so strong that we still speak French after centuries of total domination from USA and English Canada.

So, New-York can build as many libraries, temples and wonders it wishes, Montreal will never get assimilated. Or if you prefer... You will never see a new born in Montreal that will claim for american citizenship...

JP

 

[Trinity]

But then Montreal has a very high culture rating. One of the best symphony orchestras in the world, among other things.

During the Vietnam War, I kept my money in the Bank of Montreal, Sacramento branch.

English speaking Canadians like the US dollar more than they like the US people and history, but has more in common with the USA than Quebec Province. Many in Quebec would prefer their own nation.

 

[alexander dumas]

Trinity:
I was referring to the preachy US history lesson. One of many I have heard from certain Canadians who feel they need to teach Americans. At least they aren't as bad as expats who always seem to feel they know more about America than anyone, or that America is a cesspool, or that Americans should stay home... I was a travel guide writer in the US and Asia and have heard way too many rants and raves while on the road.

 

[Trinity]

I haven't run into expats. Culturally we're on a slippery slope (when Brittany Spears gets $75 per ticket and the Seattle Symphony gets $25). I know -- free market. We have black spots in our history, but show me a country that doesn't (okay -- maybe Luxembourg).

I think the biggest problem we face is that we don't seem to have learned our own history, and learned from history, our own and others. For example: as much as I'd hate to see it, we need to tap ANWR and research alternative energy and conserve fossil fuels. The rise of fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait necessitates this. It will take about 10 years for ANWR to come on line. But for some stupid reason, we don't want to go to higher fuel economy vehicles ahead of the impending problem. We didn't learn from 1974 and 1979.