Anarchy when changing governments

[Hyronymus]

Does anyone recall a country falling into anarchy when changing government system? I'm not talking about civil protests against too high prices, corruption and such but really total anarchy such as Civ depicts it. Why can't you just have 1 turn of no research, no diplomatical or spionage missions and a somewhat lower tax, food and shield production but please, NO ANARCHY.

 

[Mathias]

In the real world, a nation cannot simply change its form of government to suit its needs for a particular year or decade. If the drawback to changing governments in Civ was as minimal as you suggest, the game would simulate just that.

I do agree that total anarchy is a bit harsh, though, and hope that Civ4 introduces a more tolerable transition between governments.

 

[Science Rules]

One problem I see with anarchy is that you, the ruler chooses the government chosen and when anarchy takes place. It does not make sense that a democracy that is hundreds of years old all of a sudden collapses into an anarchy and emerges as a facist dictatorship at the will of the ruler.

 

[Aegis]

One problem I see with anarchy is that you, the ruler chooses the government chosen and when anarchy takes place. It does not make sense that a democracy that is hundreds of years old all of a sudden collapses into an anarchy and emerges as a facist dictatorship at the will of the ruler.

Haven't you heard about what's happening down in Venezuela lately? Hugo Chavez has pretty much just done that. Military coups occur more often than people realize.

I do agree with Hyronymus that Anarchy lasts for too long. One turn can be as much as 50 years, and if you have anarchy for 8 turns, well that is the real world equivalent of 400 years, hardly a realistic number, not that one turn of fifty years would be plausible, either.

Heck, anything more than three years would be unrealistic, but for the sake of balancing the game, it should stay the way that it is. This gives an edge to Religious civs, as well, which is the only reason I would choose to play one.

 

[mastertyguy]

I agree too with hydronamus, and when a civ changes gov, generally, it isn't the same boy as before. They should introduce a new way to change gov.

 

[dh_epic]

I thought Hugo Chavez was only removed from power for one day by a military coup before 100,000 people marched on the capital to get him released? Only successful counter-coup in Latin American history. Probably a bad example.

But yes, I think there needs to be SOME disincentive for a government switch. Maybe 7 turns of absolute anarchy is a bad example. Maybe fewer turns of anarchy depending on your relative level of happiness. Or depending on what switch you're making. Or maybe 1 turn of anarchy, followed by several turns of gradually shifting gears, where it takes a while before your whole society comes back "online".

 

[Che Guava]

Personally, I don't mind the idea of anarchy, but I do agree that it should not occur EVERY time you switch governments. I do think, however, that there should be penalties (and in my view, harsher ones) for switching governments. Specifically, the longer you keep a government, the more efficient, productive and stable it becomes: cities produce more shields, more wealth , more science. A government only a few turns old will basically resemble its predecessor: a democracy that was recently a monarchy will continue to operate as a monarchy and gradually move to democracy levels. A particularly stable (long lasting) government when overthrown will have supporters that will resist the change, maybe making civil disorder/anarchy in some cities

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think anarchy SHOULD be done differently-but should still be based around a system of anarchy. This his how it probably SHOULD work.

Ultimately the # of turns of Anarchy should be variable, based on the following:

1) What age are you currently in?

2) What government are you in, and what government are you changing to?

3) What are your current levels of Sufferage, Libertarianism, Theism and Nationalism?

4) What is the current level of average happiness?

5) How often have you changed governments in the last X turns?

The answer to all of these questions should have a major role in determining how bad the anarchy is to start, and how much of your full capacity you recover each turn. These two things, combined, will determine the total length of the anarchy period. If you have a low level anarchy, and good recovery, then your anarchy period may be only 1-2 turns. If you have a really BAD anarchy, with a poor recovery, then it could take about 10 turns turns to fully recover. The latter example is what might happen if you move from a democratic to authoritarian government type, combined with having a very high level of libertarianism.
Hope that all makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mastertyguy]

Anarchy isn't a punition, it is to represent the disorder in a nation between two different govt, like USA after the revolution, or France, or Germany when created, after WW1 and after Hitler. I agree with some points from aussie_lurker, but I will had those too
6) About the precendent and future govt, if you change "category" i.e. monarchy => demo is long, rep => demo is shorter
7) How big is your empire, not in cities, but distance from capital. some central cities recover faster, then on your other side of the world island, it takes longer, like corruption
8) Other nations. if you go to demo, and there is a friendly civ actually in demo, you can get their help
9) War. if you are at war as other concerns, so anarchy will last longer
10) Literacy. if you go to a totalitarian govt and you have a highly educated civ, they will not be happy, and it lasts longer, if you have low literacy, then if you change to a open govt, tehy don't know how it wotks, and it is longer

give some other ideas

 

[mikehunt]

I don't mind the anarchy concept, just wish it was a shorter period. I've had it go for 10 or more turns before

 

[Heat Miser]

Specifically, the longer you keep a government, the more efficient, productive and stable it becomes: cities produce more shields, more wealth , more science.

I have a problem with long standing gov's being efficient. I have been working on a train of thought for awhile now that the longer a certain gov. is in place the more efficiency drops. The more entrenched bureaucrats become the more they hinder the private sector. A good house cleaning of your gov. would tend to incur great inefficiency at first, followed by a period of optimal efficiency, and then degrading to lower efficiency (ie. a Bell Curve effect). The effects of anarchy should be worse at the top of the curve and lower on either side. Figure it this way, when the gov. is new the people are not yet set in their ways and are more willing to try something new. When the gov. is old, the people are yearning for a change.

 

[Che Guava]

.... A good house cleaning of your gov. would tend to incur great inefficiency at first, followed by a period of optimal efficiency, and then degrading to lower efficiency (ie. a Bell Curve effect). The effects of anarchy should be worse at the top of the curve and lower on either side.....

I like it! I guess all governments have an expiry date at some time, I just didn't like the idea of a despot moving smoothly into democracy and reaping all the benefits immediatly. I also think that a revolution should be a springboard for a civil war as well, (i.e. reactionaries taking on the new regime and such) but I'm not sure how this might manifest itself, other than severe disorder and looting in cities that remain loyal to the old guard....whaddya think?

 

[Own]

i hope that you'll have to fight other "political parties" for power. in the russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin didn't chill for 6 turns, and then communism came to power.

 

[Che Guava]

i hope that you'll have to fight other "political parties" for power.

I like that idea too, but I'm not sure how it might translate into actual gameplay. The best idea I have is when revolution hits (and it should hit whether you push the revolution button or not!), if your people are very unsatisfied with you, you could lose control of your civ for one or two turns as another party takes control, until a popular/military coup brings you back to power. During this time, your civ acts like an AI (who didn't try this with civ II? set human player to none and screw with everyone on the cheat menu...), signing peace treaties, declaring war, changing production, until you get back in power and set things straight again....

 

[jamesjkirk]

There should still be the option for revolution (or transition) to other systems of govt, with the length and severity of the transition depending on your current government, as well as social factors such as individualism vs communitarianism, economic system and so forth. As was said before rep -> dem would be more painless than dem -> fascist. I also hope their talk of government systems is at least some sort of hybrid between traditional civ and SMAC's social engineering.

I agree w/ you Che, though, you should also be subject to having revolutions start w/o your input. There should be ways to ward this off like increasing happiness and so forth. But bigger things could come into play like the civs tendency and desire for certain social and economic factors (ie, a Dem civ w/ high crime could demand a more authoritarian system, or an authoritarian one with a free market could demand more political liberties). You could maybe get some warnings about this with a pop-up similar to that rather pointless one in civ3 about people wanting a particular small wonder. But this would also obviously be a much more "intelligent" system. These homegrown revolutions could also easily transition into civil war type situations with loyalists and rebels and so forth.

 

[Che Guava]

... You could maybe get some warnings about this with a pop-up similar to that rather pointless one in civ3 about people wanting a particular small wonder...

Hmmm....perhaps like a newspaper that could let you know about national moods and trends?

It's all coming together now.....

 

[CurtSibling]

Personally, I don't mind the idea of anarchy, but I do agree that it should not occur EVERY time you switch governments. I do think, however, that there should be penalties (and in my view, harsher ones) for switching governments. Specifically, the longer you keep a government, the more efficient, productive and stable it becomes: cities produce more shields, more wealth , more science. A government only a few turns old will basically resemble its predecessor: a democracy that was recently a monarchy will continue to operate as a monarchy and gradually move to democracy levels. A particularly stable (long lasting) government when overthrown will have supporters that will resist the change, maybe making civil disorder/anarchy in some cities

I like this idea, nice one!

 

[primeminister99]

As an aside the example of Hugo Chavez, is a horrible one. He was elected by the Venezuelan people multiple times. Various monitoring organizations have said the elections where free and fair.

Now relating back to the actual topic I think it would be a good idea to change the way governments are changed. I essentially agree with Aussie Lurker's ideas. However I'd think in a Democratic government there should be the option of introducing a more authoritarian regime, and that regime would attempt to weaken the "Democratic spirit" of the people, and make it susceptible to a fascist or other authoritarian type of government. Perhaps this could be done by having periodic elections. And if the country is doing well they‘ll elect a moderate socialist, liberal or conservative government and the Democratic institutions will be respected. But if the civilization isn’t doing well a reactionary or fringe government say on the left with a strong base from Marxist-Leninists or something, or on the right a strong base on the religious right and extreme nationalists (fascists perhaps) would start weakening the civil society -- which would be based on some sort of point system and should a more democratic government not get back in eventually by improving the state of the civilization that civ would then be susceptible to falling to an authoritarian regime more easily. That would lead back into Aussie Lurker's idea of having a long and arduous period of anarchy if one tries to go from a state with a strong democratic tradition to an attempt to impose a non-democratic government. The type of goverment in a Democratic civilization, meaning a democratic goverment or an authoritarian goverment, could determine the time period and effects of 'anarchy'.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that social engineering should play a role in the length and initial severity of anarchy surrounding Government Changes.
For instance, if you have high levels of Libertarianism, then overall anarchy from a government change should be worse-particularly if the government results in a final REDUCTION in Libertarianism levels. The opposite would also hold true (i.e. a nation with low libertarianism will have less anarchy than normal-especially if the change results in a final INCREASE in Libertarianism levels). High Legalism would reduce anarchy severity AND length, and high sufferage would increase initial anarchy severity-and vice versa.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sengfossil]

hallo,

I think anarchy is the way of the civ game. However, it should not last that long. I think it might depend from the direction of change: from democracy types to dictatorships should be faster, the opposite direction takes unfortunately longer (just have a look to the Irak) .