Never ending anarchy

[morchuflex]

Hello.

I decided to switch to Republic, just after discovering it. The advisor told me we would undergo seven turns of anarchy. But to my surprise, the period of anarchy extended to 11 turns overall (I checked it carefully). Why?
I can make one hypothesis: during this time, I had several minor cities that I kept in rioting status (I couldn't afford to make entertainers in them without causing starvation). Do you think these riots were the cause of this prolonged anarchy? Or does the advisor provide an estimation that can be wrong?

 

[LLXerxes]

Hello.
(I couldn't afford to make entertainers in them without causing starvation).

Who cares about starving them? They will grow back!

 

[homeyg]

I'm not sure, but I think rioting can prolong the anarchy period.

 

[MSTK]

Um...rioting is the anarchy period.

And, starving is a better option than disorder. Trust me.

 

[morchuflex]

Um...rioting is the anarchy period.

No, I mean real rioting, that is civil disorder (and continuing in the same city for several turns).

As for starving them, well - I'm a benevolent ruler. And those cities were surrounded by tundra, so it had taken them a long time to reach size two.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Max Anarchy time is 9 turns. No way it could need 11. Except if you push the 'Revolt' button again during Anarchy period.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Rioting is IMO only an option if the city has no improvments which can be destroyed.

 

[LLXerxes]

Max Anarchy time is 9 turns. No way it could need 11. Except if you push the 'Revolt' button again during Anarchy period.

What are you talking about?
I thought if you pressed the revolt button again you get that funny message from the Domestic Advisor.
"Sir, we are already in a revolution, did you take your medication?"

 

[morchuflex]

All right, maybe I miscounted after all. I guess it was only 9, not 11. I suck at math (that's why I teach literature). But anyway, it was more than announced by the advisor. And I didn't push "revolt" again.

 

[homeyg]

Um...rioting is the anarchy period.

Yes, I meant civil disorder prolongs the anarchy period.

 

[Raio]

During the anarchy period we should always avoid have cities in civil disorder while it will extend this period. Don't care about starving!

I did't know that rule of maximum 9 turns. I tought that while we have a city in civil disorder the anarchy should stand...

 

[luckykitkat]

I didn't know any of that, but I have had a city in "We love the king day" in anarchy.

 

[Globo]

I didn't know any of that, but I have had a city in "We love the king day" in anarchy.

I've had that more then once. I suppose they are just happy getting to steal a lot and murdering the neighbours they don't like.

But serious: I would like to know why though .......

 

[anarres]

AFAIK you can't extend anarchy time by civil disorder. I'm almsot certain on this point.

I actually prefer to let them riot every other turn if food is low and not rioting the whole time would mean starvation. Rioting every other turn is fine, it certainly doesn't lose you any improvements.

 

[MSTK]

I'm telling you - starvation is better than disorder! Being a "nice" ruler will only get you in trouble, and if you are doing that to your citizens, are you just going to declare war on a rival just so you can give their cities to the original owners?

What is better - no production at all, or slow production?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

What are you talking about?
I thought if you pressed the revolt button again you get that funny message from the Domestic Advisor.
"Sir, we are already in a revolution, did you take your medication?"

There is a bug that if you have a scientist in your city, and you research a new government, you can revolt again, and get a new number. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

 

[Theoden]

Rioting every second turn works best for me. Cities only loose halv the food they normally would and there is no continuing rioting so no improvement losses. Of course I don't do it on huge maps when i exceed 100 cities that is too much micromanagement.

 

[Cuivienen]

I'm telling you - starvation is better than disorder! Being a "nice" ruler will only get you in trouble, and if you are doing that to your citizens, are you just going to declare war on a rival just so you can give their cities to the original owners?

What is better - no production at all, or slow production?

This is during Anarchy -- no production either way!

 

[anarres]

He means no city improvements like libraries, barracks, etc. These have a chance of being destroyed if you riot for more than 1 turn in a row.

MSTK: I don't understand what you are saying? Can you explain?

...Being a "nice" ruler will only get you in trouble, and if you are doing that to your citizens, are you just going to declare war on a rival just so you can give their cities to the original owners?

 

[Grille]

There is a bug that if you have a scientist in your city, and you research a new government, you can revolt again, and get a new number. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

You're right.
The 'new' revolt would not be started manually by pressing the button on F1 (->funny 'medication' pop up), but by that prompt (we researched rep - should we make a revolution?). Saying 'yes' here could of course expand the anarchy phase. I think it's max 18 turns, because the tech choice prompt pops up before gov choice prompt.
Example:
-you only know monarchy except despotism
-revolt by F1 button, draw 9 anarchy turns
-hire scientists to research rep (due in 9 as well)
after 9 turns:
-pop up: rep is in (choose new tech to research), "should we revolt"?
->yes: in worst case, 9 new anarchy turns -total 18 turns
->no: besides monarchy, you get rep as option as well on the immeditely following gov choice prompt!

about the riots:
Somehow rioting cities don't always starve. Hire taxmen, scientists so that citizens are still unhappy enough (in cities w/o improvements) and keep 'em rioting...