People overthrew my Government!

[Turner]

You choose your own government. The period of anarchy is the penalty.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

See, Turner that's all you had to say... like omg

 

[Doom666]

I still say that Democracy is the best form of government. Maybe i play so much differently than you, that i can actually use some things to advantage that most ppl find only slowing you down. I dont know. But even when i'm at war with the whole world, (literally) Democracy proves why it's the best gov to play. :/

 

[Ansar]

This has happened to me once. I was in war and in Democracy.

 

[Norton II]

I still say that Democracy is the best form of government. Maybe i play so much differently than you, that i can actually use some things to advantage that most ppl find only slowing you down. I dont know. But even when i'm at war with the whole world, (literally) Democracy proves why it's the best gov to play. :/

What makes democracy better than republic for waging war? Or better than communism or fascism, for that matter? If I were at war with the whole world, I wouldn't want to be in the only government in which war weariness can lead directly to anarchy. Admittedly, that never happened to me back when I used to switch to democracy, but even then, unhappiness would often be such a problem that I was forced to make peace before achieving all my objectives. But even setting aside the issue of war weariness, there's the problem of having to research, steal, or trade for two optional techs and having to revolt a second time (assuming you haven't stayed in despotism until halfway through the middle ages). It's unlikely that the faster workers and lower corruption of democracy will make up for those things.

 

[Doom666]

Well, that could be because i've never lost a war in Civ 3 while in Democracy, and in the point where i get that gov, i'm usually the most powerful civ, and can spawn endless lines of powerful units and the wars never last that long.

I dont know.. Besides, i never start any wars, unless some weaker guy has some nice resources, or strategically important cities in it's possession. And there's always the pre emptive first-strike wars i might deem necessary if the opponent shows too much hostility.

 

[Norton II]

IIRC you play warlord, right? As you move up in level, you'll have to work harder to stay ahead of the other civs. It was at emperor that I finally gave up revolting to democracy and waiting a long time to start wars. I try to have my continent to myself by the late MA/early IA, so that I'm more likely to have all the resources I need. A peaceful builder approach is doable at higher levels but entails military weakness and requires trading for some resources, sometimes at exorbitant prices.

 

[DragonBird]

Don't sell techs... Buy them.

 

[Tomoyo]

Selling techs is the best way to maintain a tech lead. The money (gpt especially) that the AI pays you is the money that they would have otherwise spent researching (and the cost to buy/research is relatively similar), but instead of the money going into thin air, you get it and you can use it to run deficit research.

It sounds contradictory, but not selling techs usually allows the AI to catch up. If they can't, then you should move up a few levels, since you can clearly trounce the AI at your current level.

 

[Thaddeus2]

This is Civ III that we are talking about?

I suspect that unrest can contribute to having cities overthrown, but this mostly depends on your level of culture. Cities far from your capitol and near civilizations with high culture are especially vulnerable.

Solution? Cultural upgrades. Temples, libraries, universities and the such.