@Skirmisher. I should clarify-I don't mind if AI civs 'gang up' on more powerful civs, but only if it would 'make sense' to do so. In Civ2, I remember alliances being formed against me involving civs I had little or no contact with-and who had little or no contact with one another. Also, civs I had always been on the best of terms with throughout the game would ally against me! That just sucked because it was an arbitrary 'get the big guy'. I mean seriously, the US might cop some verbal abuse from friendly nations, but you don't see these friends forming military alliances against it! My point is that, if a nation is already cautious or displeased with you, then you being much larger and/or powerful than them should sour relations even further. If a group of such cautious/displeased nations decided to band together in a mutual alliance against them, then that would be perfectly fine-but it should be effected by mitigating factors, such as how much contact all the nations involved have. So 2 civs who haven't been in contact for over 1000 years should not suddenly 'come together' in an alliance against the biggest civ, and nor should a civ who has had no contact with the biggest civ in a 1000 years or more. As for smaller/weaker nations being more prone to internal strife. Well this is true too, but England and the US were both incredibly powerful at the time they suffered major internal upheaval. My real point is that ALL civs should have to deal with problems from both within AND without their nation-which would help to prevent the kind of runaway successes which often make the later ages so dull. Hope that makes more sense. Aussie_Lurker.