You say you want a revolution?

[Slax]

Many players do not change governments often during a game, including myself. I admit, it would be more interesting if I did try other forms of governing. For me, if I could forecast better what a government change would result in, and if the anarchy period was less painful, I would do it more often. I propose that the civ 4 makers alleviate both of these factors by (a) have an advisor estimate the changes in commerce, production and happiness due to government change, and (b) make the anarchy period less painful.

Of course, if the proposed "civics" inclusion in civ4 means "make your own government" by setting various sliders, etc, then the above may be moot. In this case, all I would ask is that it should not be as painful to try other governments as it is in Civ3.

Do you agree?

 

[mastertyguy]

I agree with a), and b) at half. Anarchy should be shorter.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

I agree wholeheartedly. 9 turns of anarchy is just too long. They should have made it 3-4 turns for everyone and given Religious some other advantage, like maybe Cathedrals give a 50% luxury bonus or something for taxes.

Having this short period of anarchy would encourage ppl to switch regimes more, and it would be worth it to have more government types in civ4. Another interesting idea is that once per game, your citizens would take matters into their own hands and start a revolt on their own, switching to a new government equal or more advanced than the one you are in. This kind of thing would get the people who NEVER play anything but Despotism-Monarchy-Communism or Despotism-Republic-Democracy to try other government styles and maybe develop new strategies for winning.

 

[Colonel]

Wow what a whine, Anarchy is the best point gameplay wise, adds a realistic perspective

 

[garyg]

I've never had a nine turn Anarchy. Most of the time it's six and I'm playing England right now in Monarch and it was only four.
On a side note I once accidently triggered my GA on my first turn of Anarchy and it cut the time in half. Of course I'd rather of had the three turns of production.

 

[Slax]

Wow what a whine, Anarchy is the best point gameplay wise, adds a realistic perspective

I'm not against having a period of anarchy, I just think it is a little but too crippling (from a gameplay perspective). And if I were given the tools to forecast the future under a new government, it would certainly help.

As I said above, though, revolution will probably not be the same in Civ 4. I just hope that I don't find myself staying with the exact same government settings for more than half of the game due to whatever negative impact 'tweaking' will cause.

 

[Mordack]

I would like to see an Alpha Centauri-like government system

there is a whole thread about this so I won't repeat

 

[rhialto]

The problem with anarchy isn't the length, which I think is about right. It's the fact that is stops your economy entirely, leaving you with nothing to do at all except click through the turns. I think the fix is to make anarchy a very weak, but not thoroughly impotent, government.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The amount, and length, of anarchy should depend on certain factors-such as the Era you are in, how happy/stable your nation is when you make the change, and whether it was forced on you by your people or done voluntarily.
Also, the anarchy period should start 'bad', then grow gradually LESS bad, until the 'anarchy' period is officially over.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Evie]

I think Govt Change should depend on what you're switching to (which, in the case of user-specified revolutions, should come BEFORE the anarchy, not after it), and from.

In general, shifting from decentralized government toward more centralized one should generate lots of anarchy (Feud to Monarchy, for example), whereas decentralizing (monarchy to feud) should generally be a lot less painful, and staying on relatively the same level of centralization (Rep to Dem) should not be very anarchic either. Similarly, switching toward a more representative govt form should be easy, switching toward a less representative form, not so easy (ie, democracy to communism is harder than monarchy to republic).

I think the anarchy length should be something liek this :

1-3, based on the size of your empire.
x2 if CENTRALIZING (the Provinces/Nobles/whatever will fight you)
x1 if staying at the same level of centralization.
x0.5 if decentralizing. (The Provinces/Nobles/whatever will support you)
x2 if REDUCING representativity (the People will fight you)
x1 if representativity stays more or less the same.
x0.5 if INCREASING representativity (the People will support you).

In addition, other circumstances affect these numbers (for example, it's easier to switch while at war - the penalties on centralizing and decreasing representativity are easier to overcome when you can say "We're doing this to survive against our enemy! We need to!". It's also easier to switch if your population approves of you (ie, is happy), and harder to switch if they're already dead-set against you. Etc.

The bottom line of this is, a revolution and government change needs not always be a bloody affair.