View Full Version : War Weariness Mechanics


KrikkitTwo
Aug 09, 2006, 10:17 AM
Another thread inspired some searching through the SDK, and this is what I came up with
NOTE: ALL 1.61 based, Vanilla, Not Warlords


So the "simple" formula seems to be:

WW Unhappiness in a City=
Pop x Active WW/200
x (100% -25%(Jail)-25%(Rushmore)-50%(Police State) )
x World Size Modifier
__Duel=150%
__Tiny=130%
__Small=110%
__Standard=90%
__Large=70%
__Huge=50%
x 50% if Multiplayer game
x 50% if Always War or Permanent War/Peace Options
x AIs Modifier (100% at Settler..10% lower for each level up)
x (100+AI Per Era Modifier * Era)% [-1 for everly Level above Noble]
0 if you are a Barbarian


Active WW= sum of all WW from all living teams that you are at war with

WW from a team= Starts at 0 and is changed by

1. Combat Actions: only gained where you are not Culturally dominant
[ie a city that was someone else's for a long time might NOT count as where you are culturally dominant, even if it is within your borders]
You gain no WW from Combat actions against Barbarians

Your unit attacks their unit=+3 if you lose, +1 if you win
Their unit attacks your unit =+2 (win or lose)
You capture a unit=+1
Your unit is captured=+2
You capture a city=+6
You launch a nuke=+12 (WW regardless of culture)
You are hit with a Nuke=+3 (WW regardless of culture... this is for All players hit by the nuke)


2. Time events
Each turn =-1
Each turn at Peace= x 99% (rounded down)
(so if it started at 102, and you were at peace, it would drop to 99)
102-1=101
101*0.99=99.99 (round down)=99
This is NOT Scaled with Game Speed, so on ALL game speeds you can do ~1 Combat every 1-3 turns and not increase your WW.


Basically with no Modifiers on a standard map
Every "Foreign" City you take= 3% WW
Every Unit Combat in "Foreign" territory =~1% WW (less if you are winning attacks, more if you lose attacks)

"Foreign" here refers to Culture, not borders... so if the Germans sweep through and take half of your cities, you shouldn't have any WW killing those units and taking them back because even though it may be within German 'Borders' the area is still probably culturally yours

Also if the Germans sweep through area that Was French for a Long time, but you took recently, BOTH you and the Germans will have WW fighting over the Area.



The worst possible WW War is Take a few cities and then keep fighting in that newly taken territory/remain at war. If you don't think you will make any more gains then making peace is a good idea.

Because making peace for the 10 turns can take ~20 points off =~10% Anger reduction when you restart the War.

Roland Johansen
Aug 10, 2006, 04:59 AM
Great article Krikkitone. Some time ago, I also looked at the xml-files and noted the war weariness points effects, but I never was close to actually creating a war weariness formula. Your formula also explains any observations about war weariness that I've had during my games, so I don't think that you've missed a (crucial) component. Great job! :goodjob:

Strobe
Aug 10, 2006, 05:29 AM
Excellent article, will come in very handy to plan more for war weariness rathe than just manage it.

a4phantom
Aug 10, 2006, 09:31 AM
Very good to know, especially the last. Thank you. How wierd is it that you take 4X more WW for nuking a city than being nuked? Seems like the American public should have demanded Truman surrender to Japan. Also, does war weariness gained in a war (now ceasefired) with say Germany in any way affect WW from a war with the Turks? Or is the Germany WW irrelevant until you go to war with them again? Has anyone noticed any changes in WW between 1.61 and Warlords? Finally, does it not matter who started the war?

Beamup
Aug 10, 2006, 09:57 AM
An observation: This means that you'll be much better off, in terms of WW, to let your enemy's stacks come to you and crush them in your own territory before you start your offensive. The less of their mobile forces you have to destroy in their territory, the better.

Which means that your people will actually be happier if you let the enemy invade and trample all over them instead of keeping them safely away from your cities. Go figure.

Roland Johansen
Aug 10, 2006, 10:26 AM
I think that the idea is that the people of a nation have never objected to a defensive war to protect their own country, their own homes. However, when the sons of a country are sent to the other side of the world to fight an offensive war, then the parents typically are less understanding when their son returns in a body bag.

Also when pictures of the deaths caused by one's country are shown in the media, then people also start to object to the war. Especially when children and innocent people are being killed. So it's not that strange that capturing a city or throwing nukes causes war weariness.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 10, 2006, 10:29 AM
Well the way I see that is as a balancing factor
If the war is a strategic benefit to you (offensive conquest in enemy territory)
YOU are happy but your people are unhappy

If the war is a strategic threat to you (lots of troops in your territory)
You are unhappy but your people are happy


And...It does not matter who Started a war
The WW from each team is kept completely seperate... German WW only counts when you are at war with Germany.

a4phantom
Aug 10, 2006, 11:23 AM
Thanks. Does War Happiness from Civ3 and real life not exist in Civ4?

Beamup
Aug 10, 2006, 12:53 PM
I think that the idea is that the people of a nation have never objected to a defensive war to protect their own country, their own homes. However, when the sons of a country are sent to the other side of the world to fight an offensive war, then the parents typically are less understanding when their son returns in a body bag.

Also when pictures of the deaths caused by one's country are shown in the media, then people also start to object to the war. Especially when children and innocent people are being killed. So it's not that strange that capturing a city or throwing nukes causes war weariness.
Oh, I certainly agree with that. The odd bit comes in when you realize that deliberately inviting an invasion makes people happier than they'd otherwise be!

It works out pretty well in-game, but it's rather amusing.

Roland Johansen
Aug 10, 2006, 03:27 PM
Oh, I certainly agree with that. The odd bit comes in when you realize that deliberately inviting an invasion makes people happier than they'd otherwise be!

It works out pretty well in-game, but it's rather amusing.

I agree.

But I think that every formula would lead to cases that would be weird in real life. There is quite some logic in this formula and it's definately more precise and detailed than the civ3 formula, but it can still lead to strange cases.

Of course, as Krikkitone says, game balance can also be an important reason for making a formula work in a certain way.

Beamup
Aug 10, 2006, 05:05 PM
Yeah. My main point was the possibility of manipulating WW by fighting on your own land to deal with their mobile forces. Which it really seems should work out quite nicely if you have the troops to contain them.

a4phantom
Aug 10, 2006, 07:32 PM
I agree.

But I think that every formula would lead to cases that would be weird in real life. There is quite some logic in this formula and it's definately more precise and detailed than the civ3 formula, but it can still lead to strange cases.

Of course, as Krikkitone says, game balance can also be an important reason for making a formula work in a certain way.


Hezbollah provoked Israel into invading Lebanon - a month later Lebanon (and most of the world) has become drastically more pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel, and the Israeli government is facing massive domestic unhappiness. (I absolutely am not trying to start a political debate here, I think these are basic facts that illustrate a point.) If I'm not mistaken Bismark also rope-a-doped France into declaring war and invading. So it is "wierd", but far from unrealistic! Just remember that those invading stacks will probably contain cavalry who pillage as they go, and by choosing your own territory as the battleground you could end up with some serious pillage damage. On the other hand, roads are extremely overpowered, and defending your territory gives you an insane manueverability advantage, especially for suicide catapults.

Carl v.
Aug 13, 2006, 05:43 PM
Thank you for solving one of the mysteries of CIVIV.

This means better possibilities staging attrition warfare against a stronger enemy. As it is stated above, one might experience tiles are pillaged. But that should be very good business, considering the impact of war weariness in your enemy's cities.

a4phantom
Aug 13, 2006, 06:14 PM
Possibly, if it's come down to a duel between you two, but remember that if you're still in competition for victory with other civs they will surge past both of you.

Carl v.
Aug 13, 2006, 06:42 PM
a4phantom has a wery good point, wars costs a lot. but the statement is valid for all wars.
The question is how you decide to inflict harm to your enemy. It should be done with maximum effect to minimum cost. If you are attacked, the enemy has probably build up a significant force. Defencive warfare seems underestemated as a means to destroy superior enemy forces. If one can inflict war weariness on the enemy in addition to destroying his armed forces, it should be an advantage.

a4phantom
Aug 13, 2006, 07:43 PM
Right, I didn't mean that your point was invalid, because if you're fighting a defensive war it's most likely that giving peace a chance wasn't an option for you. Welcome to the forums by the way.

civictor
Aug 15, 2006, 02:01 PM
According to the formula, if you have a jail, mount rushmore, and police state, war weariness is zero. If that is true, then it is an interesting result for the warmongering among us.

Egil Skallagrim
Aug 16, 2006, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by a4phantom
Hezbollah provoked Israel into invading Lebanon - a month later Lebanon (and most of the world) has become drastically more pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel, and the Israeli government is facing massive domestic unhappiness.

I know you aren't trying to make a political statement but since you've missunderstood the political situation your point is lost.
The situation started when Hezbollah kidnapped a single Israeli soldier resulting in a clear overreaction from Israel who invaded Gaza and kidnapped Palestinian officials. Hezbollah responded to this act of aggreasion by missile attacks from southern Lebanon resulting in more Israeli actions into Lebanon.

As it stands Israel started an (not entirelly unprovoked but still a clear overreaction) attack against Palestinians resulting in counter-attacks into Israeli territory causing the WW. Had it actually started with the missile attacks then the situation would likely have been different.

a4phantom
Aug 16, 2006, 08:36 AM
I know you aren't trying to make a political statement but since you've missunderstood the political situation your point is lost.
The situation started when Hezbollah kidnapped a single Israeli soldier resulting in a clear overreaction from Israel who invaded Gaza and kidnapped Palestinian officials. Hezbollah responded to this act of aggreasion by missile attacks from southern Lebanon resulting in more Israeli actions into Lebanon.

As it stands Israel started an (not entirelly unprovoked but still a clear overreaction) attack against Palestinians resulting in counter-attacks into Israeli territory causing the WW. Had it actually started with the missile attacks then the situation would likely have been different.

I understand the political situation depressingly well actually, but this is not the place to discuss it. I brought it up along with other real life analogies to make a point about gameplay's, and since you say "The situation started when Hezbollah kidnapped a single Israeli soldier resulting in a clear overreaction from Israel . . ." it's pretty hard to see what about my statement you actually disagree with.

UncleJJ
Aug 17, 2006, 05:06 PM
Your unit attacks their unit=+3 if you lose, +1 if you win
Their unit attacks your unit =+2 (win or lose)


What are considered "attacks" for the purpose of these formulas?

I expect the normal attack of one land unit on another to be an attack.

a) But is the attack of an aircraft on your unit an attack? Aircraft might be exempt from WW.

b) Is the interception of your aircraft attack by a SAM infantry still an attack, either on the original target or on your aircraft by the SAM?

c) When an Seige unit attacks a stack there is obviously one attack against the primary defender, but does the collateral damage against other units in the stack also count as multiple attacks?

Thats all I can think of at the moment. I hope you can answer some of these special situations.

Edit adding to list ;)

d) Do naval combats also add to war weariness?

e) If so, what happens when a large number of land units are lost when the galleon or transport carrying them is sunk. Do they count as "lost units"

KrikkitTwo
Aug 23, 2006, 07:32 PM
Well Collateral Damge isn't counted as its in the same area as the death/retreat of a unit.

I'm pretty sure normal Aircraft bombardment isn't in there, as for a SAM/Fighter Intercept. Well Unless that goes through the normal combat death section, which I don't think it does, I would guess that you can avoid WW just by bombing them to death (as long as you don't use nukes)

JackOfClubs
Aug 24, 2006, 06:16 PM
According to the formula, if you have a jail, mount rushmore, and police state, war weariness is zero. If that is true, then it is an interesting result for the warmongering among us.
I noticed that too. Unfortunately Police State and Mt. Rushmore come fairly late (with Fascism) and Jail is not much sooner (with Constitution). For early wars (which I prefer) this isn't too much help unless you manage to get Pyramids.

I generally rely on happy pills from religion and luxuries (and Monarchy) to counteract war unhappiness and try to keep the engagements short. The latter is much easier in pre-industrial eras when the cities have fewer defenses.

As to the idea of allowing the enemy onto your home turf, I don't think the risk is worth the reduction in war weariness. A safer application of these rules might be to try to expand your cultural borders so that the early engagements are fought at least partially on ground loyal to your civ. I can't tell if the rule applies proportionately so that disputed territory (eg 40% Roman / 60% Egyptian) would get a discount on war weariness.

UncleJJ
Aug 26, 2006, 06:53 AM
Well Collateral Damge isn't counted as its in the same area as the death/retreat of a unit.

I'm pretty sure normal Aircraft bombardment isn't in there, as for a SAM/Fighter Intercept. Well Unless that goes through the normal combat death section, which I don't think it does, I would guess that you can avoid WW just by bombing them to death (as long as you don't use nukes)

Thanks :) You are doing great work here.

It would be interesting to test if the aircraft attacks are not contributing to WW. What would be the best way to do that? I'm not familiar with the World Builder, could that help set up a test scenario?

Finally, I note this information is only relevant to vanilla Civ 4 so is WW very much different in Warlords?

KrikkitTwo
Aug 26, 2006, 07:43 PM
No clue, (I haven't got it yet) but they didn't SAY anything was different, so this would probably work.

ASs for a best test Scenario..... give Yourself Lots of Aircraft, (and a 1000 population city) Give Side 2 Lots of units in a city surrounded by mountains... Just bomb away as much as you can, and eventually you should see some WW unhappiness in the breakdown.

aeoniq
Aug 28, 2006, 02:15 AM
According to the formula, if you have a jail, mount rushmore, and police state, war weariness is zero. If that is true, then it is an interesting result for the warmongering among us.

Confirmed. I was playing Chinese yesterday and went to war with Isabella for 600 years no stop. After capturing and razing 3-4 cities, the war weariness was unbearable. One time I checked, it was 17. I had +30 happiness from all the resources and techs but it was no match for the crazy 6-decade war. So I completed the mount rushmore, some jails and switched to police state and war weariness went to 0. It was amusing to see Isabella begging for peace (I gave her pieces instead). Dude, I recommend changing to police state if we are planning to stay in Iraq for a decade or more (oops sorry, I digress).

_alphaBeta_
Sep 15, 2006, 06:55 AM
This thread is great. I was under the impression it worked differently. I always thought that a substantial WW penalty was inflicted on whoever started the war. I see now that starting a war, but fighting all the battles on your home turf could go on forever. I also see how fighting in neutral territory can be just as bad as fighting in your enemy's land.

Question: In order to get the +99% 'bonus' when decreasing war weariness each turn, do you just need to be at peace with the specific team, or at peace with everyone?

Each turn at Peace= x 99% (rounded down)

KrikkitTwo
Sep 17, 2006, 08:19 AM
Just the Specific team

HardCoder
Nov 27, 2006, 07:38 AM
It was amusing to see Isabella begging for peace (I gave her pieces instead).
"I come in peace." "You go in pieces." Hey, I've seen that movie.

Syndrome Zed
Dec 01, 2006, 03:10 PM
This thread is great. I was under the impression it worked differently. I always thought that a substantial WW penalty was inflicted on whoever started the war. I see now that starting a war, but fighting all the battles on your home turf could go on forever. I also see how fighting in neutral territory can be just as bad as fighting in your enemy's land.


IIRC that was true for Civ3's WW calculation. Guess it was changed for this one.

Two last quick questions: I thought in 3 it also mattered if you razed a city or kept it. I take it it no longer matters what you do with the city once you've captured it (not counting diplo modifier, naturally)?

Oh - and someone asked about nukes giving much more WW by giving one rather than receiving one. My interpretation of that is that naked aggression coupled with the relatively indiscriminate destruction of populations and land as well as military assets (i.e. being the nuker) makes your population much more angry at you, as well as horrified by what's been done in their name, than being the victim of someone else's aggression (the nukee), which only horrifies the people and tends to direct their anger towards the aggressor. Think of it as "increased exposure to the horrors of war = +3" and "knowing that your leader caused this in your name = +9". Being the nuker exposes you to both conditions, being the nukee to just the former.
My question also regards nukes - it's an event cost, so can we assume that means for every nuke launched it's +12? Or is it each turn you use nukes, or just one mod for using them in the first place? I have to admit, the fact that every remaining civ does *not* declare war on you just for pushing the button makes them a bit more useful. :mwaha:

a4phantom
Dec 01, 2006, 03:37 PM
It makes sense gameplay wise. Logically it's ridiculous, America didn't give up and surrender after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan did.

Syndrome Zed
Dec 01, 2006, 11:56 PM
It makes sense gameplay wise. Logically it's ridiculous, America didn't give up and surrender after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan did.

War weariness doesn't force anyone to give up and surrender, it just speeds up the approaching end of the war by making the populace less willing to support it. The game bears this aspect of it out very well - there were strikes and other work stoppages towards the latter half of WW2 in the US, as people got tired of rationing and buying war bonds and doing the things that the game equates to production and commerce by citizens.

Applying it to WW2 Japan, it wasn't war weariness that forced the end for Japan, it was a combination of the destruction caused by the bombs and the already-willing-to-surrender faction of the Japanese Imperial government finally gaining the upper hand. But the game's logic is also based on the idea that the populace is going to get to see and understand just how much damage the nuke does and knows just how "wrong" using a nuke is - the poor communication, plus the relative ignorance of the power of a nuclear warhead (and its aftermath), of WW2 made them much less horrific to the average American. So using them wasn't as big a deal as it would have been if we'd used one on Baghdad or Tehran in the here and now.

Anyway, this might be getting a little bit off-topic I suppose, but to sum it up, the game's logic is based on hindsight and the knowledge of the total cost of using a nuke, so WW2 analogies are not going to compare too well in that respect. But in other respects, WW2 did show similar WW results to the formula the game uses.

jkp1187
Feb 18, 2007, 09:03 AM
Quick question -- what is the definition of "culturally dominant"? Land that is 50.00001% your culture, for example?

DaviddesJ
Feb 18, 2007, 03:49 PM
Do you get the same +6 WW whether you raze an enemy city, or keep it?

Mutineer
Feb 19, 2007, 11:02 PM
Culture dominant mean you have more culture % then any other civ on this tie.

If could be >50% if there only 2 civ culture present, or it could be 30% if 5 civ culture present for example in amount:
15-25-20-10-30%

Mutineer
Feb 19, 2007, 11:05 PM
What I am a bit confused about is that based on this article WW does not depends on what unit die.
In my emperical observation WW jump up a lot when just 1 Mex Infantry die, compare with bunch of cats. It could be my wrong impression, as cities tend to be mach bigger in time of MI compare of time of cats. But I am not sure, because scale of difference seems to be mach bigger.

jkp1187
Feb 20, 2007, 06:27 AM
Culture dominant mean you have more culture % then any other civ on this tie.

If could be >50% if there only 2 civ culture present, or it could be 30% if 5 civ culture present for example in amount:
15-25-20-10-30%

You know this for sure?

Roland Johansen
Feb 20, 2007, 06:54 AM
What I am a bit confused about is that based on this article WW does not depends on what unit die.
In my emperical observation WW jump up a lot when just 1 Mex Infantry die, compare with bunch of cats. It could be my wrong impression, as cities tend to be mach bigger in time of MI compare of time of cats. But I am not sure, because scale of difference seems to be mach bigger.

You might be a strong technologically superior civilization killing lots of troops in the modern age. The numbers of troops are bigger in the modern age and you also suffer war weariness from killing troops in foreign territory. Could that be the case?
And of course war weariness is a percentage of the size of the city so you will notice 10% war weariness only when the cities are equal or larger than size 10.

Both of these effects combined might give that impression.

_alphaBeta_
Feb 20, 2007, 02:36 PM
Has anyone definitely confirmed that WW decreases over time if you remain at war? Obviously the rate is slower, but I have yet to see this. It just seems to go higher and higher, even though there's no increase to population.

cabert
Feb 21, 2007, 02:33 AM
nevermind, seems I'm not getting it

Roland Johansen
Feb 21, 2007, 05:15 AM
It's not the unit, it's the era :

"x (100+AI Per Era Modifier * Era)% [-1 for everly Level above Noble]"

If you're using mech infantry, you're obviously in the latest era, and you're probably not alone there. It makes a big difference, not only because of city sizes (I tend to whip hard for canons a bit earlier, so my cities aren't THAT big)

The Per Era Modifier isn't that big. Even at deity level on the last age, it's only 24% more (1,30/1,05) war weariness in the last age than in the first age.

At (for instance) emperor level, the difference between losing a catapult (classical age) and losing a mechanized infantry (modern age) is only 11% more war weariness (1.18/1.06).

It does make a difference, but it's not huge. It's probably mostly the city sizes.

cabert
Feb 21, 2007, 05:27 AM
The Per Era Modifier isn't that big. Even at deity level on the last age, it's only 24% more (1,30/1,05) war weariness in the last age than in the first age.

At (for instance) emperor level, the difference between losing a catapult (classical age) and losing a mechanized infantry (modern age) is only 11% more war weariness (1.18/1.06).

It does make a difference, but it's not huge. It's probably mostly the city sizes.

well, if 5 AIs are in the modern age, it's 5 times 11%,
55% is a lot, isn't it?

Roland Johansen
Feb 21, 2007, 08:08 AM
well, if 5 AIs are in the modern age, it's 5 times 11%,
55% is a lot, isn't it?

I see no reason to believe that it is related to the number of AI in the modern age. It would destabalize the game if you play against many opponents. Do you have a reason to think that it works like that? :confused:

My guess would be that all the game elements affected by the 'AI per era modifier' get affected by the modifier once one civilization reaches a new age.

cabert
Feb 21, 2007, 08:11 AM
I see no reason to believe that it is related to the number of AI in the modern age. It would destabalize the game if you play against many opponents. Do you have a reason to think that it works like that? :confused:

My guess would be that all the game elements affected by the 'AI per era modifier' get affected by the modifier once one civilization reaches a new age.

I may be totally mistaken, but that's how I understood this formula :
x (100+AI Per Era Modifier * Era)% [-1 for everly Level above Noble].

I will read it again, and try to understand better.

Roland Johansen
Feb 21, 2007, 08:44 AM
I may be totally mistaken, but that's how I understood this formula :
x (100+AI Per Era Modifier * Era)% [-1 for everly Level above Noble].

I will read it again, and try to understand better.

The AI Per Era Modifier is a value from the file CIV4HandicapInfo.xml (to be exact, the modifier is called iAIPerEraModifier). I think it means 'a modifier for the AI which increases for each era of the game'. But I haven't looked in the SDK to know this.

It's just a matter of interpretation, I guess.

cabert
Feb 21, 2007, 08:53 AM
The AI Per Era Modifier is a value from the file CIV4HandicapInfo.xml (to be exact, the modifier is called iAIPerEraModifier). I think it means 'a modifier for the AI which increases for each era of the game'. But I haven't looked in the SDK to know this.

It's just a matter of interpretation, I guess.

Ok, and what are the values for era and AIpereramodifier?
You stated +11% max, but I was under the impression that it somehow doubled for each era.

nevermind, that's only for AIs.

Roland Johansen
Feb 21, 2007, 09:40 AM
Ok, and what are the values for era and AIpereramodifier?
You stated +11% max, but I was under the impression that it somehow doubled for each era.

The AIperEraModifier is '-1 for everly Level above Noble', thus -1 at prince, -2 at monarch, -3 at emperor, etc. The modifier is 0 for the levels noble and below. I guess that the era's are numbered 1 till 6 (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, industrial, modern).

nevermind, that's only for AIs.

You mean that only the war weariness of the AI is modified (lessened) by the AIpereramodifier? That could be true. If you read the formula exactly, then this modifier seems to decrease war weariness. It would be unlikely that the people at Firaxis would decrease war weariness at the higher difficulty levels for the human player.

Only the OP, Krikkitone could tell us what he has read in the SDK. Maybe the modifier is only applied for the AI.

cabert
Feb 22, 2007, 01:20 AM
The AIperEraModifier is '-1 for everly Level above Noble', thus -1 at prince, -2 at monarch, -3 at emperor, etc. The modifier is 0 for the levels noble and below. I guess that the era's are numbered 1 till 6 (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, industrial, modern). well, seems fair but only a guess




You mean that only the war weariness of the AI is modified (lessened) by the AIpereramodifier? That could be true. If you read the formula exactly, then this modifier seems to decrease war weariness. It would be unlikely that the people at Firaxis would decrease war weariness at the higher difficulty levels for the human player.
yep, lower ww on deity than on settler probably is AI only.
But I'll peek into the SDK (not right now) to check if there is a different formula for the human.

Only the OP, Krikkitone could tell us what he has read in the SDK. Maybe the modifier is only applied for the AI.
Or anyone who understands the code ;)

Roland Johansen
Feb 22, 2007, 05:09 AM
Or anyone who understands the code ;)

Uh, of course. Let me know what you find.

cabert
Feb 22, 2007, 06:29 AM
Uh, of course. Let me know what you find.

hum, Maybe I sounded like I was some kind of professional.
I'm not.
Not at all.
It was more like asking some good wills out there to look it up.

Bushface
Feb 28, 2007, 01:37 PM
Krikkitone, in post #7, said that WW from each adversary is kept separate. But if you are fighting two or more opponents then presumably you are affected by the sum of whatever weariness is applied by each. And what happens if one war ends - which should start to reduce weariness - while another continues ?
Also, nobody has answered the question of air warfare: does this affect WW or not ?

_alphaBeta_
Feb 28, 2007, 02:08 PM
Good question about air power - I would like to know the answer. Did we ever discuss if fighting barbarians affects WW?

cabert
Mar 01, 2007, 01:11 AM
Good question about air power - I would like to know the answer. Did we ever discuss if fighting barbarians affects WW?

there is no ww for barbarians
(and barbarians don't suffer ww neither)

I can't answer the question about airfights for sure, but I suspect it doesn't affect ww.

ZB2
Mar 01, 2007, 06:41 AM
loosing an aircraft counts as a loss though... i might have missed it, but do you/they get war weariness from loosing a worker? its a unit yes, but not a military one with actual combat..

cabert
Mar 01, 2007, 06:49 AM
loosing an aircraft counts as a loss though... i might have missed it, but do you/they get war weariness from loosing a worker? its a unit yes, but not a military one with actual combat..

from post 1
You capture a unit=+1
Your unit is captured=+2

So I assume that having a worker captured counts as +2 in the ww total.
Could it be the same for planes? Or is a bombing counted as an attack?
dunno

Mutineer
Mar 01, 2007, 06:53 AM
In time of plances WW tend to be so hight it does not matter.
One has to run full combination of Polica state/Rasmore/Jail to survive anyway.

ZB2
Mar 01, 2007, 07:08 AM
Oh right, thankyou.

[quute]One has to run full combination of Polica state/Rasmore/Jail to survive anyway.[/quote]

you can say that again, haha. long wars end up with 6 population cities.. all drafted. :)

Nacht
Mar 16, 2007, 03:48 PM
Only the OP, Krikkitone could tell us what he has read in the SDK. Maybe the modifier is only applied for the AI.

It is indeed. And it is applied to almost any modifier in the game for the AI; multiplied by 0 in the ancient age to 5 in the modern age.

Roland Johansen
Mar 16, 2007, 05:16 PM
It is indeed. And it is applied to almost any modifier in the game for the AI; multiplied by 0 in the ancient age to 5 in the modern age.

Ok, thank you. The modifier then works as expected. Good to have a confirmation.

Perugia
Mar 22, 2007, 08:55 AM
The AI Per Era Modifier is a value from the file CIV4HandicapInfo.xml (to be exact, the modifier is called iAIPerEraModifier). I think it means 'a modifier for the AI which increases for each era of the game'. But I haven't looked in the SDK to know this.

It's just a matter of interpretation, I guess.
It is indeed. And it is applied to almost any modifier in the game for the AI; multiplied by 0 in the ancient age to 5 in the modern age.

Reading the OP, I could understand the formula as it relates to human players but like others got confused on the last 2 lines with the iAIWarwearinessPercent & iAIPerEraModifier. So I copied the relevant rows of CIV4HandicapInfo.xml into a spreadsheet and applied the formulas for the AI WW reduction.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/1523/AI_War_Weariness_Mechanics3.jpg

As you can clearly see from the table, at Deity, in the Ancient Age, the AI gets 20% of the WW of a human falling to 15% in the Modern Age which is indeed a modest 25% reduction (Roland J gave 24% in post #40).

The table is rounded to the nearest 1% but a spreadsheet is attached for anyone that wants to check.

Roland Johansen
Mar 22, 2007, 11:21 PM
As you can clearly see from the table, at Deity, in the Ancient Age, the AI gets 20% of the WW of a human falling to 15% in the Modern Age which is indeed a modest 25% reduction (Roland J gave 24% in post #40).

Ah, yes. That was based on the assumption that the first age of the game would be numbered 1, but it is instead numbered 0 according to the post by Nacht a few posts above yours.

It's the difference between 125/100 and 130/105. You are right of course. :)

The table looks nice and clear.

cabert
Mar 23, 2007, 05:17 AM
It all doesn't explain why the modern wars are so high on WW.
Of course, you have more troops and fight more.
And of course, you have bigger cities.
Is that all? Isn't there a "hidden" modifier?

Roland Johansen
Mar 23, 2007, 07:51 AM
It all doesn't explain why the modern wars are so high on WW.
Of course, you have more troops and fight more.
And of course, you have bigger cities.
Is that all? Isn't there a "hidden" modifier?

Yes, I think that's all. Note that the effects of larger populations and more units involved in the war are effects that increase another. War weariness scales linearly with the population in your cities and the number of units that get killed in the war and these effects are multiplied. This means that if your cities are twice as big and the number of units involved is twice as high, then the number of unhappy people is four times as high.

Luckily, you also have the best ways to combat war weariness in the late game. Useful civics and buildings and large happiness bonusses from using culture for happiness.

Harbourboy
Mar 25, 2007, 10:33 PM
Of course! Just wait until you have researched every tech in the game before declaring war. Then you can run culture at 90% for huge happiness bonuses from all your theatres and colosseums. ;)

cabert
Mar 26, 2007, 01:31 AM
Of course! Just wait until you have researched every tech in the game before declaring war. Then you can run culture at 90% for huge happiness bonuses from all your theatres and colosseums. ;)
Or better, stop researching for a while when you have reached a good military position (axes, catapults, maces, grenadiers, canons, ...).
If you whip your cities dry, there will be no WW problem :lol: .

KMadCandy
Mar 26, 2007, 07:29 AM
Of course! Just wait until you have researched every tech in the game before declaring war. Then you can run culture at 90% for huge happiness bonuses from all your theatres and colosseums. ;)

why stop there? every future tech gives you one more +1 happy and health!!!!!! bigger, happier, healthy cities!!!! *giggle*

Or better, stop researching for a while when you have reached a good military position (axes, catapults, maces, grenadiers, canons, ...).
If you whip your cities dry, there will be no WW problem :lol: .

this going-to-war-early thing i keep reading about, i should try it some day huh? axes are used for wars not just barbs?

cabert
Mar 26, 2007, 07:46 AM
why stop there? every future tech gives you one more +1 happy and health!!!!!! bigger, happier, healthy cities!!!! *giggle*
That's exactly what I was thinking.
if you keept researching future techs, you should be so happy that no WW can hurt you :lol:


this going-to-war-early thing i keep reading about, i should try it some day huh? axes are used for wars not just barbs?
Certainly.
It's not a recipe, just one tool among others.
Same as chopping for settlers or going for the Oracle.
Just easier to do and mostly failsafe (only failure I know of is being too late : LB don't die to axes easily).

Fachy
Mar 28, 2007, 05:42 PM
hey, thanks for the useful info! Does anybody know if there's a difference in WW whether you're the offender ot the defeder? (I assume there must be another forumula!)

Roland Johansen
Mar 28, 2007, 06:03 PM
hey, thanks for the useful info! Does anybody know if there's a difference in WW whether you're the offender ot the defeder? (I assume there must be another forumula!)

There's no difference. The only effect are some negative diplomatic modifiers with the nations that didn't dislike the defender.

But as the description of the war weariness formula shows, there is a big difference between fighting in your own territory or fighting in someone elses territory (to be more exact: area of cultural domination).

1. Combat Actions: only gained where you are not Culturally dominant [ie a city that was someone else's for a long time might NOT count as where you are culturally dominant, even if it is within your borders]

Fachy
Mar 28, 2007, 11:03 PM
Right, so basically speaking as long as you're fighting in your cultural influence, your people won't get pissed @ u!

Roland Johansen
Mar 29, 2007, 06:06 AM
Right, so basically speaking as long as you're fighting in your cultural influence, your people won't get pissed @ u!

That's true. But your improvements might get pillaged and you can't capture any cities while staying in your own area of cultural influence.

Do remember that area within your cultural borders might not be under in your cultural influence. The foreign culture might still be dominant allthough there is no foreign city in the neighbourhood to claim the cultural area. This is normally true for recently captured enemy territory.

Fachy
Mar 29, 2007, 03:20 PM
Is there a way to check on each tile's cultural influence?

A nice strategy could be, if you're willing to lose the element of surprise, is to declare war and NOT go enter their territory, and make them do the first offensive and later take a city quickly when they're out of soliders!

Roland Johansen
Mar 29, 2007, 04:26 PM
Is there a way to check on each tile's cultural influence?

The culture percentage of the civlization that owns the tile at the moment is mentioned in the tile. Normally, there are only 2 nations who have cultural influence in a tile and so the cultural influence of the other nation is clear (culture percentage of civ A = 100- culture percentage of civ B). So it is clear who has the dominant culture in the tile. If there are three or more civilizations who have culture influence in a tile, then still only the culture of the civilization who controls the tile is mentioned and it is a bit hard to find out if you're culturally dominant in the tile. But if you have more than 50% cultural influence, then it is clear that your culture is dominant in the tile.

A nice strategy could be, if you're willing to lose the element of surprise, is to declare war and NOT go enter their territory, and make them do the first offensive and later take a city quickly when they're out of soliders!

I sometimes use that strategy if the enemy has a large army and I don't have good ways to combat the war weariness.
It is also often easier to win battles in your territory because you have a movement advantage. It doesn't work very well if the enemy units come into your territory in small groups while the enemy constantly rebuilds such small groups of units.

Fachy
Mar 29, 2007, 07:17 PM
The culture percentage of the civlization that owns the tile at the moment is mentioned in the tile. Normally, there are only 2 nations who have cultural influence in a tile and so the cultural influence of the other nation is clear (culture percentage of civ A = 100- culture percentage of civ B). So it is clear who has the dominant culture in the tile. If there are three or more civilizations who have culture influence in a tile, then still only the culture of the civilization who controls the tile is mentioned and it is a bit hard to find out if you're culturally dominant in the tile. But if you have more than 50% cultural influence, then it is clear that your culture is dominant in the tile.
Um, I know but then... what's the difference between "borders" and "cultural influence"?? If you conquer an enemy city, thus killing all culture in it, and rendering the land yours, then fighting there will be counted as "your land" right?? How can the land be "yours" while cultural influence is "his"?

DaviddesJ
Mar 29, 2007, 07:26 PM
If you conquer an enemy city, thus killing all culture in it, and rendering the land yours, then fighting there will be counted as "your land" right??

No, that's exactly wrong. When you capture an enemy city, you don't "kill" the culture that it has generated in the surrounding squares. Control of a square goes to the player with the most culture there, from among those who actually have the square within their city radius. So, if the squares around the conquered city are no longer in any city radius for your opponent, you can control them even if you only have 1% of the culture there, and your opponent has 99%. But they don't count as within your cultural influence for war weariness (according to the original posting in this thread).

Fachy
Mar 29, 2007, 11:47 PM
That brings us to another issue I was kinda debating with myself about: is the mod cultureConquest realistic or not? For those who don't know, it prevents conquered cities culture from droping to zero once taken, thus giving you a good chunk of land once you control an enemy city.

After what I read here, apparently how it does that is by converting (a proportion of) the culture in the city you just invaded to your nation. Can the vanilla version stimulate resistence? (americans in iraq) where you cannot control the land unless you participate with some culture (american movies) to convince local population to cooperate??

Roland Johansen
Mar 30, 2007, 06:05 AM
That brings us to another issue I was kinda debating with myself about: is the mod cultureConquest realistic or not? For those who don't know, it prevents conquered cities culture from droping to zero once taken, thus giving you a good chunk of land once you control an enemy city.

After what I read here, apparently how it does that is by converting (a proportion of) the culture in the city you just invaded to your nation. Can the vanilla version stimulate resistence? (americans in iraq) where you cannot control the land unless you participate with some culture (american movies) to convince local population to cooperate??

The percentage of culture that you control in the center tile determines the percentage of people in the city that wish to return to their home country. This results in a number of unhappy people.

There are several mods out there that change the culture amounts upon conquest. If I recall correctly, there is also a mod out there that reduces the foreign culture on all of the tiles each turn once the city is conquered.

All of these culture mods lead to easier conquest which is in general an advantage for the human player since the human player is usually the most succesful conquerer in the game. Whether it is realistic or not is difficult to say. In general, I would prefer their effects to be a little less so that foreign culture remains a big obstacle during conquest. But I wouldn't mind a little culture upon conquest and a chance that culture producing buildings would remain with a lessened culture production for some time. Also I wouldn't mind a little reduction of the foreign culture each turn. But I would like all of these things to go slowly so that culture remains a serious problem during and after conquest.

Some of these mods can be configured, they have certain parameters that can be changed in the xml code. So you can probably get everything from the standard civ 4 settings to the normal settings in these mods.

Fachy
Mar 30, 2007, 06:28 AM
I don't think that's the work of xml! I taught myself xml but it's only good for arbitrary numbers, not deep game concepts

At any rate, I think culture here is doing the effect that resistence played in Civ3 and Civ2. I realize how silly of me playing with CultureConquest because that totally removes the concept of resistence!

Yet the perfect balance would've been granting the whole land (or "province" if you will) to the new owner, with him still unable to control the production just yet

Roland Johansen
Mar 30, 2007, 08:05 AM
I don't think that's the work of xml! I taught myself xml but it's only good for arbitrary numbers, not deep game concepts

I'm not sure if it is in an xml-file or an ini-file. Such mods change the culture effects by python or SDK-modding, but often give the user some extra tool to vary the numbers a bit. This usually only requires you to edit a simple file and change a single number.

Fachy
Mar 30, 2007, 08:20 AM
Yes yes, like the % of culture that should remain. But as I was saying, now I'm convinced that the whole mod is "wrong". The vanilla has problems with this aspect too, but the mod makes it worse by totally removing resistence!

umm, it does remove resistence right? Or does it simply keep some of the original culture attributed to the original owner, which results in giving you territory somehow??

Roland Johansen
Mar 30, 2007, 08:32 AM
Yes yes, like the % of culture that should remain. But as I was saying, now I'm convinced that the whole mod is "wrong". The vanilla has problems with this aspect too, but the mod makes it worse by totally removing resistence!

umm, it does remove resistence right? Or does it simply keep some of the original culture attributed to the original owner, which results in giving you territory somehow??

I don't know exactly how the mod works. I have never downloaded it, I've only read about it. I don't know if it will remove resistance.

If a significant percentage of the culture in the center city tile is foreign culture, then there will be unhappy people who wish to join their mother country. That is actually a bigger problem than the resistance in my opinion. Also a big problem is that your just captured city (in the original civ4 rules) is surrounded by foreign culture. It can't work these tiles and your units can't use the roads in that area. All of this makes conquest hard under the original rules.

Fachy
Mar 30, 2007, 08:38 AM
Ok but technically speaking, if the mod reduces the amount of lost culture, what happens if the English owns a city with just 2500 french culture points? Will the English own the surrounding land anyway?

If yes, then the mod possibly doesn't remove resistence
If no (which is what I think), then yes the mod does crush the resistence totally giving the invador imaginery culture points

Roland Johansen
Mar 30, 2007, 09:12 AM
Ok but technically speaking, if the mod reduces the amount of lost culture, what happens if the English owns a city with just 2500 french culture points? Will the English own the surrounding land anyway?

If yes, then the mod possibly doesn't remove resistence
If no (which is what I think), then yes the mod does crush the resistence totally giving the invador imaginery culture points

As said, I don't know how the mod works in detail. Ask the creator of the mod.

Fachy
Mar 30, 2007, 09:21 AM
I just sent him a message! Not sure he'll answer since he ignored a question posted on the thread lol! But for reference here's a comment from his original post explaining an update:

- Change the code that retains culture after a city is conquered to use
setCulture instead of changeCulture. Using changeCulture gave too much culture to the civilization that conquered the city.

ccccc
May 11, 2007, 10:55 AM
Do you have any idea if Total Unhappiness in a City gets rounded up or down? I'm working on a spreadsheet that implements the formula which could be useful for very large games. But I have no idea how to look up such facts -- I suspect everything is rounded down?

Edit: I believe everything is rounded down, since your very first combat never results in a :mad:, if I remember correctly.

ccccc
May 11, 2007, 02:23 PM
The effects of map size on WW

I didn't know whether to start a new "tips" thread -- I think this one should do just fine.

Anyway, using this formula, I wanted to find out what the effect of the "map size" modifier was. The number of "WW" points are caused by the amount of combat... but the effects work differently on different maps. On smaller maps, the effects of war weariness both accumulate faster and dissipate faster. Other ways to look at it: Given a particular amount of combat, it will have a smaller :mad: effect on a larger map, but that WW will stick around longer.
Given a particular amount of :mad: allowance, a larger war is allowed on a larger map, but that WW will stick around longer.Or, if you like graphs... see how quickly the :mad: dissipates on each map size. The upper purple line represents a starting value of 2 :mad: per population point in every city --- let's hope you never fight THAT war! But anyway, you can see that on smaller maps, the unhappiness dissipates faster.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/84728/c4ww-01.JPGhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/84728/c4ww-02.JPGhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/84728/c4ww-03.JPGhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/84728/c4ww-04.JPGhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/84728/c4ww-05.JPGhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/84728/c4ww-06.JPG

Edit: If you are in the middle of a game, and you know how much :mad: you have in each city, these graphs could serve as a reference to show you how long you have to stay at peace for your current WW to go away.

Tzu Iop
Aug 08, 2007, 02:53 PM
Will this article be updated for BtS?

It seems to me, that WW has slightly increased. Also it would be intresting to know when the Statue of Zeus effect is added.

da_Vinci
Aug 10, 2007, 03:05 PM
Maybe I missed it, but the general formula pop*(activeWW*other stuff)/200 is going to generate a lot of fractional values. (Note that most other stuff will be game constants, AI constants, or slowly evolving over time, or so it seems to me).

Does anyone know what function converts the fraction to an interger, since unhappy faces must be intergers?

Is it 2.3 and 2.7 are both 2 (floor function, IIRC)

or 2.3 is 2 and 2.7 is 3 (round function)

or 2.3 and 2.7 are both 3 (ceiling function, IIRC)?

Seems to be a simple, critical question, yet not addressed.

dV

cabert
Aug 13, 2007, 06:57 AM
Maybe I missed it, but the general formula pop*(activeWW*other stuff)/200 is going to generate a lot of fractional values. (Note that most other stuff will be game constants, AI constants, or slowly evolving over time, or so it seems to me).

Does anyone know what function converts the fraction to an interger, since unhappy faces must be intergers?

Is it 2.3 and 2.7 are both 2 (floor function, IIRC)

or 2.3 is 2 and 2.7 is 3 (round function)

or 2.3 and 2.7 are both 3 (ceiling function, IIRC)?

Seems to be a simple, critical question, yet not addressed.

dV
as far as I know, cIV uses floor almost everywhere.
Plus there is a long time where you don't get an unhappy face from WW, so it's certainly not ceiling.

da_Vinci
Aug 13, 2007, 07:05 AM
as far as I know, cIV uses floor almost everywhere.
Plus there is a long time where you don't get an unhappy face from WW, so it's certainly not ceiling. After I posted, it dawned on me that ceiling was pretty impossible.

The lag to any WW, then a faster ramping up suggests floor to me.

dV

UncleJJ
Aug 17, 2007, 02:51 AM
krikkitone; has WW been changed much in BtS? How does the Temple of Zeus change things for its opponents?

Cer
Aug 21, 2007, 02:17 PM
Which means that your people will actually be happier if you let the enemy invade and trample all over them instead of keeping them safely away from your cities. Go figure.

Yeah, if you want people to support a war, getting their farms trampled by the enemy sounds like a good way to do it.

Another example of this is 9/11/2001, where some idiots blew up some buildings and public anger in the USA gave political support to start two large military operations-- in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.

Cer
Aug 21, 2007, 02:41 PM
I'm pretty good at math but i have to say, post#1 was kind of confusing.

The modifiers made sense but it was hard to understand what the base formula before modifiers meant.

What it means is that if you attack and win (one combat in enemy culture-domination) you gain 1 WW point which is equal to one unhappy face in a city of 200. Defend (win or lose) in enemy culture-domination= 2 WW points, attack and lose = 3 WW points.

Gain 10 WW points and you have one unhappy face in a city of 20. 100 WW points= 10 added unhappy-faces in a city of 20.

Now that's assuming you did it all in one turn. if you have 100 or fewer WW points (roughly, one unhappy face per 2 population if no modifiers) then you lose 1 WW point per turn.

Mesousa
Aug 25, 2007, 10:01 AM
Your unit attacks their unit=+3 if you lose, +1 if you win
Their unit attacks your unit =+2 (win or lose)
You capture a unit=+1
Your unit is captured=+2

When you capture an unprotected enemy worker, do you just get the +1 for the capture, or does moving into his tile count as an attack so you get at a total of +2 (+1 for succesful attack, +1 for capture)?

WW being based on attacks, not kills, makes the BTS flanking attacks of cavalry units on siege units extremly effective in terms of actual results v WW.

DaviddesJ
Aug 25, 2007, 10:41 AM
Does anyone know what function converts the fraction to an interger, since unhappy faces must be intergers?

I have seen cases where a city of size 2 has -1 WW, and a city of size 4 also has -1 WW. So this is inconsistent with just multiplying the population by a factor and taking the floor. There must be something more complicated.

da_Vinci
Aug 25, 2007, 07:03 PM
I have seen cases where a city of size 2 has -1 WW, and a city of size 4 also has -1 WW. So this is inconsistent with just multiplying the population by a factor and taking the floor. There must be something more complicated. Is what you describe observed at in the same game, at the same point in time for the same civ? That certainly would require something more complicated.

I must say that since I have been looking more closely at it, it does seem to behave pretty consistent with a floor function, but there might be some additional nuances? The floor assumption has been useful to predict the WW behavior in most cases so far ...

dV

DaviddesJ
Aug 26, 2007, 07:43 PM
Is what you describe observed at in the same game, at the same point in time for the same civ?

Yes, it was.

Skallagrimson
Sep 14, 2007, 07:32 AM
Sorry if someone's already asked this, but here's a situation:

I have a unit standing in my culture zone.

The AI has a unit standing in their culture zone.

I attack the enemy unit with my unit. Does that act of combat count as happening in MY zone (because it initiated from my zone) or HIS zone (because it was targeted in his zone)?

I do a lot of border warfare... ;)

cabert
Sep 15, 2007, 06:47 AM
Sorry if someone's already asked this, but here's a situation:

I have a unit standing in my culture zone.

The AI has a unit standing in their culture zone.

I attack the enemy unit with my unit. Does that act of combat count as happening in MY zone (because it initiated from my zone) or HIS zone (because it was targeted in his zone)?

I do a lot of border warfare... ;)

his zone.
just the same as the fact that the terrain defense is the tile where the target stands.

Skallagrimson
Sep 17, 2007, 09:22 AM
Good to know. Will need to revise my border skirmishing policy then!

_alphaBeta_
Sep 17, 2007, 10:40 AM
Keep in mind that it isn't necessarily the owner of the tile. If you're righting in recently conquered lands against a third party, both you and the third party will accrue WW. It's the civ with the highest culture percentage on the tile.

Skallagrimson
Oct 05, 2007, 07:59 AM
Keep in mind that it isn't necessarily the owner of the tile. If you're righting in recently conquered lands against a third party, both you and the third party will accrue WW. It's the civ with the highest culture percentage on the tile.

I asked this on the Strategy forum and everyone's clueless:

Do bombards count against WW? Reductions of city defense by siege engines, aircraft, etc.?

Also, I'm assuming attacks against units by aircraft (e.g., airships in BtS) accrue WW, but is it possible they don't for some reason?

cabert
Oct 08, 2007, 01:23 AM
I asked this on the Strategy forum and everyone's clueless:

Do bombards count against WW? Reductions of city defense by siege engines, aircraft, etc.?

Also, I'm assuming attacks against units by aircraft (e.g., airships in BtS) accrue WW, but is it possible they don't for some reason?

I have the feeling that non lethal war actions don't lead to WW.
What gives me this feeling is that there is a "win" WW gain and a "lose" WW gain, but no "retreat" WW gain.
So basically the situation where you don't win nor lose isn't covered.

Roland Johansen
Oct 08, 2007, 04:35 AM
I asked this on the Strategy forum and everyone's clueless:

Do bombards count against WW? Reductions of city defense by siege engines, aircraft, etc.?

Also, I'm assuming attacks against units by aircraft (e.g., airships in BtS) accrue WW, but is it possible they don't for some reason?

In BTS, you can easily see which actions lead to war weariness as there is a war weariness counter for each civilisation which each other civilisation. Your war weariness counter is in the scoreboard in the bottom right corner of the main map (when you activate the scoreboard). You can see that the war weariness doesn't increase by using bombing missions, removing city defence bonuses by bombing and by using other attacks that don't cause kills on either side.

Skallagrimson
Oct 08, 2007, 08:56 AM
For air unit attacks on units that only damage, I guess I'm going to have to watch the meter and see how it plays. Thanks.

JaeKayLMNOP
Nov 18, 2007, 02:00 PM
So is there no way to decrease WW during a war besides ending the war or building Jail, Mt. Rushmore or Police State? It just keeps building up over time?

Also, the WW you accumulate from killing units, does that just keep building up? That doesn't make sense to me, because you could be in a war in which you kill 50 units, but WW usually doesn't reach 50. Is WW recalculated each turn?

_alphaBeta_
Nov 19, 2007, 05:36 AM
So is there no way to decrease WW during a war besides ending the war or building Jail, Mt. Rushmore or Police State? It just keeps building up over time?

Also, the WW you accumulate from killing units, does that just keep building up? That doesn't make sense to me, because you could be in a war in which you kill 50 units, but WW usually doesn't reach 50. Is WW recalculated each turn?

BTS introduces a WW number that can be viewed when you mouseover another leader. This is just the raw value from which the unhappiness in cities is calcualted. It goes up after every battle in real time.

As far as the effect on cities, I think that's calculated and applied every turn (not in real-time). I don't really know, because I usually run police state, Mt. Rushmore and Jails when I'm on the offensive. Note that the raw WW number still increases in this case, but the buildings and civics stop it from affecting your cities. Hence, you want to wait until the war is over before switching out of police state (or you'll be in big trouble).

My latest, I invaded Casear and am up to ~1300 WW. I'm sure other war players here have shattered this number. Even if I declare peace now, it would take the rest of the game to have this number fully decay.

_alphaBeta_
Nov 19, 2007, 05:39 AM
Something interesting has come up. Now that you can see the raw WW number when you mouseover other leaders, I noticed my WW goes up even if I'm attacking where I'm culturally superior. It's not a lot, but there's some there.

Perhaps it's some kind of ratio, because I'm accruing it in tiles that are 60-70% me. OR it could be that I'm attacking a lot. I just took down ~25 enemy units in one turn. Maybe there's a threshold where you attack so many times.

Skallagrimson
Nov 19, 2007, 07:07 AM
Something interesting has come up. Now that you can see the raw WW number when you mouseover other leaders, I noticed my WW goes up even if I'm attacking where I'm culturally superior. It's not a lot, but there's some there.

Perhaps it's some kind of ratio, because I'm accruing it in tiles that are 60-70% me. OR it could be that I'm attacking a lot. I just took down ~25 enemy units in one turn. Maybe there's a threshold where you attack so many times.

Interesting. I haven't noticed it go up for me when I attack tiles that are >50% mine. In fact a major strategy of mine right now is to NOT go on the offensive right away, but hang back in my own territory, let the enemy come to me, so that most of the "surplus" units the enemy has, I can eliminate them without a WW hit. And in the modern era, I guarantee success on the ground by pummeling enemy units as much as possible with air units first. If an air unit *can* attack an enemy, I don't let a ground unit try it yet. That doesn't eliminate the need for all the WW-reducing factors, but I have sometimes prosecuted fairly long wars with REPRESENTATION rather than Police State (and usually Mercantilism because my enemy's usually someone all the AIs love which makes them hate me). Gives me the best of both worlds--keep research accelerated with SE-farms while at the same time conquering with armies and "mining soldiers out of the hills" in those extremely unrealistic production-cities.

KrikkitTwo
Nov 19, 2007, 10:13 PM
So is there no way to decrease WW during a war besides ending the war or building Jail, Mt. Rushmore or Police State? It just keeps building up over time?

Also, the WW you accumulate from killing units, does that just keep building up? That doesn't make sense to me, because you could be in a war in which you kill 50 units, but WW usually doesn't reach 50. Is WW recalculated each turn?

WW points Decrease over time -1 WW point per turn

Also you can get WW points when you are on a team for their action.

Amask
Dec 21, 2007, 06:04 PM
I'm playing a game right now where I captured Washington, and someone else finished America off. Now, there was an article on how culture works, and it says that culture for an eliminated civ no longer matters. I attacked from Washington to a tile next to it. In Washington, I had 77% culture, in the target tile - 55% or smth like that (but above 50). I got war weariness. WTF

is there a kind person out there who can test what exactly counts as "home lands" for which no ww occurs? the battle was fairly big and gave me at least 2 angry dudes in all my cities 'cause I was at the happiness limit in all my cities, which sort of screwed me over since I wasn't ready for that at all. And there are more enemy stacks coming which I was hoping to destroy with no ww consequences. Had I known that ww would occur despite my having clearly dominant culture in both tiles, I would've waited with the war. GRRR

Roland Johansen
Dec 22, 2007, 06:49 AM
I'm playing a game right now where I captured Washington, and someone else finished America off. Now, there was an article on how culture works, and it says that culture for an eliminated civ no longer matters. I attacked from Washington to a tile next to it. In Washington, I had 77% culture, in the target tile - 55% or smth like that (but above 50). I got war weariness. WTF

is there a kind person out there who can test what exactly counts as "home lands" for which no ww occurs? the battle was fairly big and gave me at least 2 angry dudes in all my cities 'cause I was at the happiness limit in all my cities, which sort of screwed me over since I wasn't ready for that at all. And there are more enemy stacks coming which I was hoping to destroy with no ww consequences. Had I known that ww would occur despite my having clearly dominant culture in both tiles, I would've waited with the war. GRRR

I haven't looked into the code, but I have the same experience in BTS. I guess they changed it a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if you got a fraction of war weariness equal to the fraction of foreign culture on the tile. But I don't know exactly how it works.

_alphaBeta_
Dec 22, 2007, 12:34 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if you got a fraction of war weariness equal to the fraction of foreign culture on the tile.

This is my theory as well.

Refar
Dec 22, 2007, 08:00 PM
I haven't looked into the code, but I have the same experience in BTS. I guess they changed it a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if you got a fraction of war weariness equal to the fraction of foreign culture on the tile. But I don't know exactly how it works.

I looked it up, and it is as you say. The "raw" war weariness is multipileid with a 'Culture Ratio' thingie...

iRatio = (100 * iTheirCulture) / (iOurCulture + iTheirCulture);

The higher Their culture on the plot, the more WW we will get.
If Them have 0 culture on that plot, we get 0 WW.
Unless we have 0 culture as well, then we will get the Full WW. We allways get the Full WW, where we have 0 culture. (They did catch the division by 0)
If both have culture, we got a fraction of WW proportional to the culture Ratio.
Third party culture seem not to matter.

Roland Johansen
Dec 23, 2007, 01:01 AM
I looked it up, and it is as you say. The "raw" war weariness is multipileid with a 'Culture Ratio' thingie...

iRatio = (100 * iTheirCulture) / (iOurCulture + iTheirCulture);

The higher Their culture on the plot, the more WW we will get.
If Them have 0 culture on that plot, we get 0 WW.
Unless we have 0 culture as well, then we will get the Full WW. We allways get the Full WW, where we have 0 culture. (They did catch the division by 0)
If both have culture, we got a fraction of WW proportional to the culture Ratio.
Third party culture seem not to matter.

Thanks, that's very interesting. If I understand this correctly, it also means that if you (civA) are fighting some units of civB in territory of civC, but you (civA) do have some culture in the tile and your opponent doesn't, then you don't get any war weariness.
So if you're fighting an opponent in your neighbours territory, close to your borders, then you might not get any war weariness.

UncleJJ
Dec 23, 2007, 06:21 AM
Very interesting; does the term "iourculture" include the culture of our vassals or colonies (which are on our team by definition) as well as our own culture?

Whatever the answer this is a strong reason to pump out as much culture as possible in any tiles where we intend to fight a future war. Creative leaders just got a lot better :) . It also is a good reason to fight a defensive war where our culture is obviously stronger than theirs and to draw the battle onto tiles where we have a bigger advantage over them. Now we have to consider the ratio of culure in the tiles as well the defensive bonusses when choosing where to fight.

Skallagrimson
Dec 23, 2007, 08:52 AM
I knew about the proportional culture effect on partial WW, but I'd be interested to know if there is any effect (or full effect?) from combat on 3rd party ground, either vassals or just open borders territory.

Yet another undocumented feature we, the players, have to test ourselves because Firaxis won't see fit to tell us.

Refar
Dec 23, 2007, 01:12 PM
The iOurCulture comes from Plot->countFrinedlyCulture(our team). (Same for iTheirCulture, just their team is passed.)

int CvPlot::countFriendlyCulture(TeamTypes eTeam) const
{
int iTotalCulture = 0;

for (int iPlayer = 0; iPlayer < MAX_PLAYERS; ++iPlayer)
{
CvPlayer& kLoopPlayer = GET_PLAYER((PlayerTypes)iPlayer);
if (kLoopPlayer.isAlive())
{
CvTeam& kLoopTeam = GET_TEAM(kLoopPlayer.getTeam());
if (kLoopPlayer.getTeam() == eTeam || kLoopTeam.isVassal(eTeam) || kLoopTeam.isOpenBorders(eTeam))
{
iTotalCulture += getCulture((PlayerTypes)iPlayer);
}
}
}

return iTotalCulture;
}

So from the look of it, Team Members, Vassals and even Open Boarders partners count as 'friendly culture' here.

Fighting on a Plot where we and our enemy have no Culture, but our Vassal has, should give us no WW.

Also if we fight on a plot, where someone we have open Boarders with has 100% culuture, will give us no WW. There is a interesting twist to it however, if our enemy has OB as well, then we would get 50% WW i think.

Amask
Dec 31, 2007, 12:08 PM
awesome!
Refar, thanks for answering this question both here and in the other thread where I was complaining.
Now I can go back to my game without feeling that I got shafted by a bug or smth.

VirusMonster
Feb 22, 2008, 10:49 PM
This article is very good, but I can't figure out 1 thing in my last game... perhaps you can help me....

Genghis Khan in my 500K writeup gave Alphabet and Masonry for free at 207WW. In the writeup, I also put a screenshot for the exact trade.

I don't understand how he got to 207 war weariness with me because almost all of our battles have been inside his own cultural borders. I killed at most 25-30 of his units.

Am I reading this 207 WW wrong? Is this WW on the trade screen telling my empire has 207 WW toward his?

And how does WW affect AI's willingness for a peace treaty? Can one of the game mechanics fans elaborate?

PS. It would also be fantastic if Krikkitone summarized the contributions in this thread and updated this article with new findings from BTS. He can't be private messaged, but I want this article to be more shiny...

Refar
Feb 23, 2008, 05:09 AM
The 207 WW in your screenshot are the WW you suffer from the war with Gengis.

AFAIK there is not way to see how much WW the AI suffers... Either they forgot it, or this was decision to hide the value, in order tro not piss off the players - because the AI is heavily bonused on WW.

I dont know if and how the WW affects the diplomathy, but i think it doesn't - at least not in direkt way...

VirusMonster
Feb 23, 2008, 10:58 AM
one more question:

could this 207WW be the sum of all WW I was getting at that point in the game from the 4 wars I was fighting? because it makes little sense that I have reached that high war weariness against Genghis rather quickly? I captured 4-5 of his cities and killed around 30-40 units... Well I lost some actually... but according to this article, on huge maps, my WW should be cut by half. Perhaps this 207 is the number before the 50% huge map multiplier kicks in?!

Roland Johansen
Feb 23, 2008, 02:02 PM
one more question:

could this 207WW be the sum of all WW I was getting at that point in the game from the 4 wars I was fighting? because it makes little sense that I have reached that high war weariness against Genghis rather quickly? I captured 4-5 of his cities and killed around 30-40 units... Well I lost some actually... but according to this article, on huge maps, my WW should be cut by half. Perhaps this 207 is the number before the 50% huge map multiplier kicks in?!

The 207 is the war weariness related to this opponent. Note that this number is not the same value as the war weariness points discussed in the opening post in this thread. Your war weariness points which you can see ingame will go up by a lot more than 1,2 or 3 by a battle and a lot more than 6 for capturing a city. There probably a ratio of something like 5 between this ingame number and the war weariness number mentioned in the first post of this thread.

This doesn't (necessarily) mean that the calculation of war weariness in your cities as the result of war has changed in BTS. It just means that the value used to signify this war weariness has changed. It wasn't actually shown in versions before BTS.

VirusMonster
Feb 23, 2008, 06:33 PM
The 207 is the war weariness related to this opponent. Note that this number is not the same value as the war weariness points discussed in the opening post in this thread. Your war weariness points which you can see ingame will go up by a lot more than 1,2 or 3 by a battle and a lot more than 6 for capturing a city. There probably a ratio of something like 5 between this ingame number and the war weariness number mentioned in the first post of this thread.

This doesn't (necessarily) mean that the calculation of war weariness in your cities as the result of war has changed in BTS. It just means that the value used to signify this war weariness has changed. It wasn't actually shown in versions before BTS.

What you are saying is there could be a scaling factor introduced in BTS that changes the 1,2,3, and 6 WW addition to a multiple of these numbers. That makes sense.

If Krikkitone does not have the motivation, he can't be private messaged, I want to dig into the code of WW calculations. Can you guide me which file I should open up with which software? You obviously know what you are doing in decyphering CivIV code.

Roland Johansen
Feb 23, 2008, 07:08 PM
What you are saying is there could be a scaling factor introduced in BTS that changes the 1,2,3, and 6 WW addition to a multiple of these numbers. That makes sense.

It isn't necessarily introduced in BTS. It could be a factor that first multiplies the value by 5 and then later when calculating the actual unhappy people in a city, it again devides by 5. Krikkitone could easily have left that number out of his first post to simplify things.

Such a factor could be introduced in the code to avoid rounding issues when working with only integer manipulations.

If Krikkitone does not have the motivation, he can't be private messaged, I want to dig into the code of WW calculations. Can you guide me which file I should open up with which software? You obviously know what you are doing in decyphering CivIV code.

Sorry, I guess you might think that I looked into the code when writing those two game mechanics articles, but that's not the case. The Software Developers Kit wasn't available then and the formulas in those articles were reverse engineered from game data and not read in some code lines. It shouldn't be too difficult to read the code, but I'm really not experienced in that. I should learn to do that some day, but sorry, not this day. It would take a lot less time to read the formula in the code then to reverse engineer it.

I have looked into xml-files, but those don't contain formulas. They do contain various modifiers which are used in formulas, but you won't know how and if they will interact with this specific formula. It's like having the values of 1000 variables and knowing that if you combine them in some way, you might get the right formula with 5 of those variables.

If you read back a few posts, to post 110-113, then you'll see that the article could use an update as culture has a different effect on the war weariness formula now. I guessed the effect correctly, but Refar actually looked into the code to confirm this. You might want to ask him if he feels like looking into the code for you. He apparently knows where to look.

VirusMonster
Feb 23, 2008, 07:22 PM
yea I read those posts... I am private messaging Refar now...

Refar
Feb 24, 2008, 04:52 AM
207 Raw-WW from 5 taken cities + ~50 Battles on foreighn soils sounds quite realistic.

It basicly works like this (i think quite like it's described in the OP):

You collect Raw-WW - that's the 207 you see - The amount of actual :mad: you got in your cities then depends on Raw-WW and some other factors - Buildings, Wonders, Civics and City Size.

Raw-WW is accumulates as Krikitone described: Each action has a "Price Tag" defined in the XML (global Defines).

The only thing new to BTS is the Raw-WW value actually beeing displayed and (i think) the WW beeing divided with culture. Fighting on a plot where you got 30% culture and your enemy 70% culture you will get 70% of the "Price" while your oppent get 30%.

Roland Johansen
Feb 24, 2008, 09:28 AM
207 Raw-WW from 5 taken cities + ~50 Battles on foreighn soils sounds quite realistic.

It basicly works like this (i think quite like it's described in the OP):

You collect Raw-WW - that's the 207 you see - The amount of actual :mad: you got in your cities then depends on Raw-WW and some other factors - Buildings, Wonders, Civics and City Size.

Raw-WW is accumulates as Krikitone described: Each action has a "Price Tag" defined in the XML (global Defines).

The only thing new to BTS is the Raw-WW value actually beeing displayed and (i think) the WW beeing divided with culture. Fighting on a plot where you got 30% culture and your enemy 70% culture you will get 70% of the "Price" while your oppent get 30%.

The reason why I think a multiplying factor is used (and maybe later negated by a divisor when calculating the effects in a city) is that I looked at my War Weariness score before and after a single battle in my first BTS game and it went up with something like 5 or 10 and not 1, 2 or 3.

I just did some ingame tests. It seems like the ingame war weariness is something like Krikkitone's active war weariness number with the modifiers that calculate the effect in a city already applied (except of course the population modifier) and then multiplied by 5.

Global Defines lists a BASE_WAR_WEARINESS_MULTIPLIER with a value of 5 and a PERCENT_ANGER_DIVISOR with a value of 1000. I guess that in the final formula which calculates the war weariness in a city it is divided by 1000 and Krikkitone's divisor of 200 is just 1000/5.

So the value mentioned ingame is not Krikkitone's Active WW, but a value already modified by some of the modifiers mentioned in the article (like the map size modifier). It makes the value more meaningful as it has the same effect on cities when playing the game on different map sizes. 200 ingame war weariness points will make an equal number of people unhappy on a huge and a tiny map. You will just accumulate the 200 ingame war weariness points with less battles on a tiny map than on a huge map.

It's all just a guess as I didn't look into the code. Just did some battles and looked at how my war weariness value went up.

Another issue: I strongly think the war weariness from combat actions has a small mistake just by testing the effect on war weariness from combat ingame.

I think the war weariness effects from combat should be:

Your unit attacks their unit=+3 if you lose, +2 if you win
Their unit attacks your unit =+2 if you lose, +1 if you win

This changes the effects of war weariness even more to: defending gives lower war weariness than attacking.

Refar
Feb 24, 2008, 10:43 AM
Yes there are some multipliers, scattered over multiple places... - i did not looked for those specifically tho, as i was only interested in the "Home Soil" / "Foreighn Soil" definitions. I will look up more carefully on ocasion.

MarkJohnson
Mar 06, 2008, 03:32 PM
sorry for the newb question, but where can I find the warweriness info in the game? I looked through all the menus in the game and most of this thread and can't seem to find it. The only thing I see is the +8 unhappiness and war, what is it good for? absolutely nothing!

also, I just played a game and started war too early and was down to 0% production and my first turn of strike when luckily I conquered my opponent. But how long does it take for war weariness to wear off? I've waited like 100 turns before and got immediately war weariness of like +3 on turn 1 and +8 by like turn 10 or so. I've gotten in the habit of capuring a city and declare peace, regen my power and regroup for 10turns and capture another city, declare peace, etc... war takes forever this way.

Thanks for the very informative info
-=Mark=-
ps. I just loaded a saved game and changed to police state and all my war war unhappiness went away! woot. now to figure out my war weariness to keep it better in control until I reach police state.

Skallagrimson
Mar 07, 2008, 07:38 AM
I've found one of the most important resources in BtS is ivory. Even beyond copper, iron, or horses. It's an early game +1 happy; it allows faster production of Statue of Zeus; and it allows war elephants, which in sufficient stacks can wear down any enemy that doesn't have a similar emphasis on pikemen.

Back to WW: BUILD STATUE OF ZEUS. If for no other reason, to deny it to your enemies. It won't reduce your own WW, but it increases your enemy's WW when fighting in your culture zone, which brings up the next major element of WW strategy:

FIGHT AT HOME FIRST. Even if I'm the aggressor I usually don't launch into an invasion of enemy territory right at the outset of war. AIs fight a lot smarter in BtS than in vanilla or Warlords, but there's still one thing they do in a "not very bright" way: they throw huge stacks into human territory right at the outset of the war, and if that gets annihilated by the human, they throw smaller (easier to annihilate) stacks time after time, after that. What you want to do is wait until the AI's big stack(s) of doom have been eliminated in YOUR zone before doing any fighting at all in HIS. This means being prepared with large stacks of catapults (to weaken large numbers of units in a stack) and mounted units (to gain flanking damage bonuses on siege units which are normally immune to catapult collateral damage). Any catapults that survive this homeland defense campaign can join your offensive stack later to help your trebuchets wear down city defenses (though I probably wouldn't use them to attack units in the city unless you just need to reduce maintenance costs, as they're guaranteed to die).

When conquering, try to avoid a strategy of "a little here, a little there". If you're rampaging in one AI's zone, wipe it out TOTALLY before moving on to the next AI. When an AI is destroyed, all the WW against that AI is eliminated as well, which shifts you back to a more viable position for going on to the next "victim". If the AI you're fighting is too strong to do that do without enormous cost, consider negotiating for vassalage, so that the WW can switch to happy citizens (although at the cost of some extra maintenance, and once a state is a vassal you can't decide to just turn around and conquer it later--it has to declare independence first! Plus there is nothing more annoying in the entire world, than bullying an AI into vassalage, and then having that VASSAL conquer YOUR cities through CULTURE! So... be careful with vassalage!)

Also, in the later game, make maximum usage of any air power available to weaken enemy units prior to allowing land units to fight them. Engender an aversion to risk. Myself, if a land unit doesn't have at least 75% combat odds, my theory is that the unit hasn't been bombarded enough (by airships, fighters, or bombers) yet.

Don't fall into the trap of unit-exchange piecemeal battles in an enemy's zone. (You see a single pikeman so you indulge in the temptation and kill it with a maceman; then the AI sends in a crossbowman to kill your macemen; and so on, and so on...) All you're doing there is racking up WW without the reward of taking cities. An exception to this is if you can take out, say, city defense longbowmen with your mounted units (knights, etc.) while they are outside of a city (for example, when they're moving toward some other city to garrison it). With 2 movement points you can move your cavs back into your stack (for defense) to prevent it escalating into a unit-swap-loop.

I always build jails whenever I get the chance, in every city. I try to avoid switching to Police State if I'm not "spiritual" (the cost in a turn or more of anarchy can sometimes be greater than your savings in WW!) The more immediate gain with Fascism is that you can build Mount Rushmore. But then, if I have Fascism and pretty high WW, and am either spiritual or in a Golden Age, then yeah, I flip it to PS.

VirusMonster
Mar 07, 2008, 10:07 AM
I've found one of the most important resources in BtS is ivory.....

Very nice tips for effective WW management! I am a jumbo fan myself :) I think in my recent 500k game, the one I advertise relentlessly, one of the reason no AIs DoW to me after early game was the Statue of Zeus :) Consequently, I could concentrate my military focus on a single enemy and his vassal.

MarkJohnson
Mar 07, 2008, 11:27 AM
thanks for the info, that will be very helpful.

I've already been learning to send workers to work a tile even if it's outside my city zone and build a road to it as I read you will still get credit for owning that resource, just you can't have the city work the tile. I didn't know about the elephants happiness bonus. I guess I better start looking up the resources benefits so I know which ones will help the most for my particular strategy I'm using.

but is there no way to check on your war weariness? or do I have to just keep track of it myself?

EmperorFool
Apr 30, 2008, 09:23 AM
Where can I find the warweriness info in the game?

Hover your mouse over a leader's name in the scoreboard. Below their attitude toward you it will say "War Weariness: xxx".

I'm besieged with WW in my current game. I've taken very few losses, but my cities are experiencing 8-12 :mad: at 1221 WW even with Jails and Mount Rushmore! I've had much longer wars with more casualties and never had this much WW -- max 5 or 6 unhappy at the worst times.

Does anyone know if WW is altered in Bruic's Unofficial Patch, as I'm using it?

Roland Johansen
Apr 30, 2008, 11:34 AM
I'm besieged with WW in my current game. I've taken very few losses, but my cities are experiencing 8-12 :mad: at 1221 WW even with Jails and Mount Rushmore! I've had much longer wars with more casualties and never had this much WW -- max 5 or 6 unhappy at the worst times.

Does anyone know if WW is altered in Bruic's Unofficial Patch, as I'm using it?

Bhruic's patch doesn't change the war weariness mechanics. I suspect that you've conquered many cities and have killed lots of enemy soldiers. Both of these elements cause war weariness as is explained in the article in the first post.

Your only options are to stop the war, to destroy your opponent or to use the police state civic.

If you want to suffer less war weariness in a war with an enemy with many units, then draw their units into your territory, kill them there and only then go onto the offensive. You only get war weariness for killing units in areas where you don't have 100% cultural influence.

EmperorFool
Apr 30, 2008, 11:42 AM
I suspect that you've conquered many cities and have killed lots of enemy soldiers.

I had only taken 3 cities when it got ugly, lasting maybe 10-20 turns, and killed roughly 20 units in their territory. The AI kept attacking my destroyers with airships, some of them intercepted. Do those kinds of bombing runs get factored into WW? Oh, this is my first Immortal game except for a HoF game quite a ways back.

Your only options are to stop the war, to destroy your opponent or to use the police state civic.

I went for the second option: jack up the culture slider to 40% (later 50%), and take down his last 4 cities ASAP. :) It's amazing how quickly you can recover once all that WW disappears the next turn.

If you want to suffer less war weariness in a war with an enemy with many units, then draw their units into your territory, kill them there and only then go onto the offensive.

I've done that before, and it's a nice tactic. I'm playing on an archipelago this game, however, and the AI doesn't seem to be all that effective at aggression, even on Immortal. It's sad because it makes for interesting maps and slower expansion.

MarkJohnson
Apr 30, 2008, 12:49 PM
Hover your mouse over a leader's name in the scoreboard. Below their attitude toward you it will say "War Weariness: xxx".

I'm besieged with WW in my current game. I've taken very few losses, but my cities are experiencing 8-12 :mad: at 1221 WW even with Jails and Mount Rushmore! I've had much longer wars with more casualties and never had this much WW -- max 5 or 6 unhappy at the worst times.

Does anyone know if WW is altered in Bruic's Unofficial Patch, as I'm using it?

Thanks for the WW location. Is 1876 WW very much? lol Peter doesn't seem very happy with me.

I have noticed quite a few things this game and was able to play the whole end game at war. It was very late when I started, 1876ish.

I first noticed raising my culture slider to overcome unhappiness. Stranhe I didn't notice this before as people are always taking about. I guess it never clicked as I focus on research the most and declare peace if WW gets too bad, but I was short on time and couldn't stop.

second, I found on my previous gave that Police State + Jail + Mount Rushmore = no WW at all!!! So I of course beeline Facism and build Mt. Rushmore. I already had the Pyramid that enables all Gov civics but forgot about Mt. Rushmore.

OK, my war was now back on full, with no worries except yearning to join the motherland which usually isn't so bad and only temporarily did I have unhappiness for long. I also notice you have to build jails fairly quickly after capture. not sure how long, or they start getting WW fairly quickly.

now, my economy is getting bad. My cities are strung out as the island is L-shaped and costs for maintenance is high. Luckily I hadn't built the forbidden palace, but it didn't help a lot. What did help was the State Property civ and it eliminated the distance from palace cost and gave me like a 33% boost to my economy. The extra hammer and food was a nice bonus as well.

It was funny though, after eliminating Peter and Isabella I was at peace and had enough for a domination victory as soon as my borders expanded, so I turned off the war civics and my economy went from 750 gold per turn to 19 lol.

and funniest thing was I lost the war. I let Victoria control the AP as it was one less thing to deal with. The last proposal was for a diplomatic victory and I thought it was for control of the AP. I voted for Victoria and she won -lol. I was too tired and bored at this point to load my last save to get my victory back.

next game I'll have to try to implement these things earlier.

Hope this helps
-=Mark=-
ps. I find the later in game the more WW accumulates, especially after constitution and jails are available and Facism after Mt. Rushmore.

EmperorFool
Apr 30, 2008, 01:05 PM
I first noticed raising my culture slider to overcome unhappiness. Stranhe I didn't notice this before as people are always taking about.

The culture slider only helps cities with Theaters (+1 :) per 10% :culture:) and Coliseums (+1 :) per 20% :culture:).

Most of the game I solve my happy/health issues with resource trades. Keep an eye on the Foreign Advisor for new trade possibilities (or use a mod that includes Civ4lerts like The BUG Mod in my sig).

The best way out of a war is always to eliminate your opponent -- no more WW or motherland to rejoin. This obviously isn't always an option, but when it is, it's often worth a little sacrifice at high culture for a short while.

Roland Johansen
Apr 30, 2008, 05:37 PM
I had only taken 3 cities when it got ugly, lasting maybe 10-20 turns, and killed roughly 20 units in their territory. The AI kept attacking my destroyers with airships, some of them intercepted. Do those kinds of bombing runs get factored into WW? Oh, this is my first Immortal game except for a HoF game quite a ways back.

That's weird. Maybe you killed some units in the area where both civilizations had some culture (and then both parties get some war weariness) or maybe some war weariness from a previous war which reactivated once the war started again. I can't understand it otherwise.

Of course, lost airships by the AI also cause war weariness.

I went for the second option: jack up the culture slider to 40% (later 50%), and take down his last 4 cities ASAP. :) It's amazing how quickly you can recover once all that WW disappears the next turn.

Hmm, 40% is a lot. I hope your economy wasn't based on commerce or this must have hurt a lot.

I've done that before, and it's a nice tactic. I'm playing on an archipelago this game, however, and the AI doesn't seem to be all that effective at aggression, even on Immortal. It's sad because it makes for interesting maps and slower expansion.

It's the lack of hammers on such maps which hurts the AI. Plus it doesn't realise the great importance of some of the wonders on this map type such as the Colossus and the Great Lighthouse.

I first noticed raising my culture slider to overcome unhappiness.

The culture slider only helps cities with Theaters (+1 :) per 10% :culture:) and Coliseums (+1 :) per 20% :culture:).

There is also a basic +1 happiness per 10% :culture: and in the late game you can also enjoy another +1 happiness per 10% culture from the broadcast towers. Just for completeness.

EmperorFool
Apr 30, 2008, 08:13 PM
This was the second war with Jules, but the first one was over a single city involving maybe 10 units in total. I'll have to check it out again, but once I started watching WW, it would go up 150 points or more in a single AI turn, where all he did was lose a few units attacking mine. Anger from WW was jumping 2 at a time each turn.

I normally tend to build up a lot of troops before I start a war, and then drag it out for a loooong time, taking 10 or more cities before stopping to regroup. I don't shy away from suicide softening troops, either. And normally I don't have to deal with more than 4-6 :mad: citizens from WW. And yet in this game I planned ahead better, quickly achieved my objective and used few troops than normal, winning nearly every battle, and I was drowning in 10-13 :mad: citizens.

Like the base :culture: bonus you mention, I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious or wasn't paying as much attention as I thought.

Hmm, 40% is a lot. I hope your economy wasn't based on commerce or this must have hurt a lot.

It was only for the last 4 or 5 turns of the war so I could maintain my production and not lose population due to starvation. Losing a few turns of research isn't so bad when you're up by a few techs. :) It's not uncommon when you want to do some upgrades to run research at 0% for a turn or two anyway.

It's the lack of hammers on such maps which hurts the AI. Plus it doesn't realise the great importance of some of the wonders on this map type such as the Colossus and the Great Lighthouse.

While I agree with all of that, the biggest factors I'm seeing are a) simply not being adept at shuffling troups around the islands and b) not prioritizing Fission given that the only Oil is in the sea and Plastics is a long way off. Even then, they didn't prioritize Plastics, leaving me the run of the seas.

They're building the normal level of units (i.e. more than me) -- they're just not using them effectively. Writing AI is difficult, and making it strategic is even harder. Dealing with moving troops in boats must be a PITA. :)

There is also a basic +1 happiness per 10% :culture:

:eek: :blush: I thought they had removed that in Civ4 and required a Theater, Coliseum or Broadcast Tower. I had waited to kick up my :culture: until I had built a significant number of Theaters. :( Thanks for the heads-up.

Roland Johansen
Apr 30, 2008, 10:09 PM
This was the second war with Jules, but the first one was over a single city involving maybe 10 units in total. I'll have to check it out again, but once I started watching WW, it would go up 150 points or more in a single AI turn, where all he did was lose a few units attacking mine. Anger from WW was jumping 2 at a time each turn.

I normally tend to build up a lot of troops before I start a war, and then drag it out for a loooong time, taking 10 or more cities before stopping to regroup. I don't shy away from suicide softening troops, either. And normally I don't have to deal with more than 4-6 :mad: citizens from WW. And yet in this game I planned ahead better, quickly achieved my objective and used few troops than normal, winning nearly every battle, and I was drowning in 10-13 :mad: citizens.

It sounds very weird. The last thing that I could imagine is the map size factor. Killing 10 units and taking 3 cities causes a lot more unhappiness in your cities on a duel sized map than on a huge map. This is of course a compensation for the fact that wars will involve more cities and units on huge maps than on duel sized maps. Maybe you're playing on a smaller map than usual?

It was only for the last 4 or 5 turns of the war so I could maintain my production and not lose population due to starvation. Losing a few turns of research isn't so bad when you're up by a few techs. :) It's not uncommon when you want to do some upgrades to run research at 0% for a turn or two anyway.

Yes, I guess I fight in a similar fashion to you. I don't like to declare war multiple times because each time you'll get a negative diplomatic modifier with their friends which makes future diplomacy that much harder, so I try to finish a civilisation in one go and if necessary I'll increase the luxury slider. Usually I don't need 40% luxuries though, but I often do start the war with some extra happiness which means that it takes a while before I need to increase the luxury slider.

I also play many immortal level games and the number of enemy units plus the number of cities that you have to conquer on a huge map make it tough to get through a war without war weariness problems. When I start an offensive war, I know that I can win it and my main concern is to keep war weariness in check.

:eek: :blush: I thought they had removed that in Civ4 and required a Theater, Coliseum or Broadcast Tower. I had waited to kick up my :culture: until I had built a significant number of Theaters. :( Thanks for the heads-up.

The culture slider is of course not available at the very start of the game. You need to develop Drama first. Maybe that caused some of the confusion.

EmperorFool
May 01, 2008, 07:48 AM
The last thing that I could imagine is the map size factor.

Standard size map. I sometimes play Large, but this one was Standard. However, I used SmartMap to generate the map, though I've used that plenty before. It sometimes adjusts the size of the map, and this one is a little narrower than it should be (it's roughly square).

The one thing I did different from all other games is that I have wrap x and y enabled. I wonder if that is messing with the WW calculation.

Usually I don't need 40% luxuries though, but I often do start the war with some extra happiness which means that it takes a while before I need to increase the luxury slider.

Yes, we have near exact warring styles. In the beginning of the game of course I'll hit the happy wall, but usually by the time I'm ready to rumble, I have a few happiness slots to spare, and I make sure to continue adding (temples, theaters, etc) as I fight.

The culture slider is of course not available at the very start of the game. You need to develop Drama first. Maybe that caused some of the confusion.

Naw, I knew that much. :) I think I just saw the bonuses for Theaters and Coliseums when I first got Civ4 and assumed that was the only way to get :) from :culture:. So glad to know it's available without them.

For one thing, it changes the calculation considerably. Now I know that when I build a Theater, I'll get 2 :) from 10% :culture: rather than 1. That's actually a huge difference. Theaters double the :) effect!

Roland Johansen
May 01, 2008, 10:37 AM
Standard size map. I sometimes play Large, but this one was Standard. However, I used SmartMap to generate the map, though I've used that plenty before. It sometimes adjusts the size of the map, and this one is a little narrower than it should be (it's roughly square).

The one thing I did different from all other games is that I have wrap x and y enabled. I wonder if that is messing with the WW calculation.

A mod could of course always do something weird with the war weariness calculation. Maybe the World Size Modifier is calculated wrongly.

EmperorFool
May 01, 2008, 10:57 AM
A mod could of course always do something weird with the war weariness calculation.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but SmartMap is not a mod -- just a map generator. I'm about to start up a war with Saladin; I'll keep track of the effects of a round or two and see if something's off. Maybe if I'm feeling particularly curious, I'll poke around the SDK. I've looked at other areas there, but the combat code will be new.

Edit: I am using the BAT mod, but it has no code changes. And as I said above, I'm using Bruic's Unofficial Patch DLL.

Roland Johansen
May 01, 2008, 12:06 PM
Not sure if this is what you meant, but SmartMap is not a mod -- just a map generator. I'm about to start up a war with Saladin; I'll keep track of the effects of a round or two and see if something's off. Maybe if I'm feeling particularly curious, I'll poke around the SDK. I've looked at other areas there, but the combat code will be new.

Edit: I am using the BAT mod, but it has no code changes. And as I said above, I'm using Bruic's Unofficial Patch DLL.

There are several elements in civ that are map size dependent. Shouldn't a map generator provide the right values for these elements if it creates non-standard size maps? For instance, there is a variable that sets a relation between map size and war weariness (stored in CIV4WorldInfo.xml and called iWarWearinessModifier). How does a map generator pick the right value of this variable if the map generator creates maps of different sizes than the standard sizes (duel, tiny, small, normal, etc.)? The map generator must thus provide this value somehow.

I don't know as much about modding like you do, so maybe I'm completely mistaken. :confused:

EmperorFool
May 01, 2008, 12:46 PM
How does a map generator pick the right value of this variable if the map generator creates maps of different sizes than the standard sizes (duel, tiny, small, normal, etc.)? The map generator must thus provide this value somehow.

You still pick a size from the drop down with SmartMap, but this map generator allows you to override the sizes. The odd thing is, even though I choose "Don't Override" for both x and y, it ends up altering the size. I assume it shrunk the x size so the islands weren't so far from the edges of the screen (even though they still are a bit far).

However, I assume that the size I chose in the drop down is what the game engine uses in its calculations. However, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the wrap x and y settings affect the calculations for maintenance. If my memory is correct, perhaps the same effect applies to WW. I don't think it makes sense to apply it for WW, but Firaxis probably didn't consider my opinion. :rolleyes:

Roland Johansen
May 01, 2008, 01:15 PM
You still pick a size from the drop down with SmartMap, but this map generator allows you to override the sizes. The odd thing is, even though I choose "Don't Override" for both x and y, it ends up altering the size. I assume it shrunk the x size so the islands weren't so far from the edges of the screen (even though they still are a bit far).

However, I assume that the size I chose in the drop down is what the game engine uses in its calculations. However, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the wrap x and y settings affect the calculations for maintenance. If my memory is correct, perhaps the same effect applies to WW. I don't think it makes sense to apply it for WW, but Firaxis probably didn't consider my opinion. :rolleyes:

I have never tried any of the map generators although I have heard some good things about them. So, I didn't know you could pick a size category. It makes sense now that you've explained it as it is probably the easiest way to make the different map sizes created by these map generators work with the preprogrammed size based variables which are used throughout the game.

Oh, and I agree that map wrapping settings shouldn't effect the WW-calculations. They should purely be based on the number of land tiles or a close approximation of that value.

GooglyBoogly
Jun 27, 2008, 05:11 PM
If anyone knows/ could check the code for the exact change(s) that 3.17 made to war weariness it would be nice if they could post them here