War Weariness Mechanics

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)
 
civictor said:
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.
 
Krikkitone said:
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?
 
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.
 
civictor said:
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).
 
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?

Krikkitone said:
Each turn at Peace= x 99% (rounded down)
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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%
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Top Bottom