War Weariness Mechanics

Jivilov said:

Q: Pardon my ignorance, but what are the Mids? Cheers.

Click to expand...

The mids is an acronym for the Pyramids, so the possibility to run Police State before having researched the necessary tech (Facism) .

Jivilov said:

My objection lies in the presumption that winning battles or conquering enemy cities causes WW. By that logic the Mongols would've been suffused with grief before taking half of China, the French would've been totally demoralized before Napoleon took Vienna, and Nazi Germany would've been nearly prostrate from lost production due to war-weary citizens "on strike" after gobbling up western Poland, the Low Countries, and France.

Of course winning battles and conquering territory entails loss of life, but so what? The Romans, Mongols, French, etc. weren't SNAGs (Sensitive New-Age Guys), they were remorseless killers who believed that they were superior to anyone else. From an early age they experienced the loss of siblings and playmates from accident, deprivation, disease, or war so mortality was ever-present and stoically accepted. Their cultural mythologies glorified war and individual sacrifice. Postmodern pacifists can't seem to grasp this, which makes it difficult for them to understand history or face the nature of present-day jihadis.

And that's my opinion. Have a nice day and happy gaming!

Click to expand...

You're arguing against a straw man. The presumption is not "that winning battles or conquering enemy cities causes WW", but that these things go hand in hand with losing troops and that some of the people back home who have lost or have fear of losing loved ones will, as a result, become unhappy with their government if they think that government is wasting the lives of its soldiers. And that presumption is justified because it's the natural reaction for a member of a species that evolved an instinct for survival. Of course there can be mitigating factors, cultural, religious (e.g., Norse believe in an afterlife only for those who fall in battle), political (e.g., propaganda and censorship) or simply a low general life expectancy, but none of these can completely eliminate human nature in every member of a society. Yet, in Civ4 war weariness can be eliminated completely, as has been mentioned. Besides, war weariness in the early game (assuming neither side has the Statue of Zeus) is so limited that it's hardly more than a nuisance. It's perfectly possible, even on higher difficulty levels, to conquer entire (single-continent) worlds with nothing but horse archers in spite of war weariness. Civ4 is, in fact, a game that favors war mongering. A bit of war weariness doesn't change that. Accusations against it of reflecting "postmodern pacifism" are simply laughable.

@ Saraeil: Thanks for clearing that mystery.

@ Zholef: OK, since I've never won a domination or conquest victory in Civ4 I'm undoubtedly biased. Still, it does seem a little extreme to experience about a third of the pop in major cities going on strike after only 3 turns, which seems more than just "a bit of war weariness." Anyway rest assured that before I resume hostilities I'll have Police State and build Jails in those hotbeds of dissent. Your observation that Civ4 favors warmongering--although perhaps not so much as in 3--is undoubtedly true in light of the ability to mitigate or even eliminate WW completely, a fact with which I was regrettably unacquainted until recently.

Thanks for sharing your views, experience and wisdom folks. Cheerio.