War Weariness Mechanics

[Krikkitone]

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]

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!

[Strobe]

Excellent article, will come in very handy to plan more for war weariness rathe than just manage it.

[a4phantom]

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]

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]

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.

[Krikkitone]

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]

Thanks. Does War Happiness from Civ3 and real life not exist in Civ4?

[Beamup]

Originally Posted by Roland Johansen

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]

Originally Posted by Beamup

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Roland Johansen

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.]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Egil Skallagrim

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]

Originally Posted by Krikkitone

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"