War Weariness Mechanics

[EmperorFool]

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 . 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% rather than 1. That's actually a huge difference. Theaters double the effect!

 

[Roland Johansen]

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]

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]

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.

 

[EmperorFool]

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.

 

[Roland Johansen]

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.

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]

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

 

[Jivilov]

So basically Civ 4 reflects postmodern "Eurocentric" pacifism. It hardly reflects the overall historical model, wherein a population would be overjoyed when informed of foreign conquests. The game hardly allows Romans, Mohammedans, Mongols, Turks, Aztecs, Incas, Britons, French or "Americans" (i.e., the USA) to set up their respective empires. It's still fun, but IMHO the warmongering-war weariness balance in Civ 3 was more realistic. [Edit: Actually this is wrong; in 3 WW is similar in concept to 4, such that units in enemy territory and taking/losing cities adds to WW. A formula can be seen here: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/stra...weariness.php]

 

[Seraiel]

So basically Civ 4 reflects postmodern "Eurocentric" pacifism. It hardly reflects the overall historical model, wherein a population would be overjoyed when informed of foreign conquests. The game hardly allows Romans, Mohammedans, Mongols, Turks, Aztecs, Incas, Britons, French or "Americans" (i.e., the USA) to set up their respective empires. It's still fun, but IMHO the warmongering-war weariness balance in Civ 3 was more realistic.

Don't know, but I never had problems with WW early in the game, so CIV4 does allow those Civs to set up their empires.

WW is mainly a mechanic that happens in late game, but then, there are also methods to deal with it (i. e. Police State + Jail + Mount Rushmore = no WW at all) .

 

[Zholef]

So basically Civ 4 reflects postmodern "Eurocentric" pacifism. It hardly reflects the overall historical model, wherein a population would be overjoyed when informed of foreign conquests. The game hardly allows Romans, Mohammedans, Mongols, Turks, Aztecs, Incas, Britons, French or "Americans" (i.e., the USA) to set up their respective empires. It's still fun, but IMHO the warmongering-war weariness balance in Civ 3 was more realistic.

Conquering isn't what makes your population unhappy; losing (large numbers of) troops in foreign lands is. And that's perfectly in line with history. Doesn't matter if it's 20th century U.S. Americans dying in the wet forests of Vietnam or 1st century Romans dying in the dark forests of Germany, the reaction of the dead soldiers' families is the same.

 

[Seraiel]

Conquering isn't what makes your population unhappy; losing (large numbers of) troops in foreign lands is. And that's perfectly in line with history. Doesn't matter if it's 20th century U.S. Americans dying in the wet forests of Vietnam or 1st century Romans dying in the dark forests of Germany, the reaction of the dead soldiers' families is the same.

The problem is, that this is not true. Conquering cities also gives huge WW and winning battles also minor (WW) . There is also no possibility to stay without losses in CIV as one either sieges, then the siege-weapons will die or one does mounted warfare, that one has loss-rates of 30-50%.

I lately tried some naval warfare on Archipelagio, that one is even worse, because the additional units (ships) have no real possibility to get defense boni, so battles are often 1:1 trade-offs.
My enemy had 20 cities (normal sized map but minimum opponents) , after 10 I had to sue for peace because I just couldn't shoulder the WW anymore. I waited at least 100T before I declared war on him again and beat other civs in the meantime. WW fades only very slowly when one brings it up to 500 or more, after the 100T I remember that at least 100 or 200 were still there.

 

[Jivilov]

Conquering isn't what makes your population unhappy; losing (large numbers of) troops in foreign lands is. And that's perfectly in line with history. Doesn't matter if it's 20th century U.S. Americans dying in the wet forests of Vietnam or 1st century Romans dying in the dark forests of Germany, the reaction of the dead soldiers' families is the same.

That would make sense, but unfortunately in a game I'm playing now (as Romans in Vanilla on Prince) that did not apply around 1880 AD. Being hemmed in by Catherine and Huayna, and behind in the histograph, I decided to go after an outlying Russian city clinging like a barnacle to my eastern flank. The Incas refused to go along and when I declared on Catherine the Incas declared against me as well. Two against one, and the power graph showed each of them were stronger!

Fortunately the Russian city fell after 3 turns with hardly any loss while my opponents knocked their heads against a culturally-defended and well-garrisoned border city (the AI didn't use artillery to destroy the defenses first). Must've had a kill ratio of at least three to one. However by that time my biggest cities were losing pop--not to mention hammers--to WW; Rome had 6 citizens out of 18 on strike! In just 3 turns, mind you.

Yet I managed to take an Incan city and replace losses even with crippled production. Catherine agreed to terms after about 10 turns, which cut WW roughly in half. So I continued against Huayna, taking his capital and 2 other large cities before calling a (temporary) halt.

Anyway my point is I hardly lost more than a handful in "foreign lands" yet suffered from serious WW very quickly. According to what I've read, even if you WIN a combat it still counts against you. It's as if the game doesn't want you to attack after, say, the Middle Ages.

 

[Zholef]

The problem is, that this is not true.

It's not true if you assume that a combat action (e.g., capturing a city, attacking a unit) which doesn't involve losing a unit also doesn't involve losing troops. (Even a victorious legion, returning from battle, is likely to have lost some legionaries.) Anyway, the most important factor for WW is whether or not your culture is dominant on the tile that serves as battlefield. Winning in foreign lands increases your WW, but neither conquering your own cities nor losing troops in defense of your towns does. And that's exactly as it should be.

That would make sense, but unfortunately in a game I'm playing now (as Romans in Vanilla on Prince) that did not apply around 1880 AD. Being hemmed in by Catherine and Huayna, and behind in the histograph, I decided to go after an outlying Russian city clinging like a barnacle to my eastern flank. The Incas refused to go along and when I declared on Catherine the Incas declared against me as well. Two against one, and the power graph showed each of them were stronger!

Fortunately the Russian city fell after 3 turns with hardly any loss while my opponents knocked their heads against a culturally-defended and well-garrisoned border city (the AI didn't use artillery to destroy the defenses first). Must've had a kill ratio of at least three to one. However by that time my biggest cities were losing pop--not to mention hammers--to WW; Rome had 6 citizens out of 18 on strike! In just 3 turns, mind you.

Yet I managed to take an Incan city and replace losses even with crippled production. Catherine agreed to terms after about 10 turns, which cut WW roughly in half. So I continued against Huayna, taking his capital and 2 other large cities before calling a (temporary) halt.

Anyway my point is I hardly lost more than a handful in "foreign lands" yet suffered from serious WW very quickly. According to what I've read, even if you WIN a combat it still counts against you. It's as if the game doesn't want you to attack after, say, the Middle Ages.

Can't comment much on your game without before-and-after save states, but I suspect you may not have taken into account what is explained in the opening post of this thread, that what counts as "foreign" territory for the purpose of WW is not where your borders are, but the "plot culture" level.

Another thing you might want to consider is that being the aggressor has inherent advantages. The game needs to penalize aggression at least somewhat to make peaceful strategies viable, but that doesn't mean it wants you to be a pacifist. Nobody in history managed to conquer the world, not for lack of trying, mind you, but because it's difficult. Why should it be any different in Civ? Also, it's not as if high WW makes warring impossible, merely expensive, because as soon as you get Drama, all that WW really does is cost you money, seeing as you can then use the culture slider to turn money into happiness.

My civics are Universal Suffrage, Free Speech, Emancipation, Free Market, and Free Religion. Somebody suggested that Police State and State Property are good for warmongering. Is that right? Thanks.

No, that's not necessarily right. It depends on your empire. Figure out what your empire needs and what it can do without. Then choose your civics accordingly.

 

[Jivilov]

@ Zholef: "Anyway, the most important factor for WW is whether or not your culture is dominant on the tile that serves as battlefield. Winning in foreign lands increases your WW, but neither conquering your own cities nor losing troops in defense of your towns does. And that's exactly as it should be."

Well, were the Japanese public wearied over their conquests in Manchuriai, or later in China "proper" and Southeast Asia in WW II? Were the Germans wearied over their conquests of France, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and North Africa? Were the French wearied over conquests in Italy, Germany, Poland etc. during the Napoleonic Wars? Were the Mongols dispirited over conquests in China or Central Asia? Etc. ad infinitum.

On the other hand capturing and/or leveling enemy cities has often caused them to sue for peace. The experience of Japan and Germany in WW II comes to mind, and earlier the Romans, Mongols and other warrior civs made a habit of besieging, capturing and plundering cities that refused to pay tribute in the first place. How else did all those empires arise? Don't think it was from causing WW among the home population of invading armies.

Oh well, no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Just wish the Civ franchise could make up its mind: In Civ 3 the WW formula was almost diametrically opposed to the one in 4, such that winning battles subtracted from WW while taking hits on home territory added to it IIRC. [Edit: Actually this is wrong; in 3 WW is similar in concept to 4, such that units in enemy territory and taking/losing cities adds to WW. A formula can be seen here: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/war_weariness.php] No doubt there was a deliberate effort to prevent warmongering, especially that which went on in the Conquests expansion. Maybe they made Civ4 in an appeal to a (broader?) market of peaceful civ-builders instead of those who preferred to win atop a "mountain of skulls." To each his or her own.

Anyway you're right, I should've read more of the original thread. Thanks for your feedback and happy gaming. Cheers.

P.S. It is baffling to me that capturing a city adds significantly to WW. It might've been true historically on occasion--Scott's capture of Mexico City comes to mind, although I'm not sure if that in itself was more significant than political infighting back in Washington--but given the experience of full-blooded warrior civs like the Romans, Mongols, or Turks one could argue strongly against that presumption. Ditto Great Britain in its empire days, Napoleon's France or Germany more recently.

@ Seraiel: "WW is mainly a mechanic that happens in late game, but then, there are also methods to deal with it (i. e. Police State + Jail + Mount Rushmore = no WW at all) ."

Much obliged for the tip. That pretty well cuts the Gordian Knot, as it were.

 

[Zholef]

Well, were the Japanese public wearied over their conquests in Manchuriai, or later in China "proper" and Southeast Asia in WW II? Were the Germans wearied over their conquests of France, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and North Africa? Were the French wearied over conquests in Italy, Germany, Poland etc. during the Napoleonic Wars? Were the Mongols dispirited over conquests in China or Central Asia? Etc. ad infinitum.

On the other hand capturing and/or leveling enemy cities has often caused them to sue for peace. The experience of Japan and Germany in WW II comes to mind, and earlier the Romans, Mongols and other warrior civs made a habit of besieging, capturing and plundering cities that refused to pay tribute in the first place. How else did all those empires arise? Don't think it was from causing WW among the home population of invading armies.

Feels like talking to a wall. You're asking the wrong questions. I already told you, conquering things doesn't cause WW; losing troops does. WW is caused in people who have lost loved ones or have reason to fear losing loved ones in what they perceive as unnecessary military campaigns. That's a natural human emotion that afflicts the families of Mongol horse archers just as much as those of French riflemen.

 

[Jivilov]

@ Zholef:

Another thread inspired some searching through the SDK, and this is what I came up with
NOTE: ALL 1.61 based, Vanilla, Not Warlords
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
You capture a city=+6

As I was saying, and at higher levels it's doubtful you'll be culturally dominant. I wasn't. So why do you keep insisting that "conquering things doesn't cause WW" if the OP specifically states that if you capture a city you get 6 points of WW? Sorry if that's a "wrong question," but it seems more relevant than speculating on the emotions afflicting families of Mongol horse archers.

Edit: If "culturally dominant" means that most citizens in a city are from another civ, then any time you take a foreign city you get 6 WW points, regardless of whether or not your civ has more culture.

 

[Zholef]

You capture a city=+6

So why do you keep insisting that "conquering things doesn't cause WW" if the OP specifically states that if you capture a city you get 6 points of WW?

Because your objections don't lie with the game mechanic itself but with its real-world justification, and that's the level on which I'm addressing them. In the real world, conquering cities and territories inhabited by populations that consider you their enemy rarely comes without loss of life even if the regular armies of your enemy retreat without a fight.

Civ4, being a practically ancient strategy game, can reflect reality only in a very simplified form. You're not taking that into account when you assume that because you didn't lose any units in taking a city, that your army didn't suffer casualties (or wouldn't have suffered casualties if your war was taking place in the real world).

 

[Jivilov]

Because your objections don't lie with the game mechanic itself but with its real-world justification, and that's the level on which I'm addressing them. In the real world, conquering cities and territories inhabited by populations that consider you their enemy rarely comes without loss of life even if the regular armies of your enemy retreat without a fight.

Civ4, being a practically ancient strategy game, can reflect reality only in a very simplified form. You're not taking that into account when you assume that because you didn't lose any units in taking a city, that your army didn't suffer casualties (or wouldn't have suffered casualties if your war was taking place in the real world).

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. Thanks for your kind attention and happy gaming!

 

[Seraiel]

@ Jivilov:

I understand how you feel about this, and my initial reaction to it would have been the same, but in all honesty I must say, that i. e. Nazi Germany definately ran Police State and had Jails, giving them -75% War Weariness. Nazi Germany also suffered severly from unhappy citizens, so to keep up the productivity (and because they simply lost so many soldiers) , they pushed forward Emancipation, hiring Women to work in the factories and similar.

I'm historically not so sure, if the Romans had the Mids at the time of Julius Caesar, but I'd guess so from the Asterixes I've read. At least, Caesar was a Dictator, so they also ran Police State. In addition, the world just had way less citizens, so their cities were much smaller and there was a plaethora of Happiness-resources at that time, mostly coming out of the foreign countries Rome conquered.

I agree on all european countries having been remorseless killers at least at some time in history, but those would be my InGame-arguments for 2 of the examples you provided. Don't know enough about the Mongols and forgot most of what I learned about the French and Napoleon.

 

[Jivilov]

@ Seraiel:
Yes, the ability to squelch WW with PS, Jails and MR pretty well overrules my objections regarding warmongering. Thanks for pointing this out.

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

P.S. FWIW my assumption about Civ3 being much different is wrong. As noted in edited posts above WW in 3 is similar in concept to 4, such that units in enemy territory and taking cities adds to WW. A formula can be seen here: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/stra...weariness.php. Sorry for the bum steer.