Aggressive Civs

[Swein Forkbeard]

I think Aggressive civs should have reduced War Weariness or should start seeing it later than usual. Does anybody agree with me?

 

[Agarwaen]

Just because the leader is a warmonger doesn't mean that the people like war

 

[Fuzzz]

maybe charismatic leader could get -25% war weariness instead of -25% xp needed for promotions.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Just because the leader is a warmonger doesn't mean that the people like war

I said the Aggressive leaders, not all the warlike ones (unless you only call Aggressive leaders warlike ones, which in that case you wouldn't call Julius Caesar and Mao Zedong warlike leaders).

Name one Aggressive leader whose people didn't really like war.

 

[Khan Quest]

Your reasoning is sound, but to give civs with one trait an extra advantage would be unbalancing. Maybe you could come up with suggestions for non-aggressive civs as well.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Maybe War Weariness appears when you LOSE a city instead of capture one. And losing any units over the course of the war increases. WW by 10%

 

[Fuzzz]

Swein Forkbeard: Maybe War Weariness appears when you LOSE a city instead of capture one. And losing any units over the course of the war increases. WW by 10%

I disagree, just look at the Vietnam or Iraq war. No cities were/are lost (on the contrary), yet you could say there was/is a lot of war weariness in the USA.

 

[Fuzzz]

I also believe The Americans should have an Aggressive or at least an Imperialistic leader.

Sorry for two posts in a row btw.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I also believe The Americans should have an Aggressive or at least an Imperialistic leader.

Sorry for two posts in a row btw.

If the Americans had an Aggressive or Imperialistic leader, it would be the president who went to war with Mexico to obtain Texas (or California).

 

[aronnax]

It was both Texas and Califonia

 

[Fuzzz]

Swein Forkbeard: If the Americans had an Aggressive or Imperialistic leader, it would be the president who went to war with Mexico to obtain Texas (or California).

The USA has had more than one aggressive and/or imperialistic leader. They use force against "unpolitically correct" nations and civilizations (just because they say that nation is "unpolitically correct") even if it means breaking international treaties (just look at Iraq) and/or using all force necessary (atom bomb, and I don't want the infantile argument that Japan started it; Japan attacked an army base, USA wiped 2 entire cities of the map).

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

It was both Texas and Califonia

I learned which leader it was today in school. It was James K. Polk.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

(atom bomb, and I don't want the infantile argument that Japan started it; Japan attacked an army base, USA wiped 2 entire cities of the map).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki still exist. I'll save my other arguments to keep this thread on topic.

 

[Fuzzz]

@CIVPhilzilla:
You're absolutely right, Hiroshima and Nagasaki still exist today, but in 1945 these 2 cities were completely wiped of the map (except for a few buildings) with the most aggression mankind has ever seen.

I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought with, but I know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. (Albert Einstein)