Late game goofiness

[hanoi]

Here's some things that typically come up in the late game that I think still need to be patched.

1. Several times now in different games I've had enemy civs declare war on me without getting a pop-up. The only way I've found out is by several of my cities going into disorder the next turn. Which brings me to #2....

2. War weariness is illogical. Long story short, sometimes it's bad and other times non-existent. One example is, a distant and weak civ declaring war on my strong civ should not cause instant, major problems. Such a civ should be able to indulge its delusional fantasies, declaring itself "lords of the universe" or whatever, without any effect on my civ unless there's some real threat.

3. The other happiness weirdness. Here's the sequence. The Russians declare war on me a 2nd time, having waxed them the first, and after a zero-combat war I take their Size 1 city nearest my core in peace treaty negotiations. This single citizen is then unhappy due to "cruel oppression," even though he's reported as a Babylonian citizen (my civ). So I think, OK that's goofy, but I'll do the work-around: abandon the city by building a settler and build a new one in the same spot with a different settler. I just disband the abandoned-city's settler hopefully to avoid further problems. But what happens? My nearest city gets this transferred unhappiness problem, all citizens including mine rendered unhappy due to "cruel oppression," and is left useless except as an outpost.

I don't even know where to start with all the weirdness there.

 

[Arioch]

Ok...

1)Weird,freaky, any chance of the savegame?

2)War weariness is not ilogical, it is very logical which can make it seem unfair IMO. Why does the distant civ declare war on you? Do you have a large military which can forestall conflict? Have you broken any treaties ever? Have you recently been at war? In short, there are many factors which need to be managed to effectively combat war weariness.

3)Don't abandon the city next time. Wait for the unhappiness to go away, I believe the transference of unhappiness was to stop pop-rushing and then abandoning a city to avoid any penalties.

Hope that is of some assistance, I'm sure some of the diety beaters will be along shortly to help out too.

 

[rangers85]

One way you can look at the transferring of unhappiness is that those people in that city you abandoned had to move somewhere. They didn't just run to the ocean and throw themselves in it. Therefore, they were still unhappy, but moved to the nearest city since you decided you didn't want their previous city anymore.

 

[Arioch]

An excellent point Rangers85 I must admit I saw it more in terms of the game mechanics rather than the setting but I will now think of the little people more

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Arioch
2)War weariness is not ilogical, it is very logical

Of course they way a computer program works is "logical" in a sense.

It's unrealistic and annoying for the game to be designed like this. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor it made the US people gung ho about the war. I wish I had changed the .bic file to make everything mitigate war weariness, but they changed it in 1.21f so that you have to start a new game to make .bic changes effective.

 

[hanoi]

Some interesting points there. But I still have doubts.

Re: the distant civ, there had recently been a war with the same civ, but I had never initiated a war in the entire game. I assume the civ declared (twice) because the AI knew I was winning on score. I also had a huge military, multiple happiness provisions etc. I'm not saying war weariness should be eliminated, I just think it's excessive that numerous cities would instantly be plunged into disorder when you don't start the war and your civ is under little threat. At least give it a few turns.

As for the abandoned city thing, those unhappy citizens are taking the form of the new settler. That's how the city disappears. I could understand that settler forming an unhappy new city... which is why I disbanded it. In any case, if we must have transferred unhappiness, it should only be the equivalent of the size of the abandoned city -- that is, I abandoned a Size 1 city, and it made *all* the citizens of a nearby Size 4 city unhappy.

The resulting illogic the way it is now is that you get punished more for taking a city peacefully in treaty talks than you would by taking it by force, burning it down (an "atrocity"), and settling a new one in its place.

 

[Arioch]

The reason I asked all the questions in reply to the second point you made is because war weariness can be affected by so many things.
I've gotta admit i'm a bit stumped now, I'd like to see a savegame with this so i can play on it if possible and try and work out the factors involved.

 

[VOODOO MEDICINE]

I've got the prob that I've beaten all other Civ's exept 2 (weak ones) and when I attacked them they had really big armies and stuff

ENGLAND & ZULULAND :rocket2:

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by hanoi
Re: the distant civ, there had recently been a war with the same civ, but I had never initiated a war in the entire game. I assume the civ declared (twice) because the AI knew I was winning on score. I also had a huge military, multiple happiness provisions etc. I'm not saying war weariness should be eliminated, I just think it's excessive that numerous cities would instantly be plunged into disorder when you don't start the war and your civ is under little threat. At least give it a few turns.

This smells suspiciously like long-term being the main factor. The citizens remember war weariness for a period so you can`t have 1-turn peace treaties to reset war weariness. Your problem now is that if they declare war, but do not attack, you get 'general' war weariness, but neither the outrage-bonus, nor the successfull-campign bonus. And if you are the first who turns the cold war hot, it is you whom the people blame.... Crazy, but that`s the way it is! If you loose a city to a surprise attack, extreme outrage should be the reaction. maybe even trouble if sign peace to soon. but no, the lost-battle factor is stronger.... So I guess what you suffer from is the basic imbalance of the many factors that influence war weariness

 

[escl]

hanoi:

In the size one city although there is only 1 citizen there, there can be stacked unhappiness that can caused 100 citizens to become unhappy. All the stacked unhappiness transfers to the new city, not just the unhappiness of that one citizen.

 

[hanoi]

Originally posted by escl
hanoi:

In the size one city although there is only 1 citizen there, there can be stacked unhappiness that can caused 100 citizens to become unhappy. All the stacked unhappiness transfers to the new city, not just the unhappiness of that one citizen.

But we're talking about two different things here. You're talking about how the game appears to be programmed. I'm talking about whether it makes sense or not.

I'm not sure what "stacked unhappiness" even means. But if it means the city used to be bigger (which it did, but not because I ever attacked it) and all that people-power has trickled down to one just incredibly choked citizen, then you're also saying that this single citizen is also so influential as to make for an unhappy settler and four (or 100) unhappy citizens in a neighbouring city.

Regardless, I'm willing to employ the work-around. Commit the atrocity of burning the cities down, build new ones with friendly settlers, and everyone's happy. I just prefer patches to work-arounds.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by hanoi
I'm not saying war weariness should be eliminated, I just think it's excessive that numerous cities would instantly be plunged into disorder when you don't start the war and your civ is under little threat. At least give it a few turns.

But war weariness is given a few turns unless the people are alrewady fed up of all your previous wars. You can fight for quite some time even under democracy if you haven't had other wars for a long time. If you have few peacful turns between each war, then you need another government to handle the war weariness.

In any case, if we must have transferred unhappiness, it should only be the equivalent of the size of the abandoned city -- that is, I abandoned a Size 1 city, and it made *all* the citizens of a nearby Size 4 city unhappy.

What you get is actually quite logic, you get as much unhappiness as the old city had. If the old city had 4 reasons for being unhappy (stacked unhappiness), the 4-size city will see this unhappiness spread out to all 4 citizens.

Stacked unhappiness is when a city has more reason for being unhappy than it has citizens. If 4 units are drafted from a (former) size 5 city, then the remaining citizen will have a stacked unhappiness of 4. This means that a temple will not make the one citizen content as the temple will only remove one of the 4. So when you abandon the city with the really, really angry citizen, this will spread to the nearest city and make the citizens there normally unhappy.