Public unrest on a civ war

[Oru]

Civilization has always been my favourite game. I bought Civ I, Civ II, Civ III, Civ IV, Civ IV: Warlords and I will buy Civ IV: Beyond the sword.

I have a couple of ideas that could be integrated in the game, to had yet another interesting feature. One is:

One of the main things way war in complicated to manage when a nation is a republic/democracy after the invention of the printing press is the public opinion about the war. The longer it takes, the more soldiers get killed, more public unrest it generates. This could be so easily incorporated in the game...

If a civ is a republic/democracy (or has the civics Universal Suffrage/Free Speach) and it starts a war, when the number of units of the civ killed during the ongoing war reach say 70% of the number of units the civ had in the beginning of the war (regadless of the civic the civ had when it started to fight, to avoid civ changes only to start the war), the unrest could grow 10% in each of the civ's city by turn. That would have to force the civ to reach for a peace treaty or to think wisely before starting one if it plans on being a republic/democracy...

 

[Tsoman]

That's a good idea.

It sounds especially good to me, since I hate war when I play Civ.

Have you ever tried Europa Universalis? They have a stability factor that goes from +3 down to -3, and it is affected by things like war etc. An unjust aggressive war will hurt stability more than a defensive war, or a war to protect an ally.

 

[Oru]

I do not know the game you mention «Europa Universalis». But I would like to have more penalties in civ when a war is engaged by a Universal Suffrage/Free Speach civ. That is the way our modern democracies work: if a war lasts for a short time and doesn't have many casualties, it's not a big of a problem. If it isn't... all hell breaks loose in a modern democracy... I think I finally found a place where I can post some of my ideas and see if they are worthwhile or not...

 

[Mewtarthio]

I think I finally found a place where I can post some of my ideas and see if they are worthwhile or not...

Nobody loves the "Ideas & Suggestions" board.

*sniff* Okay, just give me a moment to compose myself...

Yeah, that's cool... Like how CivIII had War Weariness only in the more democratic governments (worst of all in Democracy), you could increase War Weariness for Universal Suffrage and Representation. That'd probably be the easiest way to do it, given that War Weariness starts out small and ends up getting problematic. You could either accelerate the process so that it ends up at "problematic" more quickly, or increase everything by a percentaage so that "small" becomes "slightly annoying, but still small" and "problematic" becomes "Merciful Meier, it's the Civil War all over again!" I'm not entirely sure how War Weariness is calculated (battles are random enough that I assume leaving it a black box that makes this worse if you're at war longer is sufficient), but I believe that loss of troops and capturing cities makes it go up.

 

[Oru]

Nobody loves the "Ideas & Suggestions" board.

*sniff* Okay, just give me a moment to compose myself...

Well, I thank you for giving me such an heart-felt thought.
Anyhow, I think you ended up agreeing with me. You do not know how the war weariness is calculated, me neither. But I had a feeling that it is not connected to the number of troops lost, just the duration of the war. That is why I would like to feel more the Universal Suffrage/Free Speach conected to the war wariness, like it happens on CNN...

 

[Zalcron]

i think if u r a deomcracy there should be elections (like in galatic civilizations 2) that should you lose there should be a penalty, economic etc or even lose the game maybe?

 

[NYHunter]

I am sorry but as much as I do agree with you it won't happen. Right now the only civic that has a penalty is Pacifism but that is balanced by the fact that it has no upkeep.

One of the big things about Civ IV was removing things that were seen as drags. As someone once said "it's better to make Police State reduce war weariness then to have Representation increase it".

Also even though they are sort of indirect the diplomatic penalties are already there. Leaders with common favorite civics will most likely like each other more and become friends and therefore when you declare war on one the other will get upset.

 

[NYHunter]

What purpose would that have? To make democratic civics less desirable?

If you are going to include such a big drawback the benefits of being a democracy must be increased to make up for it.

i think if u r a deomcracy there should be elections (like in galatic civilizations 2) that should you lose there should be a penalty, economic etc or even lose the game maybe?

 

[Naismith]

But I had a feeling that it is not connected to the number of troops lost, just the duration of the war.

Actually, it is connected to the cities lost, cities captured, and troops lost in foreign lands. There are threads that get into all the details, but I'm too lazy to find them and post an URL. I believe that losing troops in your own territory does not add to war weariness.

I believe the duration of the war plays no role whatsoever.

 

[magicalsushi]

There is already a penalty for Universal Suffrage and Representation. If you are running those civics, you are not running Police State, and hence are suffering more war weariness than you would be under a fascist government. Seems like a pretty good way to implement your suggestion to me - Firaxis did it right from the start. It's true that Hereditary Rule and Despotism are also affected, but I don't think that's a huge deal as they're not used much in the modern age (in Civ), and in any case HR gives happiness bonuses to miltaristic civs. I agree that Free Speech and Pacifism should also have an effect, but things would get pretty complicated then (and again, running Free Speech means not running Nationhood, which means not getting happiness from barracks).

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd also like to see an extra negative modifier for two civs that are both "Democracies" going to war.

 

[Oru]

There is already a penalty for Universal Suffrage and Representation. If you are running those civics, you are not running Police State, and hence are suffering more war weariness than you would be under a fascist government.

Well, that is just my point: there is a penalty, but I feel it is too disconnected from the units lost in the war. Modern democracies, when they go to war, get the biggest penalties from the number of soldiers lost in the war. THe public opinion «punishes» the government for the «dead soldiers» brought home. That is my point: I know there is a penalty for war in a democracy, but it is not connected (as I think it should) to the number of units lost DURING the war. What I'm thinking is linking the mechanism of war weariness in a democrcy to the units lost, not exactly the duration of the war (of course that, the longer it lasts, the more units get lost, but it is possible for a war to last long and have few casualties).

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

I'd like to see propaganda implemented into Civ. One of it's effects could be, with enough effort, to actually reverse war weariness. If you spent enough time/money/whatever on getting your people to hate Civ X, that when you went to war with them it would have limited WW, or maybe even some + "KILL 'EM DEAD!" If you get your citizens that riled up, diplomacy with that civ would end up causing at home.

It would need to be carefully balanced, but I think it would be an awesome addition.

 

[magicalsushi]

Well, that is just my point: there is a penalty, but I feel it is too disconnected from the units lost in the war. Modern democracies, when they go to war, get the biggest penalties from the number of soldiers lost in the war. THe public opinion «punishes» the government for the «dead soldiers» brought home. That is my point: I know there is a penalty for war in a democracy, but it is not connected (as I think it should) to the number of units lost DURING the war. What I'm thinking is linking the mechanism of war weariness in a democrcy to the units lost, not exactly the duration of the war (of course that, the longer it lasts, the more units get lost, but it is possible for a war to last long and have few casualties).

Well, I was assuming you would read Naismith's post as well as mine - my point was built upon that. If I'd known you'd only bother to read one, I would have repeated everything Naismith said before typing anything new...

 

[dh_epic]

All governments experience war weariness. Nobody likes a war that goes on forever, and eventually people tire of hearing about their brothers and fathers (and mothers and sisters) dying. This is amplified not by some kind of representative government, per se, but by the dissemination of information. There's something about actually seeing and experiencing war that makes it less appealing. As Eisenhower, the World War 2 General and Republican President once said, "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity. War settles nothing." Word travels fast in a city. It also travels fast in an empire, if there are newspapers, radio stations, and televisions. War weariness is in the game.

That said, governments who can repress the media or get it to support its goals will not experience the same war weariness. They can leave out the realities of the war, and only proclaim its triumphs. That's what the Police State civic is supposed to represent, with its bonus against war weariness.

Isn't this already in the game?

 

[Ghostofkuji]

Civilization has always been my favourite game. I bought Civ I, Civ II, Civ II, Civ IV, Civ IV: Warlords and I will buy Civ IV: Beyond the sword.

You love Civ so much you bought Civ II twice!

 

[largedarryl]

The current war wariness mechanic is similar to the one you are describing. Basically defensive wars do not cause WW and only offensive wars where you lose units in enemy territory cause an increase in WW.

There is also an era modifier that increases the rate at which WW builds. So losing 20 soldiers in the ancient era is different than losing 20 soldiers in the modern era.

I don't think that the current civ model is that different than the one that you are looking for.

EDIT: Here is the link to how WW works, found in the War Academy. http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/war_weariness.php

 

[Traitorfish]

You love Civ so much you bought Civ II twice!

Maybe he means the Playstation version? That had extra... something. Shiny things, whatever, the box says "Exclusive Enhancements", I can't remember what that meant, although I think it includes an improved Civilopedia...

 

[Oru]

I have to make several amends: you're rigt, «magicalsushi», the post from «Naismith» answer's me well. I had no idea (and I cannot feel, it either) that the war weariness is connected to the troops lost abroad. Perhaps if the game informed us that «Due to the heavy loss of lifes, the citizens of civ X are weary of the war». I mean, I never feel that connection (I'm not an warmonger, I usualy stink at wars, but I do like to be the sole civ on my island and a good old fashion war is the best way. And it can be funm too...). «dh_epic», I know other civics are better suited for war purposes, but I cannot make myself give up a bit of freedom to gain a lesser war weariness. I truly feel the quote from Benjamin Franklin (said by the voice of Spock-Nimoy) "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." I loved. «PimpyMicPimp», your icon of the «phalanx» of CivI: that sure brings up some momories regarding the time I fell inlove with Civ. And thanks, «Ghostofkuji», for the warning, I've made the change.

 

[Traitorfish]

«PimpyMicPimp», your icon of the «phalanx» of CivI

That's a phalanx? I thought it was some crazy little blue-face Braveheart guy!