Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Turner
- Start date
Are saves attached with that turn with changes in happiness 1180 AD-1190 AD..No techs making wonders obsolete(just Hanging Gardens matter),I research Navigation,still middle ages.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
I had a look at both saves, and played through from 1180 to 1190 myself, captured the same cities you did, and got the same result. As you say, no major changes were apparent (no new tech, no Lux-loss, and no change in core city-size), yet several previously happy core-city citizens converted to only content, putting those cities at risk of rioting. But the only unhappiness is from overpopulation.
So I confess I'm stumped, unless... could it be (@Lanzelot? @justanick?) that even if you don't suffer the effects of War Weariness under Monarchy, you do still get the positive/negative points? So, you'd get the negative War Happiness points from an enemy DoW, which can then be cancelled out by the positive War Weariness points (as you lose units, take attacks, advance into enemy territory, etc.), but once you reach zero, additional War Weariness points are ignored...?
(@catalin72: Did you declare on the Khan, or did he declare on you?)
If it's not that, then the only other thing that struck me, is that there is at least one anomalous tile: a Forest tile, near New Chichen Itza, with Bananas. So I have to ask -- did you plant that Forest yourself, for chopping (there are a couple of Slaves on it), or is this a modded game? Because if it's a mod, then all bets are off...
Last edited:
Thank you again.DoW sure was from Khan,after a retreat of troops demanded.
1.So,those changes in happiness are from overpopulation globally(number of cities) like in Civ II or V,or from one unit,2 lost in war? Is a previous thread about this here?
2.Not,sure is not a MOD.Forest in banana tile is planted for chopping.Map is from a multiplayer game,I played after 990 AD single player,Russians replaced with computer player.Can be this a reason for that strange unhappiness in capital++,previous multiplayer game?
Last edited:
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
I think, maybe the latter. This seems increasingly more likely, if Khan DoW'd you.
There is a study of War-Weariness somewhere on CFC -- by Bamspeedy or Oystein, IIRC. I'll go look for it in a minute -- or you could
OK. I have no experience with MP-games, so I've no idea if that might have made a difference, but it does seem a little unlikely: I mean, shuuuurely Firaxis would have taken into account the fact that human players might drop out of MP-games (e.g. due to dropped connections, time-constraints, or rage-quits), and programmed accordingly to allow the AI to take over the now-leaderless Civs...?
It's a Huge Regent map, IIRC, and I'm pretty sure he was already over the OCN/Nopt in 1180 AD, but anyway -- as your screenshot notes -- that should only affect the corruption in the outer cities, those with with Rank > Nopt. However, the anomaly here is in his core: his capital and 1st-ring towns (possibly others, didn't check them all) got less happy over the 1180-1190 AD IBT, and I can't figure out why, because all the usual suspects have been rounded up and shot -- including War Weariness, which shouldn't apply in this case, because he's running a Monarchy.Can it be, that with the newly conquered cities you have exceeded the limit of optimal cities in your game?
That's why I'm now wondering if maybe what we're seeing is a loss of War Happiness...? I'll go look for that thread now...
EDIT: Bing! Found it: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-does-war-weariness-work.61628/#post-1292083
Or at least, 1 thread devoted to it. Bamspeedy and DaveMcW apparently started another couple of threads as well, but the links are pre-Xenforo, and hence now broken
Last edited:
It is 4 at Chieftain, 3 at Warloard, 2 at Regent and Monarch and 1 for all difficulties above that.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
I know better than to question you by now. Gosh, Chieftain-Regent is harder than I remembered!
But what about catalin72's original 'anomalous unhappiness' question? Can you still get (and then lose) War-Happiness, under a government such as Monarchy, that doesn't otherwise suffer from (the unhappiness-effects of) War-Weariness?
Yes,that thread about war weariness is very interesting,but there nothing about war weariness in...MonarchyI know better than to question you by now. Gosh, Chieftain-Regent is harder than I remembered!
But what about catalin72's original 'anomalous unhappiness' question? Can you still get (and then lose) War-Happiness, under a government such as Monarchy, that doesn't otherwise suffer from (the unhappiness-effects of) War-Weariness?
No. In order to gain WW points you need to be in a government that can suffer from WW. Old WW points are not changed by a change in government. They are reduced in the regular fashion, but gaining them or them applying happens only in republic, feudalism and democracy.
Edit: My statement did not refer to negative WW points.
Last edited:
I unbroke one link: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/war-weariness-depends-on-turn-order-for-the-ai.70172/Or at least, 1 thread devoted to it. Bamspeedy and DaveMcW apparently started another couple of threads as well, but the links are pre-Xenforo, and hence now broken
What are the others?
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
That's my hypothesis: that for non-WW govs, any accumulated positive WW-points are simply capped off at zero. Which would kind of make sense -- if WW-points (positive or negative) weren't applied to Monarchies at all, then such Civs also wouldn't get WH when someone else DoWs them, which does seem a little unfair.
And from the very last page of Oystein's thread:
Well, that is to say, having units on enemy territory -- and possibly being attacked -- over the interturn is what gives you the points. That's why being able to attack cities from your side of the border using M≥2 units (preferably in Armies) is preferable to a slow slog using M=1 units. In this particular game, I don't remember seeing any mounted units: catalin72's assault-forces consist primarily of Crusaders, Maces, Pikes and Trebs...
So no war weariness in Monarchy is just an illusion..No mounted units because all 4 horses are in the second continent
).No, I don't think it is an illusion, but the war happiness you get when attacked does wear off.
Lord Emsworth's statement above suggests that if you switch from a government without war weariness to one with it, you could end up crushed by unhappiness. (This might happen if, for example, you were in monarchy and at war, then cleared your enemy from your island and felt disinclined to carry the war half-way around the world to take their last few cities, but were in a military alliance and couldn't make peace. Switching to republic (if playing a religious civ, as I wouldn't otherwise) could be a disaster. I hope I can remember this when the situation arises.
Lord Emsworth's statement above suggests that if you switch from a government without war weariness to one with it, you could end up crushed by unhappiness. (This might happen if, for example, you were in monarchy and at war, then cleared your enemy from your island and felt disinclined to carry the war half-way around the world to take their last few cities, but were in a military alliance and couldn't make peace. Switching to republic (if playing a religious civ, as I wouldn't otherwise) could be a disaster. I hope I can remember this when the situation arises.
In fact, I have been using this feature in my own games for a couple of years already: a turn before I declare war on an AI, I gift them Republic, and of course they always revolt immediately. Then I attack with full force. Not only that the AI can't build any defenders during Anarchy, also by the time it finally gets out of Anarchy into Republic, I have already taken so many of their cities, that their initial war happiness is gone and they are already in war weariness level 1 or even 2. (And may already have lost 1-2 lux resources, because I make those my prio 1 targets.) As the AI does not know how to use the lux slider, they hire entertainers all over the place, their production goes way down, and the war is over quickly...
So this shows: the WW points are accumulated/stored in every kind of government (even Anarchy), but their effects only become visible, when switching into a government that is affected by WW.
That may be so when those points are negative, but for nonnegative WW points that is not the case.You can start a war as a fascist, suffer terrible losses, switch to democracy and have no WW at all.
But wouldn't that contradict Lord Emsworth's statement above? And it would imply that the coding actively does something to the WW-counter(s) upon government change. Like "if counter > 0, reset to zero, if counter < 0, do nothing". Why should they do something like this? I think this requires a test. I find it hard to believe, as it would also imply that you can get high WW in Republic, then switch to Democracy and then the WW is gone (instead of being even worse than under Republic)...
