War Weariness Details

[Allemand]

I noticed something odd the other day. When I went to war, my people start celebrating WLTK day in most of my cities, and when I made peace (winning, of course) the celebrations stopped. This happened time and again over a long period covering three or four wars. My government during that time was republic. When I switched to democracy, this pattern stopped.

War weariness was not a problem.

 

[Gothmog]

My guess about the difference between Republic and Democracy is that the thresholds are modified. So a certain amount of WW might not trigger any decrease in unhappiness per however many turns in Republic but the same amount would trigger it under Democracy.

Thus the converse would also be true. A certain amount of negative WW would trigger an increase in happiness under Republic but not Democracy.

Re Allemand: Was there any reason for negative WW? Had the other countries declared war on you? broken deals? Were they violating your borders and when you asked them to leave they declared war? It was mentioned by Catt that simply violating your borders may be enough to give negative WW even if you declare war, as for breaking any other deal.

Other questions I still have:

* Does the relative power of the civs affect the amount of WW recieved?

* Do per turn deals count to increase WW in the same way they effect reputation.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I've had weird instances wherein I've suffered from moderate WW effects, the AI takes one of my cities, and when I retake it the next turn all my cities go into WLT*D. It appears mighty odd that retaking a city should cause much more happiness that its loss caused unhappiness.

It seems to me that you also get some WW reduction for taking enemy cities. Either that, or WW actually falls (instead of just increasing slower) when the fall of an enemy city causes your troops no longer to be in enemy territory. Still, this's just anecdotal evidence - I haven't checked for possible other factors.

Semi-OT-ally, I think that WW should only affect offensive wars. Historically, it's hard to argue that citizens of representatively governed states has consistently been less enthusiatic about fighting for the state's survival than those of non-representative ones.

 

[Gothmog]

Re The Last Conformist: you confirm what I have suspected, that retaking a lost city gives negative WW. I think the key factor here is the presence of your citizens in the city you take. This implies that taking over a city that had previously culture flipped will also give negative WW, providing that your citizens still reside there. I have not actually seen WLT*D as a result (I am go to Democracy ASAP), but I have seen unhappiness increase slower (as noted in my earlier posts).

I still think that other successful offensives do not decrease WW, other than the fact that they often result in my troops no longer being in enemy territory. I base this on a campaign where I made sure to only move troops into enemy territory if I was sure that I would be able to own that territory by the end of the turn. I did not see a decrease in WW, but again as I note in previous posts it may be that I did get a small decrease in WW that did not trip the threshold for a decrease in the rate of unhappiness increase (its fun to say things like this, if a bit convoluted).

I am not as sure of this WW factor (successfull offensives), if anyone has more definative evidence please post it. I think it would be easier to check in Republic. I may have to play a game in Republic just to test some of these WW factors.

I agree fully with your last statement. In fact many times the citizens of non-representative governments really just wanted the war to end. If the invading civ had higher culture and/or a more representative government they would gratefully 'flip' to the other civ. This, of course, does not deal with the issue of religion, which has been at the heart of many a war.

 

[Portuguese]

If you have, say, 5 cannons in a city, if you get attacked only one will respond. If you are attacked twice, another will respond and so on.

So, only one cannon attack each attacker! Until the limit of the number of them that you possess!

I'm preety sure about that, but I'd be glad if someone confirms it...

 

[Gothmog]

Re Portuguese: Yes, you got that smack on. I just get annoyed sometimes when I have six or seven cannon in a city with say three other defenders. Then I lose the city and three or four of the cannon never fired a shot. I understand that how it is set up in the game adds to the overall ballance, it just anoys me sometimes.

 

[Evincar]

Portuguese: I can confirm it .

More bizarre WW. Was in demo, being very careful about not raising WW. Everything was going OK, with zero WW. Then Greece declared war on me, and, since I had a couple of tanks near Athens, it raised to the point that it was the main unhappinnes cause

 

[Gothmog]

Re Evincar: How did you compare to Greece on the power histograph? I am trying to compile evidence as to whether relative power affects WW.

 

[Evincar]

My power compared to the greeks's


I'm about 20 times more poweful!!

 

[Gothmog]

Thanks Evincar, you certainly cleared up that hypothesis. Unless there is an inverse effect. Maybe your people were pissed that you were picking on such a weakling!

 

[Evincar]

Originally posted by Gothmog
Thanks Evincar, you certainly cleared up that hypothesis. Unless there is an inverse effect. Maybe your people were pissed that you were picking on such a weakling!

Hey, It wasn't me!! THEY declared war, for no reason as usually, and WW skyrocketed even before I got to move!!

 

[Gundam]

my experience: ww is directly dependent by the number of offensive units u have on the enemy teritory...so the larger the number of your atacking units the bigger ww will be .In republic if u fight a defensive war u can fight the war for unlimited time without getting ww as opossed to the ****ing democracy in which if u have just only 5 units in enemy teritory u'll see 40% ww in all of your cities after just only a turn .

 

[Gundam]

democracy suks...strange thigs happens in democracy.The ai declares war on u and as soon as u step in his teritory "sky rocketing" is a small word of what will happen next...

 

[Gothmog]

Re Evincar: Did you have a ROP with Greece? If not what were your troops doing in Greek territory? Again as mentioned by Catt, it may be that simply having troops in enemy territory with out an ROP is breaking a treaty (the implied sovereignty over ones own borders) even if the opposing government doesn't ask you to leave (or demand it!).

Re gundam: I think consensus has been reached that the two most important factors are your troops in enemy territory and enemy troops in your territory. Thanks for your two cents. Also, I have seen aggressive civ's such as Persia go from Gracious to attacking me with no warning even though we had multiple trade deals in effect. I think this is more likely when the opposing civ is in a different form of government (especially Democracy vs. Communism). In fact the manual, while mostly worthless, does mention that this will be a factor.

 

[Evincar]

Gothmog: Of course I had a RoP with Greece. In fact I actually needed the greek's railroad net to invade the evil Aztecs, but you see, Alexander left me in the middle of Greece and fighting againts 5 different civs in 4 differents fronts. All of them out of my continent!!!

 

[Gothmog]

Re Evincar: Ouch! Bastard unhonorable AI's! May your RNG be kind and your strategy true.

 

[billindenver]

I was Babylon, playing on Monarch. I had had a war with the Aztecs and Persians, but that was probably 40 turns or more earlier and my society had been largely rebuilt. One stupid Persian unit plods into my territory, so, since I'm one turn away from Motorized Transport, I demand his withdrawal, and the Persians declare war. I kick that units butt, and redeploy my units to my borders. Naturally, during the AI's turn, ALL FIVE remaining civs declare war on me and sign ROP's. Persia sends about 10 cavalry through America to hit me at my depleted inner cities, and takes 2 cities on their first turn, destroying one.

War weariness was so bad after that one turn that I had to revolt and go to communism. My supply lines weren't cut, but I did lose one spice, but even that wouldn't have accounted for the massive increase in unhappiness from the previous turn, especially since I had Universal Suffrage and Police Stations in every city.

I think losing cities is a major factor in rising WW, as is the number of civs declaring war on you. On the flip side, it seems to me like capturing cities DOES help WW, especially if it is from the civ that started the war.

 

[Gothmog]

Losing cities is a major factor in WW, possibly the largest; and I think proportional to the number of expatriots created. Taking these cities back will reduce the number of expatriots and thus WW. I have not seen the effects of capturing enemy cities, but that doesn't mean anything really. Do you have specific examples that highlight this effect?

It may also be that the number of civs declairing war is a factor that I have not seen. Six versus one is certainly cause for concern. Did you have any agreements with those other civs? Did you have any of their expatriots in your cities?

 

[billindenver]

I hadn't thought of the trade agreements and I can't remember now if I had any of those or not. Obviously, if I was importing luxuries, it would have had an impact as well. I didn't have any other agreements with any of them.

My problem is I really hate going to Communism and sacrificing all that money and research. Unfortunately, in this game, I'm going to have to. I kicked all the other civs off the globe except for England and the Aztecs, and they have both started spaceships while I haven't even researched rocketry, so I'm stuck with capturing their capitals or winning a lucky diplo victory, since I'm in an alliance with England against the Aztecs now.

I gotta tell you though, when those 6 civs all declared on the same turn and took 2 cities, that WW was a major shocker!

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, it was a shocker just as you describe that made me start this thread. A supposidly gracious AI whom I was trading two luxuries with attacked me without warning and took two cities (I winning the space race at the time). This was between turns, man was I pissed. But I took back my cities, pushed Luxuries upto 50%, hired entertainers, and let a few people starve. After taking back my cities I was able to reduce luxuries to 30%. By the time the war ended I was running 70% luxuries but I was still in Democracy. I hate revolutions with much passion (unless I am Religious) and almost never resort to one. Still it sounds like you came out fine. The production/research advantage of the AI when playing Diety is hard to deal with and in my game a revolution would have put the AI enough ahead to launch their SS before me.