Aloha
Richard the Catheart
As the titled mentioned, why there is no war weariness in CIV5? I miss that part in CIV4
Why there is no war weariness in CIV5?
- Thread starter Aloha
- Start date
dasaard200
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 315
Since I didn't get into CIV until V, I never even heard of this . Don't care for it, either .
danaphanous
religious fanatic
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,501
The purpose of war weariness was
1. A way to limit the duration of wars so you eventually needed to stop fighting
2. realism and a way to reflect popular opininon
In Civ5 I've found the global happiness accomplishes this. You have to stop fighting if you conquer a few cities because your unhappiness gets too low. Unfortunately it makes a bit less sense because it means you have to stop fighting after just a couple cities in the ancient times (when no one cared if the goverment was fighting so much). So you can fight as long as you want you just can't conquer much without tons of excess happiness or policies that are conducive too it.
All in all, war weariness had more realism but was more annoying for gameplay. Who wants their citizens getting weary when you are desperately fighting off an invader? That is probably why they changed it.
1. A way to limit the duration of wars so you eventually needed to stop fighting
2. realism and a way to reflect popular opininon
In Civ5 I've found the global happiness accomplishes this. You have to stop fighting if you conquer a few cities because your unhappiness gets too low. Unfortunately it makes a bit less sense because it means you have to stop fighting after just a couple cities in the ancient times (when no one cared if the goverment was fighting so much). So you can fight as long as you want you just can't conquer much without tons of excess happiness or policies that are conducive too it.
All in all, war weariness had more realism but was more annoying for gameplay. Who wants their citizens getting weary when you are desperately fighting off an invader? That is probably why they changed it.
Aloha
Richard the Catheart
I think it might be a bug if the gameplay is without war weariness. For example, you declare war on a CS, and you never actually take their city, you just sit down there next to their city to harvest XPs for your soldiers. And you never make peace with the poor CS.
Isn't this ridiculous?
Isn't this ridiculous?MightySpice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
- Messages
- 75
No, that's not rediculous. While they are 'harvesting xp' soldiers die. Families suffer. War weariness is a result.
danaphanous
religious fanatic
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,501
While true in some cases, there are plenty of examples of countries or long wars where there was no war weariness.
Rome was at almost constant war defending the borders and acquiring territories. Their people loved them for it. They had huge celebrations in Rome with Days of feasting and free food after every victory. The mechanic isn't a bad idea but it certainly isn't the only way civs operated. America on the other hand can't be in a war for more then like a few months before everyone gets tired of it and wants the troops sent home. But that's western philosophy and democracy. It wasn't always this way.
And contrary to popular opinion today many soldiers used to be proud of being in their army and liked fighting. It was a different culture back them. War was a way to win glory and a name for themselves, to be granted titles and rewards by the King, and one day come home rich. War was in some ways what young men in America see entrepreneurship and business as. The reason was back them there wasn't class mobility. You couldn't become a noble or be honored without being recognized by those above you.
I really wish the Civ5 honor tree reflected this in the way it operates. That winning wars would cause celebrations and make your people happy like it did for Rome. With current Civ5 you are forced to burn most cities just to stay happy. There is no way to conquer big empires early without taking huge morale penalties to your troops from unhappiness. The name "honor" implies that your empire glories in war and victory and your young men want to fight.
If we are ever to have war weariness in civ again it has to reflect these cultural differences that Civ5 has done a good job outlining in social policies. War weariness magnitude should be a sum of your people's philosophies:
Base war weariness: 1
tradition: 0 (little effect)
honor: -1 (makes people more likely to like war)
liberty: 1 (more significant effect)
piety: -1,0, or +1 (depending on your faith you chose your people are either more pacifist, not affected, or want you to war for faith)
commerce: +1 (trading tends to make civs like each other more and war disrupts trade. Most mercantile civs didn't like war for this reason)
patronage: 0 (no effect as long as you aren't abusing CS, +2 if you are)
rationalism: +1 (education tends to make people less supportive of war)
freedom: +3
order: 0 (technically communism makes the people complain less but I think this is more because of the police state. we'll pretend its just socialism in the absence of anything like autocracy as civ allows for a lot of hybrids like liberty/order - would be like sweden)
autocracy: -3
Also there would need to be a difference between defensive and offensive wars for this not to be really annoying. Civ 5 leaders often won't even talk peace for 10 turns or so and some warmongers never let up for years. If you get war weariness fighting on defense that would just be trolly since there is no possible way you can make peace. Your people would basically result in your empire being destroyed.
Rome was at almost constant war defending the borders and acquiring territories. Their people loved them for it. They had huge celebrations in Rome with Days of feasting and free food after every victory. The mechanic isn't a bad idea but it certainly isn't the only way civs operated. America on the other hand can't be in a war for more then like a few months before everyone gets tired of it and wants the troops sent home. But that's western philosophy and democracy. It wasn't always this way.
And contrary to popular opinion today many soldiers used to be proud of being in their army and liked fighting. It was a different culture back them. War was a way to win glory and a name for themselves, to be granted titles and rewards by the King, and one day come home rich. War was in some ways what young men in America see entrepreneurship and business as. The reason was back them there wasn't class mobility. You couldn't become a noble or be honored without being recognized by those above you.
I really wish the Civ5 honor tree reflected this in the way it operates. That winning wars would cause celebrations and make your people happy like it did for Rome. With current Civ5 you are forced to burn most cities just to stay happy. There is no way to conquer big empires early without taking huge morale penalties to your troops from unhappiness. The name "honor" implies that your empire glories in war and victory and your young men want to fight.
If we are ever to have war weariness in civ again it has to reflect these cultural differences that Civ5 has done a good job outlining in social policies. War weariness magnitude should be a sum of your people's philosophies:
Base war weariness: 1
tradition: 0 (little effect)
honor: -1 (makes people more likely to like war)
liberty: 1 (more significant effect)
piety: -1,0, or +1 (depending on your faith you chose your people are either more pacifist, not affected, or want you to war for faith)
commerce: +1 (trading tends to make civs like each other more and war disrupts trade. Most mercantile civs didn't like war for this reason)
patronage: 0 (no effect as long as you aren't abusing CS, +2 if you are)
rationalism: +1 (education tends to make people less supportive of war)
freedom: +3
order: 0 (technically communism makes the people complain less but I think this is more because of the police state. we'll pretend its just socialism in the absence of anything like autocracy as civ allows for a lot of hybrids like liberty/order - would be like sweden)
autocracy: -3
Also there would need to be a difference between defensive and offensive wars for this not to be really annoying. Civ 5 leaders often won't even talk peace for 10 turns or so and some warmongers never let up for years. If you get war weariness fighting on defense that would just be trolly since there is no possible way you can make peace. Your people would basically result in your empire being destroyed.
MightySpice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
- Messages
- 75
i know a bit about rome. it really depends on wich 'people' you talk about. amongst the soldiers who were doing the fighting war weariness was pretty actual.
The great thing about Rome was that a large number of people never saw a war, because of Rome being in charge.
The great thing about Rome was that a large number of people never saw a war, because of Rome being in charge.
Hakan-i Cihan
Emperor
Without going into the detailed implementation I do like the base idea of such a war weariness. But it should depend on more factors:
- Homeland safety: number of units in your own cultural borders (or maybe next to it). To much soldier fighting away from home and thus disgarding safety of your own cities should increase war wariness a bit.
- Loosing large amount of units should increase war weariness too.
- Fighting distant wars especially in early game should increase war weariness. Wars should be local in early game and the AI would also benefit from this. Sometimes AI would declare war on somebody on the other side of the map and start moving units across the map and when they arrive eventually they make peace even before battling.
- Razing cities of other civs (especially in later ages) should definitly have a certain effect on your own people. One way to do it is by increasing war wariness. Your own people shouldn't tolerate cruelties at large scale.
These are some factors I would propose that should influence a possible war wariness system.
Moderator Action: Since there is no war weariness mechanic in the current game, thread moved to Ideas & Suggestions.
Aloha
Richard the Catheart
What if you don't conquer any city and just declaring wars on someone for thousands of years? That is why I say war weariness is needed to reflect that your armies may get tired if the war lasts too long no matter how warlike your armies are.
