War Weariness

Dis · December 20, 2003, 04:09

I don't think you should have war weariness if another civ declares war on you. I don't like that. And it gets even worse when you start losing cities. I would think the citizens would unit, not revolt.

just some thoughts. discuss.

Jaybe · December 20, 2003, 04:15

I think it should be similar to how I think it should be for corruption:
Unpredictable as to whether it is war Happiness or war UNHappiness, but slow to change direction once it starts.

Puma · December 20, 2003, 06:20

War weariness is a pain.

Nevertheless, I do think there should be war weariness in the defender's side. Possibly, the reason why I don't mind it is that I view it as an abstraction of loss in productivity and commerce due to warfare economics and not as a reflection of happiness or sadness. That point brings it's own problems though, because then we shouldn't get a mere happy-content-unhappy balancing issue but rather a problem more resembling that of corruption. hmm?

I do agree; there should be a defender bonus with respect to war weariness, maybe enabled by possession of nationalism and increased even more by a shift to mobilization.

Quote:

And it gets even worse when you start losing cities

Quote:

but slow to change direction once it starts

Why is that? I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't get the reasoning. Maybe possession of certain technologies should help determine the rate and direction of change. Makes me wonder why they never put television as one of the techs. :doitnow:

The Mad Monk · December 20, 2003, 07:30

Unless the opponent is a merciless butcher, many folks in the past would get weary of dying "for King and Country" pretty damn quick, as tyrant would be no better or worse than the next.

So I don't really have a problem with it, though perhaps you should be able to acquire a bonus against it once you research nationalism.

DrSpike · December 20, 2003, 07:57

Well if you defend in your territory and don't lose cities WW is not usually a problem.

Plotinus · December 20, 2003, 08:53

You do get *less* war weariness if you are not the aggressor. I think it's quite well handled really.

pauli · December 20, 2003, 09:45

don't forget the rather odd "we love the complete idiot who let that other civ invade us" day...

which is canceled when you make peace

mrmitchell · December 20, 2003, 11:55

Doesn't being attacked actually make your citizens more happy, at least for a short while?

For example, I'm playing, the Chinese on some other continent attack me (I've got all of my continent except for a few little piddly shitholes of France, Russia, and China). All of the sudden, as soon as China declares war, all the cities on my continent enter an unheard-of period of patriotism, and drain into the streets, parading for their leader...following declarations of war by the French and Russians, I think, extended the WLT*D parades. Yeah, eventually they ended, but I wasn't doing anything else then to change happiness at all...must've been the war.

Egh. Where's that [insert old, lofty tome of information on War Weariness] at anyway?

Jaybe · December 20, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Puma

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
I think it should be similar to how I think it should be for corruption:
Unpredictable as to whether it is war Happiness or war UNHappiness, but slow to change direction once it starts.

Why is that? I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't get the reasoning. Maybe possession of certain technologies should help determine the rate and direction of change. Makes me wonder why they never put television as one of the techs.

Why? Because, somewhat for realism but mainly for gaming purposes, once the situation gets started in one direction I believe it should drift, but primarily (e.g., 66%) in the same direction. Could very well vary between cities.

This way you know what is going on and can anticipate trends, but you cannot predict specifically what is going to happen where or when. To me, this sense of adventure is a primary attraction of the game.

Shogun Gunner · December 20, 2003, 13:31

Here's another example that a more robust, advanced and sophisticated system would be to the benefit of the game.

If the computer could better analyze why you are at war, it would be better in recreating a more appropriate reaction from you populous.

There should be times when the population unites (Pearl Harbor, 9/11) and there should be times it revolts (Vietnam, American Civil War).

maybe Dissident is right. Make Civ4 several years in the future when the computing power and sophistication of programming has evolved a bit more. (from another thread)

Xorbon · December 20, 2003, 18:04

A "more robust, advanced and sophisticated system" would improve lots of areas in the game.

The game should look at "why" situations develop. Diplomacy, resource trading, and foreign attitudes are other examples of areas that could be greatly improved. So, I agree with the lot of ya.

Puma · December 21, 2003, 02:09

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
For example, I'm playing, the Chinese on some other continent attack me (I've got all of my continent except for a few little piddly shitholes of France, Russia, and China). All of the sudden, as soon as China declares war, all the cities on my continent enter an unheard-of period of patriotism, and drain into the streets, parading for their leader...following declarations of war by the French and Russians, I think, extended the WLT*D parades. Yeah, eventually they ended, but I wasn't doing anything else then to change happiness at all...must've been the war.

Yes. I've noticed the same thing before! Last I remember it happened under similar circumstances. If only I had a save ...

Dis · December 21, 2003, 04:20

yep your guys are happy for a little while. It seems even if I don't lose cities, my population will start getting unhappy if the war drags on too long- I'm talking about wars I did not start btw.

Starting a war should always have war weariness (Vietnam). But wars that were started by others (U.S. in WW2) did not cause the public to revolt. And even if the U.S. managed to botch the war and lost some its cities/territories I wouldn't think the populace would riot making it more likely to lose even more territory to the enemy. I'm just thinking there would be some other way to show this in the game. But yes the population should be pissed off if you are so incompetant you lose your own cities (of course this has happened to me

).

Maybe there should be two types of civil rioting. Something for the next civ game to consider I guess.

MrWhereItsAt · December 22, 2003, 01:08

Whilst we are on the subject of making WW more complex in the future, certain techs should certainly be able to aid/oppose your positive/negative effects. For example Printing Press and Radio (or some equivalents) would speed the effects of WW (positive or negative), and under Representative Governments your citizens would have to be more unforgiving for WW purposes.

Even the governments of the civs you were at war with could have a bearing on WW - Democratic civs should experience severe WW by warring with another Representative Government, but by virtue of 'bringing Democracy to the world' could see less for warring with a Despotic state.

Dis · December 22, 2003, 04:48

that's a good idea as well. Being a democracy and warring against a dictator, fascist, or communist goverment shouldn't be as bad, assuming they didn't start the war. But warring against other democracy goverments would be worse.

And don't forget potential techs like the internet- that would spread war weariness real fast. and I would like more peacetime techs. I think television should be a tech as well. Civ3 needs a few more peacetime techs- nothing too silly though- we don't want CTP on our hands.