What in the high holy fu$%?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Venger
Ludwig -

I don't think it was a random event, rather a cumulative event. So nothing I was going to do was going to change it. Except for making peace with the Aztecs, which I did, and alas, no fall of the government. I bet the game has a watermark counter that increments with every turn at war per civ...

That said, it's just STUPID to have my government, with a 70% approval rating and WLTPD all over the place, overthrow the government and go into a starving anarchy... there has to be a better way...

Venger

Unpredictable!
While I am glad that it wasn't ME that discovered this one (I also go with Democracy), I like the idea that the game still has plenty of surprises in store! More "Rock, Scissors, Paper."

As much of a surprise as 9-11 (sorry about the extreme example).

[Zylka]

Originally posted by GodSpawn


You're comparing apples and oranges. Imagine that the vietnam war had gone on for more than 250 years... That would change things a little, don't you think?

Agreed, but civ does work on chronological abstracts since most wars have to last longer than a realistic timeframe would allow. In the end it's comparing apples and apples.

[Cian McGuire]

I don't like that rule - it just makes democracy weak.

The way they are supposed to be as a balance to communism.

It's got to be there I think because otherwise there's no liability of using democracy over all other governments.

[Elucidus]

I have to agree with napalm010. I think if your country is invaded not only will the citizens feel a counter-attack justified, but they may even expect it. I also agree that after a certain amount, you should get a warning about war-weariness.

[Akaoz]

Hmmm... I usually go to war a lot under democracy, but I have yet to see this one... Something to look out for.

Has anybody else seen this?

-Alech

[Akka]

Originally posted by Akaoz
Hmmm... I usually go to war a lot under democracy, but I have yet to see this one... Something to look out for.

Has anybody else seen this?

-Alech

Happened to me today. Well, it was after 400 years of world war with constant changes in alliances, so I can understand why my citizen were tired of this

That's frustrating, but well anyway it's good to balance a little democracy, and that make for a lot of fun raising the luxury bar, putting laborers as entertainer, all this while desperatly trying to make peace with my enemies
And trust me, it's hard to make peace with everybody when basically all the civs are at war with half of the others, and with a MPP with the other half

[Boracks]

Originally posted by napalm010
Personally think it should be linked to the damage u do to the enemy civ.

They attack u. U defend and return the favor to their territory. U take 2 of their cities. Message pops up, Your citizens feel they have been avenged. Continuing with your attack against "xxx" civ will result in war weariness increasing every turn.

This gives u the chance to payback the enemy civ and weaken them. Preventing them from having power to do attack again.

Or having weariness kick in after destroying certain # of enemy units.

I like this idea but how would you determine the limits? Taking 2 cities from an 8 city civ is one thing but taking 2 from a 50 city civ is hardly noticeable. (And Venger would NEVER stop that soon! ).

I imagine you would need to take into account your size, their size (both cities and military), age, relative governments and any other interested parties (MPP etc.).

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Venger
I don't like that rule - it just makes democracy weak. The rule should be modified so that if you are attacked, you can fight that same Civ until peace is made without weariness.

Heres a compromise:

If your own founded cities gets conquered under democracy, the war-weariness should much neglible until you have reconquered your very own cities. But if you then go ahead and conquer foreign cities and cultures, in order to keep them forever (like in early-modern pre-democracy eras) - the war-weariness should kick in fulltime again.

Sorry Venger - you just cannot (and should not be able to) conquer, and forcefully assimilate the whole world, with militaristic means, under democracy. 1-2 smaller civs perhaps, if they started it all. But the whole world? Forget it.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ralf

Heres a compromise:

If your own founded cities gets conquered under democracy, the war-weariness should much neglible until you have reconquered your very own cities. But if you then go ahead and conquer foreign cities and cultures, in order to keep them forever (like in early-modern pre-democracy eras) - the war-weariness should kick in fulltime again.

How does America fight WW2 in the above scenario.

Sorry Venger - you just cannot (and should not be able to) conquer, and forcefully assimilate the whole world, with militaristic means, under democracy. 1-2 smaller civs perhaps, if they started it all. But the whole world? Forget it.

I AM doing it. Why should I be able to do it under Communism, or any other form of government, rather than Democracy? Each government should allow any goal, with different paths to get there. The government fall is a step too far past war weariness...

Venger

[Akka]

Originally posted by Venger


How does America fight WW2 in the above scenario.

USA did not fought a war of conquest, just a war to repell an enemy and win the war.
This kind of war is not modelled in the game, where any conquest is basically permanent, except for the culture flip.

I AM doing it. Why should I be able to do it under Communism, or any other form of government, rather than Democracy? Each government should allow any goal, with different paths to get there. The government fall is a step too far past war weariness...

Venger

I disagree. War is always hard to deal with a democratic government (just look how much time Roosevelt could not make the US enter the WW2 while he wanted before Pearl Harbor). I highly doubt any true democracy would allow it's leader to start a world domination war without huge protestations (simulated by war weariness) and finally voting out the president in charge (can't really be represented by something else than anarchy turns, considering that you are supposed to incarnate all the successives dirigeants of the civ).

A totalitarian government is allowed to wage war all around the world because it does not care about its population's opinion. USSR could invade Afghanistan and Prague without any form of rebellion in its own borders. I can hardly imagine that the US population would agree to a war of conquest (I mean pure conquest, not striking down an opponent).

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Venger
How does America fight WW2 in the above scenario.

Civ doesn't model everything properly, but in WW II the US spent almost the entire war liberating territory that did not belong to its enemies in the first place. It was only in 1945 that it pressed into Germany. On the Pacific front there is one line of thought that the dropping of the two atomic bombs was done to prevent the determination to keep fighting ebbing before Japan was finally forced to surrender completely.

The current model of war weariness is quite good IMO. Provided you make sure you are well supplied with luxury goods it is a long time before a successful war gets your population upset. Then you just start adding incentives using the luxury slider. You can always declare peace and start the war again a few turns later

[Venger]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
USA did not fought a war of conquest, just a war to repell an enemy and win the war.

Unconditional surrender was official US policy. We did not stop fighting as soong as we hit the edges of Germany and Japan, for the EXACT reason we shouldn't have to in the game.

This kind of war is not modelled in the game, where any conquest is basically permanent, except for the culture flip.

I would like to be able to strike back at my opponent without my populace becoming unhappy, this is not unreasonable in the least.

I disagree. War is always hard to deal with a democratic government (just look how much time Roosevelt could not make the US enter the WW2 while he wanted before Pearl Harbor).

Which does nothing but prove my point - when the United States was attacked, only the total defeat of the enemy would satisfy the citizenry of the United States.

I highly doubt any true democracy would allow it's leader to start a world domination war without huge protestations (simulated by war weariness) and finally voting out the president in charge (can't really be represented by something else than anarchy turns, considering that you are supposed to incarnate all the successives dirigeants of the civ).

Which is why I only argue that when attacked, the defending unit be able to take the battle to the aggressor without being penalized. I didn't ask that wars I start be applauded all the time (though American history is REPLETE with aggressive wars being popular).

A totalitarian government is allowed to wage war all around the world because it does not care about its population's opinion. USSR could invade Afghanistan and Prague without any form of rebellion in its own borders. I can hardly imagine that the US population would agree to a war of conquest (I mean pure conquest, not striking down an opponent).

The United States started wars with Spain, Mexico, numerous native tribes, England, and other powers for no other reason than to greedily grab land. And the wars were very popular.

Venger

[mongolhorde]

I was playing a game last night where the greeks were to the south of me and they were getting slaughtered. I had them all but wiped out, they were almost extinguished with only 6 cities left and me with my 30 city empire.

Anyway all of a sudden one of my size 14 cities that was pretty deep within my territory decides to overthrow me and join the Greeks? It was totally bogus. I mean this city was not even bordering the greeks.

It was no big deal, I just took it over again with my troops but that just got me wondering. Just how does this damn culture things work anyway?

[Elucidus]

Were you a Democracy? If not than it was probably propaganda. Otherwise, I just don't know.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by GePap
You don't have to make peace with all those you are at war with, only those that you attacked, i.e you begun the war. According to the manual, if someone decleres war on you, it causes no war weariness in democracy. i don't know if this means that someone declaring war on you cancels out all war weariness, or if the computer keeps tack of which wars you are engaged in are of self-defense and aggression and manages war weariness accordingly.

does anyone know what happens if you are attacked, then create a military alliance against the attacker?

or what if the attacker offers peace, but you decline?

do either of those then start your democracy to start accrewing(sp?) war weariness?

[GePap]

To Venger:
I think your picture of war and the US is not complete. First, the Mexican-American war did meet up with protest (due to possible political consideration of aquired territory), so did the war of 1812 (New England thought of secceding from the union and this was a clear fear). All the other examples you give are of very short campaings (no matter what the game says, in civ terms the plain tribes would best be portrayed as barbarians, and in the game, dems don't care about barbarians). The Spanish American war was seen as self-defense (remember the Maine) and it was very short. The longer and more bloody campaign to quelsh the Filipino revolt was not as popular. Again, both world wars were seen as self-defense. As for unconditional surrender- if you demand your opponent to give up, and they do with no conditions, well there you go. Invasions only happened because we believed it was key to getting them to surrender. At the same time, we gave the territory back to the other groups (germans, Japanese) to administer.
Your government collapsed because of a very long war- centuries- the original meaning was lost for your people and they were just sick of an endless war with no conclusion (if your going for conquest, make it short). Finally, 'democracy' in civ3 is not american democracy as such,so saying that it did not happen in America, which is a democracy, and such is not valid doesn't work. Dem. in Civ3 is a romanticized picture, I doubt it wouls include such things as segragetion and such that were part of the US system till the 60's. Also, since there is no economic model in Civ3, dem. also includes the notion of free markets. being in a constant war would mean constant government control of the economy (certainly true for some WW type copnflict in the middle of the modern age) or continuos censoring of civil rights (secrecy and so forth). An idealized dem. (which is what this is [remember, the US is not the first or only dem.]) would not behave the same as the US did historically.
Finally, the idea of continual world conquest with a dem. is ludicrous. When you capture folks, they become your citizens. Do you think they are happy with what has happened or perhaps your continuing battle with their national brothers? The only way to stop this would be to deny citizenship to those you conquer, but quickly venger, you then stop being a democracy.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Venger
That said, it's just STUPID to have my government, with a 70% approval rating and WLTPD all over the place, overthrow the government and go into a starving anarchy... there has to be a better way...
Venger

Sometimes you just can't buy people off.

-shrug-

I say, good for your people, standing up
to you.

The population decrease your civ experienced could
have been from people moving away.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Lets not forget that the governments in Civ3 represent how the government is SUPPOSE to react, now how they do.

A true democracy should act the way it does in Civ 3.

If you want to look at Communism in the real world vs. it in Civ3, you'll understand.

~A.

[Venger]

Originally posted by GePap
To Venger:
I think your picture of war and the US is not complete. First, the Mexican-American war did meet up with protest (due to possible political consideration of aquired territory),

Sources? And it was the Mexican government that was in upheaval during the war, not the American one. Local rebellion and a total collapse of the government after the conquest of Mexico City. I have seen no information showing any type of popular outcry against the war. The annexation of Texas and the later cede of most of the West from Mexico to the United States was hardly unpopular.

so did the war of 1812 (New England thought of secceding from the union and this was a clear fear).

This was never a serious consideration; although it was espoused by a few members of a Federalist convention, most simply wanted a limit to Republican powers. The North was pissed because of the interuption of commerce caused by war (which is done in Civ3 pretty well - No Soup For You!)

All the other examples you give are of very short campaings (no matter what the game says, in civ terms the plain tribes would best be portrayed as barbarians, and in the game, dems don't care about barbarians).

Depends on how you define the terms - does it really take 80 years to move my legion across my map? No - so these conflicts are already on shaky "time" ground.

The Spanish American war was seen as self-defense (remember the Maine) and it was very short.

Boiler explosion. But wait, you mean a self-defense war can be popular? Hey, that was my point...

An idealized dem. (which is what this is [remember, the US is not the first or only dem.]) would not behave the same as the US did historically.

As such, why are we using historical American examples then? Alas, I know of course what you are saying, I still think having the government collapse is WAY too much, especially with ZERO warning whatsoever.

Finally, the idea of continual world conquest with a dem. is ludicrous. When you capture folks, they become your citizens. Do you think they are happy with what has happened or perhaps your continuing battle with their national brothers? The only way to stop this would be to deny citizenship to those you conquer, but quickly venger, you then stop being a democracy.

And your solution to this dilemma is...what? I think the game mechanics for war weariness, resistance, and post conquest unhappiness are actaully pretty good, although I think city reversion and all out Civ collapse are way overdone, without any apparent rhyme or reason, other than "war weariness", which is why I built suffrage and police stations...

Venger

[SirSebastian]

Keep in mind that the US is a democratic republic, not exactly a democracy. And this was more true during the 19th century wars that people are citing... largely due to limited communication, limited suffrage, and the indirect election of US senators (they were not originally elected by the people). In short, the historical US is much more like a Republic in Civ III, and for better or worse, we continue to edge towards the style of government represented by Democracy in Civ III. Before you start complaining, read the Civilopedia description of Democracy.