Venger, I feel your pain

[D4everman]

Oh GIVE ME A STINKING BREAK. Yes, I've been at war with the Aztecs for a long time. And kicking their ass. You telling me a democracy doesn't like a successful war? Oh my lord...

I totally agree with you venger. War Weariness is a good idea, but its implementation is screwy. And before anyone says any smartass remars about "go play warcraft" let me explain...I've never played warcraft.

Seriously, I've had two games where war weariness has set in and screwed me. The first time I just figured I made a mistake somehow to allow this to get out of hand....after wahile, at first I was really pissed. But tonight....ugh...

As the Indians I had a powerful and peaceful democracy. I literally had not fought in any war all the way up to 1864! No one declared war on me either! Warlord level, two large continents and a few small islands on a large world. I shared mine with the iroqouis, the chinese, the americans, the japanese and the aztecs. On the other continent...which wasn't discovered until about 1400 or thereabouts...were the french, the germans, the russians and the egyptians.

anyway, I wanted a space victory and it was going to take a lot of micromanaging to get it. I wasn't too far ahead in tech if at all with my rivals. I had to constantly trade or buy tech and resources and it was kind of fun. MPP's came and went, but we were all at peace on my continent. Then the french asked for an MPP. Without thinking I agreed. Suddenly...and I mean within one turn....France started a world war! With so many alliances activated in ONE turn I was literally at war with EVERYONE but France!

wisely, I hit the autosave and declned the MPP. Well, like the chickenshit I am rather. I only agree to MPP's when I think I might need an ally if I'm attacked. Well, a few turns later the germans call me up and for no reason whatsover Bismarck says something like "We've put up with your **** long enogh, blah, blah,blah."

Huh? What the hell was he talking about? I didn't bear it much mind though. I had no coast facing him on his continent and for him to reach me he'd have to come thrrough "the alley". My coastline was protected by a "hook" where the americans (an MPP partner) were and I had loaded it with battleships, ironclads and destroyers. Trust me, it would take a lot of ships to reach me. But Germany made an alliance with the aztecs to get me, and the aztecs were MPP'd with the japanese so a World War started. (all by the stinking Germans! They destroyed the French) Soon, the Russians and the egyptians joined in against me, but the chinese and the iroqouis were with me.

Heres what pisses me off....I had built police stations in ALL of my cities...I had Universal Suffrage...but within three or so turns War Weariness kicks in! Huh? And I was holding my own and managing to take a few cities from the aztecs.

WTF is this citizen saying give peace a chance for? I tried that...they won't talk to me! THEY ATTACKED US! Its ridiculous.

The only thing you can do in the editor is to change the degree of war weariness. Since Republic has low war weariness and, according to the manual, no risk of anarchy, if would follow that if you change Democracy to low war weariness it would solve the problem.

I don't know a lot about dinking around with programming. Sorry, I just don't. (Hey, I'm a mamber of Generation "W"...meaning I was here before "X" and there weren't any computers outside of Star Trek when I was growin' up ) But I'll have to check on that. Still, I think its stupid for a democracy to have such a weakness if the democracy DIDN'T START THE WAR. And saying "You can change your government" doesn't cut it. Why should I be forced to change my preffered government because a warmonger attacked me and we were essenitally winning the combat? The aztecs were done for no matter what. They were too small and weak to withstand a combined assualt from me, the iroquis and the chinese...plus the americans....at once. The japs were tough. (A samuria killed a a tank. Right. A guy with a sword. Against a tank. Uh huh...I suppose it was like a magic sword or a light saber or something ) But they still would have been crushed in time. The only thing keeping me at bay was having to fight the aztecs and keep the japs off balance since Air supremacy doesn't work for the player and they had free reign to bomb the crap outta me.

Hey, people wanted out of the Persian Gulf War, and there are many who adamantly oppose sending in any number of troops to Afghanistan.

Right. and widespread anarchy abounded. Give me a break.

Yes, as realistic as this game can get. Overthrows may symbolize an upset at the polls where those who were in power are voted out and their policies ignored. An abrupt change in a higher-echelon of decision-making will have a few turns of instability, lack of focus, and a general economic downturn. Listen to the polls, man.

then there should be a warning from the Domestic Advisor telling you that WW is taking a toll. and there should be something done about aggressors that won't "talk" to you. If they won't talk, they are essentially saying "We are still going to attack you". Instead of a democracy being held hostage, if that happens, it should be able to continue the fight for a set number of turns until peace can be made.

Now, all of this might be changeable in the editor...as I said I don't know. But it should still be tweaked in the patch.

I'm not even going to go into how the AI's bizarre expansion was a pain in this game...

[barefootbadass]

Uhh, if the other guys start the war war weariness is not a problem for a while or so I understand. Also keep in mind that turns in civ3 are a year at the shortest. It is very realistic in this scale for the populace to get upset if it drags out too long.

[Excelsior]

WTF is this citizen saying give peace a chance for? I tried that...they won't talk to me! THEY ATTACKED US! Its ridiculous.

Quote:

quote:The only thing you can do in the editor is to change the degree of war weariness. Since Republic has low war weariness and, according to the manual, no risk of anarchy, if would follow that if you change Democracy to low war weariness it would solve the problem.

I don't know a lot about dinking around with programming. Sorry, I just don't. (Hey, I'm a mamber of Generation "W"...meaning I was here before "X" and there weren't any computers outside of Star Trek when I was growin' up ) But I'll have to check on that.

What I meant was that it would eliminate the risk of the Democracy falling into anarchy, not the risk of having cities go into disorder. To change the level of war weariness for a particular government, all you have to do is open up the governments tab in the editor.

Personally, I've never had that problem when I fight a war under Democracy. I've even had cases where my entire empire would spontaneously go into WLT_Ds when someone declared war on me. Did you have a lot of units in enemy territory? The manual says that is an important component in war weariness.

[Raleigh]

I had a democracy game that was very realistic. When I was losing, my population rioted. As soon as I turned the tide, they cheered me.

[Venger]

To have your government fall is just pure bogusness...I was about to ask if it helps to have Universal Suffrage AND police stations, if that will at least keep the government from falling...

Did your government go into anarchy?

Also - there are times the AI just won't talk to you. How are you supposed to combat war weariness then? Also, If I stay at war with a democracy, will it fall too?

There are noble and ignoble aims in war, but I don't trust the game to know the difference I'm afraid.

I did more testing on the save, and if you reduce the war weariness of democracy to the same as republic, the government doesn't fall. I want to know if a combination of US and police will keep a democracy from falling, but without any knowledge of the internal game engine, I just don't know.

I quit playing around and simply made peace with the Aztecs, who I'd been rolling like a whore on a naval base. I immediately had every citizen in the empire happy. We'll see if I can now just declare war all over again and finish what I started. Wouldn't be so important except that I need the damn oil they have...

Of course, I made peace with the French, but not the English, and now that I continue my conflict with them, the MPP is reinvoked the same turn I sign the peace treaty with the French...sigh... not very good depth...

Venger
P.S. You know you're Apolyton big time when you get your name in the header...heh...

[Venger]

Originally posted by Excelsior
Did you have a lot of units in enemy territory? The manual says that is an important component in war weariness.

I didn't - I had like about 5 in enemy territory. When I move into their territory, it doesn't stay their territory for more than one turn...

Venger

[D4everman]

Uhh, if the other guys start the war war weariness is not a problem for a while or so I understand. Also keep in mind that turns in civ3 are a year at the shortest. It is very realistic in this scale for the populace to get upset if it drags out too long.

Ok.....year one: War is declared on me. Up until this point, I've never attacked or fought in a war. The aztecs pillage many improvements, capture a lot of workers and begin seiging my cities.

Year 2: The japs jump in and start bombarding my cities, improvements and units. The aztecs continue to pillage, but since I did have a sizable army I tank rush two of their cities and take them.

Year 3: A few cities go into disorder. The people are saying give peace a chance. I try...none of the attackers will talk. Thus far only a few...a mere handful of my full army...are in enemy territory.

Year 4: 90% or more cities are in disorder. Enemies won't talk. I have no choice. Gotta fight or die...but my lily livered citizens would obvioulsy rather die since the japs just rolled into my empire with a lot of tanks, mech infantry and samurias and continue t bomb me. The aztecs too, although not as effectively.


That makes sense to you? In essence, they win! Because I can't replace my units...simply because they won't TALK! And I'll remind you...I wanted a space victory...not anymore since I can't build anything!

You might think this is realistic because of some time scale thing...but its not fun and thats what counts.

Personally, I've never had that problem when I fight a war under Democracy. I've even had cases where my entire empire would spontaneously go into WLT_Ds when someone declared war on me. Did you have a lot of units in enemy territory? The manual says that is an important component in war weariness.

Probably...but as I said...I had maybe at the most five units in aztecs territory and not that long.

[Excelsior]

Do you have a save game that you could post? I'd like to see if I can figure out what is going wrong. I've never had that much of a problem with war weariness.

[GePap]

D4everman
Something must be wrong since according to the manual (how often is it wrong?) having war declared on you decreases war weariness. Just an idea, but somewere along the line, did an MPP you have activate when your partner was attacked? If so, then techinically YOU declared war on someone else (whoever that was), which might (again, how this works is unclear) undo the fact that war was declared on you first. Also, you might take the rsik of beginning a revolution and switching to Communism or monarchy. The revolution might take along time (it once did for me) but it may allow you to return to building things.

[D4everman]

I did more testing on the save, and if you reduce the war weariness of democracy to the same as republic, the government doesn't fall. I want to know if a combination of US and police will keep a democracy from falling, but without any knowledge of the internal game engine, I just don't know.

Hmmmm....If I start a new game I'll have to try and make that change. But I hate having to change "the rules" of a game. In this case it warranted however. I get the idea that my foes would have "talked" peace if they knew they couldn't cripple me by not talking. If that bogus tactic were "realistic" the Taliban would just not say anything....the US would implode by December 1st.

I quit playing around and simply made peace with the Aztecs, who I'd been rolling like a whore on a naval base.

Hahahahaha! Now thats funny! I'll have to tell ya about the guy that tried to sneak two hookers on post after 9/11 sometime. (Only my partner kept me from pistol whipping the moron.)

Of course, I made peace with the French, but not the English, and now that I continue my conflict with them, the MPP is reinvoked the same turn I sign the peace treaty with the French...sigh... not very good depth...

Yeah, thats another problem. MPP's keep dragging me into these wars that cripple my democracy even when I don't dp anything. thats why it was stupid for me to at first agree to one with the frnech...and why I did do it with the others I mentioned....WE were on the same continent. anyone could attack anyone else. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...by having allies I knew I had backup if one or two of them attacked me. Its also why I turned down an MPP with Bismarck after I had turned down the French. They were on the other side of the planet. But being involved in their wars, even in spirit only, would cause me problems.

P.S. You know you're Apolyton big time when you get your name in the header...heh...

Well, you know what Warhol said.....

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by D4everman
Hmmmm....If I start a new game I'll have to try and make that change.

If you change the civ3mod.bic directly the rules will change when you reload the game. If a save is using the default rules, it will take the rules from that file. Thus, you can change the war weariness of Democracy then go back and replay the game without your civilization imploding.

[Xerxes314]

Why don't you just combat war weariness with luxuries and entertainers?

Xerxes

[LRotan]

Going to have to agree big time here. Just finished up a game where I was sitting right in between the Aztecs and the Germans. I was a democracy and couldn't switch governments as all of my cities were metropolises and many many of them would die in the ensuing anarchy. Knew it was just a matter of time before either one of them, or perhaps both, would get a burr in their undies and go postal on me. As it turned out, both did. I didn't have a chance given that four turns into the wars and many riots later, it was three countries, theirs and mine, against one guy...me.

I never go past Monarchy anymore. Not worth it.

LR

[Venger]

Originally posted by Xerxes314
Why don't you just combat war weariness with luxuries and entertainers?

Xerxes

Doesn't work, at least for keeping your Civilization from revolting. I had 70% luxuries, and it still fell. Mind you, all the citizens were happy, and I had WLTPD in nearly every city, but they still revolted.

After loads of experimentation I simply reloaded that turn and made peace. We'll see how it goes. I don't like reloading but consider it justified in this case...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by LRotan

I never go past Monarchy anymore. Not worth it.

LR

Try Republic - during my reload testing, I changed democracy to have Republics war wearniess, and the civ did not revolt. Mind you, I had Universal Suffrage (to the exclusion of every other Civ, hardly universal - I vote for it to be a minor wonder).

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by GePap
D4everman
Something must be wrong since according to the manual (how often is it wrong?) having war declared on you decreases war weariness.

It does? Are you sure? Because the French declared on me after I made peace with them on the SAME TURN, and I'd hate to think I just got all my war weariness back fighting a country I don't want to fight...

Maybe countries in a MPP should have to sign peace treaties together?

Venger

[LRotan]

Originally posted by Venger


Try Republic - during my reload testing, I changed democracy to have Republics war wearniess, and the civ did not revolt.
Venger

I'll give that a try and see how it goes. To be honest, I've never tried Republic.

LR

[Venger]

Originally posted by LRotan
I'll give that a try and see how it goes. To be honest, I've never tried Republic.

Republic is my favorite - always was in Civ2 as well. You can wage war very effectively yet still get the advantages that come froma dynamic economy. If I got Universal Suffrage I would at times go Democracy, but I steamrolled right to Republic early on and stayed there a long time...

In Civ3 (my first whole game still in progress) I don't think I noticed much in the way of a difference between the two governments. Can anyone quantify how much less corruption a Democracy has in Civ3 than a Republic? It was easy to see in Civ3...

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

Is it a pain in the ass? Yes, of course it is- but it's the only effective down-point of a democracy. Seriously, without it a democracy would be the key choice to go to- always. If a Democracy had the war weariness of a Republic, why wouldn't use use it? What good would Communism be (other than the spies) when a war weariness-less Democracy could gain more money, research, and wage war just as effectively?

I can understand the troubles caused by this, and I sympathise with your plight- my first *real* game I played as the Greeks began to roll over the Egyptians and I just continued this war for a while eventually leading to my government's overthrow. So what? That's the choice that you face when you go to pick governments- am I worried about a war, or can I live in peace?

Now, to address the fact that it's not realistic:

Right. and widespread anarchy abounded. Give me a break.

No, but waging an unpopular war (no matter how successful) is political suicide. Look at the Vietnam War with the massive counterculture and demonstrations.

Also, think of the overthrow of the democracy not as a revolution akin to the Russian Revolution of 1918 with whole populations urging for a new government- as I stated yesterday, the comparison between it and an electoral upset is rather succint. When your policies are unpopular in a voting society you run the risk of not getting voted back in; in fact, it's possible all your other policies are reviled due to it's association to your war. So, the new electoral candidate promises things completely the opposite of the standing policies, and when he gets 'voted in' there will be a considerable time of adjustment in regards to the economy and the government. Since there is nothing stopping you from reforming another democracy after the overthrow, I see this as the most logical interpretation of the war weariness rules.

then there should be a warning from the Domestic Advisor telling you that WW is taking a toll.

I agree, and she should also tell you when you are in danger of losing a city to another culture, but that just wasn't thought of unfortunately.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire
Is it a pain in the ass? Yes, of course it is- but it's the only effective down-point of a democracy. Seriously, without it a democracy would be the key choice to go to- always.

Oh, I don't have a problem with war weariness being involved with democracy, I have a problem with overthrow of the government and 7 turns of anarchy because I am prosecuting a successful war. I think that's bogus. I've been having to deal with unhappy faces in my democracy by boosting luxuries and attempting to make trades for luxuries to keep my people happy despite the war weariness, THAT should be the manifestation of it, not a 70% approval and most cities in WLTPD overthrow of the government. There has to be a better way...

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

Such as?

In the system at hand it's the only thing that balances that out- democracies simply aren't supposed to be used to fight agressive wars; just as communism isn't supposed to be used to garner a ton of money or blitz through the tech tree. Checks and balances.

[halley]

The truth is, your people are warmongering cowards. Whenever I'm at war and kicking the A.I.'s butt, they never complain. The moment I start losing, all my cities go into disorder. This happens regardless of who declared war in the first place. In fact having my troops in enemy territory only made my people happier, while the enemy having troops in MY territory causes them to revolt. Go figure.

[Libertarian]

I wonder, too, whether the civ you're playing has anything to do with it. [...shrug...] As a French democracy, I've experienced the WLTS (saint) days when war was declared on me.

I can go maybe 20 turns or so before war weariness sets in. And I can see it coming. WLTS days start ending, and the city screen shows more and more people going from happy to content. That goes maybe five turns or so. Then, the next couple of turns, unhappy people start emerging.

I guess war weariness is simply one of the factors that must be considered in waging war. Use General Powell's (and Sun Tsu's) advice: go in with massive strength; overpower quickly; shoot straight for the jugular (e.g., the capital); sue for peace as soon as you've gained your objective.

[Chronus]

Hi D4:

I'm not clear on something: were you in a constant state of war with SOMEONE after your initial declaration of war (via your MPP w/ France)? In other words, did you have at least one turn of total peace somewhere in there?

This thread kind of surprises me but is also interesting. I've declared several wars in Democracy but never fell into Anarchy. In my last game, I declared war and the vast majority of my cities went rioting. I increased the luxuries a notch and fought on. Several turns later, my cities rioted again (due to extended war weariness, I presume) and so, again, I turned up the luxuries. A couple of turns later, I lost a supply of luxuries so, again, my cities went into riots. I decided to "buy back" that luxury the next turn and things went back to normal. I believe the war ended a few turns after that. No police stations . . . no Univ Suff . . . all I did was tackle the problem as it reared its ugly head.

The game before that, I had similar things happen but the war lasted MUCH longer . . . still no Anarchy.

In Civ3 (my first whole game still in progress)

Venger - approximately how many "sub-games" of Civ 3 have you played?

[LaRusso]

with suffrage and enough police stations it is manageable. plus you can always switch to republic and have a go....

[Akka]

Originally posted by GePap
D4everman
Something must be wrong since according to the manual (how often is it wrong?) having war declared on you decreases war weariness. Just an idea, but somewere along the line, did an MPP you have activate when your partner was attacked? If so, then techinically YOU declared war on someone else (whoever that was), which might (again, how this works is unclear) undo the fact that war was declared on you first. Also, you might take the rsik of beginning a revolution and switching to Communism or monarchy. The revolution might take along time (it once did for me) but it may allow you to return to building things.

There is a weird thing about war. Declaring war, in fact, does nothing but allow you and your enemy to send units to fight. You can check it by declaring war to an AI opponent who has a MPP with another : nothing happen.
Though, as soon as you attack one of his unit, BANG, the MPP activate. If you DECLARE war, but wait for your enemy to strike first, HOP, no MPP activation. Extremely useful if you and your opponent have a common MPP ally : if you strike first, this ally will go at war with you, if you wait this ally will go at war with you enemy.

It's very possible that the war weariness consider yourself as attacker if you were the first to attack any unit, though it's the other who declared war.
It's very possible to that the war weariness increase dramatically when you have units on the soil of you opponent, while staying very low when they stay on your national territory.

[johnnyappleseid]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


There is a weird thing about war. Declaring war, in fact, does nothing but allow you and your enemy to send units to fight. You can check it by declaring war to an AI opponent who has a MPP with another : nothing happen.
Though, as soon as you attack one of his unit, BANG, the MPP activate. If you DECLARE war, but wait for your enemy to strike first, HOP, no MPP activation.

This is true, but it seems only temporarily. Eventually, maybe after a set number of turns (not sure), the ally of your enemy will declare war on you (it'll bring up that "mutual aggression pact causes war" message), even if you haven't started any battles. At least, this is my experience.

[Cian McGuire]

Though, as soon as you attack one of his unit, BANG, the MPP activate.

Your sentence should be "as soon as you attack one of his units on his territory..."- the MPP activates only then.

I haven't seen what johnny says in action yet, but I do know the above is true. It allows to you repel an aggressor.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Chronus
Hi D4:

I'm not clear on something: were you in a constant state of war with SOMEONE after your initial declaration of war (via your MPP w/ France)? In other words, did you have at least one turn of total peace somewhere in there?

I did - I originally made peace on a reload after figuring out what went wrong. Had about 6 turns or so of peace, then redeclared on the Aztecs. Immediate fall of the government. I'm going to suffer through this one - though the inability to produce any units under anarchy seems a little extreme...

This thread kind of surprises me but is also interesting. I've declared several wars in Democracy but never fell into Anarchy. In my last game, I declared war and the vast majority of my cities went rioting. I increased the luxuries a notch and fought on. Several turns later, my cities rioted again (due to extended war weariness, I presume) and so, again, I turned up the luxuries. A couple of turns later, I lost a supply of luxuries so, again, my cities went into riots. I decided to "buy back" that luxury the next turn and things went back to normal. I believe the war ended a few turns after that. No police stations . . . no Univ Suff . . . all I did was tackle the problem as it reared its ugly head.

Clearly you weren't at war very long. I'm conquering the Aztecs, who had the most cities on the map at one point. It's almost done, they have only about 16 cities left and I imagine I'll have them all conquered by the time by 6 turns of anarchy is up...

Venger - approximately how many "sub-games" of Civ 3 have you played?

What do you mean?

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso
with suffrage and enough police stations it is manageable. plus you can always switch to republic and have a go....

I've got police stations in many many cities. Im curious if they even work if you already have Universal Suffrage - they didn't in Civ2. I'd hate to think I built them for nothing, but it appears I may have...you'd think it wouldn't let me build them if they didn't work in conjunction with US, but I can still build coal plants in all my cities even though I have Hoover Dam, so...

I'd switch to Republic but that too requires a period of anarchy...I'm almost convinced Democracy isn't worth my time. I like the faster workers, but the anarchy thing makes it unusable for anything other than sitting on my butt.

I'd like to think that the war weariness effects of Democracy were punishment enough without the fall of a popular government.

Venger
P.S. Thanks for being topical and not calling me a name...