Thread Tools
Old December 3, 2001, 11:34   #1
andypalmer
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
War Weariness??
I was playing Chieftain level. The year was around 1800 or so. My Civ was a democracy (the Romans). The Egyptians, whom I have been trading with very early in the game (they are right next to me), suddenly declare war. Ok, didn't wish for a war but will fight it out anyway. Within 4-5 turns my cities are revolting, 76% of the population asking for peace. Well...try to contact Egypt to ask for peace, but the would not talk. So...can't make peace..can't produce anything...what are the options?? Change gov type?? Why so much war weariness so quickly when I was attacked?? Seems like there is not much to do to win here is there?


andy
andypalmer is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 11:42   #2
rah
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Just another peon
 
rah's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: who killed Poly
Posts: 22,919
THis is why i always choose religious. Drop into communism, kick their butt, and change back. A killer if you have to sit in anachy for too many turns. (unless you can kick some butt in those turns and make them negotiate before you have to select a new government.)

RAH
I've changed governments over a dozen times in my current game. But since it's the late game and I'm just trashing capitals to destroy space ships, Communism is the way to go.
__________________
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
rah is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 11:54   #3
andypalmer
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Yes..I did do that and it works. Seems strange that you would have to change your gov't if you are attacked because your Democracy can't fight back.

andy
andypalmer is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 12:02   #4
MarshalN
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 158
You're the dictator anyway, democracy or not. I mean, you never face elections, never risk getting voted out.... what kind of democracy is that????

So change all you want
MarshalN is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 12:08   #5
andypalmer
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Yes that is true. I thought there were advantages/disadvantages to each gov type though. Such as increased research under democracy or increased production. Seems like the game is forcing you into a gov type, and if it is, then why have them at all?? Something just seems wrong when you are attacked, your cities revolt in a few turns, you must change gov hoping you can survive the anarchy. If that is the way it is then OK, just gotta play that way I suppose.


andy
andypalmer is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 12:10   #6
MarshalN
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 158
I think it's sort of unfair how you can't even talk to the people you're warring with while your people are in revolt. Sometimes it can bring down an empire just by completely halting production (and if you're not religious, you might be stuck in anarchy for 6-7 turns). I think for democracy at least, it should be possible to negotiate peace after a turn or two -- otherwise there's an inherent imbalance that doesn't seem to work. Democracy is supposed to discourage you to war, but if they just declare on you for no reason (which happens), it can ruin your game.
MarshalN is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 12:16   #7
andypalmer
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Yes..it was kinda strange that my people were syaing 'Give peace a chance' but I had no way of contacting the civ I was fighting...go figure..


andy
andypalmer is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 12:46   #8
Egoist
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
andy: You could try increasing your entertainment spending to get your cities out of civil disorder. This will enable you to restart production in all cities and actually defend yourself from the Egyptians. If you are successful on the battlefield dear Cleopatra will be more then willing to speak to you . Or at the very least she will show you more respect when your military power increases and she might even consider talking to you. Another method to quickly boost your overall happiness is to start importing more luxuries from neutral or allied civs. Your citizens don't seem to care much about war if you get them silk dresses and precious gems, go figure. A prolonged war under democracy is difficult to fight so dropping into communism would be better in that case. When in a democracy you just have to prevent those wars from happening.

cheers
Egoist is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 13:40   #9
shayovitz
Settler
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 11
I have been at war with the Persians for a few turns now (10-12 turns) under democracy, a war which I started by the way, but since I have 30-40 percent luxuries (I had to cut down on the profit making a bit), I can manage with 0 cities revolting.
I guess that is the way to go, entertain them and they let you fight your wars.
BTW, how do you see the "sue for peace" thingy ? Where can you see the reason for the people's unhappiness ?
shayovitz is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 13:47   #10
mr.buddylee
Chieftain
 
mr.buddylee's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 30
I've fought wars under democracy where they went for over 20 turns without any problems. Usually, I lose We Love the King Day, and then not too long after everything is a mess, but I've found that if my people are happy. (Lots of luxuries and a 10% entertainment budget), they put up with war for quite a while. If it goes too long, I just switch to communism, but I only have to do that if the war is really dragging on. I also build the Suffrage wonder and that seems to help too.

I play on the second easiest level, whichever that is, and I would imagine, if I went up a level, I'd have more problems.
mr.buddylee is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 13:54   #11
Bad Ax
Chieftain
 
Bad Ax's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Right behind you
Posts: 68
Police stations and Universal Suffrage are your very best friends in a Democracy. Build Police in all your cities as soon as they are available, and Suffrage as soon as you have the chance. Without them, fighting an extended war under democracy is virtually impossible. This is, of course, ridiculous (we all remember the great street demonstrations against WWII and Korea, don't we?), but it seems the Firaxis people based their war weariness engine only on Vietnam.

If you're a democracy, it's also a good idea to build up your military (even though it's costly) in order to prevent people from attacking you. Never underestimate the power of deterrence.
Bad Ax is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 14:02   #12
andypalmer
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Maybe the luxeries are the key. Unfortuantly, I was trading fur and gems with egypt, then they declare war, and no more luxeries unless I find someone to trade them real quick. Guess that is what you must do. Also unfortuantly I didn't have communism, so I had to revert to monarchy (I figured republic would cause same war weariness..)...by the time i came out of anarchy much of my civ improvments had been destriyed..oh well..
guess i better be better prepared..


andy
andypalmer is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 14:31   #13
mr.buddylee
Chieftain
 
mr.buddylee's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 30
Quote:
Also unfortuantly I didn't have communism, so I had to revert to monarchy (I figured republic would cause same war weariness..)...by the time i came out of anarchy much of my civ improvments had been destriyed..oh well..
eek! Well, thats why I choose religious civs. Much easier to switch govs.
live and learn I guess.
mr.buddylee is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 17:27   #14
sachmo71
Warlord
 
Local Time: 11:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: de Tejas
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally posted by mr.buddylee
I've fought wars under democracy where they went for over 20 turns without any problems. Usually, I lose We Love the King Day, and then not too long after everything is a mess, but I've found that if my people are happy. (Lots of luxuries and a 10% entertainment budget), they put up with war for quite a while. If it goes too long, I just switch to communism, but I only have to do that if the war is really dragging on. I also build the Suffrage wonder and that seems to help too.

I play on the second easiest level, whichever that is, and I would imagine, if I went up a level, I'd have more problems.
Yes, you can conduct an long war at Settler level. It does get harder at the next level...much harder.
sachmo71 is offline  
Old December 3, 2001, 23:48   #15
lucifer316
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
i see alot of threads with people complaing about wars and democracy

there are a few problems that i see

first why do you feel the need to use the government if its for the bonuses you cant complain about the drawbacks it has i mean if they made democracy have the best possible options in every case there would be no need for any of the other governments at all

you need to pick a government that matches your gameplay style and vice versa also you have to be ready for the curves the game is going to throw your way

just because you have a democracy doesnt mean that the other civs have to refrain from attacking you

if you want democracy to be the end all be all then modify the game so all the stats are the way you want them but under despotism then rename despotism democracy and not only will you have the govenrment you want you can start the game with it


the other problem is that too many people believe that democracy is based totally on america well if you belive that to be the case can you explain how it gets the lowest corruption rating of all government out there because last time i checked america isnt exactly squeeky clean in the corruption department i think that because of this and the war weariness that democracy is actually closer to a socialist democracy then it is a capitalist democracy

in a capitalist democracy you would have high corruption and low war weariness (lots of money to be made building war units)

whereas in a socialist democracy the corruption is lower because people have what they need and there is no money to be made building war units thus the high war weariness

each government is given pros and cons to make them useful for different styles of gameplay and because of that it would be easier to just look at them as gov a gov b gov c etc

the names more or less allow it to fit cleaner in the tech research and stuff plus most people would laugh at a game that named the governments with just letters
 
Old December 4, 2001, 00:30   #16
Dan Baker
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 18
War Wearyness is definitly a problem, however, it seams to be based more on aggression rather then defense. You can have a 'phony' war for many turn and not see much opinion differences... So, typically war wearyness is more of a problem when you are winning, rather then losing, so at least that is good.

Typically, the way to fight wars as a democracy involves a simple strategy - antcipation, initiation, termination (alright, sorry for the stupid catch phrases). Basically, keep your wars short, and your objectives clear. Building several key wonders helps tremendously.I would rank Sistine Chappel, J'S' Baches Cathedral, and Womens Suffrage as some of the most important wonders in the game.


Remember, always be prepared to fight a war - somehow, the computer knows or has an estimate ofyour military strength (even before spies), so haveing a decent military will deter most out of the blue aggressions against your country. It is usually wise to have at least one or two MPT with other countries.

Second, be prepared to launch a full scale attack instantly on any bordering enemy - and have transports ready to be loaded and sent overseas if need be. Railroads are perfect for this... The trick is to have a standing offense already in position the moment a war breaks out. The first few turns are crucial. Before starting a war look for an objective to counquer. The objective(s) (when possible)should have the following characteristics:

1) Have some stragetic value (i.e. resource or location)
2) Withing your grasp, i.e. no major logistical challenges in aquiring.
3) Somewhat valuable to your openent, taking satellite cities has little effect.
4) Can be easily connected to the rest of your empire.

Finally, do not initiate aggression until all your peices are in place, Even if it takes you a few turns to mass your troups on your border. This has several advanatages; Your people don't get as upset, MPT won't get triggered until you are in a position to deal with the other members of the alliance as well, if the enemy attacks you your own MPT alliances will be activated.

Once firing starts, move quickly to take your objectives. Once you reach your objectives - TERMINATE the war. The computer will nearly always terminate if (s)he looses important ground. Even if you plan on waging a war again, you should regroup and prepare for another limited conflict. Even if you are OUTNUMBERED, send a token offense to your enemy. The computer (like a human player) doesn't like complications, if you can threaten his home, then he'll think twice about continuing the war.

Additionally, when in war with multiple countries, always be prepared to make peace with one of them, or rather, divide the alliance. This tends to make your citizens more content.

Some additional notes: Its not usually worth the time to build up a navy prior to destroriers. The navy can't do much, and takes too long to deploy. Plus, the navy becomes nearly useless once you get destroyers.

If you find yourself vulnarable to sea bombardment, the best solution is a small navy and a large compliment of artillary or cannons. These can be moved more quickly then a navy, have far less liability, and can be used for ground offensives as well. Cannons are some of the BEST things in the game to build. The have a complete updgrade path, have long shelf-lifes, and in mass have enourmous value. The best way to take cities is to use massive ammounts of artilllary (say like 10 units).

Anyway, the trick with waging war is always to make it cost a whole lote more to your enemy then it is costing you. Even if its mostly stalemated, if you can force him to spend resources on the war while you build infastructure, this is a major victory.
Dan Baker is offline  
Old December 4, 2001, 00:40   #17
Bblue
Warlord
 
Bblue's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Raleigh. NC, USA
Posts: 291
War-wearness is delayed and reduced if you are not 'attacking' (ie. have uits in the conties your at war with. You can fight a defensive war under democracy for quite a long time before the effects of WW start to creap in.
The only way to run an offensive war under democracy is to try to keep it as short as possible. Lots of luxury items, marketplaces, and if need be luxeries (with the tax slidder) are crucial, as is Suffrage. I've only had 1 game so far were I realy needed Police stations (ended up doing communism instead)
__________________
"Power doesn't corrupt; it merely attracts the corruptable"
Bblue is offline  
Old December 4, 2001, 00:50   #18
Padmewan
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 51
It sounds like the critical factor in your game (since you're playing at Chieftain level) is losing your luxuries, not the war per se. Losing 2 luxuries might be enough to send cities into revolt even without the war.

Try to structure your bargains so the other party also loses something valuable if they break the agreement. Unfortunately, the AI gets increasingly irrational as the game drags on...
Padmewan is offline  
Old December 4, 2001, 01:56   #19
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Current game I'm in.

Emperor Difficulty. Democracy, Romans.

In 1530 I engineered a war with Greece. I had stacks parked in his territory next to 2 of his cities without a Right of Passage. Alexander protested. I thought to myself *you shouldn't have black mailed us back in the day before we had Legions of tanks, you constipated pr#ck* as I pushed the Declare War response to his ultimatum to withdraw. I guess that would make us the aggressors (but maybe not as far as the game design goes).

We had MPPs with all other powers. All other powers declared war on Greece immediately after I declared war on Alex (who was the aggressor?). I don't know if this influenced subsequent unhappiness.

In 1530 we had Police Stations in our larger cities. We had 7 luxuries (soon 6 since Alex stopped the flow of diamonds in one of his final snits). We did not have tech for Universal Suffrage.

An any rate the war ran it course until 1750 (about 50 turns). We had captured what we wanted. By the end we had the luxury rate set to 20%. Our biggest city (Rome) had 6 entertainers, 12 happy, 1 content, and 4 unhappy people. 55% of unhappy people polled said *Give Peace a Chance*. We had Universal Suffrage at this point. We had secured a new source of diamonds. None of our cities were in revolt. All had all excess population assigned as entertainers (to keep cities producing in the face of creeping discontent).

I would have been willing to put people to work as entertainers and let people starve if necessary, but that point was not reached (it was close, Rome had 3 excess food, but still a surplus of entertainers). Winning wars is not an option, it is required. Neither is allowing allowing rioters to burn improvements an option, better to let a few people starve while the factories continue to churn out tanks. Just because you are a democracy, doesn't mean you have to be a nice chump and accept the fate that the design team has planned for you.

Hey, I'm being democratic. I'm allowing people to vote to work and eat or riot and starve. Or something like that. I'm looking forward to the next election campaign.

I can't say for sure, but during the course of the war I believe that unhappiness spiked after Razing an enemy city. There seemed to be a coincidence of revolts getting past my precautions and breaking out immediately after.

At any rate, sorry for the long post. I just thought it might help some people in the choices they make if they know that wars can be won as a democracy. Rome ended up with 21 new subject cities (including Athens and Greece's only other Wonder city) leaving Alex with 11 cities and a shattered army... But that leads into another lengthy post about the fascinating course of the war. So enough of me and mine.

Salve
notyoueither is offline  
Old December 4, 2001, 02:56   #20
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
PS. After re-reading Dan Baker and BBlue.

It occurs to me that I largely stayed out of enemy territory for most of the war.

How's this you ask? Well. I started the war by taking 2 cities. Consolidated. Moved on 1 or 2 more cities and took them in short order (Arty, Bombers and Tanks work great, even against Mech Infantry). Consolidated.

Periods of consolidation involved repulsing Greek attacks on the newly assimilating Roman cities (I was fighting on my own territory?). Assimilation involved starving Greeks down to 1 pop to prevent revolts back to Alex (they had at least twice our culture).

Periods of offensives were relatively short. Move on Greek city. Bomb the sh*t out of it while the mechanized Legions (slowing for Arty) approached. Take the city as soon as the Tanks were in position to attack weakened enemy Mech Infantry (about 50% of the cities were fired on by Arty, ie we were in Greek territory for 3 or 4 turns).

Most of the sweeping tank battles (there were some good ones) took place in Roman or unclaimed territory. We took a city, Alex pushed offensive units into the newly created cultural vacuum chasing German Cavalry (they didn't have Oil for Panzers ). Our Bombers, Navy and Arty blew the sh*t out of the Greek Tanks and Mech Infantry, followed by Roman Tanks shooting crippled Greek formations.

This jives with Dan Baker's *anticipation, initiation, termination*. I never sent sweeping movements of troops deep into enemy territory after resources or other negative (deny them) objectives. Isn't that what Bombers and Carriers are for? I kept the Legions either in Roman territory or very briefly entered into Greek territory to take a city. However, we did this repeatedly, without the outbreak of peace. We anticipated (created the circumstances for an offensive by destroying any adventuresome Greek units outside of his territory, ie, his surplus). Then we initiated (moved into Greek territory directly at a Greek city). Then we terminated (took the Greek city in very short order). Thus we spent at least 50% of the war with a very small number of troops in enemy territory, but at the same time conquered 66% of the empire that was the most powerful at the time of the outbreak of hostilities.

But it only makes sense if combined with BBlue's point about being in your own territory. I would guess without regard to whose territory it was last turn.

It occurs to me that we have found one of the prerequisites for making war successfully as a democracy. Stay in your own territory (and that that you make your own). Sounds very Roman when you think of it...

Either that or I have the most wonderful Civ3 computer on Earth. Its only errors are those that allow me to play civ the way I want to play civ. Bah, I'm blathering again.

Salve
notyoueither is offline  
Old December 4, 2001, 20:59   #21
Pyrodrew
Prince
 
Pyrodrew's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 679
You started it!
Quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
PS. After re-reading Dan Baker and BBlue.

It occurs to me that I largely stayed out of enemy territory for most of the war.

It occurs to me that we have found one of the prerequisites for making war successfully as a democracy. Stay in your own territory (and that that you make your own). Sounds very Roman when you think of it...
Well if the enemy is flooding your territory and/or taking your cities war weariness will hurt you too. Things which cause war weariness: your troops in enemy territory, enemy troops in your territory, the length of time you are involved in war(s), declaring war, & engaging in battle. A rival declaring war on you "actually decreases war weariness".
Pyrodrew is offline  
Old December 5, 2001, 01:07   #22
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Re: You started it!
Quote:
Originally posted by Pyrodrew


Well if the enemy is flooding your territory and/or taking your cities war weariness will hurt you too. Things which cause war weariness: your troops in enemy territory, enemy troops in your territory, the length of time you are involved in war(s), declaring war, & engaging in battle. A rival declaring war on you "actually decreases war weariness".
OK. I'll grant that what you have said will add to war weariness. Why shouldn't it?

However, I was a democracy involved in a very long war (50 turns). The Greeks were continually sending troops into my *new* territories. And I can't imagine I could possibly have engaged in any more battles. We killed hundreds of Greek units. We bombarded or bombed at least 500 or a 1000 times. We razed many cities (at least 8 or 10). Yet at the end our luxury rate only needed to be set at 20%. We were nowhere near the end of our rope.

My point is that democracies can fight and win wars. You just might need to be a bit of a bastard to your own people to do so (I hadn't reached that point yet).
notyoueither is offline  
Old December 5, 2001, 01:55   #23
barefootbadass
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Ax
Police stations and Universal Suffrage are your very best friends in a Democracy. Build Police in all your cities as soon as they are available, and Suffrage as soon as you have the chance. Without them, fighting an extended war under democracy is virtually impossible. This is, of course, ridiculous (we all remember the great street demonstrations against WWII and Korea, don't we?), but it seems the Firaxis people based their war weariness engine only on Vietnam.

If you're a democracy, it's also a good idea to build up your military (even though it's costly) in order to prevent people from attacking you. Never underestimate the power of deterrence.
Keep in mind that 10 turns at war is 10 years in the end of the game, and 20 years before that, and so on . . . This isn't at all like vietnam modeling considering the scale.

Strong military is easy to support in democracy with all the trade, and with no concern about having to have units in cities or in forts.
barefootbadass is offline  
Old December 5, 2001, 06:53   #24
Easy Rhino
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 09:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Californey
Posts: 79
this reply will not be helpful
Quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
We had MPPs with all other powers. All other powers declared war on Greece immediately after I declared war on Alex (who was the aggressor?). I don't know if this influenced subsequent unhappiness.
My experience with MPPs is that they trigger with whoever gets actually shot at first, not war declarations. So you can game that some.

Just to rant, it irks me that there are basically only two kinds of governments in Civ3, Despotism and Monarchy:

Communism is Despotism +1.
Republic is Monarchy +1, Democracy is Monarchy +2

They seemed to have more differentiation before, it was neater.

ER
Easy Rhino is offline  
Old December 5, 2001, 15:04   #25
Gholam
Settler
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Israel
Posts: 22
Eh, Communism does have a unique corruption model... only thing that can run those huge sprawling empires without resorting to pop rush You'll lose a "core" of low-corruption high-production cities, but if you're big enough, your total production gain from the fringes will exceed that loss... coupled with super-low war weariness and railroads allowing you to ship units anywhere you want to instantly makes it the best warmonger government, period
Gholam is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 05:47   #26
shayovitz
Settler
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
55% of unhappy people polled said *Give Peace a Chance*
How do you poll your unhappy people and get that "Give Peace a Chance" tip ? I haven't seen anything about it in the manual.
shayovitz is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 06:18   #27
MadWombat
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 10:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 59
Right click on the city and get a disorder report. =]
MadWombat is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 07:04   #28
shayovitz
Settler
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 11
Cool! Thanks a lot!
shayovitz is offline  
Old December 6, 2001, 21:18   #29
Pyrodrew
Prince
 
Pyrodrew's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 679
Re: Re: You started it!
Quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
My point is that democracies can fight and win wars. You just might need to be a bit of a bastard to your own people to do so (I hadn't reached that point yet).
I don't disagree with that. I successfully fight wars in democracy many times... very easy if you're a superpower with luxuries & do the right things.
Pyrodrew is offline  
Old December 7, 2001, 02:14   #30
Asharak
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 12:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 39
My Two Cents, From a Warlord-Level Democracy
While I'm well aware that it gets harder to fight wars at higher levels of difficulty, from my experience on Warlord it IS possible to fight and win wars as a democracy.
First, they are easiest to fight if you are attacked by a Civ you could care less about, and 'winning' is simply a matter of holding onto what you've got at the moment and losing any cities. If you don't move into their territory and only engage their troops once their in yours, war weariness appears at a much slower rate (and if does appear, trade with someone else for some extra luxuries, or drop your science/tax for a few turns and jack up the luxury slider -- a note on that: i try to keep a steady flow of at least 4 luxuries into my cities at all times, which helps). After 10-15 turns, the AI usually gets bored and will accept an envoy for peace (at least, they stop rejecting your emissarys). Be humble, apologize for overextending yourself, even though they started the war, and you can usually get a peace treaty.
Obviously, not all wars are defensive, and sometimes it's necessary to attack. I've found democracies fight wars best under the Nazi 'blitzkreig' model: mass a smreck-load of troops on the offending border, grap what you want within 5 turns, and fortify yourself. Don't get greedy. Don't start wars unless you know EXACTLY what your after, and EXACTLY how to get it -- fast. Once the objective (be it a strategically located city, a resource, etc.) is taken, hold onto it and wait out the time until the AI calms down enough to talk to you again, then sue for peace.
The only way I've been able to fight aggressive wars on a long-term basis is by being VERY big, VERY rich, and VERY successful. If I want to conquer the world, I change to Communism.
And I echo the sentiments above: certain wonders, and police stations, are a great benefit. If I'm a democracy expecting the possiblity of a fight, prolonged or not, my main priority is always entertainment: give them gems and silk dresses, and suddenly they don't even realize there's a world out there...

All of that, as the subject says, is from Warlord level. The warranty is void on any level higher than that.
__________________
There is a thin line between insanity and genius. I have erased this line.
Asharak is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:55.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team