Disdainful culture

Thrawn05 · March 29, 2002, 09:37

I was wondering if war weariness if affected by the level of culture the enemy civ is.

For example, if I start a war with a civ that my citizens are disdainful of, would they be more incline to attack and destroy them?

If culture rating has no effect on war weariness, does any think it should?

DrFell · March 29, 2002, 09:44

Perhaps - I mean, if a civ is in awe of your culture I'd expect their citizens to be less happy fighting against it.

Alex · April 1, 2002, 00:57

I don't think that war weariness is linked to culture. But it should. You would then find much more resistance from your own citizens if you wanted to attack a civ whose culture level was above yours.

That would bring a new choice to the player: do I attack Civ A, whose culture is superior to my own, or do I try to improve my own cultural level? Also, the war would have to be more "surgical"... you would have to devise a battle plan focused in some specific targets that could be quickly taken over.

Thrawn05 · April 1, 2002, 09:13

This is somthing to consider for at least an XP or Civ4. It would be nice if Firaxis was able to insert this into a patch, but I can imagine that the coding would be hell to rework.

Glad to hear some positive responses, thanks.

DrFell · April 1, 2002, 10:37

It'd be pretty simple actually, all you'd need to do is add another parameter to the war weariness calculation.

Navyman · April 1, 2002, 10:59

I never understood why the people in a civ has war weariness even though their civ is "winning" battles and the war.

I think war weariness should only come in when battles/cities are lost and one's territories captured. If my country is winning a war, why in the world would i oppose it? Doesn't make sense.

Also, if the war in the initial phase is going badly and there is war weariness but then after a few successive victories in battle the war weariness should improve.

punkbass2000 · April 1, 2002, 11:06

Actually, many of us would oppose a war, regardless of who is winning. For example, I oppose this 'war on terrorism' bull$hit, and think Bush is doing horrible thing by bombing Afghanistan. YOu might say that the US isn't winning, but I would just as much against it either way.

Navyman · April 1, 2002, 11:15

The problem with that is that 80% of the people supports this "war on terrorism" thing as evidenced by Bush's poll numbers. The Gulf War was supported by nearly 90% of the US people when it started looking more like a video game than a war for the US forces.

The point is that when war is executed successfully, more likely than naught, the majority of the people will be supportive of the govt and the war effort. Civ3 doesn't reflect that and war is labled as "bad" even though the war might be very succesful. Also, in Civ3 war is the only realistic mean by which to secure critical objectives in the game like resources and area denial.

punkbass2000 · April 1, 2002, 11:34

True, but it's not because we w're winning, it's because we didn't lose people. There were virtually no casualties, so people weren't upset. As soon as we start losing people, people start thinking the war isn't such a good idea. People want short, bloodless wars. And that is reflected in the game. The Gulf War was relatively short in Civ. If you complete a war in a turn or two with no casualties against not too modern forces, you won't experience war weariness.

Navyman · April 1, 2002, 11:49

WWII was long, had loads of casualties on all sides yet the war was "popular" to most of the combatant countries except maybe for Italy.

Also, if one of the civ's "home" cities is being attacked why should war weariness kick in? If Boston was attacked do you think the Americans would whine about going to war? Or if New Delhi, or Tokyo was attacked would the Indians and the Japanese would whine about the war? Civ3 should have a corrolary to war weariness called nationalism.

Nationalism would be triggered if a city that was owned by a civ for more than 1000 years is lost in war. The bonuses from nationalism would be higher military production and less war weariness.

There is no need for the people of a civ to "punish" the govt if the govt is executing a good war.

punkbass2000 · April 1, 2002, 12:05

WWII was not long by CIV standards. It was only six turns, at which point, at regent level, war weariness has not set in, or, at least is not very severe. Take the Vietnam war, now that was long and many died. At first, the war was popular, but as it dragged on, people began to riot. It was widely protested. America lost no ground in that war. Admittedly, war can be popular, and , in fact, it usually is at first, which is why Bush's approval rating is high. But approval and happiness are not the same thing. People may support a war, but that does not mean they are happy about it and wouldn't prefer the war to end.

Thrawn05 · April 1, 2002, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
WWII was not long by CIV standards. It was only six turns, at which point, at regent level, war weariness has not set in, or, at least is not very severe. Take the Vietnam war, now that was long and many died. At first, the war was popular, but as it dragged on, people began to riot. It was widely protested. America lost no ground in that war. Admittedly, war can be popular, and , in fact, it usually is at first, which is why Bush's approval rating is high. But approval and happiness are not the same thing. People may support a war, but that does not mean they are happy about it and wouldn't prefer the war to end.

I agree, you'll always have some people who are against any war for any reason.

Inverse Icarus · April 1, 2002, 14:59

what about in the beginning where a turn can take 50 years

Thrawn05 · April 1, 2002, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
what about in the beginning where a turn can take 50 years

Just one of many aspects of Civ3 that asks you the questions: Why?