War weariness carryover

nbarclay · July 15, 2002, 14:22

In my current game, I fought what may be my longest, bloodiest war ever. I had to switch from Republic to Monarchy long before it was over. I finally made peace and switched back to Republic, but about ten turns later, a city culture flipped. I decided to finish the offending civ off and started a new war.

From the moment the new war started, I had a truly huge war weariness problem. I had to slide the happiness slider so far up that I couldn't do research without losing money. The war wasn't too terribly long, but having my science crippled for its duration was extremely annoying.

Does anyone know what the rules are for how war weariness from one war carries over into another? I've seen something similar once before - I fought one nation, made peace due to growing war weariness, almost immediately attacked another nation, and had war weariness problems pretty quickly. It would be nice to know more about how that works (assuming it's a feature rather than a bug) so I can factor it into planning if similar situations arise in the future.

Nathan

Catt · July 15, 2002, 15:23

War weariness remains quite a mystery - I think one of the bigger mysteries of the game (now that culture flipping has gotten so much attention). I can't offer formulaic specifics, but can confirm the carryover effects and share a metaphor or two that helps me think about war weariness and react to it in the game.

Warning: In the following paragraph I am going to mix metaphors to no end.

I tend to think of war weariness as "funds" that accumulate in an "account." Each turn during a war, additional funds are added to the account - the exact amount of funds added each turn depends upon the primary war weariness factors: (1) enemy troops in your territory; (2) your troops in enemy territory; and (3) engaging in combat. At some point, the "account" reaches it's "boil-over point," and no matter the amount of happiness inducers, your civ will revolt. The "boil-over point" depends upon your form of government, the presence or absence of certain improvements (police stations and the Universal Suffrage GW), and whether or not you declared war or were the "innocent"

party.

One of the interesting factors concerning war weariness is what you're alluding to - the fact that the "account" isn't cleaned out upon peace. It gradually depletes during peacetime until the account balance is back to zero. Any new hostilities immediately stop the depletion and start the accumulation again. But the rate of depletion is a total unknown (at least as far as these forums and official game materials are concerned) -- my gameplay experience indicates that it is faster than the accumulation rate.

One other gameplay observation -- the "account" and "boil-over point" seem to be almost hard-coded variables -- rather than being a percentage of total population affected by war weariness, it seems to be that a huge, sprawling empire with lots of population will "boil over" much more quickly than a smaller empire (even when faced with the same basic war weariness factors like governemnt, police stations, etc.) -- just an observation from a limited number of experiences, but haven't seen anything to contradict this in my games.

Catt

Slightly OT: I like the boil-over imagery of a pot, but the metaphor of adding heat to a pot doesn't work for me on the accumulation side. Neither metaphor works well with the phenomenon of a happiness boost upon a declaration of war from an enemy -- the account "going negative?" My graditude to anyone who supplies me with a useful war weariness metaphor

.

Arrian · July 15, 2002, 15:32

I would like to know more about WW too. Perhaps a Firaxian will enlighten us?

-Arrian

jshelr · July 16, 2002, 11:47

Arrian wrote: One other gameplay observation -- the "account" and "boil-over point" seem to be almost hard-coded variables -- rather than being a percentage of total population affected by war weariness, it seems to be that a huge, sprawling empire with lots of population will "boil over" much more quickly than a smaller empire (even when faced with the same basic war weariness factors like governemnt, police stations, etc.) -- just an observation from a limited number of experiences, but haven't seen anything to contradict this in my games.

Large = bad from a weariness perspective appears to be true, but perhaps on an individual city basis rather than the sprawling nature of a large civ's total number of cities. (Just a guess.)

My latest game, in particular, suggests a benefit from staying size 12. I usually bypass nationalism and sanitation in my research path toward ToE. In my latest game, I was nearly as large as the other civs combined. No other civ researched sanitation into the modern era! So, I could not trade for it. I have universal sufferage, good lux, marketplaces, but few police stations. Bottom line: I've been a war the whole time and stayed in republic without any weariness problems appearing. I think it could be the relatively small cities that did the trick. But, as meantioned above, who can be sure.

Arrian · July 16, 2002, 12:53

Actually, Catt wrote that, but good observation about empire size. I can't say I've seen the same, though. I've had some pretty damn big empires, using republic or democracy, and blatantly attacked & destroyed AI's w/o much war weariness. The wars were over pretty quickly, though, and I had all sorts of wonders & luxuries.

I think the large city thing is just a function of the normal happiness factor in the game. Large cities are REALLY hard to keep happy. Therefore, WW will hit them hard. I only allow cities to cross size 20 if I'm trying to boost my score. So I think you're right - individual city size is more a factor than empire size (except perhaps when a huge empire means tons of corrupt cities you haven't necessarily fully developed...some cities may be lacking a colosseum or police station, which will mean WW kicks in sooner).

-Arrian

Catt · July 16, 2002, 14:19

My experience is slightly different. One older game in particular stands out in my memory. I had turned off cultural, diplomatic and spaceship victory, and was through the tech tree completely. Playing on a huge map, continents, Regent level (I think). I (Egypt), America, Aztecs and Rome were the only civs left standing in the modern age, and Rome was a 8 - 10 city vassal. My empire was about the size of Aztecs and America combined -- I'm guessing I had 150 cities (just a guess). Only my two cores (around Palace and FP) were above size 12 -- virtually the rest of the empire was stuck at size 6 or at 12 (this was before 1.21 and the toned-down corruption). Again a guess, but I think I only had about 30 cities above size 12. I was a democracy, had built Universal Suffrage, and my core cities had police stations (in addition to the usual happiness inducers plus 6 or 7 local luxuries). Someone declared war (maybe I did) and, we went at it. Because I had built nuclear plants in many of my core cities, I was carefully checking each cities population (through the domestic advisor screen) at the end of each turn. Without noting a single instance of disorder, and with at most one or two citizens per city moving from happy to either content or unhappy, my empire was overthrown! And this was about 5 turns into the war! (no nukes used, not even an abnormally large amount of combat).

This example (and others too) leads me to believe (but just a guess!) two things: (1) empires of many cities boil over more quickly, everything else being equal; and (2) happiness inducers do not combat war weariness - they merely mask it; in other words, with enough happiness factors, you won't see your cities, gradually adding to the "boil over" point -- you may go from quite happy to revolution.

An example of point 2 above (happiness masking versus combat), another example: Playing as Japanese, tiny map, continents (or archipelago), Monarch or Emperor, only me, Chinese and Perisans remain. I am the smallest of the three empires, and perhaps a touch behind in technology, but not by much. I have a well-developed albeit small empire, but can't recall if I built the US wonder. China sneak attacks my democracy, and I proceed to fight a long, defensive war, methodically whittling down huge stacks of Chinese infantry with artillery, infantry, and a few tanks (while I try to take some oil) -- I have no more than token force of a few infantry pillaging resources in Chinese terrotiry -- all the fighting is taking place on my soil. Nonetheless, I never lose a city, and am not losing many units - I am engaging in lots of combat. The war goes on for +/- 20 turns. My governors are managing moods, but I am still checking on city happiness at the end of each turn. About turn 17 or 18 of the war, without a single instance of disorder and with a significantly positive happy-to-unhappy citizen ratio, my empire is suddenly overthrown.

BTW, I tried to stimulate those more methodical than I to study WW, but didn't get many takers - see this thread.

I may still have the Japanese / Chinese example as a saved game if anybody is interested.

Catt

Arrian · July 16, 2002, 15:55

Quote:

This example (and others too) leads me to believe (but just a guess!) two things: (1) empires of many cities boil over more quickly, everything else being equal; and (2) happiness inducers do not combat war weariness - they merely mask it; in other words, with enough happiness factors, you won't see your cities, gradually adding to the "boil over" point -- you may go from quite happy to revolution.

(2) is kinda scary. I always thought that if you had a really happy civ, you could stave off WW longer. I have never had my government collapse. The worst WW-related episode was my Capitol blowing up (nuclear plant) due to WW-induced rioting. That was a while ago.

-Arrian

Catt · July 16, 2002, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

(2) is kinda scary. I always thought that if you had a really happy civ, you could stave off WW longer. I have never had my government collapse. The worst WW-related episode was my Capitol blowing up (nuclear plant) due to WW-induced rioting. That was a while ago.

Yeah - I think I overstated my intended point in my original post -- I think (but don't know) that a happy civ does stave off war weariness much better than an unhappy civ. What I meant to say is that no amount of happiness can prevent the accumulation and "boil over" of war weariness -- it may take longer to reach with an extremely happy civ (slower accumulation), but it will happen eventually. And (more in line with my original statement), I know for a fact that an outwardly happy civ can suddenly revolt without warning -- so happiness does have a "masking effect" even if it doesn't radically slow the accumulation rate.

I'd love a little more guidance from Firaxis on WW - I don't necessarily need an algorithm, but, when playing a non-religious civ, it sure would be nice to have a ball-park guess on the ol' accumulation meter. It would definitely alter my strategy - for one thing, I would be far more likely to break a military alliance and make peace if I knew WW was just around the corner; for another thing, I would refrain from doing what Nathan did (which started this thread) in certain circumstances.

Catt

HazieDaVampire · July 17, 2002, 05:33

so, if your in a government with no WW, and you've been at war for ages, you get peace, change to republic, declare war again, the people are now effected by WW from this new war, and the old one?

Arrian · July 17, 2002, 09:52

Good question. I would think that goverments with no war weariness would prevent an increase in your WW level. In other words, if you were always a Despot or Monarch, but switched late in the game to Republic, you should have 0 WW built up. I'm not entirely sure about this, though. Whenever I've switched from "war" governments to "peace" governments, I have then had a LONG period of peace.

-Arrian

nbarclay · July 17, 2002, 15:53

In my case, I started the war as a Republic, switched to Monarchy a little bit into it as war weariness started to become a problem, and then switched back to Republic after the war was over. I don't know how it would have affected things if I'd been in Monarchy when the first war started.

Incidentally, the "carryover" effect is very possibly something they snuck in in one of the patches. In an early game on the first patch, I was deep into a war when I tried my one and only experiment with communism. When I immediately switched back to Democracy after seeing how bad communism is for a civ that cares about research, the happiness problems I'd been facing weren't there anymore. It's probably better that you can't do one-turn government flips to get rid of war weariness (especially with the advantage that would give religious civs), but massive war weariness after ten turns or so of peace is a bit much.
Of course it's also possible that the situation I ran into is some sort of bug.

Nathan

Arrian · July 17, 2002, 16:41

Based upon my experience, I don't think you accumulate any WW while in despot/monarchy/commie. Playing as Japan, I often go despot -> republic while still mopping up my continent. WW will eventually kick in, but if it accumulated from the beginning, it would immediately "boil over" and bring down my republic.

-Arrian

Catt · July 17, 2002, 23:04

Nathan & Arrian - I think my experiences are the same as yours -- I have tried the one turn governement switch with a religious civ (WW anarchy - switch to Monarchy - switch back to Democracy) -- hello instant anarchy! OTOH, I seem to recall warring extensively while a despot, and switching to Republic when I was confident that the war would end in 4 or 5 turns -- no instant anarchy.

Catt

Theseus · July 20, 2002, 12:42

I'm an idiot... I knew there was 'something' we needed to know more about, and I forgot to ask on the chat.

If any Firaxians see this, please take pity, and enlighten us on warweariness.

Slax · August 23, 2002, 23:46

Like to revive this thread to see if anyone has any new war weariness info....

Killerdaffy · August 25, 2002, 17:44

Nothing new, just more questions:

Is there a difference in the happiness bonus when attacked depending on the government type? Does it matter whether you fight your old arch-enemy or betray your long-time ally?

bongo · August 27, 2002, 09:14

No big news but I can confirm that the one-turn(more like 5 turns of mon. actually) government switch(Demo->Mon->Demo) possible with religious tribes does NOT remove WW in patch 1.29f.

Just had to try it 8-)

Slitghtly OT. I'm just about the only civ left on the planet that hasn't got nationalism, which is also the reason that I don't stop the war against the evil americans. But they are real stubborn and refuse to give it to me. They rahter have me eat them alive than give me that tech for peace. Why's that?

Arrian · August 27, 2002, 10:15

How many times have you been at war with America? If you have beaten on them before, they are less likely to give up tech for peace. It's like a vendetta.

-Arrian

dac · August 27, 2002, 10:47

Arrian:

Ack! Are you kidding!!?? How long has this been known? I just had a war with France for the specific purpose of getting some technology. (My third with her for that purpose, I think). I eventually had to give it up lest WW topple my Buddhist Democracy.

.

Oh, I guess there was that little issue of an oil patch that I grabbed, but I was mostly after tech.

So, this makes the vassal strategy make more sense. If you leave an empire powerful enough to think it is somewhat equal, it will fight long and hard to avoid giving tech?

Anybody have any thoughts as to whether getting another Civ to declare war on you by planting spies (all I use them for) counts as you declaring war, or the AI declaring war. I know who started the war makes a big difference in calculating WW.

Thanks
dac

Solver · August 27, 2002, 13:34

WW seems to always reach the boil-points in strange fashion. Like, I'm fighting the war, from my Democracy, posess lots of luxuries, everything seems OK, then one turn 80% of empire goes into disorder... I use the entertainment slider and cotninue the war till again another point is reached where half the empire is in disorder again...

bongo · August 28, 2002, 06:32

Arrian: It's the second war i've started against them so it's not unlikely that they don't trust me.

Arrian & dac: I've just read that catching up in tech have been made more expensive in the latest patch(1.29f). I discovered steam power just after I made peace with the americans but they still wasn't interested in an exchange. None of the other nations were either. The best offer came from japan who wanted steam+1020g+world map for nationalism.

I'm back at democracy now and WW is nil. I'm still at war with two other nations but there are little war going on so my guess is that being in a state of war does NOT impact WW. At least not much.

:-( Grmpff! Had to whip myself with a wet towel when I found that I failed to notice a source of luxury in an american city close to the front-line until AFTER peace was made.

XOR · August 30, 2002, 12:10

One thing, signing peace treaties lessens WW. I'm not sure if it resets or reduces the boiling point thing, I just know it lessens the WW. It does not matter if you were fighting a war with A, then sign a treaty with B. Peace treaties can be used to lessen War Weariness.

Question: Who is considered as declaring the war when a mutual protection pact forces you to declare war on someone? I never attack people, but I get into mutual protection pact and let the AI do the job of finding an enemy for me, I have found that Monarchy and Communist civs are specially effective at this.

bongo · September 2, 2002, 03:41

I've noticed that a peace treaty reduces WW. I'm not sure if it resets WW or just temporarly suspend it.

My guess is that declaring a war over a MPP count as you declaring it. In my current game I had to declare war towards the russians when they attacked the chinese(whom with I have a MPP). I had made peace with the russians 4 turns earlier and made a quick revolution to democracy. No WW as I had peace with the world. When the russians attacked the chinese-> massive unhappiness and rioting all over my empire.

BTW, how can I end a MPP? Hopefully in a peaceful manner. I need to speed up my research rate and communism is no good for that.

bbaws · September 7, 2002, 07:26

Apologies if someone mentioned this but there is a very simple way to reduce war weariness.

Don't let your units die!

Be really carefull with your forces and note the difference. On monarch level I was constantly at war for at least 60 turns. Admitedly it was overseas so the AI was rarely on my continent. Also because it was overseas and the only transports I had were galleys I had to be super conservative with my units. I was only capturing an enemy city maybe every 3 or four turns but the care I took of my units translated into inconsequential WW. As Patton says "Let the other guy die for his country". All those funerals are whats causing the unhappiness, or is that just too obvious?

bongo · September 9, 2002, 13:29

bbaws: If you are right this will totally change my warfare. I'll have to stop using obsolete units as cannonfodder and rather build armies by the bucketload.

Too obious for me

Catt · September 9, 2002, 13:43

I tried to do some playtesting on WW, but it demands too much time and attention - not worth it to me. Nonetheless, just based on gameplay experience, I don't see a whole lot different from the game than what the manual tells us to expect as causes of war weariness: (1) enemy troops in your territory; (2) your troops in enemy territory; and (3) engaging in combat.

I can't say I've seen any notable differences in WW whether lots of my units die or not, but the number of variables involved in WW seems pretty daunting to isolate -- while I haven't seen it, it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to learn that units dying actually "count" more in the WW "account" than mere units in combat.

Catt

bongo · September 10, 2002, 09:55

Catt: You're right. Testing takes too much time to be worthwhile. If my girlfriend dumps me and I loose my job at the same time I may go for some serious WW-playtesting

Until that happens(I hope it don't) I play like usual and just keep a close eye to WW and gameplay. Any conclusion will be based on my observations.

I've tried to minimize my losses and it seems to slow down the accumulation of WW. Even stop it if I'm careful. It won't go down though.

It also seems that WW accumulates on a per-tribe basis -> If I am WW-challenged because of heavy fighting with the chinese a peace-treaty with the japanese won't help me much.

Meldor · September 11, 2002, 10:56

I play in a lot of the SG games at CFC and have just finished one on the world map domination, staying in Republic for almost the entire game and no problems with WW. Some observations from my play:

You seem to have a seperate WW "pool" for each Civ. If you are engaged in a large multi-civ war, killing off or signing peace with a civ cn remove a lot of the total WW. Exampe: in one of the games I am currently playing, we were at war with 3 different Civs, Japan, Russia, and Egypt. Russia was down to a single city, Japan had only three, and the Egyptians were still kicking strong. I conquered the Japanese and about 10% of my cities went into WLT?D. Two turns later, the Russians were gone (there last city was hidden behind some size 24+ Egyptian cities), more of mine went into WLT?D. This was the case, even though we were still in a pitched battle for the Egyptian territory.

Which brings me to the second observation: The number of citizens of the AI you have in captured cities, seems to make a big differnce in WW for you. These citizens, even when quelled tend to have a lot more WW than one of your own. In the above case, as I was MM'ing the captured cities to prevent flip, I noticed that the percentage of WW caused unhappy people was higher in captured cities even though they had been under my rule for a long time (through earlier conquest). Once the Civ in question was eliminated, these people instantly assumed the same attitude as teh general population, and the drop in WW was felt throughout the empire. If you stop a war, these foriegn citizens, take longer to get over WW and if war is restarted, they are quicker to become unhappy.

One would think that razing AI cities would boost your WW, as your citizens are unhappy with genocide tactics, but I have found that due to the above problem, it is better for WW (and flipping) to raze and re-build or quickly bleed off the populace if you need to keep the city. This may be the problem some of you have seen in your large empires. Check to see if your citizens are foriegn nationals. If a citizen is a member of a foriegn group, it stays that way for the rest of the game, even if the Civ in question is eliminated. After, your third war with a given Civ, you may have a number of your cities in your large empire that are native to the Civ you are attacking and this may speed your decline into WW.

jabberwockysr · September 11, 2002, 12:27

Foreign nationals do eventually convert to your empire. The percentage chance is based on gov't and can be modded. I think it's 4% per turn for dem, 2 for mon, rep and comm, and 1 for desp and anarchy, but I'd have to check.

At that rate they remember nationality for about an age, but it's not forever.

XOR · September 11, 2002, 13:41

I would like to know how much difference does it make to WW to be republic instead of democracy.

I've had a war that lasted like 100 turns because I forgot I was at war and my enemy didnt even remind me by attacking or contacting me to sign peace. During that war, I had no war weariness. That was in democracy.