10-01-2002 12:12									#1
	Positive and Disturbing Trends Get a bigger avatar today!

Playing in Monarch as the Romans on a huge map with (once 16 now) 6 civs. I've had probably more fun playing this particular game than any I can remember (though there was this one time in Civ II.... ). There have been a couple fantastic things that've happened that are pretty much totally unique to me. There's also been some stuff that I'm really not okay with.

POSITIVES

Didn't get the GL, didn't get the Pyramids, but enjoy - and have enjoyed - a sizable lead over the AI for a vast majority of the game. On the F7 key, it takes a while to get to a Roman Wonder, but entering into the late Industrial Age it's just a sea of red from there on. Beautiful. Beautiful.

The AI is tenacious and seeks to overwhelm. For seven turns or so the Egyptians sent massive amounts of cavalry and knights against little old harmless Aureolionorum after I had declared war on them to gain an Iron resource and an Ivory luxury. I was successful, they were not - but I had never before seen such a determined siege. Really impressed.

Many, many centuries later, the Egyptians (still peeved, I guess) declare unprovoked war on me. They do so by massing no fewer than 58 cavalry around little old harmless Cologne. (At this point in the game, I am statistically in the lead, with Cleo's gang a close second and the Greeks number 3.) To make a long story short, the next turn they turned tail and fled back to Egypt with 16 *wounded* units, not ever having attacked Cologne at all...but I was happy (in the aftermath) to see the AI bring-it with such gusto. Indeed, this pattern would repeat itself over and over again. The next turn the Greeks joined the cause against me and did the *exact same thing*, this time grouping nearly 65 units around little old harmless Ashur on the other end of my empire. I was successful, they were not, and ultimately I crippled, fractured, and otherwise belittled the Egyptians.

These are the only positives to speak of. The coordination and power of their attacks, and the fact that you can still win even if you miss out on the GL or the Pyramids - the latter, undoubtedly, being old hat for some of you wizards.

NEGATIVES

Now to the really fun part.

The last time Rome declared war against a civilization without provocation I was probably monarchy, or something, and it would have been literally ages ago and we were a neat little civ fighting for dear life against, alternately, the British, the French, the Babylonians and the Egyptians. The landscape now in the early 20th century is absolutely littered with the ruins of civs who attacked me. I have been a pacifist whom, when roused, inflicts the fury and wrath of All Mighty God on my foe. The point being, of course, that I haven't been a war monger. And yet, at probably the most dire junction of Roman history, as I defended against massive Greek and Egyptian incursion, my lousy-ass citizens ousted my gov't and threw me into anarchy.

6 turns with my city factories lying dormant and literally hundreds of enemy units knocking at the door. I was a democracy, of course, so perhaps I had it coming...but of course I *didn't* have it coming, because *I* didn't declare war.

This has continued. The war weariness is simply too much to bear. I've got Universal Suffrage and police stations out the yin-yang. I am attacked by aggressors for no good reason and yet am forced to up my luxury level so severely that, when at war, I have given up on research completely. I have recently been attacked by the Japanese and the Greeks, in alliance, and there is yet more egregious massing of troops, and half of the 89 cities in my empire just went into civil disorder.

All I can say is: "It's not my fault! They told me they fixed it!"

...ah hell, I can't remember what the other negatives were. Must not have been that bad.

	10-01-2002 13:44									#2
	Tired of ads?

I agree, it sux. But on the other hand...

Should Democracy be a friend of Caesar when he needs to make war? Surely not. If yes then there is nothing holding Caesar back from total world domination in short order. A good thing IMHO, if one wishes a challenge.

Alas, Communism is Caesar's only true friend when at war.

This is as it should be. Caesar is not wed to any political system. Caesar is wed to his own, and Rome's success. In Peace Caesar may be democratic and encourage the sciences. In war, Caesar must look to the security of the empire. A more, shall we say, centralized government is better suited to this.

Ahem... I agree it is distasteful to many in the West, however I appreciate the differentiation of government strengths and weaknesses.

Salve

	10-01-2002 22:49									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Did you put as many citizen on entertainer as needed? That gets me out of disorder. Sometimes I have to put so many that the city starves, but that is ok, it will recover.

	10-01-2002 23:43									#4
	managing city disorder Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Yes, I can fix each city on a per-turn basis, but as the wars continue (even if I try and end them) my peeps just get more and more pissed off. It's an accumulating kind of thing, see...and what worries me most of all is the possibility of being thrust into anarchy with no warning - which is what happened to me earlier.

notyoueither - I agree that communism is the best war gov't...that's irrefutable. But Rome requires six turns of anarchy to choose another government, and I certainly don't want to be a peacetime communist civ. Meaning that changing horses in midstream would require a full 12 turns of anarchy to combat war weariness and then get back to democracy. I can't bring myself to start that cycle, especially when peace may be right around the corner...right?

	11-01-2002 04:22									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

That is the reason I prefer to play Industious and Religous civs or get to Rep and stay there.

	11-01-2002 04:44									#6
	Re: managing city disorder Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by KLIN-TONN Rome requires six turns of anarchy to choose another government, and I certainly don't want to be a peacetime communist civ. Meaning that changing horses in midstream would require a full 12 turns of anarchy to combat war weariness and then get back to democracy. I can't bring myself to start that cycle, especially when peace may be right around the corner...right?

I'm still experimenting with the different Civ qualities, but Religion is the only must have attribute. The above quote a perfect example of the absolute strength of the Religion attribute. If you change governments only twice (Despot-Republic-Democracy) then Religion 'pays' for itself in the lack of anarchy. I played one game as a non-religious civ and after the first anarchy period realized I would never bother with any other type.

	11-01-2002 07:01									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

My sentiments exactly regarding Religious attribute, especially when that long drawn out war in the industial era happens and a switch to communism without prolonged anarchy is called for. Of course, I like to play the non-Religous civs for the challenge and other reasons.

If fighting with Democracy, I crank up luxuries to about 30% when attacked on my homeland and about 40% if I instigate a foreign war. Keep the wars short (battles).

Setting the governor button to manage moods in all cities is probably a good idea, but it doesn't always work to prevent unrest. I think a patch could improve this so that it always prevents unrest. Maybe the governor prefers unrest to starvation, in which case, we have to remove the governor. Unfortunate, since this can require too much micromanagement (checking each city each turn to see if they are going to revolt next turn and left clicking on center tile to balance the happy/unhappy quotient). That could put a crimp on my battle fervor.

	11-01-2002 09:33									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm a bit confused. Why is it so unrealistic that you get war weariness when some other schmock attacks you? You *are* in war if you started it or someone else started it. War is war. I'd be just as mad if MY country engaged war as if ANOTHER country engaged war on ME!?

Do you think people would say: "Of course our sons get killed in war but since we didn't start it it is perfectly OK" ?

Achnor

	11-01-2002 11:13									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well you were on solid ground when you said we would be unhappy regardless of who started it. You lose me when you over look the large amount of solidaryness that occurs when one is attacked. In other words weariness should not start nearly as soon if they initiate the war. How much tolerence depends on the country. Highest might be for Japan.

	11-01-2002 11:41									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

What is solidarity? Is the degree of solidarity proportional to the amount of distress you are willing to accept before 'nough is 'nough? I think it is, at least I think it is applicable to this situation. So yes, I agree with you that the war-weariness-rate should be lower if you are attacked than if you are the attacker. But we agree on the presence of war weariness and that is good

Is this perhaps a possible fix for the next patch? I don't see how difficult it could be. If 100% corresponds to todays war weariness rate, just applying a modifiervalue of say 0,3 ( = 30% of the rate if you attack yourself) whenever you are attacked could make it more realistic.

What do you think?

Achnor

	11-01-2002 12:12									#11
	bottom lime, achnor Put an end to popups!

If another civ attacks me, unprovoked, I'm pretty pissed when 47 of my cities go into disorder on THE NEXT TURN.

It's one thing if I've got the war good and won and am just taking cities for the helluvit. It's another thing if they've sent 100 units into my land, taken one of my cities and stolen a goodly percentage of my workers all in one turn and my people are wining at me about "give peace a chance" - especially when the attacking civ refuses my envoy.

That's all I'm saying.

	11-01-2002 12:54									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That is a very unrealistic part of the game that needs to changed:

Foreign army attacks you and your people go into riot?? Gawd!
If America lost a city to a foreign invader the entire US population would be mobilized for WAR within minutes!

Heck. Any modern day democracy that is attacked from nowhere would have their entire population crying for a full scale war, not rioting for peace.

	11-01-2002 13:59									#13
	Suffering from ads?

preeeeeeecisely.

	11-01-2002 14:43									#14
	Put an end to popups!

Are you sure you didn't loose some Luxuries, from Trade, when they declared war? That's what it sounds like if you had so many in unrest in 1 turn.

Salve

	11-01-2002 17:04									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Also, perhaps your new war came very closely to previous defensive wars. War weariness accumulates, and takes time in peace to wear off. So if you are at war and have 50% war weariness, then go to peace, and then back at war again the following turn, your war weariness will be back at 50% immediately.

	11-01-2002 20:24									#16
	Managing Disorder Caused by Growth Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Shaka II Setting the governor button to manage moods in all cities is probably a good idea, but it doesn't always work to prevent unrest. I think a patch could improve this so that it always prevents unrest. Maybe the governor prefers unrest to starvation, in which case, we have to remove the governor. Unfortunate, since this can require too much micromanagement (checking each city each turn to see if they are going to revolt next turn and left clicking on center tile to balance the happy/unhappy quotient). That could put a crimp on my battle fervor.

What I have found to work reasonably well is to look across the map and check into each city that is going to grow at the end of that turn. Only cities that grow are suddenly thrown into civil disorder, unless something else is producing unhappiness, like war-weariness or a loss of luxury resources. I suppose this method wouldn't work as well when at war and using a representative government, though. Maybe that's why the governor sometimes fails to prevent civil disorder?

	12-01-2002 00:05									#17
	Got spare money?

I am not sure how it should work, but to me if we are at war and winning handily (can you say Gulf war) the people are not going to be unhappy. If it is going poorly then people will be inclined to be unhappy, unless they feel it is justified. Those factors need to be considered. In games where I have war delcared on me by a civ that I have no close contact, it is less of an impact than a border civ that sends troops right away. A more complex rule needs to be used to govern the war factor. It needs to consider who started the war and the relative strengths. If we are bashing them, very few will be distressed. The longer it goes on though, the less tolerant they will be. Maybe a slider as you suggest can be used or more turns required to trigger unhappiness if they started and we are winning, and a reduce time to recover if we win. I think we got over the Gulf War very quickly. WWII took a lot more time, some never got over it.

	12-01-2002 05:35									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

JohnE,

You are definitely right about the population increment causing unrest. I've noticed that before, mainly during peace (and always too late). I suppose the effect is more pronounced during war, I just never correlated the two.

I will keep a more watchful eye on pop growth (especially during war), but hope for some improvement in the governor performance down the road. I am sort of a micromanagement type player, playing mostly on normal size maps, but at some level, you have to let go and let the governor help out.

	12-01-2002 09:53									#19
	Got spare money?

notyoueither - no, I didn't lose any luxuries due to the war. The reason they went into unrest so quickly and on such a large scale is exactly what skanky burns said: it was the accumulation of war. But I don't have a frigging choice! They declare war on me, I try and make peace with them all the time, but they refuse my envoy.

I had heard that the problem of war weariness is less severe when another Civ attacks you, but so far in the game the French, English, Egyptians, Greeks, Germans, Japanese and Greeks (again) have all declared war against me consecutively, and my people are just sick of being attacked. Still, there's nothing I can do.

	12-01-2002 14:06									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by KLIN-TONN Still, there's nothing I can do.

Except get fond of being called comrade...

Salve

	13-01-2002 07:04									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If you have plenty of money, and want to use that to rush-buy things, Monarchy is not a bad choice as opposed to Communism. Both avoid war weariness.

Perhaps the thought of 6 turns anarchy isnt such a nice one for you klin-tonn (as you stated below )
Well, check your military advisor (F3) screen and see what he says about your strength vs other nations. Chances are your military is considered weaker than theirs as the other civs keep declaring war on you. Remember that military power only considers numbers of units, not their quality. To get the other nations respecting your civ, you need to increase the number of military units you control. I would even consider mobilization to really start pumping out more military, and the mobilization would end soon as

quote: peace may be right around the corner...right?

Conscription in some cities will also boost your military ranking, but of course that action would also increase unhappiness in your cities which is the problem in the first place

	13-01-2002 15:30									#22
	Skanky Increase Your PM Length

I am superior to every other Civ in the game when it comes to armed forces. Granted, my military advisor doesn't say that our military is strong in comparison to any others'...but the worst he says is that we have "an average military" compared to theirs'. Surveying the situation closer (I have spies with all my enemies) I see that I clearly have the advantage. I've got battleships where they've got Ironclad. I've got more bombers. I've got 45 mech infantry and 45 regular infantry and they've got 114 regular infantry. (this is just an example - I don't know the exact numbers)

I had figured that the reason every Civ in this game has been FURIOUS at me for almost the entire time and has been declaring war at me CONSTANTLY is that it is the first game in Monarch I've played successfully...in other words, I figured it was just a part of the game as the difficulty level advanced. There is, otherwise, absolutely no reason for everyone to be so pissed off at me all the time.

	13-01-2002 23:19									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The fact that you are ranked ahead of them can be a reason to be mad at you. Many factors can be at play such as a disposition to dislke your race or form of government. Having things they want such as lux or tech. Not trading with them, the list is quite long. If you have every razed one of their cities.

	14-01-2002 23:19									#24
	Suffering from ads?

One game, I had a similiar experience to you, only I was Zulus and only Russia was doing the attacking (for the entire damn game). At any time, my city garrison units generally out-numbered her entire army 3-1 but I had few offensive units. I learnt that it's not your ability to defend that stops them from attacking, it's your ability to 'retaliate'. Meaning, you must have more offensive units than them to prevent them from starting an unprovoked war.

Last game I played (as Japan), I kept my garrisons to 3 per city, but I had a large number of offensive units. Every one was nice to me right up until I sided with Rome against the rest of the map.

That was the most fun game so far with the Zulus doing something to put them in 1st place in the "Most stupid move" contest. During the above war, I had about 30 or so battleships and aegis cruisers all parked close to each other off my coast where I was coordinating them into battlegroups with carriers. During one turn's processing, the Zulus sailed an ironclad into the middle of them. I could almost imagine the sign on the side saying "Sink me".

	15-01-2002 11:21									#25
	war weariness - the long road ahead Support Apolyton

Here's my take on war weariness from example -
Playing the Romans, huge map, 16 civs, in Republic ever since I was able to switch (no, I can't break out of some of my civII habits yet! ). My first war wasn't until 1870. Then I attacked the Chinese around 1970, and then fought a three front battle in 2008. Only until the very end of the third war did I have war weariness problems, and I believe it was due to the fact that the war was going on 20+ years.

Why did I have no problems? First off, I attribute it to the years of non-aggression. Since I wasn't very war mongering early in the game, the other civs didn't seem to be either (notice how if you war early on, they're more likely to follow your act - and the same if you're peaceful) - there were skirmishes for land, but never between myself and another civ. A huge plus in being able to extend wars in the later years.

Secondly, Access to luxuries, and *lots* of them. One thing that kept my 3 war front from my civ collapsing upon itself was that I had (both by force and by trade) acquired 9 luxury resources. Other than that, I didn't set my tax slider to increase luxuries, nor did I mess with the standard setup for each city.

Is there any possibility that total war (meaning even wars you aren't involved in) affect your war weariness when you enter into a battle? It makes sense, in as such that your civilization is happy as long as you aren't like the other civs - always fighting - but when you finally do decide to fight, they want out, and want out quick, whether you were attacked or not. Just a thought.

I know sometimes though games can't be as perfect as my last turned out - so many times I see a nearby civ, and have to take them on because they're taking *my* land! How dare they?!

Anyway, hope this helps, or at least brings up another question to answer.

Keep enjoying Civ3!

-Rflagg.

	23-01-2002 19:50									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I very seldom have problems with war weariness. In fact I often experience an increase in happiness when I am attacked (just as the book says). The bonus often lasts about 16 turns.

I switch to Republic / Democracy as soon as posible. So most of my wars are fought under one of these two governments. I have never used Communism.

I seldom start wars. It is usually very easy to get them to attack me.

When I don't want war, I prevent it by giving others good deals on trade. It also helps to sell luxuries cheep. If they go to war with me they loose the luxuries. Most civs that go to war with me have a lot of rioting cities for most of the war. When they don't have rioting cities it seems to take longer to get them to the peace table.

It also seems that if I sit back and defend, then they won't accept my envoy. If I defeat many of thier troups and/or take thier cities quickly, they are faster to want peace.

I induce other civs to attack me by keeping my number of military units lower than thiers. I win wars by having superior military units. My mix varies with circumstances. I usually have an abundance of fast units (which happen to be offensive) with some good defensive units to protect the injured that retreat from battle. I use terrain to my advantage to adjust the odds. It helps if I can arrange a situation where my retreating unit will end up where it will not be attaced a second time before I have a chance to remove it to safe teritory.

I use the fast units to attack the hords coming across my border. When the hords die off then I retaliate quickly. The AI usually keeps two defensive units per city with one or two offensive. It usually doesn't take much to take thier cites after the hords are gone. When I attack them early I find thier cities are better defended.

Another tactic for short wars (20 turns) is to enlist an ally in a military alliance as soon as I am attacked. This often takes the heat off me. This is especially effective if the ally is between us. War is usually declared on me with thier units on my boarder. When my ally joins the fray, my attacker takes my ally's boarder cities which I then 'recover' from our mutual enemy. I thus have gained cities from 'friends' with out having a war with them. I have a happiness bonus for a while, then when the 20 turns of alliance ends, I accept peace from the enemy (at good terms for me). The other two usually continue to fight for a while.

I find most of the rules reasonable and like finding ways to turn them to my advantage. I am still finding new ways to do this. It is part of what I find fun in Civ3.

Have a Terrific day!

	24-01-2002 22:45									#27
	Re: Positive and Disturbing Trends Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by KLIN-TONN All I can say is: "It's not my fault! They told me they fixed it!"

Ok there Solo , ease in there, remember this saying everytime you play: Its only a game... Its only a game... Its only a game... Oh frig it, I'll nuke you all to HELL!!!!

[Push Nuke Button] [\Push Nuke Button]