14-03-2002 23:08									#1
	Freakin war weariness!! Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

How many turns can I go to war on Democracy?? I declared war on the americans for the second time ( to finish what I started) and it took me 3 turns to kill off the last 6 American cities. After 2 turns only more than half of my cities were in civil disorder and the reason was "give peace a chance". Why? Isn't it supposed to be like 10 to 15 turns? What did I do wrong?

Spec.

	14-03-2002 23:10									#2
	Suffering from ads?

How long between the two wars? War weariness does not reset for a while.

	14-03-2002 23:12									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

If you are the aggressor, war weariness starts on turn one. One way to be seen as the defender is to move some weak units into their territory and refuse to leave. When they attack you get the defender status. If the enemy is too weak to counter attack this does not work.

Otherwise, stay in Republic. The only benefits of Democracy are faster workers to build railroads, and slightly (very slightly) less corruption (like one more tile of range). War Weariness is much less in Republic. I go as far as saying stay out of Mutual Protection Pacts as a Democracy. The war weariness danger is huge and can topple your government when you can not get out of a war that you do not want to be in.

	14-03-2002 23:24									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I declare war all of the time... I don't care what other civs think about me, and as I've seen no analysis of how much it adds to war weariness, I can only anecdotally observe that the impact is minimal.

Additionally, you need to really focus on happiness. I find that if I have accomplished the following by the time I change to democracy (or soon thereafter), I can stay at war for a loooong time, if not indefinitely:
- 10 to 20% allocated to happiness
- At least 3 luxuries
- Temples
- Cathedrals
- Marketplaces
- JS Bach and / or Sistine Chapel

Also, I let the city governor manage mood by default (that's the only thing I use the governor for), so I never have cities go into civil disorder.

If I do get to the point where war weariness has caused the city governor to allocate too many entertainers, thus significantly hurting productivity, I will try to achieve peace with all civs, and let things cool off for 10-15 turns.

Then, ATTACK.

R

	14-03-2002 23:25									#5
	Republic vs democracy Tired of ads?

Which between Republic and democracy gives the more money and is faster to research techs? Isn't it Democracy?

	14-03-2002 23:35									#6
	Re: Republic vs democracy Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Spectator Which between Republic and democracy gives the more money and is faster to research techs? Isn't it Democracy?

There is no difference in gold or research, both get the same bonus. Democracy has 50% faster workers to build railroads, and a slim difference in corruption, but has much higher war weariness. For most players Republic is fine, especially if a player has to face several turns of Anarchy to change over from Republic. The benefits of Democracy are tiny compared to the costs of four or more turns of anarchy and the increased war weariness.

	14-03-2002 23:36									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

There was an interesting thread (it might have been at civfanatics) that compared science and money production with all the goverments. As I recall the differences were very small between Republic and Democracy. I've stopped bothering to research that line and dont switch anymore.

	14-03-2002 23:37									#8
	Re: Re: Republic vs democracy Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by BillChin There is no difference in gold or research, both get the same bonus. Democracy has 50% faster workers to build railroads, and a slim difference in corruption, but has much higher war weariness. For most players Republic is fine, especially if a player has to face several turns of Anarchy to change over from Republic. The benefits of Democracy are tiny compared to the costs of four or more turns of anarchy and the increased war weariness.

I agree. Republic is the superior government in CIV3.

	14-03-2002 23:53									#9
	Tired of ads?

To be a bit specific to the original question, when you are the aggressor, your people will start being unhappy turn 1 or 2. If you did not start the war, you will get a longer grace period.

Also, the more units you pile up in your enemy's territory, the more unhappy your people get. I'm not sure if taking/razing cities factors in, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

If you are fighting a defensive war & your units are all stationed at home, you can probably stay at war for many turns without much war weariness, if any.

I think BillChin adequately answered your 2nd question. In my experience, I think the extent of Republic's war weariness seems to be about half of democracy's. i.e. Half as many people complain about the war, double # turns until war weariness kicks in, etc...

	15-03-2002 04:57									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Quick question: does anybody know if war weariness depends on how heavy your losses are? If not, I think it ought too.
It could even depend on enemy losses, although much less so, since nobody in a democracy likes to see a really bloody war, even if it's the enemy's blood.

	15-03-2002 13:12									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wjousts Quick question: does anybody know if war weariness depends on how heavy your losses are? If not, I think it ought too. It could even depend on enemy losses, although much less so, since nobody in a democracy likes to see a really bloody war, even if it's the enemy's blood.

This is all anecdotal, but victories and defeat on the battlefield seem to have a big impact. Losing a city or a stack of units really seems to ratchet up the war weariness. Capturing an enemy city seems to cheer folks up. Capturing the enemy capital seems to help even more. I haven't figured out if razing enemy cities has a big effect one way or another. My opinion is that Firaxis did a pretty good job linking combat results to war weariness, kudos to Firaxis. (I slam them enough on other issues (corruption, navies), so when praise is due, I give it.)

	15-03-2002 13:26									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It has been my experience that as a militaristic civ, citizens are made happier when a i start a war. Unexplainable WLTKD's at the start of the war. The WW also takes longer to kick in.

	15-03-2002 13:30									#13
	Put an end to popups!

I'd have to say that Razing can have a significant impact. I can find no other explanation for my current game.

At Emperor. Went to war with Aztechs late. Difficulty bonus for AI, as well as rich homeland meant they were well ahead of me culturally. Razed their 5 best cities including their capital within 10 turns of the wars start. Funny, after their capital, my Republican citizens are 40% saying *Give Peace a Chance*

I think cultural value of the Razed city may be having an impact. Either that or the relative total cultural value of civs. I can't figure it out any other way. Did they kick WW effects of Razing up in 1.17f to counter players Razing instead of risking flips? It seems like it to me.

Meanwhile, soldiering on, I've nearly completed the colonization of the Aztec basin. After that... I'm unstopable. Hahahaha.

Salve

PS. Playing Rome (did you need to guess?). Militaristic and within 10 turns my capital is turing to WW goo.

	15-03-2002 13:43									#14
	Suffering from ads?

Just read this thread and keeping in mind the thread a while back comparing the diff. governments, is there a point to ever change from republic?

I used to be a monarchy, then go for republic and then democracy (really like the faster workers). But based on the comparison thread, I ignore monarchy[1] and beeline straight for republic.
This thread made me think: should I ever switch to democracy? I hadn't really thought about it. I guess I assumed I would change eventually. Now I'm thinking: why?
Basically there are two advantages: faster workers (also good for cleaning up pollution) and immunity from propaganda and this one is definately weak.
Is this worth it? Is there another reason? Does civIII basically only have one government?

Robert


[1] Still haven't got it in my current game and the ^&$%#%^ Ai keeps offering it.

	15-03-2002 14:01									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by kailhun Just read this thread and keeping in mind the thread a while back comparing the diff. governments, is there a point to ever change from republic?

Only for the faster workers if you are a religious civ. May see a little extra cash, but not much.

	15-03-2002 17:22									#16
	Support Apolyton

Unfortunately, I dont find any reasons to use any other government anymore. I'm despot until republic. I save all the down time while switching govs and I can still fight wars when necessary. Its funny about the WLTK. I 'm playing Babalonians and Japan just started a world war. A number of my cities pop up with WLTK. So its not just militaristic civs where it happens.

	16-03-2002 03:55									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by kailhun Does civIII basically only have one government?

Not at all. My argument is this. There are 6 victory conditions. In which govts can you achieve which ones? Assuming you could win diplomatically, culturally, or histographically in any form of govt:

Democracy & Republic: Space (easier)

Monarchy: Space, conquest, domination.

Communism: Space (tougher), conquest, domination.


While victory conditions can be met by any govt theoretically, I would imagine conquest pretty tough to be settled in a Democracy.

I agree with the posts here that the Republic->Democracy switch is usually not worth it. However, you still might want to switch to Democracy from anything else to maintain the victory conditions you achieved in the other form of govt.