 |
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
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
Last edited by nbarclay on 16-07-2002 at 08:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
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  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jshelr
|
 |
pittsburgh
Apr 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
|
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bbaws
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Meldor
|
|
Houston, Texas
Dec 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
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
|
|
Flint, Unfortunately
Aug 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-07-2002 23:22
|