Venger, I feel your pain

[Venger]

Re: No sense

Originally posted by GePap
D4everman
Something must be wrong since according to the manual (how often is it wrong?) having war declared on you decreases war weariness.

It does? Are you sure? Because the French declared on me after I made peace with them on the SAME TURN, and I'd hate to think I just got all my war weariness back fighting a country I don't want to fight...

Maybe countries in a MPP should have to sign peace treaties together?

Venger

[LRotan]

Originally posted by Venger


Try Republic - during my reload testing, I changed democracy to have Republics war wearniess, and the civ did not revolt.
Venger

I'll give that a try and see how it goes. To be honest, I've never tried Republic.

LR

[Venger]

Originally posted by LRotan
I'll give that a try and see how it goes. To be honest, I've never tried Republic.

Republic is my favorite - always was in Civ2 as well. You can wage war very effectively yet still get the advantages that come froma dynamic economy. If I got Universal Suffrage I would at times go Democracy, but I steamrolled right to Republic early on and stayed there a long time...

In Civ3 (my first whole game still in progress) I don't think I noticed much in the way of a difference between the two governments. Can anyone quantify how much less corruption a Democracy has in Civ3 than a Republic? It was easy to see in Civ3...

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

Is it a pain in the ass? Yes, of course it is- but it's the only effective down-point of a democracy. Seriously, without it a democracy would be the key choice to go to- always. If a Democracy had the war weariness of a Republic, why wouldn't use use it? What good would Communism be (other than the spies) when a war weariness-less Democracy could gain more money, research, and wage war just as effectively?

I can understand the troubles caused by this, and I sympathise with your plight- my first *real* game I played as the Greeks began to roll over the Egyptians and I just continued this war for a while eventually leading to my government's overthrow. So what? That's the choice that you face when you go to pick governments- am I worried about a war, or can I live in peace?

Now, to address the fact that it's not realistic:

Right. and widespread anarchy abounded. Give me a break.

No, but waging an unpopular war (no matter how successful) is political suicide. Look at the Vietnam War with the massive counterculture and demonstrations.

Also, think of the overthrow of the democracy not as a revolution akin to the Russian Revolution of 1918 with whole populations urging for a new government- as I stated yesterday, the comparison between it and an electoral upset is rather succint. When your policies are unpopular in a voting society you run the risk of not getting voted back in; in fact, it's possible all your other policies are reviled due to it's association to your war. So, the new electoral candidate promises things completely the opposite of the standing policies, and when he gets 'voted in' there will be a considerable time of adjustment in regards to the economy and the government. Since there is nothing stopping you from reforming another democracy after the overthrow, I see this as the most logical interpretation of the war weariness rules.

then there should be a warning from the Domestic Advisor telling you that WW is taking a toll.

I agree, and she should also tell you when you are in danger of losing a city to another culture, but that just wasn't thought of unfortunately.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire
Is it a pain in the ass? Yes, of course it is- but it's the only effective down-point of a democracy. Seriously, without it a democracy would be the key choice to go to- always.

Oh, I don't have a problem with war weariness being involved with democracy, I have a problem with overthrow of the government and 7 turns of anarchy because I am prosecuting a successful war. I think that's bogus. I've been having to deal with unhappy faces in my democracy by boosting luxuries and attempting to make trades for luxuries to keep my people happy despite the war weariness, THAT should be the manifestation of it, not a 70% approval and most cities in WLTPD overthrow of the government. There has to be a better way...

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

Such as?

In the system at hand it's the only thing that balances that out- democracies simply aren't supposed to be used to fight agressive wars; just as communism isn't supposed to be used to garner a ton of money or blitz through the tech tree. Checks and balances.

[halley]

The truth is, your people are warmongering cowards. Whenever I'm at war and kicking the A.I.'s butt, they never complain. The moment I start losing, all my cities go into disorder. This happens regardless of who declared war in the first place. In fact having my troops in enemy territory only made my people happier, while the enemy having troops in MY territory causes them to revolt. Go figure.

[Libertarian]

I wonder, too, whether the civ you're playing has anything to do with it. [...shrug...] As a French democracy, I've experienced the WLTS (saint) days when war was declared on me.

I can go maybe 20 turns or so before war weariness sets in. And I can see it coming. WLTS days start ending, and the city screen shows more and more people going from happy to content. That goes maybe five turns or so. Then, the next couple of turns, unhappy people start emerging.

I guess war weariness is simply one of the factors that must be considered in waging war. Use General Powell's (and Sun Tsu's) advice: go in with massive strength; overpower quickly; shoot straight for the jugular (e.g., the capital); sue for peace as soon as you've gained your objective.

[Chronus]

Hi D4:

I'm not clear on something: were you in a constant state of war with SOMEONE after your initial declaration of war (via your MPP w/ France)? In other words, did you have at least one turn of total peace somewhere in there?

This thread kind of surprises me but is also interesting. I've declared several wars in Democracy but never fell into Anarchy. In my last game, I declared war and the vast majority of my cities went rioting. I increased the luxuries a notch and fought on. Several turns later, my cities rioted again (due to extended war weariness, I presume) and so, again, I turned up the luxuries. A couple of turns later, I lost a supply of luxuries so, again, my cities went into riots. I decided to "buy back" that luxury the next turn and things went back to normal. I believe the war ended a few turns after that. No police stations . . . no Univ Suff . . . all I did was tackle the problem as it reared its ugly head.

The game before that, I had similar things happen but the war lasted MUCH longer . . . still no Anarchy.

In Civ3 (my first whole game still in progress)

Venger - approximately how many "sub-games" of Civ 3 have you played?

[Fidel]

with suffrage and enough police stations it is manageable. plus you can always switch to republic and have a go....

[Akka]

Re: No sense

Originally posted by GePap
D4everman
Something must be wrong since according to the manual (how often is it wrong?) having war declared on you decreases war weariness. Just an idea, but somewere along the line, did an MPP you have activate when your partner was attacked? If so, then techinically YOU declared war on someone else (whoever that was), which might (again, how this works is unclear) undo the fact that war was declared on you first. Also, you might take the rsik of beginning a revolution and switching to Communism or monarchy. The revolution might take along time (it once did for me) but it may allow you to return to building things.

There is a weird thing about war. Declaring war, in fact, does nothing but allow you and your enemy to send units to fight. You can check it by declaring war to an AI opponent who has a MPP with another : nothing happen.
Though, as soon as you attack one of his unit, BANG, the MPP activate. If you DECLARE war, but wait for your enemy to strike first, HOP, no MPP activation. Extremely useful if you and your opponent have a common MPP ally : if you strike first, this ally will go at war with you, if you wait this ally will go at war with you enemy.

It's very possible that the war weariness consider yourself as attacker if you were the first to attack any unit, though it's the other who declared war.
It's very possible to that the war weariness increase dramatically when you have units on the soil of you opponent, while staying very low when they stay on your national territory.

[johnnyappleseid]

Re: Re: No sense

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


There is a weird thing about war. Declaring war, in fact, does nothing but allow you and your enemy to send units to fight. You can check it by declaring war to an AI opponent who has a MPP with another : nothing happen.
Though, as soon as you attack one of his unit, BANG, the MPP activate. If you DECLARE war, but wait for your enemy to strike first, HOP, no MPP activation.

This is true, but it seems only temporarily. Eventually, maybe after a set number of turns (not sure), the ally of your enemy will declare war on you (it'll bring up that "mutual aggression pact causes war" message), even if you haven't started any battles. At least, this is my experience.

[Cian McGuire]

Though, as soon as you attack one of his unit, BANG, the MPP activate.

Your sentence should be "as soon as you attack one of his units on his territory..."- the MPP activates only then.

I haven't seen what johnny says in action yet, but I do know the above is true. It allows to you repel an aggressor.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Chronus
Hi D4:

I'm not clear on something: were you in a constant state of war with SOMEONE after your initial declaration of war (via your MPP w/ France)? In other words, did you have at least one turn of total peace somewhere in there?

I did - I originally made peace on a reload after figuring out what went wrong. Had about 6 turns or so of peace, then redeclared on the Aztecs. Immediate fall of the government. I'm going to suffer through this one - though the inability to produce any units under anarchy seems a little extreme...

This thread kind of surprises me but is also interesting. I've declared several wars in Democracy but never fell into Anarchy. In my last game, I declared war and the vast majority of my cities went rioting. I increased the luxuries a notch and fought on. Several turns later, my cities rioted again (due to extended war weariness, I presume) and so, again, I turned up the luxuries. A couple of turns later, I lost a supply of luxuries so, again, my cities went into riots. I decided to "buy back" that luxury the next turn and things went back to normal. I believe the war ended a few turns after that. No police stations . . . no Univ Suff . . . all I did was tackle the problem as it reared its ugly head.

Clearly you weren't at war very long. I'm conquering the Aztecs, who had the most cities on the map at one point. It's almost done, they have only about 16 cities left and I imagine I'll have them all conquered by the time by 6 turns of anarchy is up...

Venger - approximately how many "sub-games" of Civ 3 have you played?

What do you mean?

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso
with suffrage and enough police stations it is manageable. plus you can always switch to republic and have a go....

I've got police stations in many many cities. Im curious if they even work if you already have Universal Suffrage - they didn't in Civ2. I'd hate to think I built them for nothing, but it appears I may have...you'd think it wouldn't let me build them if they didn't work in conjunction with US, but I can still build coal plants in all my cities even though I have Hoover Dam, so...

I'd switch to Republic but that too requires a period of anarchy...I'm almost convinced Democracy isn't worth my time. I like the faster workers, but the anarchy thing makes it unusable for anything other than sitting on my butt.

I'd like to think that the war weariness effects of Democracy were punishment enough without the fall of a popular government.

Venger
P.S. Thanks for being topical and not calling me a name...