Is "war wearyness" a temporary glitch caused by Vietnam?

[Lancer]

Sid was raised during the Vietnam war and lived through the protests and civil disorder as did many of us. I believe this left a false impression on him that has carried through to ever one of the Civ games since, that citizens are intristicly against all war. Just the opposite has been the case throughout history. In recent history the Falklands war propped up the Argentine dictatorship and the support the aggression translated directly into support for the regime. In England there was also support for the war. When the troops left these countries the people did not go into disorder, though if they hadn't left there might have been revolution in Argentina and disorder in Britain. The government of Argentina had to fight to survive, which worked for a while until they lost. The government of Britain had to fight or face citizens who weren't going to put up w/ the invasion.

There are other cases, such as the attack on the WTC. If Bush hadn't reacted I'd be in civil unrest.

In WW1 and WW2 the populations supported the war, except in Italy of course.

I propose that Civ be changed, that LESS troops should have to remain in cities to maintain order during wartime.

Regarding Vietnam, just forget it. How many times in history has a government been so bone headed about fighting a war? Well...there was the Russians and Afghanistan...but still...fairly rare.

'Ol Sid and Civ team...the war is over guys, forget it.

Great game btw, I can't stop playing it. Really. Someone, anyone...HELP!

I'm in love again, what am I to doooo

[Kriton]

WW in the game is mostly for balance I think. But even looking at it from a practical point of view, I still agree with it. The more prosperous a country, the less it will want to initiate a war, which is how it works in the game IIRC... But like I said, mostly for balance.

'Ol Sid and Civ team...the war is over guys, forget it.

Tell that to some of the Apolytoners who are more adverse than any Afghan rebel or Viet Cong has ever been.

[Moraelin]

Here in Germany there are a LOT of people against sending any help against the Talibans. In fact, the chancelor had to pull every single political string and threat he could, to get that thing voted. And a lot of the media has raised hell against the goverment for that.

It's not that anyone actually sympathises with the Taliban. Nope. We can all aggree that their extremism is bad. And that terrorism is bad. And there are more than enough pro-americans, so you'd figure at least those would want to go fight at least for that reason.

But the people just don't want a new war, regardles of against whom and for what reasons. Go figure.

[karlmarx9001]

War weariness is a perfectly acceptable construct for republics and democracies. Do you think the US would have put with with a version of WWII that lasted, oh, 30 years? There was a lot of grumbling domestically about luxury shortages just in the short time it lasted. As this is probably the most popularly supported "real" war fought in a democracy (that is, between actual Great Powers), Sid's design decision makes perfect sense to me.

[UncleBeef]

The problem with ww..

The problem is that war weariness uses too simple a calculation. You're right, there's no real protests against the war in Afghanistan now, but on the other hand, there's been no draft and no Americans have been killed (other than a few) WW calculations should take into account relative casualties, who started the war, how many citizens have been drafted, and what the government of the opposing side is- people in a democracy should be much more willing to fight against a despotism, for example, than against another democracy.

[nato]

During World War II, U.S. leaders were very concerned about winning the war quickly because it was felt the public could not or would not support a prolonged war. A quote I partially remember (said by Marshall maybe) was something close to "you cannot fight a 5 year war with a democracy".

I always think of that quote more than I do Vietnam concerning war weariness, but thats just me.

[duodecimal]

Re: The problem with ww..

Originally posted by UncleBeef
The problem is that war weariness uses too simple a calculation. You're right, there's no real protests against the war in Afghanistan now, ...

Actually, there have been protests in the US against the bombing campaign. No riots that I've heard of, though. Not to mention the outcry of many groups against John Ashcroft. But it's all so minor that it corresponds roughly with a short, two/three-turn surgical strike in Civ III. Of course, Wolfowitz et al would love to start taking on Iraq - we'll see how War Weariness progresses should that contingency come into play... and the civic unrest that may cause in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Europe, Egypt, and so on.

... but on the other hand, there's been no draft and no Americans have been killed (other than a few) WW calculations should take into account relative casualties, who started the war, how many citizens have been drafted, and what the government of the opposing side is- people in a democracy should be much more willing to fight against a despotism, for example, than against another democracy.

Drafts cause unrest in Civ III, but it's not part of the same War Weariness calculation. I think losses are taken into account, and who's the Aggressor or defender are calculated for war weariness. There are also some separate calculations determined by who is in a foreign civ (people native to the country you're at war with become unhappy).

[David Murray]

I disagree. I do think that the more prosperous and democratic a nation becomes, the more it becomes enlightened--and thus rejects unncessary slaughter.

It's in the manual that war weariness is less dramatic when your opponent attacks you under democracy. However, if you start dropping cluster bombds, pillaging railroads, shelling cities etc, it makes sense that your people will begin to renounce such barbarity.

Also, this process encourages diplomacy over war. That can only be a good thing!

[Wrong_shui]

I dont think ppl protesting for peace would burn down civilian buildings like temples, maybe a barracks but not a cathedral

[UncleBeef]

Re: Re: The problem with ww..

Originally posted by duodecimal
Drafts cause unrest in Civ III, but it's not part of the same War Weariness calculation. I think losses are taken into account, and who's the Aggressor or defender are calculated for war weariness. There are also some separate calculations determined by who is in a foreign civ (people native to the country you're at war with become unhappy).

Interesting- apparently it's smarter than I thought- has anyone studied the factors in any detail??

[HalfLotus]

War weariness works both ways.
If you war with a historical rival (Rome v. Geece?) or if the civ has been harassing you, it makes your citizens happy to fight them. I'm not sure of the exact conditions, but this has been confirmed by Firaxians. Soren, you there?

[Venger]

I don't mind SOME war weariness, but - collpasing the government into anarchy is nuts.

Also, war weariness should be based on the war, i.e. units lost, gains won. People love a successful war, and that point is inarguable for any culture. However, as losses mount, THAT'S when negative wearniess should show up. But a successful campaign should help keep the people from active opposition.

Venger

[Spiffor]

War weariness takes many aspect into account : if you lose or if you win, if your troops are in enemy territory or not and so on. Someone in Apolyton said "your citizens are warmongering cowards", i.e they don't cause any significant problems as long as you win, but become annoying as hell when you lose.
Probably the warmongers here will say they are a pain even in a case of victory, but in my experience, a losing war against the Germans made the civil unrest an extreme pain, while a successful war against the persians (in a more difficult level) was widely accepted. A totally naval war with the English didn't create any difficulty.
But I think a high war weariness is a good idea about game balancing : Democracy rocks, as long as you're not at war. The choice between Communism and Democracy is the choice between war and money. If the war weariness was less important, communism would have no appeal at all. WW is better in Civ3 than in Civ2 : you can move your units during peace without having more unhappy citizens.
Still, I agree with you Venger that WW could be more subtle : the people could attack military buidlings or units stationed in the city.

[DK36]

Actually, war weariness goes both ways. First your people become happy, then they gradually begin to start getting pissed.

[Admiral PJ]

I don't think many of the public in a country WANT war, in fact I'm not certain the first amount of happiness that wars make in civ3 are realistic ( Soren the coder alleged they do give some happiness to start with)

In world war2, its certain that the war caused unhappiness in britain.. luxuries like chocolate and sugar were in short supply, bananas and pinapples were nonexistant. This could be simulated pretty well in a scenario.. but constant bombing of London created a lot of unhappiness - as can be seen by the war art of that era, countered by the strict goverment policies .. imprisoning of contientious objectors .. film propoganda etc.

It would be interesting seeing how modern america would react to another Vietnam - something they seem to be avoiding if possible, maybe the right wing republicans millitant style might get out of hand , or the democratic feeling would outweigh commonsense.
Obviously if 1000's of your countries men are being slaughtered just at the whim of some generals and politicians even the most ardent right winger might get a bit fed up surely?

The real horrors of war are by those stuck in the middle.. it should be the Soldier Units that stop fighting or run if they get scared and unhappy.. not just the cities revolting.

Make Love not war
Its more productive..