Q's on war weariness

[kailhun]

I was in a war that I didn't want or need. But how to end it? The enemy refused to see my envoy and war weariness was crippling my empire.
As I understand it, if I attack war-weariness increases faster than if I just sit there and take it. Correct?
But if I clobber the enemy they will want to sue for peace more quickly. Correct?

Is there a way to see the amount of war weariness? I can't find it.

If my democracy falls through war weariness and I stay at another government than democracy or republic, does the war-weariness go to 0 or would it be at the old level should I return to democracy/republic?

Robert

[Kevin Ar18]

I have played Democracy in every single game I've played and I haven't had my government collapse once. And I don't know why, but here's what I do.
I fix disorder in cities right away. Thus, when the cities start to loose food, it's time to try to end the war.
I try to get as many of the luxury resources as I can. This includes conquering cities for resources as well as trading many of the resources with AI civs.
Later on, both the sufferage wonder and the police stations help for when war weariness gets really bad. This is helpful for when you want to have longer wars and fight more wars.
Oh, and another thing, I haven't really been playing for score -- I've been playing more for enjoyment of the game. So, I don't try to conquer everything all at once. One of these days maybe I'll try communism.

[Bilas]

I personally have a problem with war weariness. What if you build your Civ as being a warrior nation. Why does everyone think and feel that being a democracy is best? It is very frustrating when your a nation of WAR and your people support your war efforts and you are taught in school that the war is just and right and your moral code says you should destroy the weak and yet "In this game your people become tired of war"?

[Kinnie]

Try communism until the war is over then go back to democracy. You have to take one or two of their cities if you want them to talk peace. If they are winning the war they might not talk to you.
So just keep fighting until you have the upper hand.

[Willem]

Re: Q's on war weariness

Originally posted by kailhun


Is there a way to see the amount of war weariness? I can't find it.

If you right click on an unhappy citizen, it will tell you in percentages why the people are unhappy.

[kailhun]

Ah, thanks.

The main problem with this game was that the war wouldn't end. Most civs wouldn't speak to me, so there was no way to end the war except through annihilation but they were too big to do that quickly. I did achieve peace once, but the wacky ai-civs declared war again within a couple of turns. Although why is a mystery, I was way more powerful and therefore kicked their butt, as they must have 'known'.
This war-mongering was most annoying. I was going to leave their continent alone, but then the chinese had to declare war. ****ers.

It was interesting to note that, as in real war, sympathy for the enemy-civ and civilians deteriorated as the war went on. Bombing cities into the ground became fun, razing them became a just reward. The war turned from winning peace to doing as much damage until they begged for peace.


Robert

[Murtin]

Originally posted by Bilas
I personally have a problem with war weariness. What if you build your Civ as being a warrior nation. Why does everyone think and feel that being a democracy is best? It is very frustrating when your a nation of WAR and your people support your war efforts and you are taught in school that the war is just and right and your moral code says you should destroy the weak and yet "In this game your people become tired of war"?

Well, people DO tend to become tired of war. It's one thing to get carried away by pre-war propaganda and notions of racial superiority, but when an increasing number of your friends and members of family go off to fight in the Great War only to come home physically and mentally crippled, or don't come back at all, most people will find the situation unsatisfactory to say the least.

Anyway, if you as a leader wish to have your people prefer the bravery and fierceness of war to calm and peaceful economic prosperity, you can have it that way, can't you?

[Akka]

I personally have a problem with war weariness. What if you build your Civ as being a warrior nation. Why does everyone think and feel that being a democracy is best? It is very frustrating when your a nation of WAR and your people support your war efforts and you are taught in school that the war is just and right and your moral code says you should destroy the weak and yet "In this game your people become tired of war"?

I can hardly imagine a civilisation so militaristic (and then liking the concept of war, discipline, hierarchy, obedience, stability and so on) becoming a democracy. If you tend to brainwash people to make them love the obedience to a ruler, then it's not to ask them to vote, it's to ask to to OBEY.

Anyway, even if this could happen, from a gameplay view I think the democracy is powerful enough without removing its only drawback. What choice would be about the government if democracy (that I already use for conquest wars) was even less affected by war weariness ?

If you right click on an unhappy citizen, it will tell you in percentages why the people are unhappy.

Right-click on citizen will only bring the civilopedia page speaking about population happiness. To have the detail of reasons for unhappiness, it's shift + left click.

[Bilas]

Originally posted by Murtin

Well, people DO tend to become tired of war. It's one thing to get carried away by pre-war propaganda and notions of racial superiority, but when an increasing number of your friends and members of family go off to fight in the Great War only to come home physically and mentally crippled, or don't come back at all, most people will find the situation unsatisfactory to say the least.

Yes I guess people would get tired of war if they were in say a Democracy and then all the sudden started to become warlike, yes then people would become tired and upset about all of these things you mentioned, but what about a society that is warlike from the start. Would they know anything but war? In the USA which is a democracy, you have people getting tired and crying even when we fight terrorism ie., "Make love not war", "Give peace a chance" Even though we are dealing with terrorist. So yes in a democracy people would act like this but in a society that is warlike it would be different.

[Murtin]

Originally posted by Bilas

Yes I guess people would get tired of war if they were in say a Democracy and then all the sudden started to become warlike, yes then people would become tired and upset about all of these things you mentioned, but what about a society that is warlike from the start. Would they know anything but war?

Well, I guess something like that could be the case. It would lead to something like that old Civ2 senate in reverse: Your population will disregard any peace treaties you sign and keep fighting anyway. Wouldn't make much of an interesting civ to play though...

On a more serious note, forms of government won't do much to affect that uncanny tendency for humans to prefer life over death. Generally, convincing someone to lay down his life for God and/or Country requires a lot of training and propaganda, whereas the drive for survival is innate.

Furthermore, no ruler, no matter the form of government, can completely ignore the needs of the population. What the form of government does affect, though, is just how sensitive the rule is to the opinions of people. If you piss people off in a democracy, they simply won't bother to re-elect you. In more totalitarian forms of government your rule won't be endangered until people get angry enough to put up some actual resistance.

In the USA which is a democracy, you have people getting tired and crying even when we fight terrorism ie., "Make love not war", "Give peace a chance" Even though we are dealing with terrorist. So yes in a democracy people would act like this but in a society that is warlike it would be different.

I think you're confusing forms of government with traditions and culture. Democracies are not necessarily peaceful.

I believe people, including americans, would be more supportive of this "war on terrorism", if it didn't involve such things as sending off the boys to kill and get killed in some godforsaken piece of mountainous desert or jungle halfway round the world, or having the airforce wipe out some 100 villagers because "that old log really looked like a missile".