Freakin war weariness!!

[Spec]

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.

[Zouave]

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

[BillChin]

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.

[rpodos]

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

[Spec]

Republic vs democracy

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

[BillChin]

Re: Republic vs democracy

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.

[SpencerH]

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.

[Zouave]

Re: Re: Republic vs democracy

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.

[chiefpaco]

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...

[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.

[BillChin]

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.)

[watorrey]

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.

[notyoueither]

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.

[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?

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.

[watorrey]

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.