War Weariness??

[Dan Baker]

War Wearyness is definitly a problem, however, it seams to be based more on aggression rather then defense. You can have a 'phony' war for many turn and not see much opinion differences... So, typically war wearyness is more of a problem when you are winning, rather then losing, so at least that is good.

Typically, the way to fight wars as a democracy involves a simple strategy - antcipation, initiation, termination (alright, sorry for the stupid catch phrases). Basically, keep your wars short, and your objectives clear. Building several key wonders helps tremendously.I would rank Sistine Chappel, J'S' Baches Cathedral, and Womens Suffrage as some of the most important wonders in the game.


Remember, always be prepared to fight a war - somehow, the computer knows or has an estimate ofyour military strength (even before spies), so haveing a decent military will deter most out of the blue aggressions against your country. It is usually wise to have at least one or two MPT with other countries.

Second, be prepared to launch a full scale attack instantly on any bordering enemy - and have transports ready to be loaded and sent overseas if need be. Railroads are perfect for this... The trick is to have a standing offense already in position the moment a war breaks out. The first few turns are crucial. Before starting a war look for an objective to counquer. The objective(s) (when possible)should have the following characteristics:

1) Have some stragetic value (i.e. resource or location)
2) Withing your grasp, i.e. no major logistical challenges in aquiring.
3) Somewhat valuable to your openent, taking satellite cities has little effect.
4) Can be easily connected to the rest of your empire.

Finally, do not initiate aggression until all your peices are in place, Even if it takes you a few turns to mass your troups on your border. This has several advanatages; Your people don't get as upset, MPT won't get triggered until you are in a position to deal with the other members of the alliance as well, if the enemy attacks you your own MPT alliances will be activated.

Once firing starts, move quickly to take your objectives. Once you reach your objectives - TERMINATE the war. The computer will nearly always terminate if (s)he looses important ground. Even if you plan on waging a war again, you should regroup and prepare for another limited conflict. Even if you are OUTNUMBERED, send a token offense to your enemy. The computer (like a human player) doesn't like complications, if you can threaten his home, then he'll think twice about continuing the war.

Additionally, when in war with multiple countries, always be prepared to make peace with one of them, or rather, divide the alliance. This tends to make your citizens more content.

Some additional notes: Its not usually worth the time to build up a navy prior to destroriers. The navy can't do much, and takes too long to deploy. Plus, the navy becomes nearly useless once you get destroyers.

If you find yourself vulnarable to sea bombardment, the best solution is a small navy and a large compliment of artillary or cannons. These can be moved more quickly then a navy, have far less liability, and can be used for ground offensives as well. Cannons are some of the BEST things in the game to build. The have a complete updgrade path, have long shelf-lifes, and in mass have enourmous value. The best way to take cities is to use massive ammounts of artilllary (say like 10 units).

Anyway, the trick with waging war is always to make it cost a whole lote more to your enemy then it is costing you. Even if its mostly stalemated, if you can force him to spend resources on the war while you build infastructure, this is a major victory.

[Bblue]

War-wearness is delayed and reduced if you are not 'attacking' (ie. have uits in the conties your at war with. You can fight a defensive war under democracy for quite a long time before the effects of WW start to creap in.
The only way to run an offensive war under democracy is to try to keep it as short as possible. Lots of luxury items, marketplaces, and if need be luxeries (with the tax slidder) are crucial, as is Suffrage. I've only had 1 game so far were I realy needed Police stations (ended up doing communism instead)

[Padmewan]

It sounds like the critical factor in your game (since you're playing at Chieftain level) is losing your luxuries, not the war per se. Losing 2 luxuries might be enough to send cities into revolt even without the war.

Try to structure your bargains so the other party also loses something valuable if they break the agreement. Unfortunately, the AI gets increasingly irrational as the game drags on...

[notyoueither]

Current game I'm in.

Emperor Difficulty. Democracy, Romans.

In 1530 I engineered a war with Greece. I had stacks parked in his territory next to 2 of his cities without a Right of Passage. Alexander protested. I thought to myself *you shouldn't have black mailed us back in the day before we had Legions of tanks, you constipated pr#ck* as I pushed the Declare War response to his ultimatum to withdraw. I guess that would make us the aggressors (but maybe not as far as the game design goes).

We had MPPs with all other powers. All other powers declared war on Greece immediately after I declared war on Alex (who was the aggressor?). I don't know if this influenced subsequent unhappiness.

In 1530 we had Police Stations in our larger cities. We had 7 luxuries (soon 6 since Alex stopped the flow of diamonds in one of his final snits). We did not have tech for Universal Suffrage.

An any rate the war ran it course until 1750 (about 50 turns). We had captured what we wanted. By the end we had the luxury rate set to 20%. Our biggest city (Rome) had 6 entertainers, 12 happy, 1 content, and 4 unhappy people. 55% of unhappy people polled said *Give Peace a Chance*. We had Universal Suffrage at this point. We had secured a new source of diamonds. None of our cities were in revolt. All had all excess population assigned as entertainers (to keep cities producing in the face of creeping discontent).

I would have been willing to put people to work as entertainers and let people starve if necessary, but that point was not reached (it was close, Rome had 3 excess food, but still a surplus of entertainers). Winning wars is not an option, it is required. Neither is allowing allowing rioters to burn improvements an option, better to let a few people starve while the factories continue to churn out tanks. Just because you are a democracy, doesn't mean you have to be a nice chump and accept the fate that the design team has planned for you.

Hey, I'm being democratic. I'm allowing people to vote to work and eat or riot and starve. Or something like that. I'm looking forward to the next election campaign.

I can't say for sure, but during the course of the war I believe that unhappiness spiked after Razing an enemy city. There seemed to be a coincidence of revolts getting past my precautions and breaking out immediately after.

At any rate, sorry for the long post. I just thought it might help some people in the choices they make if they know that wars can be won as a democracy. Rome ended up with 21 new subject cities (including Athens and Greece's only other Wonder city) leaving Alex with 11 cities and a shattered army... But that leads into another lengthy post about the fascinating course of the war. So enough of me and mine.

Salve

[notyoueither]

PS. After re-reading Dan Baker and BBlue.

It occurs to me that I largely stayed out of enemy territory for most of the war.

How's this you ask? Well. I started the war by taking 2 cities. Consolidated. Moved on 1 or 2 more cities and took them in short order (Arty, Bombers and Tanks work great, even against Mech Infantry). Consolidated.

Periods of consolidation involved repulsing Greek attacks on the newly assimilating Roman cities (I was fighting on my own territory?). Assimilation involved starving Greeks down to 1 pop to prevent revolts back to Alex (they had at least twice our culture).

Periods of offensives were relatively short. Move on Greek city. Bomb the sh*t out of it while the mechanized Legions (slowing for Arty) approached. Take the city as soon as the Tanks were in position to attack weakened enemy Mech Infantry (about 50% of the cities were fired on by Arty, ie we were in Greek territory for 3 or 4 turns).

Most of the sweeping tank battles (there were some good ones) took place in Roman or unclaimed territory. We took a city, Alex pushed offensive units into the newly created cultural vacuum chasing German Cavalry (they didn't have Oil for Panzers ). Our Bombers, Navy and Arty blew the sh*t out of the Greek Tanks and Mech Infantry, followed by Roman Tanks shooting crippled Greek formations.

This jives with Dan Baker's *anticipation, initiation, termination*. I never sent sweeping movements of troops deep into enemy territory after resources or other negative (deny them) objectives. Isn't that what Bombers and Carriers are for? I kept the Legions either in Roman territory or very briefly entered into Greek territory to take a city. However, we did this repeatedly, without the outbreak of peace. We anticipated (created the circumstances for an offensive by destroying any adventuresome Greek units outside of his territory, ie, his surplus). Then we initiated (moved into Greek territory directly at a Greek city). Then we terminated (took the Greek city in very short order). Thus we spent at least 50% of the war with a very small number of troops in enemy territory, but at the same time conquered 66% of the empire that was the most powerful at the time of the outbreak of hostilities.

But it only makes sense if combined with BBlue's point about being in your own territory. I would guess without regard to whose territory it was last turn.

It occurs to me that we have found one of the prerequisites for making war successfully as a democracy. Stay in your own territory (and that that you make your own). Sounds very Roman when you think of it...

Either that or I have the most wonderful Civ3 computer on Earth. Its only errors are those that allow me to play civ the way I want to play civ. Bah, I'm blathering again.

Salve

[Pyrodrew]

You started it!

Originally posted by notyoueither
PS. After re-reading Dan Baker and BBlue.

It occurs to me that I largely stayed out of enemy territory for most of the war.

It occurs to me that we have found one of the prerequisites for making war successfully as a democracy. Stay in your own territory (and that that you make your own). Sounds very Roman when you think of it...

Well if the enemy is flooding your territory and/or taking your cities war weariness will hurt you too. Things which cause war weariness: your troops in enemy territory, enemy troops in your territory, the length of time you are involved in war(s), declaring war, & engaging in battle. A rival declaring war on you "actually decreases war weariness".

[notyoueither]

Re: You started it!

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


Well if the enemy is flooding your territory and/or taking your cities war weariness will hurt you too. Things which cause war weariness: your troops in enemy territory, enemy troops in your territory, the length of time you are involved in war(s), declaring war, & engaging in battle. A rival declaring war on you "actually decreases war weariness".

OK. I'll grant that what you have said will add to war weariness. Why shouldn't it?

However, I was a democracy involved in a very long war (50 turns). The Greeks were continually sending troops into my *new* territories. And I can't imagine I could possibly have engaged in any more battles. We killed hundreds of Greek units. We bombarded or bombed at least 500 or a 1000 times. We razed many cities (at least 8 or 10). Yet at the end our luxury rate only needed to be set at 20%. We were nowhere near the end of our rope.

My point is that democracies can fight and win wars. You just might need to be a bit of a bastard to your own people to do so (I hadn't reached that point yet).

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Bad Ax
Police stations and Universal Suffrage are your very best friends in a Democracy. Build Police in all your cities as soon as they are available, and Suffrage as soon as you have the chance. Without them, fighting an extended war under democracy is virtually impossible. This is, of course, ridiculous (we all remember the great street demonstrations against WWII and Korea, don't we?), but it seems the Firaxis people based their war weariness engine only on Vietnam.

If you're a democracy, it's also a good idea to build up your military (even though it's costly) in order to prevent people from attacking you. Never underestimate the power of deterrence.

Keep in mind that 10 turns at war is 10 years in the end of the game, and 20 years before that, and so on . . . This isn't at all like vietnam modeling considering the scale.

Strong military is easy to support in democracy with all the trade, and with no concern about having to have units in cities or in forts.

[Easy Rhino]

this reply will not be helpful

Originally posted by notyoueither
We had MPPs with all other powers. All other powers declared war on Greece immediately after I declared war on Alex (who was the aggressor?). I don't know if this influenced subsequent unhappiness.

My experience with MPPs is that they trigger with whoever gets actually shot at first, not war declarations. So you can game that some.

Just to rant, it irks me that there are basically only two kinds of governments in Civ3, Despotism and Monarchy:

Communism is Despotism +1.
Republic is Monarchy +1, Democracy is Monarchy +2

They seemed to have more differentiation before, it was neater.

ER

[Gholam]

Eh, Communism does have a unique corruption model... only thing that can run those huge sprawling empires without resorting to pop rush You'll lose a "core" of low-corruption high-production cities, but if you're big enough, your total production gain from the fringes will exceed that loss... coupled with super-low war weariness and railroads allowing you to ship units anywhere you want to instantly makes it the best warmonger government, period

[shayovitz]

Originally posted by notyoueither
55% of unhappy people polled said *Give Peace a Chance*

How do you poll your unhappy people and get that "Give Peace a Chance" tip ? I haven't seen anything about it in the manual.

[MadWombat]

Right click on the city and get a disorder report. =]

[shayovitz]

Cool! Thanks a lot!

[Pyrodrew]

Re: Re: You started it!

Originally posted by notyoueither
My point is that democracies can fight and win wars. You just might need to be a bit of a bastard to your own people to do so (I hadn't reached that point yet).

I don't disagree with that. I successfully fight wars in democracy many times... very easy if you're a superpower with luxuries & do the right things.

[Asharak]

My Two Cents, From a Warlord-Level Democracy

While I'm well aware that it gets harder to fight wars at higher levels of difficulty, from my experience on Warlord it IS possible to fight and win wars as a democracy.
First, they are easiest to fight if you are attacked by a Civ you could care less about, and 'winning' is simply a matter of holding onto what you've got at the moment and losing any cities. If you don't move into their territory and only engage their troops once their in yours, war weariness appears at a much slower rate (and if does appear, trade with someone else for some extra luxuries, or drop your science/tax for a few turns and jack up the luxury slider -- a note on that: i try to keep a steady flow of at least 4 luxuries into my cities at all times, which helps). After 10-15 turns, the AI usually gets bored and will accept an envoy for peace (at least, they stop rejecting your emissarys). Be humble, apologize for overextending yourself, even though they started the war, and you can usually get a peace treaty.
Obviously, not all wars are defensive, and sometimes it's necessary to attack. I've found democracies fight wars best under the Nazi 'blitzkreig' model: mass a smreck-load of troops on the offending border, grap what you want within 5 turns, and fortify yourself. Don't get greedy. Don't start wars unless you know EXACTLY what your after, and EXACTLY how to get it -- fast. Once the objective (be it a strategically located city, a resource, etc.) is taken, hold onto it and wait out the time until the AI calms down enough to talk to you again, then sue for peace.
The only way I've been able to fight aggressive wars on a long-term basis is by being VERY big, VERY rich, and VERY successful. If I want to conquer the world, I change to Communism.
And I echo the sentiments above: certain wonders, and police stations, are a great benefit. If I'm a democracy expecting the possiblity of a fight, prolonged or not, my main priority is always entertainment: give them gems and silk dresses, and suddenly they don't even realize there's a world out there...

All of that, as the subject says, is from Warlord level. The warranty is void on any level higher than that.