War weariness carryover

[XOR]

Civilopedia:

During times of war, citizens living under a Republic or Democracy become [war weary] and unhappy as a result. When [you] initiate the conflict your people will tolerate it for a while, but then may become quite unhappy. When someone else declares the war, especially a traditional enemy, your people are more forgiving. Carrying on a defensive war, that is keeping your troops at home, is more tolerable than offensive campaigns.

The only way to end [war weariness] is to stop the war. You can use all your normal tricks to make 'em happier, but the war weariness remains until the war stops.

Manual:

It’s a truism that in war the peasants suffer the most. When you continually wage war,
your citizenry eventually get tired of it.This effect is known as war weariness.Under representative governments (Republic and Democracy), when your citizens feel free to
express their distaste for military action, war weariness causes great unhappiness in your
cities.

A few factors cause increased war weariness. The most important ones are stationing
your units in enemy territory, enemies having troops in your territory, declaring war,
and engaging in battle. Having a rival declare war on you actually decreases war weariness, perhaps because it relieves the prewar uncertainty and tension.

This increases WW:
1- Being the one that declares war.
2- Having units in enemy territory.
3- Having enemy units in your territory (less WW than having your units in enemy territory).
4- Number of battles. From personal experience, pillaging seems to count as battles and increases war weariness. So dont pillage unless it's very important. Artillery and bomber pillage dont seem to count at battles, but I'm not sure.

I suspect that each event adds to a WW "modifier" and has a duration of, probably, 20 turns, not like Civ2 where WW is based on what is there in the current turn only and nothing else.

This REDUCES WW:
1- Being declared war upon.
2- Being declared war upon by an enemy that has attacked you before. I suspect that each time you declare war on someone you give them a self defense WW reduction bonus against you and only you that remains for the rest of the game.
3- The Universal Suffrage wonder (Cummulative with Police Stations?)
4- Police Stations.

Things suspected to affect WW:
1- Unit losses.
2- Number of enemy nations you are at war against.
3- If battles are fought inside your territory, enemy, friendly or neutral.
4- Losing cities. I think losing cities causes a great deal of WW, maybe its because of losing cities or maybe because of having citizens in a city conquered by an enemy.
5- I think the number of battles factor discriminates if you were the person attacking (producing more WW) or if you were the person defending (producing less WW).

Things that remain unknown:
1- If being dragged into war because of an MPP counts as you being the one that declares war for WW purposes.
2- If causing someone to be dragged into war because of an MPP counts as you being the one that declares war for WW purposes.

I'm interested in this because I'm a somewhat warlike type (I do it all for the luxuries) and I'd like to know how to carry out a clean-cutting low-WW war.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by XOR
4- Losing cities. I think losing cities causes a great deal of WW, maybe its because of losing cities or maybe because of having citizens in a city conquered by an enemy.

I only think this applies to cities with your citizens in them. In my current game I lost a big city with only foreign citizens, and I saw no increase in WW.

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by XOR
One thing, signing peace treaties lessens WW. I'm not sure if it resets or reduces the boiling point thing, I just know it lessens the WW. It does not matter if you were fighting a war with A, then sign a treaty with B. Peace treaties can be used to lessen War Weariness.

Question: Who is considered as declaring the war when a mutual protection pact forces you to declare war on someone? I never attack people, but I get into mutual protection pact and let the AI do the job of finding an enemy for me, I have found that Monarchy and Communist civs are specially effective at this.

signing a peace treaty does lessen WW (obviously...) but the factor is still there, hidden away. It decays gradually behind the scenes. Thus, if it has not fully disappeared, you will have to deal with it again if you get in another war (either offensively or defensively).

basically, there is a war weariness factor that is maintained the same way throughout your entire game, regardless of your government type or war status. The only time this factor affects your citizens is if you are at war while in a demo/rep. Nonetheless, the war weariness factor is actually independent of your actual gov type. (This is meant to symbolize that citizens under a depotism are no less happy about being in a war; they just have fewer outlets for their unhappiness...)

[Chemical Ollie]

I am a little surpriced that there is no happyness penalty for etnical cleansing by bombardment or starvation. Instead people seem to be happier after their friends and neighbours have been killed.

I usually exploit this in conqured cities to reduce the risk of cultural flipping.

On the other hand, I get the happyness penalty for pop rushing and drafting that the former city owner has done.

[Theseus]

Soren, any chance we can get some better clarity on the components or factors driving WW?

[Jaybe]

Regarding WW being removed after 20 turns of peace:
That's what I thought, so after the term expired I started a new war and WW was immediate. While it is possible the instant WW was because my previous wars with this "traditional enemy" I was not the instigator, but that was definitely NOT my impression.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Regarding WW being removed after 20 turns of peace:
That's what I thought, so after the term expired I started a new war and WW was immediate. While it is possible the instant WW was because my previous wars with this "traditional enemy" I was not the instigator, but that was definitely NOT my impression.

Did not the man say it is always there, to some degree, even after the war stops? He said tha it could disapate over time, but not how much time. I had alway heard 20 turns, but that is way too short IMO.You tale suggest that it more than 20. I may depend on how much WW existed in the first place.

As to starving, we must be allowed to do that or else we will be forced to bombard or raze. You can't just grab a size 20 city and garrison, without a ton of troops or starving or both.

[bongo]

My idea of a WW-model is something like this:


One WW-account for each tribe you have met.

Acts of war(combat, pillaging, position of troops, war declarations) adds to your account with that spesific tribe

Absence of war removes points at some(low) rate

Someone declaring war at you remove points(a bonus?).

A peace treaty suspends the account -> it is not influencing your total WW anymore(+ a peace bonus?)

Your total WW is the sum of all the accounts. Tribes which you have a peace treaty is not included.

The accumulation of WW-points are independent of government, the effects are not.

So, if someone declares war at you, your WW-account with that particular tribe may go down but as that account are not suspended anymore your total WW may increase.


Does that make any sense to you?

[XOR]

Since everything except anarchy goes in packs of 20 turns it would be logical to think that odds are WW will last for 20 turns.

But IF I am interpreting Soren's description properly (against odds but WTH), it "decays" probably means that it loses X% per turn. So if it decays at 10% per turn, then it would lose like 100-10, 90-9, 81-8 and so on, which would last much more than 20 turns before it reaches 0 (IF it reaches 0).

Then again, I might be misinterpreting the thing and inventing an interpretation that comes about some unnecessary complexity that isnt even present in the game, up to you or up to confirmation.

[Catt]

Originally posted by joncnunn in another thread
In that game: the enemy stacks totaling 20 Infenty were in my territory for about 10 turns. They were on improved tiles (roads) the entire time, about 60% of the time were inside a CR.

I showed no WW at the end of that timeframe.
Civ III Classic, 1.21f.

joncnunn - my substantive point is that you believe that having enemy troops in your territory doesn't increase war weariness -- you stated that this was "definitely wrong" -- and I don't agree. Bringing up anecdotal information like one particular game's experience doesn't strengthen an argument. As you can probably see from this thread, there is all sorts of seemingly conflicting experiences -- I think they seem conflicting because there are multiple factors playing into the war weariness mechanics, and it is very difficult to isolate and diagnose the causes in a "real game" environment. IMHO, artificial but carefully controlled testing environements (like sumthinelse's recent testing I referred to) better answer questions about whether X or Y is true. I stick, however, to my view stated above from months ago -- accurate testing is difficult to design and implement, and hardly worth the effort .

Catt

[joncnunn]

An effect that can't be noticed with a frequently of 20 a turn with a durnation of 10 turns in negible, and can be safely ignored entirely.

[Charis]

WW

XOR, nice post!

I had a recent conquest deity game was brutally bloodthirsty, and I noticed several things about war-weariness.

- If you're the one kicking butt in the war, WW is far, *FAR* less than if the AI is doing well, or matching you in a war of attrition. In one campaign I took out Korea over the course of about 30 turns and bombarded them out the wazoo, razed every last one of their cities, slaughtered their troops like dogs, and took less than 1/4 the casualties they did. It was totally in their territory - they never got near my cities. After ALL that blood, WW was only a nuisance easily handled by a notch or two in the lux slider.

- Get them to declare war on you, it makes a BIG difference. (The above Korean campaign was helped in that they were goaded into declaring war on me) This was seen repeatedly in the game, WW was never a issue that bothered me in wars they declared

- Go for the lux! Capturing their lux sites is one of the best ways to combat weariness in practice. I would raze their city and use a captured worker to make a colony on the spot.

- Heaven help your citizens if you take large casualties. In stark contrast, there was a campaign vs the much stronger Iroquois. In *ONE* turn there were probably about 50-60 Iro casualties but I took a few dozen myself. I had NEVER been at war with them before, was at war with no one else, and weariness went from nothing to 'level 3' by the end of the turn. I was in democracy and even with 8 lux had to pop up the slider to a crushing 50%. This was a huge strain on the economy, a big deficit, but I could handle 10 or so turns of it.

- The difference between Republic and Democracy 'seems' to be just less than one 10%
notch on the lux slider. That's a gross oversimplification that ignores all the factors going into it, but I wanted to point out that a switch from Democracy to Republic (in the Iro campaign in fact, when I could stand the strain no longer) does have some effect, albeit small. In that game it meant going from 50% to 40% lux (plus one or two extra entertainers) and from like a -50gpt deficit to -5. As a what-if test later, I wondered if I should have been in Monarchy. Income at 40% lux in Republic was significantly better for me than 0% in Monarchy, and took away my flexibily to cut the slider back a notch and put the worst cities on entertainers. (I didn't have Suffrage in this game, btw, but did have police stations in all key cities)

- Having your cities attacked hurts WW badly. In another game where the AI did manage to get into my territory for an attack, I went from no perceivable WW to MAJOR weariness in one turn of AI attacking. That's after quite a few turns of war in enemy territory where I was doing well and saw no weariness.

Specific comments on XOR's post (based on experience, not inside knowledge or tests)

>Things suspected to affect WW:
> 1- Unit losses.

Absolutely, yes.

> 2- Number of enemy nations you are at war against.
Don't think so, I've had games, in Republic, where I was at war with a half-dozen civs or more, but taking few casualties and none of the fighting in my territory. I think it is as others have said, a separate WW-counter for each civ that decays with time as you have peace with that civ, and the overall WW a sum of these

> 3- If battles are fought inside your territory, enemy, friendly or neutral.

I would say yes to this.

> 4- Losing cities. I think losing cities causes a great
> deal of WW, maybe its because of losing cities or
> maybe because of having citizens in a city conquered
> by an enemy.

Yes, although unclear if it's losing "cities" or "native citizens" in these cities.

> 5- I think the number of battles factor discriminates if
> you were the person attacking (producing more WW)
> or if you were the person defending (producing less WW).

Being the one declared on is a huge benefit against WW.

I'll wrap up by saying that the last few months of games have convinced me that if you can minimize your own losses in battle, take it to their turf, and get them to declare the war, you can go full bore warmonger to the hilt in Republic and Democracy and do far better than switching to Monarchy. That goes against my earlier play style, and against my expectations.

Charis

PS those interested in deity conquest games can see the details of the game mentioned above at:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40040

The unusual thing about this game... it was a 5CC (hence all the razing)

[Catt]

Originally posted by joncnunn
An effect that can't be noticed with a frequently of 20 a turn with a durnation of 10 turns in negible, and can be safely ignored entirely.

Well, now we've at least moved from fact to opinion which is fine, because opinion is what makes the forums interesting. But transforming a statement of opinion into objective fact regarding game mechanics can cause a fair bit of confusion.

And I'd still differ from your opinion. I don't think of 20 units as a huge stack -- in fact, since you mention the particular game at issue was under 1.21 -- I seem to recall seeing AI stacks of doom of 75+ infantry and riflemen. I also don't think of 10 turns as any real length of time to be at war. I go on massive offensive campaigns with a lot of combat in a democracy for 10 turns without much war weariness trouble at all. It all depends on circumstances. In your game, if the facts were such that (1) you declared war, (2) the opponent wasn't a traditional enemy, and (3) the stack was a bit larger -- it might very well have been of great importance.

Stating that enemy troops in country does not contribute to war weariness is, I believe, incorrect. And stating that any WW effect of enemy troops must necessarily be negligible and can be ignored entirely, based on isolated game experiences is, I believe, misleading.

Catt

[Dominae]

Catt, picking up on something Soren said above, could your observations be related to the fact that you were at war prior to switching to Rep/Dem in some games, and not in others? If your WW value is high (i.e. you did a lot of warmongering), maybe just killing a few units within your borders (1 or 2) would result in unhappiness, but the presence of many units there would not.

I have no opinion yet either way. Just trying to find an explanation that fits the (presumably correct) "data".


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
Catt, picking up on something Soren said above, could your observations be related to the fact that you were at war prior to switching to Rep/Dem in some games, and not in others? If your WW value is high (i.e. you did a lot of warmongering), maybe just killing a few units within your borders (1 or 2) would result in unhappiness, but the presence of many units there would not.

I am relying less on in-game experiences and more on test results I've seen posted (despite the long ago anecdotal experiences described in this old thread). Maybe I'll rig a test if I can do so easily -- I'm thinking of a scenario with my city under a huge cultural radius, a bunch of one move AI units just inside my territory, contact, trade world maps, declare war from my democracy. Would be intersting to see, in the absence of any combat, if and when WW starts to creep up just due to forces in country. I think this was pretty similar to sumthinelse's methodology even though he was testing a different hypothesis.

I will only do this if it's very easy to do quickly in the editor -- still strikes me as a pretty low value piece of information -- after all, we all do what we can to minimize war weariness and take steps to combat it when it becomes unbearable in specific circumstances (i.e., peace or government switch). Even if someone were to devise the actual WW algorithm would it ever make sense to try and apply it in-game? I suspect such knowledge would be distilled to some rules of thumb and used far more often on a "guesstimate" basis (not unlike the manner in which I think the CF formula is used by most players) -- such as the basic rules of thumb we already know -- better to have enemies declare war, etc.

Catt