War weariness carryover

[nbarclay]

In my current game, I fought what may be my longest, bloodiest war ever. I had to switch from Republic to Monarchy long before it was over. I finally made peace and switched back to Republic, but about ten turns later, a city culture flipped. I decided to finish the offending civ off and started a new war.

From the moment the new war started, I had a truly huge war weariness problem. I had to slide the happiness slider so far up that I couldn't do research without losing money. The war wasn't too terribly long, but having my science crippled for its duration was extremely annoying.

Does anyone know what the rules are for how war weariness from one war carries over into another? I've seen something similar once before - I fought one nation, made peace due to growing war weariness, almost immediately attacked another nation, and had war weariness problems pretty quickly. It would be nice to know more about how that works (assuming it's a feature rather than a bug) so I can factor it into planning if similar situations arise in the future.

Nathan

[Catt]

War weariness remains quite a mystery - I think one of the bigger mysteries of the game (now that culture flipping has gotten so much attention). I can't offer formulaic specifics, but can confirm the carryover effects and share a metaphor or two that helps me think about war weariness and react to it in the game.

Warning: In the following paragraph I am going to mix metaphors to no end.

I tend to think of war weariness as "funds" that accumulate in an "account." Each turn during a war, additional funds are added to the account - the exact amount of funds added each turn depends upon the primary war weariness factors: (1) enemy troops in your territory; (2) your troops in enemy territory; and (3) engaging in combat. At some point, the "account" reaches it's "boil-over point," and no matter the amount of happiness inducers, your civ will revolt. The "boil-over point" depends upon your form of government, the presence or absence of certain improvements (police stations and the Universal Suffrage GW), and whether or not you declared war or were the "innocent" party.

One of the interesting factors concerning war weariness is what you're alluding to - the fact that the "account" isn't cleaned out upon peace. It gradually depletes during peacetime until the account balance is back to zero. Any new hostilities immediately stop the depletion and start the accumulation again. But the rate of depletion is a total unknown (at least as far as these forums and official game materials are concerned) -- my gameplay experience indicates that it is faster than the accumulation rate.

One other gameplay observation -- the "account" and "boil-over point" seem to be almost hard-coded variables -- rather than being a percentage of total population affected by war weariness, it seems to be that a huge, sprawling empire with lots of population will "boil over" much more quickly than a smaller empire (even when faced with the same basic war weariness factors like governemnt, police stations, etc.) -- just an observation from a limited number of experiences, but haven't seen anything to contradict this in my games.

Catt

Slightly OT: I like the boil-over imagery of a pot, but the metaphor of adding heat to a pot doesn't work for me on the accumulation side. Neither metaphor works well with the phenomenon of a happiness boost upon a declaration of war from an enemy -- the account "going negative?" My graditude to anyone who supplies me with a useful war weariness metaphor .

[Arrian]

I would like to know more about WW too. Perhaps a Firaxian will enlighten us?

-Arrian

[jshelr]

Arrian wrote: One other gameplay observation -- the "account" and "boil-over point" seem to be almost hard-coded variables -- rather than being a percentage of total population affected by war weariness, it seems to be that a huge, sprawling empire with lots of population will "boil over" much more quickly than a smaller empire (even when faced with the same basic war weariness factors like governemnt, police stations, etc.) -- just an observation from a limited number of experiences, but haven't seen anything to contradict this in my games.

Large = bad from a weariness perspective appears to be true, but perhaps on an individual city basis rather than the sprawling nature of a large civ's total number of cities. (Just a guess.)

My latest game, in particular, suggests a benefit from staying size 12. I usually bypass nationalism and sanitation in my research path toward ToE. In my latest game, I was nearly as large as the other civs combined. No other civ researched sanitation into the modern era! So, I could not trade for it. I have universal sufferage, good lux, marketplaces, but few police stations. Bottom line: I've been a war the whole time and stayed in republic without any weariness problems appearing. I think it could be the relatively small cities that did the trick. But, as meantioned above, who can be sure.

[Arrian]

Actually, Catt wrote that, but good observation about empire size. I can't say I've seen the same, though. I've had some pretty damn big empires, using republic or democracy, and blatantly attacked & destroyed AI's w/o much war weariness. The wars were over pretty quickly, though, and I had all sorts of wonders & luxuries.

I think the large city thing is just a function of the normal happiness factor in the game. Large cities are REALLY hard to keep happy. Therefore, WW will hit them hard. I only allow cities to cross size 20 if I'm trying to boost my score. So I think you're right - individual city size is more a factor than empire size (except perhaps when a huge empire means tons of corrupt cities you haven't necessarily fully developed...some cities may be lacking a colosseum or police station, which will mean WW kicks in sooner).

-Arrian

[Catt]

My experience is slightly different. One older game in particular stands out in my memory. I had turned off cultural, diplomatic and spaceship victory, and was through the tech tree completely. Playing on a huge map, continents, Regent level (I think). I (Egypt), America, Aztecs and Rome were the only civs left standing in the modern age, and Rome was a 8 - 10 city vassal. My empire was about the size of Aztecs and America combined -- I'm guessing I had 150 cities (just a guess). Only my two cores (around Palace and FP) were above size 12 -- virtually the rest of the empire was stuck at size 6 or at 12 (this was before 1.21 and the toned-down corruption). Again a guess, but I think I only had about 30 cities above size 12. I was a democracy, had built Universal Suffrage, and my core cities had police stations (in addition to the usual happiness inducers plus 6 or 7 local luxuries). Someone declared war (maybe I did) and, we went at it. Because I had built nuclear plants in many of my core cities, I was carefully checking each cities population (through the domestic advisor screen) at the end of each turn. Without noting a single instance of disorder, and with at most one or two citizens per city moving from happy to either content or unhappy, my empire was overthrown! And this was about 5 turns into the war! (no nukes used, not even an abnormally large amount of combat).

This example (and others too) leads me to believe (but just a guess!) two things: (1) empires of many cities boil over more quickly, everything else being equal; and (2) happiness inducers do not combat war weariness - they merely mask it; in other words, with enough happiness factors, you won't see your cities, gradually adding to the "boil over" point -- you may go from quite happy to revolution.

An example of point 2 above (happiness masking versus combat), another example: Playing as Japanese, tiny map, continents (or archipelago), Monarch or Emperor, only me, Chinese and Perisans remain. I am the smallest of the three empires, and perhaps a touch behind in technology, but not by much. I have a well-developed albeit small empire, but can't recall if I built the US wonder. China sneak attacks my democracy, and I proceed to fight a long, defensive war, methodically whittling down huge stacks of Chinese infantry with artillery, infantry, and a few tanks (while I try to take some oil) -- I have no more than token force of a few infantry pillaging resources in Chinese terrotiry -- all the fighting is taking place on my soil. Nonetheless, I never lose a city, and am not losing many units - I am engaging in lots of combat. The war goes on for +/- 20 turns. My governors are managing moods, but I am still checking on city happiness at the end of each turn. About turn 17 or 18 of the war, without a single instance of disorder and with a significantly positive happy-to-unhappy citizen ratio, my empire is suddenly overthrown.

BTW, I tried to stimulate those more methodical than I to study WW, but didn't get many takers - see this thread.

I may still have the Japanese / Chinese example as a saved game if anybody is interested.

Catt

[Arrian]

This example (and others too) leads me to believe (but just a guess!) two things: (1) empires of many cities boil over more quickly, everything else being equal; and (2) happiness inducers do not combat war weariness - they merely mask it; in other words, with enough happiness factors, you won't see your cities, gradually adding to the "boil over" point -- you may go from quite happy to revolution.

(2) is kinda scary. I always thought that if you had a really happy civ, you could stave off WW longer. I have never had my government collapse. The worst WW-related episode was my Capitol blowing up (nuclear plant) due to WW-induced rioting. That was a while ago.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arrian


(2) is kinda scary. I always thought that if you had a really happy civ, you could stave off WW longer. I have never had my government collapse. The worst WW-related episode was my Capitol blowing up (nuclear plant) due to WW-induced rioting. That was a while ago.

Yeah - I think I overstated my intended point in my original post -- I think (but don't know) that a happy civ does stave off war weariness much better than an unhappy civ. What I meant to say is that no amount of happiness can prevent the accumulation and "boil over" of war weariness -- it may take longer to reach with an extremely happy civ (slower accumulation), but it will happen eventually. And (more in line with my original statement), I know for a fact that an outwardly happy civ can suddenly revolt without warning -- so happiness does have a "masking effect" even if it doesn't radically slow the accumulation rate.

I'd love a little more guidance from Firaxis on WW - I don't necessarily need an algorithm, but, when playing a non-religious civ, it sure would be nice to have a ball-park guess on the ol' accumulation meter. It would definitely alter my strategy - for one thing, I would be far more likely to break a military alliance and make peace if I knew WW was just around the corner; for another thing, I would refrain from doing what Nathan did (which started this thread) in certain circumstances.

Catt

[HazieDaVampire]

so, if your in a government with no WW, and you've been at war for ages, you get peace, change to republic, declare war again, the people are now effected by WW from this new war, and the old one?

[Arrian]

Good question. I would think that goverments with no war weariness would prevent an increase in your WW level. In other words, if you were always a Despot or Monarch, but switched late in the game to Republic, you should have 0 WW built up. I'm not entirely sure about this, though. Whenever I've switched from "war" governments to "peace" governments, I have then had a LONG period of peace.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

In my case, I started the war as a Republic, switched to Monarchy a little bit into it as war weariness started to become a problem, and then switched back to Republic after the war was over. I don't know how it would have affected things if I'd been in Monarchy when the first war started.

Incidentally, the "carryover" effect is very possibly something they snuck in in one of the patches. In an early game on the first patch, I was deep into a war when I tried my one and only experiment with communism. When I immediately switched back to Democracy after seeing how bad communism is for a civ that cares about research, the happiness problems I'd been facing weren't there anymore. It's probably better that you can't do one-turn government flips to get rid of war weariness (especially with the advantage that would give religious civs), but massive war weariness after ten turns or so of peace is a bit much.
Of course it's also possible that the situation I ran into is some sort of bug.

Nathan

[Arrian]

Based upon my experience, I don't think you accumulate any WW while in despot/monarchy/commie. Playing as Japan, I often go despot -> republic while still mopping up my continent. WW will eventually kick in, but if it accumulated from the beginning, it would immediately "boil over" and bring down my republic.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Nathan & Arrian - I think my experiences are the same as yours -- I have tried the one turn governement switch with a religious civ (WW anarchy - switch to Monarchy - switch back to Democracy) -- hello instant anarchy! OTOH, I seem to recall warring extensively while a despot, and switching to Republic when I was confident that the war would end in 4 or 5 turns -- no instant anarchy.

Catt

[Theseus]

I'm an idiot... I knew there was 'something' we needed to know more about, and I forgot to ask on the chat.

If any Firaxians see this, please take pity, and enlighten us on warweariness.

[Slax]

Like to revive this thread to see if anyone has any new war weariness info....