Positive and Disturbing Trends

[JohnE]

Managing Disorder Caused by Growth

Originally posted by Shaka II

Setting the governor button to manage moods in all cities is probably a good idea, but it doesn't always work to prevent unrest. I think a patch could improve this so that it always prevents unrest. Maybe the governor prefers unrest to starvation, in which case, we have to remove the governor. Unfortunate, since this can require too much micromanagement (checking each city each turn to see if they are going to revolt next turn and left clicking on center tile to balance the happy/unhappy quotient). That could put a crimp on my battle fervor.

What I have found to work reasonably well is to look across the map and check into each city that is going to grow at the end of that turn. Only cities that grow are suddenly thrown into civil disorder, unless something else is producing unhappiness, like war-weariness or a loss of luxury resources. I suppose this method wouldn't work as well when at war and using a representative government, though. Maybe that's why the governor sometimes fails to prevent civil disorder?

[vmxa1]

I am not sure how it should work, but to me if we are at war and winning handily (can you say Gulf war) the people are not going to be unhappy. If it is going poorly then people will be inclined to be unhappy, unless they feel it is justified. Those factors need to be considered. In games where I have war delcared on me by a civ that I have no close contact, it is less of an impact than a border civ that sends troops right away. A more complex rule needs to be used to govern the war factor. It needs to consider who started the war and the relative strengths. If we are bashing them, very few will be distressed. The longer it goes on though, the less tolerant they will be. Maybe a slider as you suggest can be used or more turns required to trigger unhappiness if they started and we are winning, and a reduce time to recover if we win. I think we got over the Gulf War very quickly. WWII took a lot more time, some never got over it.

[Shaka II]

JohnE,

You are definitely right about the population increment causing unrest. I've noticed that before, mainly during peace (and always too late). I suppose the effect is more pronounced during war, I just never correlated the two.

I will keep a more watchful eye on pop growth (especially during war), but hope for some improvement in the governor performance down the road. I am sort of a micromanagement type player, playing mostly on normal size maps, but at some level, you have to let go and let the governor help out.

[KLIN-TONN]

notyoueither - no, I didn't lose any luxuries due to the war. The reason they went into unrest so quickly and on such a large scale is exactly what skanky burns said: it was the accumulation of war. But I don't have a frigging choice! They declare war on me, I try and make peace with them all the time, but they refuse my envoy.

I had heard that the problem of war weariness is less severe when another Civ attacks you, but so far in the game the French, English, Egyptians, Greeks, Germans, Japanese and Greeks (again) have all declared war against me consecutively, and my people are just sick of being attacked. Still, there's nothing I can do.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KLIN-TONN
Still, there's nothing I can do.

Except get fond of being called comrade...

Salve

[Skanky Burns]

If you have plenty of money, and want to use that to rush-buy things, Monarchy is not a bad choice as opposed to Communism. Both avoid war weariness.

Perhaps the thought of 6 turns anarchy isnt such a nice one for you klin-tonn (as you stated below )
Well, check your military advisor (F3) screen and see what he says about your strength vs other nations. Chances are your military is considered weaker than theirs as the other civs keep declaring war on you. Remember that military power only considers numbers of units, not their quality. To get the other nations respecting your civ, you need to increase the number of military units you control. I would even consider mobilization to really start pumping out more military, and the mobilization would end soon as

peace may be right around the corner...right?

Conscription in some cities will also boost your military ranking, but of course that action would also increase unhappiness in your cities which is the problem in the first place

[KLIN-TONN]

Skanky

I am superior to every other Civ in the game when it comes to armed forces. Granted, my military advisor doesn't say that our military is strong in comparison to any others'...but the worst he says is that we have "an average military" compared to theirs'. Surveying the situation closer (I have spies with all my enemies) I see that I clearly have the advantage. I've got battleships where they've got Ironclad. I've got more bombers. I've got 45 mech infantry and 45 regular infantry and they've got 114 regular infantry. (this is just an example - I don't know the exact numbers)

I had figured that the reason every Civ in this game has been FURIOUS at me for almost the entire time and has been declaring war at me CONSTANTLY is that it is the first game in Monarch I've played successfully...in other words, I figured it was just a part of the game as the difficulty level advanced. There is, otherwise, absolutely no reason for everyone to be so pissed off at me all the time.

[vmxa1]

The fact that you are ranked ahead of them can be a reason to be mad at you. Many factors can be at play such as a disposition to dislke your race or form of government. Having things they want such as lux or tech. Not trading with them, the list is quite long. If you have every razed one of their cities.

[Qilue]

One game, I had a similiar experience to you, only I was Zulus and only Russia was doing the attacking (for the entire damn game). At any time, my city garrison units generally out-numbered her entire army 3-1 but I had few offensive units. I learnt that it's not your ability to defend that stops them from attacking, it's your ability to 'retaliate'. Meaning, you must have more offensive units than them to prevent them from starting an unprovoked war.

Last game I played (as Japan), I kept my garrisons to 3 per city, but I had a large number of offensive units. Every one was nice to me right up until I sided with Rome against the rest of the map.

That was the most fun game so far with the Zulus doing something to put them in 1st place in the "Most stupid move" contest. During the above war, I had about 30 or so battleships and aegis cruisers all parked close to each other off my coast where I was coordinating them into battlegroups with carriers. During one turn's processing, the Zulus sailed an ironclad into the middle of them. I could almost imagine the sign on the side saying "Sink me".

[rflagg]

war weariness - the long road ahead

Here's my take on war weariness from example -
Playing the Romans, huge map, 16 civs, in Republic ever since I was able to switch (no, I can't break out of some of my civII habits yet! ). My first war wasn't until 1870. Then I attacked the Chinese around 1970, and then fought a three front battle in 2008. Only until the very end of the third war did I have war weariness problems, and I believe it was due to the fact that the war was going on 20+ years.

Why did I have no problems? First off, I attribute it to the years of non-aggression. Since I wasn't very war mongering early in the game, the other civs didn't seem to be either (notice how if you war early on, they're more likely to follow your act - and the same if you're peaceful) - there were skirmishes for land, but never between myself and another civ. A huge plus in being able to extend wars in the later years.

Secondly, Access to luxuries, and *lots* of them. One thing that kept my 3 war front from my civ collapsing upon itself was that I had (both by force and by trade) acquired 9 luxury resources. Other than that, I didn't set my tax slider to increase luxuries, nor did I mess with the standard setup for each city.

Is there any possibility that total war (meaning even wars you aren't involved in) affect your war weariness when you enter into a battle? It makes sense, in as such that your civilization is happy as long as you aren't like the other civs - always fighting - but when you finally do decide to fight, they want out, and want out quick, whether you were attacked or not. Just a thought.

I know sometimes though games can't be as perfect as my last turned out - so many times I see a nearby civ, and have to take them on because they're taking *my* land! How dare they?!

Anyway, hope this helps, or at least brings up another question to answer.

Keep enjoying Civ3!

-Rflagg.

[Peace Builder]

I very seldom have problems with war weariness. In fact I often experience an increase in happiness when I am attacked (just as the book says). The bonus often lasts about 16 turns.

I switch to Republic / Democracy as soon as posible. So most of my wars are fought under one of these two governments. I have never used Communism.

I seldom start wars. It is usually very easy to get them to attack me.

When I don't want war, I prevent it by giving others good deals on trade. It also helps to sell luxuries cheep. If they go to war with me they loose the luxuries. Most civs that go to war with me have a lot of rioting cities for most of the war. When they don't have rioting cities it seems to take longer to get them to the peace table.

It also seems that if I sit back and defend, then they won't accept my envoy. If I defeat many of thier troups and/or take thier cities quickly, they are faster to want peace.

I induce other civs to attack me by keeping my number of military units lower than thiers. I win wars by having superior military units. My mix varies with circumstances. I usually have an abundance of fast units (which happen to be offensive) with some good defensive units to protect the injured that retreat from battle. I use terrain to my advantage to adjust the odds. It helps if I can arrange a situation where my retreating unit will end up where it will not be attaced a second time before I have a chance to remove it to safe teritory.

I use the fast units to attack the hords coming across my border. When the hords die off then I retaliate quickly. The AI usually keeps two defensive units per city with one or two offensive. It usually doesn't take much to take thier cites after the hords are gone. When I attack them early I find thier cities are better defended.

Another tactic for short wars (20 turns) is to enlist an ally in a military alliance as soon as I am attacked. This often takes the heat off me. This is especially effective if the ally is between us. War is usually declared on me with thier units on my boarder. When my ally joins the fray, my attacker takes my ally's boarder cities which I then 'recover' from our mutual enemy. I thus have gained cities from 'friends' with out having a war with them. I have a happiness bonus for a while, then when the 20 turns of alliance ends, I accept peace from the enemy (at good terms for me). The other two usually continue to fight for a while.

I find most of the rules reasonable and like finding ways to turn them to my advantage. I am still finding new ways to do this. It is part of what I find fun in Civ3.

Have a Terrific day!

[Thrawn05]

Re: Positive and Disturbing Trends

Originally posted by KLIN-TONN
All I can say is: "It's not my fault! They told me they fixed it!"

Ok there Solo , ease in there, remember this saying everytime you play: Its only a game... Its only a game... Its only a game... Oh frig it, I'll nuke you all to HELL!!!!

[Push Nuke Button] [\Push Nuke Button]