new info in action trip preview

The diplomat · August 19, 2001, 13:17

Apparently, war will now have a much bigger effect on your population happiness. Here is the quote:

"Wars will strongly influence the happiness and morale of your population. If you start a war against an old ally, the population will be embittered and furious, and if a war lasts for too long, the population's morale will plummet, regardless of your goals."

Inverse Icarus · August 19, 2001, 13:20

gah. realistic? yes. do i like it? no.

Wiglaf · August 19, 2001, 13:34

Looks like they'll enforce it too much. Long wars shouldn't always cause an uproar, that's ridiculous and it detracts from the overall game's flow. I guess I don't know enough about it, but something as little as this could really hamper overall enjoyment.

If you start a war against an old ally, the population will be embittered and furious

Any exceptions to that?

General Ludd · August 19, 2001, 13:41

Personally, I always thought the previous games had a little too much focus on wars, so I'd like something like this... though I can't really say with out knowing more or playing the game.

Hopefully, going to war with an 'old enemy' will actually raise morale.

by the way, could I have a link?

Ralf · August 19, 2001, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
"Wars will strongly influence the happiness and morale of your population. If you start a war against an old ally, the population will be embittered and furious, and if a war lasts for too long, the population's morale will plummet, regardless of your goals."

Great news!

Remember though that the happiness/morale sensitiveness will most probably be linked to government-choice and (maybe) time-era as well. Despotism, monarchy, nationalism & communism being less sensitive in various degrees, while republic & democracy being comparibly more sensitive - especially modern democracy.

Good! Another sensible game-balancing step ensuring that you cannot pursue aggressive Alexander/Napoleon/Hitler-style landgrabbing world-conquest objectives and at the same time, enjoying all the industrial, cultural, scientifical and happiness-related benefits from a Civ-democracy.
Conquer the world? Fine - but choose another Gov, please. Its a matter of game-balance, if nothing else.

This is what I wrote in another thread:
The ultimate prize would be if Firaxis manages to make wars in Civ-3 much more about "a means to an end" (= risk-estimated time-limited shortcuts to achieve better civil advantages; both economical, political & in terms of increased production-strength) rather then just a self-feeding and increasingly more risk-free self-perpetuating military goal in itself.

Although its too soon to tell for sure, it seems that my hopes & prayers, at least partly, have been fulfilled.

Inverse Icarus · August 19, 2001, 14:14

so that whole cold war got us americans upset? we didnt want to fight our old allies gone commie?

what if an old ally declares war on you, and refuses to make peace?

do your people go unhappy?

DarkCloud · August 19, 2001, 18:04

Hmph... The population should be happy if you can declare a "crusade" against the enemy and it is a long war... at least for the first 3 crusades... after the 9th... who knows

The population should grow to have ethnic enemies and never be angry when at war against them.

The diplomat · August 19, 2001, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
so that whole cold war got us americans upset? we didnt want to fight our old allies gone commie?

what if an old ally declares war on you, and refuses to make peace?

do your people go unhappy?

No, I don't think they will. As a matter of fact, if the game takes this idea all the way, then I would imagine that the reverse would happen: if an old ally declares war against you then your people will actually get happier to represent patriotism.

Reread the quote carefully. It is specifically talking about when the human player initiates hostilities against a faithful ally. It was common in civ2 and even in SMAC, for the human player to be able to completely backstab an ally with little penalties. You could make an alliance, share techs and maps, then suddenly turn around and attack them. The only penalty was that the AI would not trust you as much which did not really matter if you were a warmonger anyway. Furthermore, the AI usually pleaded for a cease-fire right away. You agree, get some goodies from the AI like an extra tech, then attack them again. In one civ2 game I played I actually nuked the AI twice, agreed for a cease-fire and peace, then nuked them again, signed peace, nuked them again, and the AI never realized that I was completely taking it for an idiot. Worse, my populace never blinked!

Surely, you will agree that if the player backstabs and ally, that your pop should get enraged. This kind of behavior should create some kind of response from your citizens. In civ2, there was none what so ever! It seems like civ3 will have a smarter and more responsive populace. As long as the idea is implemented fairly, and your pop gets extra happiness in some cases, like when you are the victim of backstabbing and such, then I think it is a cool idea.

Wiglaf · August 19, 2001, 18:49

Furthermore, the AI usually pleaded for a cease-fire right away. You agree, get some goodies from the AI like an extra tech, then attack them again.

Now I remember.

Wouldn't it be easier to make a smarter AI that would catch on to your nuke fest, and not constantly sign peace agreements in the first place? Regardless, now that I think about it, this feature really would impact some of the less than honest strategies of the past.

It'll take some work, but I think they can pull it off.

Edward · August 20, 2001, 13:20

One can avoid the "old ally" clause by never becoming friends ('though this seems like less of a possibility in Civ3 where special resources must be shared).

Long wars of any sort should upset the citizens. I also agree that the citizenry should become upset when you attack long-standing friends. In my games it's usually the AI who gets indignant after centuries of peace and free techs. Then it bites the hand that feeds it as soon as a request for the most recent tech is denied. Will the AI also be subject to unhappy citizenry when an "old ally" is attacked?

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · August 20, 2001, 18:52

you have to remember that this actiontrip preview has alot of new stuff in it, and much of it is suspicious. I dont trust this new preview since firaxis has said nothing about any of this.

Inverse Icarus · August 20, 2001, 19:45

yea. i was just playing a game on the small world map and i was allied with egypt since the beginning of the game, and one turn, they asked for an emissary under the "Icy" attitude.

i did nothing but love them and their glorious leader!