Democracy & War Weariness is unfair to the player

D4everman · November 14, 2001, 23:28

I've said it before but this time I'll say it with a bee up my a$$. War Weariness is completely unfair. I'm not saying to get rid of it, but its too powerful of a weapon.

War Weariness (from here on I'll just call it WW) bugged me during a game where the french declared war and I launched a pretty good counterattack against them and their allies the germans. But by the time my attack got started War weariness had driven my civ (Greeks) into anarchy. I was pretty upset about it. I didn't even get a chance to strike back before i had to consider stopping the war. Fine. But the French wouldn't see my envoy. So anarchy continued and most of my city improvements were "destroyed by mobs". In a few turns my civ was reduced from the no.#1 scientific power and military force to a 3rd world madhouse. Why? Because the frnech wouldn't talk to me even when they were the aggressors and I was a democracy?

Well, loading from a saved game I tried a different tactic. I made friends with everyone. I gave money and tech to maintain peace. I stayed out of Mutual Protection Pacts (MPPs) so I wouldn't get involved in a useless war. Well, the russians attacked soon after. I don't know why...big deal. I had two cities on a nearby island by their threee cities. I was wary of war weariness so I quickly airlifted tanks to my cities and took their cities. Then there was a lengthy naval engagement with big losses for both sides. (The AI can really pour it on in naval fights so be careful!) i needed allies so I asked for alliances from the romans and the chinese. In time "we" smashed up the russian navy enough where Catherine finally sued for peace. (I say "we", because my "allies" didn't do jack, really) But then the French and the Germans formed an alliance against me and began attacking me. Keep in mind that every turn in every war I would try to negotiate peace...and except for Catherine, no one would see my envoys. Eventually after fighting a purely defensive battle with the french the War Weariness came up again and improvements started being destroyed. I turned the game off.

Yeah, I'm *****ing and whining, so if you're one of those people that wanna jump on people with a complaint about the game knock yourself out. I don't expect to be able to steamroll over the AI. I was pursuing a peaceful strategy and yeah, i know war is gonna come up. But its ridiculous to assume that a democracy will fall apart when BEING attacked and only defending itself. I can't broker peace so my people decide to destroy their own cities? (and really **** up my civ...I mean, they didn't smash cheap stuff. It was like "Research Center destroyed" and " Bank destroyed!", not to mention that I can't produce new units during this civ wide anarchy so we'll definitely be invaded. Heck, my allies might turn on me since I'm defenseless...and all because the french won't TALK!?)

Firaxis..you need to address this. I'm being attacked. I'll even buy that if i was attacked and then launched an imperialistic war of conquest I should have rampant disorder. But I didn't do anything but defend myself. I even let some enemy ships into my borders before attacking to show that I was only defending myself. But a democracy under attack should be exempt from WW as long as they defend themselves only!

This really bugs me. Because I like playing Civ3, but I don't see the point if I can be defeated by a warlike civ when I'm only defending my own civ. Keep it in mind that throughout this whole game I have never started a war. I've only fought when attacked and I've tried to make the wars as short as possible.

D4everman · November 14, 2001, 23:35

And just so its official I voted for WW being tweaked a bit for defense. If I try to contact an attacker WW should be reduced. Look at it this way, if someone bombed florida and the american people didn't want a war (like that would happen) and the president tried to broker a peace agreement would the citizens decide to burn down disney world because the attackers said "We ain't even talkin' 'bout it. We're gonna keep attacking you!".

a2b2c3 · November 15, 2001, 00:01

ok i would like to add this bit. WW is not bad if someone attacks you, you can still live a long time with no problems. The problem starts if you create an alliance against someone. That is the real problem. If the zulu's and persians decide to ally against me, i'm basically screwed. I can't stand alone, well i probably could but it's much harder, and if i entered an alliance to even things out, bamb, war weariness kicks in full blast.

There must be a way to decide if an alliance is based on offense or defense for war weariness. That is the problem, all alliances are offenseive only, even when used for defense.

D4everman · November 15, 2001, 00:19

ok i would like to add this bit. WW is not bad if someone attacks you, you can still live a long time with no problems. The problem starts if you create an alliance against someone. That is the real problem. If the zulu's and persians decide to ally against me, i'm basically screwed. I can't stand alone, well i probably could but it's much harder, and if i entered an alliance to even things out, bamb, war weariness kicks in full blast.

I understand what your saying, but i feel that its an unfair advantage. at warlord level. The french can basically sit back and watch my civ crumble because they won't make peace. and I didn't declare war or start the attack first.

as for the alliances. I might have jumped the gun, it was a reaction to civ2 experiences. since my borders are with Rome and China I was afraid that if I didn't ally with them the french would and then I'd have the old "Anti-Me alliance" going on. Still, that would have been silly since i've conducted peaceful trade, alliances and pacts with both of those empires.

My whole point is that I think democracy is unfairly hampered by WW. If I start a war I can understand it...if I don't start it but begin an aggressive campaign I can understand it. But i'm not doing anything but common defense. It really ruins the game for me, because that means a rival civ can beat me not by any great skill or strategy but simply by maintaining a uselss war that in essence THEY are losing. The French bombardments don't do enough damage to my tile improvements that my army of workers can't fix in a turn. They can't actually "invade" because i'd blow up any transport entering my sea borders. My ships can ereenter a hoarbor for repairr each turn while theirs can only limp home (and not make it because as long as they are in my borders i sink them. My bombers weaken any ship before my naval attack. So the war gains them nothing but the unfair advantage of watching my people get upset about a war I'm fighting to save them.
doe

does Soren read these threads. I'd love to know what he thinks. Because I think this is definitely unfair to "builder" type civs and no, I don't think I should have to change to communism or any other "war" government to defend my democracy.

ElitePersian · November 15, 2001, 00:26

I voted that it needs to be tweaked a bit, but the damn problem is that we have no way to tell when our democracy will fall into anarchy!

Ludwig · November 15, 2001, 00:28

On Warlord level, your "default" happiness should be great enough that setting your Science spending to Zero and your Happiness spending to 100% [or whatever percent is the maximum that keeps you from becoming insolvent] should keep you out of civil disorder. At least, it should do so if you've built any happiness improvements or wonders at all.

Once your domestic situation is stabilized, you MUST go on the offensive and take an AI city. The AI seems willing to fight forever if he doesn't lose a city. Actually, if the game needs to be "tweaked" it's probably here instead of WW. The AI sees no reason to ever end a war - even a stupid and expensive one, where all his troops are dying and all his improvements are getting bombed - until he loses a city. Once you take a city, he'll talk.

D4everman · November 15, 2001, 00:37

Once your domestic situation is stabilized, you MUST go on the offensive and take an AI city. The AI seems willing to fight forever if he doesn't lose a city. Actually, if the game needs to be "tweaked" it's probably here instead of WW. The AI sees no reason to ever end a war - even a stupid and expensive one, where all his troops are dying and all his improvements are getting bombed - until he loses a city. Once you take a city, he'll talk.

You may be right, and i'll try it...tomorrow...but I did attempt that strategy before in way. (another thread...sorry, i don't have the link available right now) basically, i thought if i gave the enemy a bloody nose they'd back off. but it didn't work and the same disorder happened.

Then again I RAZED the enemy city

so that might have po'd them more.

Still Demo needs a bit of tweaking.