Very little. As the diadochi wars showed, Alexander's soldiers had no problem being perpetually at war. They weren't tired of it. What they were tired of, was crossing the Himalayas and then facing monsoon conditions in India, while being outnumbered by even the smallest of kingdoms. They didn't even mind subjugating the areas in India they already were in, (see: Malian campaign) as long as they didn't have to go further east. Carthage is nothing compared to what they've already been through.
It was always my belief that Antipater was being brought back to act as viceroy in Asia while Alexander was away on campaign. This would signal Alexander had learned he can't just leave his empire without any supervision while away on a long campaign. It would also have the added effect of separating Antipater from Olympias, and thus relieving him the headache of having to deal with their personal loathing of each other.
OK thanks for clearing that up!
As to the Antipater thing, that does make much more sense than Olympias finally winning their struggle. Though it is odd that Antipater seemed to think he was being summoned to his death.
Another Question. Long term do you think that Alexander's western empire (for lack of a better word) would be viable, would those provinces break off or would they be more nominal vassals at best?