So...we Texans are "unhappy"?

darroldtg

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
26
I don't get the idea that Americans, Canadians, Russians, Chinese, Australians, and maybe Indians are the most unhappy people on earth because we live in geographically large countries. Obviously, the people in Haiti must be jubilant, and the people of Liechtenstein must be ecstatic.

Note to Sid: Texans are NOT unhappy because we live in a large state!
 
Lol, feels that way here in Oregon, and it doesn't matter who we vote for. American Politics at it's finest :sarcasm:
 
It's more about not having happy stuff enough for everyone.

It's done poorly in Civ5, though, with effects of happines being based on happy stuff minus population, instead of ratios between them.
 
I don't see how a representative republic with a federal system can be simulated in Civ 5.

A small civ with several allied puppet states is about as close as it gets, I suppose.

The Social Policy "Liberty" offers selections for "Republic" (gaining production) and "Representation" (gaining culture), but that has nothing to do with the geographic expanse of the civ.

It seems, however, that the AI players spawn cities without penalty--but I can't.
 
Don't worry, be happy, you've got stadia in Texas. Are the tickets expensive to watch a game?
 
I don't think that it makes sense that the number of cities would create unhappiness. It's more like if some city is crowded, it should create some amount of unhappiness but not crowded cities wouldn't recieve unhappniess from population. Not all the people want to live alone in the middle of some kind of wilderness. With Civ5 logics in unhappiness all the citizens would be happy if they never saw any other people ;)

The system of global unhappniess seems to be a bit badly reasoned. An idea about replacing global happiness with global order (posted by someone on the forums) would be great in my opinion.
 
Nah, the states are controlled to strongly by the central government to be considered puppets. It's been that way since the civil war ended. That is once courthouses were built in all the Confederate cities.:mischief:

I would also note that in civ you seem to rule an entire civilization of sociopaths.
 
There is nothing in Civ5 that creates unhappiness simply because of territory you control.
Territory controlled != number of cities.

The US *is* made unhappier and harder to govern because of its large size, as witnessed by the fact that Texans have on average very different policy preferences to New Yorkers, and both would be happier with the policies they prefer than the compromise policies they get.
 
I don't see how a representative republic with a federal system can be simulated in Civ 5.

A small civ with several allied puppet states is about as close as it gets, I suppose.

The Social Policy "Liberty" offers selections for "Republic" (gaining production) and "Representation" (gaining culture), but that has nothing to do with the geographic expanse of the civ.

It seems, however, that the AI players spawn cities without penalty--but I can't.

um, representation has a direct impact on geographic expanse. I've taken it many times with larger empires. biggest issue for me with it now is that liberty in general is now less desirable than tradition. let's compare the trees:

1.base tradition is +50% food growth in capital. base liberty is +50% settler generation in capitol. food=production when making settlers anyway, so this is at best a small settler production boost for liberty in the early game and a HUGE boost for capitol during the entire game. big win for tradition.
2. aristocracy is +33% wonder generation, collective rule is new cities start with 50% of the food necessary for the 2nd citizen. even bigger win for tradition.
3. legalism is -33% unhappiness from capitol citizens, meritocracy is +.5 happy face per city connected to capitol. legalism is easier to get and has a significant impact throughout the game. the happy benefit for a size 18 capitol is equivalent to 12 connected cities with meritocracy. for small empires legalism is better, for mid-sized empires they are generally comparable, and for large empires meritocracy is better (possibly much better depending upon how many cities you get/map size). however, legalism only has one pre-req which is highly desirable, while meritocracy has 2 (1 meh and 1 poor). about a wash though game strategy is highly important for these 2.
4. oligarchy is +33% combat power in friendly territory, citizenship is workers are 25% faster an building improvements. advantage citizenship in my book, faster workers means less expense or more improvements online quicker. my only beef is that it doesn't stack with the pyramids, THAT would be make citizenship very useful indeed imho.
5. landed elite is 2/3 reduction in culture required for border expansion, representation is +1 culture per city. These 2 have a great synergy. You could literally pick these 2 and not building any more culture buildings for a LONG time if ever. they also both work well with empires of any size. unfortunately, getting both would cost 6 early sp's, extremely unlikely without stonehenge and even then quite iffy. I like landed elite better but this is very close imho.
6. monarchy is +1 gold per 2 citizens in capitol, republic is +1 production/city. I would much prefer republic in any decent-sized empire obviously, but it's two prereqs absolutely suck so it is rarely taken.

looking at the breakdown, that is 2 wins for each with 2 ties. unfortunately, the base policy and lvl 1 policies strongly favor tradition, while the better liberty policies have 1 bad and one bad or one ok qualifiers. generally speaking I would say that even on a huge map I would take the first tradition policy before going for meritocracy, and generally any time I planned to have fewer than 15 cities I would favor tradition as a branch.
 
What does living in a large state/province/country have to do with it OP? Isn't population density VS happiness buildings/resources what determines possible happiness in Civ V, not land occupied?
 
The USA is pretty far down the Autocracy tree by now. Although if you listen to GB and SP, we've redirected to Order against "our" will.
 
Well, Texas wasn't to happy about being a part of the USA. They even joined the Civil War to be free.
 
To explain the significance of DaveGold's comment: yes, there are lots of stadia in Texas...every community (some of which are not even towns) has one; and it is not uncommon to find small towns in Texas with a stadium that seats more people than the population of the town because they expect everyone from the other town to come see the game.

The "game", of course, is FOOTBALL.
 
To explain the significance of DaveGold's comment: yes, there are lots of stadia in Texas...every community (some of which are not even towns) has one; and it is not uncommon to find small towns in Texas with a stadium that seats more people than the population of the town because they expect everyone from the other town to come see the game.

Don't they know about the patch? Those stadiums in small towns are completely wasted!

realism < gameplay
 
What does living in a large state/province/country have to do with it OP? Isn't population density VS happiness buildings/resources what determines possible happiness in Civ V, not land occupied?

True. But when you think about the unhappiness caused by number of cities, doesn't that mean that the bigger your territory is the unhappier your people are. I don't think that its very reasonable. It's like people in New York are unhappy because Washington D.C, Los Angeles, Atlanta and all the other American cities exist.
 
Top Bottom