SINGLE Most Frustrating Thing in Civ5?

My top 3:

1. Invisible units bug - the game doesn't display graphics of enemy units. Game losing bug, especially on higher difficulties.

2. Jumping from unit to unit in most ridiculous way - annoying as hell, makes militaristic games last double time they could.

3. Workers stop working when enemy AI unit is like 5 tiles away without possibility to do any harm, but when CS units approach the workers don't stop even when the CS unit is a tile away.

Sidor1982 said:

My top 3:

1. Invisible units bug - the game doesn't display graphics of enemy units. Game losing bug, especially on higher difficulties.

2. Jumping from unit to unit in most ridiculous way - annoying as hell, makes militaristic games last double time they could.

3. Workers stop working when enemy AI unit is like 5 tiles away without possibility to do any harm, but when CS units approach the workers don't stop even when the CS unit is a tile away.

Click to expand...

I forgot about the invisible units glitch! I guess it didn't catch my attention as much see what I did there?

salty mud said:

Without doubt the global happiness mechanic. Whoever thought of this should be taken outside and flogged with a steel-tipped horsewhip.

Click to expand...

This is my number #1, just above unit hopping, which is saying a lot because unit hopping triples how long it takes to get work done in a turn during a war.

Sonereal said:

This is my number #1, just above unit hopping, which is saying a lot because unit hopping triples how long it takes to get work done in a turn during a war.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that the system they had in previous iterations was extremely unrealistic. Assuming a happiness level that is roughly equal in all cities, an empire with 3 cities should be far more stable than an empire with 33 cities. And that's what the smiley faces really represent: stability and governmental control.

Though I'll concede that the penalty for letting global happiness fall below 0 is a bit harsh. Perhaps it would be better to have population growth shrink by 10% for each unhappiness, with no growth occurring at 10 Unhappiness.

ThisNameIsTooLo said:

Though I'll concede that the penalty for letting global happiness fall below 0 is a bit harsh. Perhaps it would be better to have population growth shrink by 10% for each unhappiness, with no growth occurring at 10 Unhappiness.

Click to expand...

While not a bad idea, it's not much different from the current system: your cities will keep growing at almost the same rate, thus creating unhappiness and dropping your growth rate.
I'm actually glad to get only 25% growth when I drop in unhappiness, because without it I'd accidentally hit the much worse -50% penalty a lot more.

strijder20 said:

While not a bad idea, it's not much different from the current system: your cities will keep growing at almost the same rate, thus creating unhappiness and dropping your growth rate.
I'm actually glad to get only 25% growth when I drop in unhappiness, because without it I'd accidentally hit the much worse -50% penalty a lot more.

Click to expand...

Well, we could take it one step further and change the production penalty as well. Let X be the amount of happiness below -10. When happiness is -11 or lower, X number of cities with the lowest local happiness will revolt for one turn, and in the following turn, 1 population from each of those cities will emigrate to cities with greater local happiness in your empire. If this rearrangement of population brings your happiness to -10 or greater, the revolts will stop immediately. Otherwise, revolts will continue into the next turn.

If, however, the revolts continue for 3 consecutive turns, then one population from each city in revolt will leave for a neighboring empire.

Basically, you get punished with revolting cities for a few turns, then shed enough population to return to a relative state of normalcy.

I think the rebellion aspects needs totally re-don. One game I was going for total domination in a Large map of earth, there were maybe 80 cites world-wide, and I planned to take them all save the cities of the last civ to lose its capital.

I hit stealth bombers and modern armor before anyone else in the game, and had an army of tanks and bombers ready to triple my empire size as it is. I nuked the largest cities of every nation in the world so their science could not catch up, and DOW everyone (I was france, already owned Europe, and had a large navy. All I had to worry about were my east and south fronts)

Each turn I captured between 1-5 cities since some capitals were right in the middle of empire I just took them all.

After about turn 5 my happyness was down the drain. I decided, screw it. I can deal with 4 modern armors. I have an armada of 30 Stealths.

This is not a good this. If an empire starts taking over the world, and their un-happyness is -120, which basically means everyone is sleeping in hay, wouldn't an entire civil war erupt or something? Hell what if those 4-6 troops get a city down to 0 Health. They take a turn's worth of gold and DISAPPEAR so I don't even have to deal with them!

"Well I stole some gold, I don't want to rebel anymore. That is all I wanted"

I want an expansion like Rhye's and Fall of civilization where rebellions are SOO much more dramatic.