=) =(

[YourDeath/TSAR]

the biggest problem in my opinion in civ 5 is happyness.
the biggest problem in my opinion about happyness is the hapyness per city.
it should be the opposite, the more cities you have, the happier your people must be.
here are some historical examples:
when napoleon conquered europe, the french loved him, they didnt hate him
when the roman empire was at its largest, the romans where very happy, not angry.

summary, i dont understand why your people become unhappy when you have loads of cities.

 

[attackfighter]

Larger empires would likely encompass more religious, ethnic, nationalist and political groups, and since empires in the civ series are represented as being very centralized there is little chance that the empires would be able to satisfy the wants of all those groups.

As for your examples, the larger the Roman and French empires grew the more dissenters and rebellions they encountered. Rome and Paris were happy, but the majority of their lands didn't emphasize with foreign rule and so they dissented. Look at contemporary large empires, such as Russia and China, they struggle with many different rebellious groups such as the Uighurs, Chechens and Tibetans.

Things like luxury resources and stadiums in a way represent how prosperous the people are, and the more prosperous the society the more apathetic they are, as the USA shows us.

 

[MadRat]

As for your examples, the larger the Roman and French empires grew the more dissenters and rebellions they encountered. Rome and Paris were happy, but the majority of their lands didn't emphasize with foreign rule and so they dissented. Look at contemporary large empires, such as Russia and China, they struggle with many different rebellious groups such as the Uighurs, Chechens and Tibetans.

But do these low level resistances actually impact the production, wealth and happiness on these countries on a global scale? Are people in Moscow and Beijing so up in angst about these issues that they stop having kids, stage strikes and generally whine and moan about it and require massive stadiums, waterparks and adult movie theatres to alleviate their concern??

Rat

 

[19Mellon73]

They should have called it stability.

Aaaand should have added a citywide happiness.
It's hard to balance the whole game with just one mechanic.

I'm sure they thought otherwise...

 

[eric_]

when napoleon conquered europe, the french loved him, they didnt hate him

What about the non-French populations his empire comprised as the result of his conquests? Once they were under the French flag, they had to be counted in any evaluation of overall French happiness.

They should have called it stability.

Local happiness, global stability. I like that idea.

 

[southpw11]

the biggest problem in my opinion in civ 5 is happyness.
the biggest problem in my opinion about happyness is the hapyness per city.
it should be the opposite, the more cities you have, the happier your people must be.
here are some historical examples:
when napoleon conquered europe, the french loved him, they didnt hate him
when the roman empire was at its largest, the romans where very happy, not angry.

summary, i dont understand why your people become unhappy when you have loads of cities.

Overall I like the game...but I'm not a huge fan of happiness being such a driving force in Civ5. I guess overall I disagree with the concept of a civilization game forcing players to keep a smaller number of cities and population because if the imposed happiness limitation (limited happiness resources), but unlimited unhappiness. I'm not a die hard civ player or mathematician like some posters here though.

 

[Stilgar08]

Local happiness, global stability. I like that idea.

agreed - AND @OP: Beware of ICS!

 

[attackfighter]

But do these low level resistances actually impact the production, wealth and happiness on these countries on a global scale? Are people in Moscow and Beijing so up in angst about these issues that they stop having kids, stage strikes and generally whine and moan about it and require massive stadiums, waterparks and adult movie theatres to alleviate their concern??

Rat

As far as I know the effects of unhappiness in civ 5 are:
your army is 50% less effective
population growth is slowed 75%

Army can be explained as your dissenting citizens collaborating with the enemy and leaking intel; your troops becoming disenfranchised with your cause and thus losing morale; factory workers in rebellious areas sabotaging military equipment; foreign powers lending support to your invaders as they view your regime's domestic affairs with distaste.

Population decline can be explained by emmigration; lack of immigration; breakdown of supply structures as rebellious areas can no longer be depended upon to supply food; terrorist acts; government incompetance in regards to handling dissent and regular planning at the same time; men drawn away from their families to temporarily police rebellious regions.

You just have to use your imagination, and it's not like the "every city's an island" model didn't have it's flaws either.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

What about the non-French populations his empire comprised as the result of his conquests? Once they were under the French flag, they had to be counted in any evaluation of overall French happiness.

But did unhappiness in Poland cause riots in Paris?

No.

Don't give me the "everything in Civ 5 is an abstraction and doesn't have to be realistic" excuse. It doesn't make the system's obvious flaws magically go away.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the idea of a global happiness system, its just that I think it could have been implemented a whole lot better.

 

[eric_]

Don't give me the "everything in Civ 5 is an abstraction and doesn't have to be realistic" excuse.

I'd have to a) think it needs excusing and b) care enough to provide you with an excuse before such a demand would be necessary.

It doesn't make the system's obvious flaws magically go away.

I don't think it's a system flaw. In fact, the only revolts I've had so far spawned outside a city that I captured from another empire. Even if that weren't the case and the revolts popped up outside my capital, I'd be fine with it.

 

[MadRat]

As far as I know the effects of unhappiness in civ 5 are:
your army is 50% less effective
population growth is slowed 75%

It must be more than that when a city before the unhappiness hit expects a new citizen in 5 turns becomes 73 turns after the hit?

Still the question remains - why would folks in Paris be annoyed by thw conquest of Warsaw and be made happier by building a stadium in Timbuktu?

The whole happiness system is just total a$$.

Rat

 

[CHEESE!]

Are people in Moscow and Beijing so up in angst about these issues that they stop having kids, stage strikes and generally whine and moan about it and require massive stadiums, waterparks and adult movie theatres to alleviate their concern??

Rat

I'm ing.

 

[Roghar]

geez people, this isn't SimCity. The happiness mechanic captures all of the difficulties in managing a larger and more populous empire. Do we really need separate mechanics for all of the elements that make that up? Are you trying to say that historically big empires aren't harder to manage and keep together than small ones? Even in the corporate world, the bigger the company, the more needs to be put in place to keep it cohesive and functioning.0

The game doesn't force us to smaller and fewer cities, it just imposes a cost of doing so. That cost trades off against increase wealth, culture and science generation, resource access and increased production. It's not impossible to grow big and stay happy, you just need to prioritise happiness buildings, wonders and social policies.

 

[YourDeath/TSAR]

when rome and france (examples) half of the counquered people where happy (poland loved napoleon). it also didnt affect production in its capitals. i like the regional happiness thingy

 

[blind biker]

As I was saying in another thread:

The citizens of Rome didn't mind at all while their legions conquered half the known world. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be true. Nor did many Germans disapprove of their victorious armies blitzing across central and western Europe. Nor did the Chinese Working Class mind as the mighty Red Army steamrolled across Tibet. Au contraire! And did the people on the streets of Constantinople (Istanbul) shed tears as the Ottoman Empire engulfed much of north Africa, all of the balkans, Persia and the red sea? Na-aahh.

It may have sucked for those conquered, but the home contries' citizens were indifferent at worst, and over-the-top ecstatic at best.

Hence: Civ V's happiness system is moronic, as stated above.

I think it bears repeating: if you conquer a city, that should have no effect whatsoever on the happiness in other cities.

 

[blind biker]

It must be more than that when a city before the unhappiness hit expects a new citizen in 5 turns becomes 73 turns after the hit?

Still the question remains - why would folks in Paris be annoyed by thw conquest of Warsaw and be made happier by building a stadium in Timbuktu?

The whole happiness system is just total a$$.

Agreed. Whoever thought this up, must be either contarted, or had some kind of deep and long-lasting brainfart. One of those brainfarts that legends are made of.

 

[shanodin]

Oh look, this has become another 'CiV should just be CIV' again thread.

Seriously though, the global happiness thing is a decent mechanic. Cities give you more unhappiness than building a Colosseum gives you happiness because people are more unhappy about being conquered than they are happy about some new amenities. I like the new system!

 

[vincentz]

....if you conquer a city, that should have no effect whatsoever on the happiness in other cities....

Actually I disagree. Conquering a city should actually have a positive effect on population : " Hey we won! We captured the city and expanded out empire. We are the greatest! etc" Maybe this effect could be tones down with WW (war weariness) with some civics..... Wait....mmm.... civ5... oh never mind.

Agreed. Whoever thought this up, must be either contarted, or had some kind of deep and long-lasting brainfart. One of those brainfarts that legends are made of.

New words every day.... Contarded.... doesnt really have such a negative ring to it though.

 

[blind biker]

Actually I disagree. Conquering a city should actually have a positive effect on population : " Hey we won! We captured the city and expanded out empire. We are the greatest! etc" Maybe this effect could be tones down with WW (war weariness) with some civics..... Wait....mmm.... civ5... oh never mind.

We're in agreement, actually. Check post #15 in this thread.

New words every day.... Contarded.... doesnt really have such a negative ring to it though.

I misspelled it, sorry. It's contarded.

As in, the Civ V happiness system is utterly contarded.

 

[blind biker]

Oh look, this has become another 'CiV should just be CIV' again thread.

Seriously though, the global happiness thing is a decent mechanic. Cities give you more unhappiness than building a Colosseum gives you happiness because people are more unhappy about being conquered than they are happy about some new amenities. I like the new system!

Apart from the fact that your post doesn't support the global happiness in any way, why would people from the conquering cities be unhappy?