I know I brought this topic up some time ago but I kind of forgot about it as I more or less just stopped playing domination games.. Can we PLEASE kill off more than 1-3 pop when capturing a city? AI recieves such ridiculous bonuses to city growth, it makes it so prohibitive taking ANY cities at all. Sure small conquest can be done, but can a domination victory actually be achieved? I dont think so.. Just took a late industrial city from a 3rd place Washington, -34 unhappy from the puppet, 34 turn resistance. I would have liked to raze the city as it kind of sucks and I dont need a 34 pop puppet, but that would have been -54 unhappy. Insane.
Another thread about capturing cities..
- Thread starter EsoEs
- Start date
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Resistance is capped at 20 turns in v106.7 and later. If the cap is not working it's a bug. Occupation is best for large cities as described in the Occupy vs Puppet vs Raze thread. Population in occupied cities can be quickly lowered by razing for a few turns, then halting the process.
Im still playing 104, but even with a 20 turn cap, the population saved is too great. I've heard the argument "greater gains later" but I don't agree. Most wars we want 1 or 2 cities, the rest are really just place fillers. Also putting a city into raze GREATLY increases unhappiness, like I said in my post I had a choice between - about 30 unhappy from puppet or - 54 unhappy by going into raze. I understand this number will drop, but very, very, very slowly, and at the end I have to occupy a city I really dont want.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Why did you capture a city you really don't want? If your happiness is low, just take a break from conquest until the economy is manageable. This is the same as in previous versions of Civilization... trying to conquer the whole world at once in Civ 4 would drop the economy to zero and cause units to disband. 
Ahriman
Tyrant
I think the move to the modest city loss on conquest is one of the best changes in VEM, it is ridiculous in vanilla how half the population is butchered.
Now, I'll admit, there are maybe a few issues with Siam and with stacking up aqueduct + tradition policies that make really really big cities quite easy to get to for the AI (who doesn't worry about happiness). Last game when I conquered Siam's capital in the late Renaissance era it was population 38.
Now, I'll admit, there are maybe a few issues with Siam and with stacking up aqueduct + tradition policies that make really really big cities quite easy to get to for the AI (who doesn't worry about happiness). Last game when I conquered Siam's capital in the late Renaissance era it was population 38.
Why did you capture a city you really don't want? If your happiness is low, just take a break from conquest until the economy is manageable. This is the same as in previous versions of Civilization... trying to conquer the whole world at once in Civ 4 would drop the economy to zero and cause units to disband.
Because Im playing domination, I cant walk around enemy cities that are covering the mountain pass to caps. Sniping capitals is all fine and good but sometimes you need to take a city or two along the way. So now Im at about 3 happy, and I need to capture a 40 pop capital, this should be fun... ><
Ahriman
Tyrant
So, raze some of the cities (there wouldn't be the option if you didn't need to use it sometimes), or sell them to other players.
Happiness is *supposed* to constrain a conqueror. Working as intended. You can't just take cities at the speed in which you can take the militarily without negative consequences.
[I also find that big capitals often have happiness wonders in them, so often they cost you much less happiness than you expect.]
Except, shocker, playing milatarily doesnt make you a lot of friends i.e. I have no one to sell them too. I'm fine with happiness being a limiting factor, but lets be honest, the Domination Victory is dead in VEM. I learned that a while ago, forgot, and now Im ranting again 
Ahriman
Tyrant
Then give them away to weak players. You don't have to get a good deal, if you're just trying to get rid of them because of happiness concerns.
This is just not true at all. Maybe if you play on huge maps, I guess.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I've been thinking this over for the past hour. Once we can build a courthouse the happiness is less of a concern, since occupied + courthouse = same as puppet, and we can raze occupied cities to lower population. Razing does not add unhappiness to an occupied city. I do plan on replacing the cannot-do-anything resistance timer with one that wears off more gradually. For now I'll reduce the timer to peak around 15 turns, as was originally suggested somewhere on the forums (down from 20). Try it a while at this setting to see what you think.
It's worth emphasizing the AI plays by the same happiness rules as humans in VEM (unlike vanilla where it's on Chieftain happiness).
Bridger
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 318
Why don't AI's need to worry about happyness? Is it just because that's yet another advantage the AI needs at the harder difficulties? It really cheapens the experience to witness the computer breaking all the rules all the time 
Getting a bit more production or food or money bonus is one thing, but when I start the game on King (1 step above normal!) I'll get a report that says that other civs have 10-20 happiness and I'm sitting at 4 or 8. :\
Getting a bit more production or food or money bonus is one thing, but when I start the game on King (1 step above normal!) I'll get a report that says that other civs have 10-20 happiness and I'm sitting at 4 or 8. :\In vanilla they cheat but in VEM I believe Thal has coded it so that they play by the same rules as us.
The problem is that occupying a city is a much higher happiness hit than puppeting, and in order to raze you have to occupy. So when I capture a 34 pop city, and I click raze, Im getting -54 unhappiness
I would very much like it if there was some way to raze a city without having to occupy it. From a historical sense it makes sense, you don't have to sit in a city and keep it happy while you're burning it down, you just burn the damn thing down and screw the populace. Kind of harsh but pretty much historically accurate.
Bridger
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 318
In vanilla they cheat but in VEM I believe Thal has coded it so that they play by the same rules as us.
The problem is that occupying a city is a much higher happiness hit than puppeting, and in order to raze you have to occupy. So when I capture a 34 pop city, and I click raze, Im getting -54 unhappiness
I think what he was getting at was, you can occupy it, build a courthouse, and then raze it to keep the normal -34 unhappyness?
Except you cant build a courthouse then raze for a minimum of 20 turns while the city is in resistance. I dunno, it just feels to me like you build your army into something really fierce, you work your butt off doing it, then you take 2 cities and suddenly your dead in the water. My entire game plan revolves around playing militarily and I just feel like the game rules are making it so I cant effectively play that way.
Largely I agree with EsoEs here.
As I recall, even in Civ4 which was brought up, you didn't need to conquer the enemy: You could just rampage and pillage them. Corruption and upkeep in civ4 is now happiness in civ5. But corruption, upkeep and happiness should only matter if you try to govern lands so that they produce stuff to you. The "run over and burn down the ****ers!" is missing in Civ5, and it's a shame. Even if you raze enemy cities, you're stuck with having to provide happiness to the people while you genocide them for 20+ turns. WTH?
I don't know how much of the whole system is moddable, but it's really ridiculous you need to give colosseums and theaters for the people you're busily genociding, or else your own people revolt against you.
I do like that you can't just kill a city off in a turn when you conquer it. Gives chance for counterattack. But a resistance city's unhappiness is dealt with in arms, not recreations.
What if:
1) A city doesn't bring unhappiness while in resistance
2) Lands around the city aren't claimed while the city is in resistance (to deny home terrain advantage in what clearly is not)
3) Resistance time goes back to turn/pop, same as raze time.
Then you don't need to provide recreation to people you're genociding, BUT if you over-reach and nab too many cities to try to govern, you can be surprised with your pants down with not enough happiness, and end up in a world of hurt as resistances end and turn to revolt!
As I recall, even in Civ4 which was brought up, you didn't need to conquer the enemy: You could just rampage and pillage them. Corruption and upkeep in civ4 is now happiness in civ5. But corruption, upkeep and happiness should only matter if you try to govern lands so that they produce stuff to you. The "run over and burn down the ****ers!" is missing in Civ5, and it's a shame. Even if you raze enemy cities, you're stuck with having to provide happiness to the people while you genocide them for 20+ turns. WTH?
I don't know how much of the whole system is moddable, but it's really ridiculous you need to give colosseums and theaters for the people you're busily genociding, or else your own people revolt against you.
I do like that you can't just kill a city off in a turn when you conquer it. Gives chance for counterattack. But a resistance city's unhappiness is dealt with in arms, not recreations.
What if:
1) A city doesn't bring unhappiness while in resistance
2) Lands around the city aren't claimed while the city is in resistance (to deny home terrain advantage in what clearly is not)
3) Resistance time goes back to turn/pop, same as raze time.
Then you don't need to provide recreation to people you're genociding, BUT if you over-reach and nab too many cities to try to govern, you can be surprised with your pants down with not enough happiness, and end up in a world of hurt as resistances end and turn to revolt!
Bridger
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 318
You don't have to provide happiness to them, but you probably would have to deal with your own citizens going "WFT Atrocity?"
At least anytime after the enlightenment...
It does seem extra harsh though. I think the simplest solution is that if a population is over 15 then razing the city kills off 2 pop/turn instead of 1.
Ahriman
Tyrant
One thing worth noting; all the extra unhappiness additions in the latest versions (to be semi-compensated for by happiness increases on buildings which puppets/occupied cities won't have) will exacerbate many of the complaints here.
I disagree with those saying that conquest has been too hard, but I also disagree with those who have said that happiness has been too easy to satisfy; I think this set of complaints has come from people playing mostly Tall/culture games, who don't realize that it is much more of a struggle for wide empires.
I think reducing the length of resistance is reasonable. I think removing unhappiness during the resistance period (if puppet) is worth considering. I dislike the idea of faster razing or less unhappiness while razing or larger population loss from conquest.
I think people have too much of an idea of Civ4 in their heads, where if you beat the enemy army, you could rapidly capture an entire empire without any significant controls on you doing this. I think the inability to do this is a good thing. The ability to rapidly conquer without consequence was part of why conquest was so central to Civ4 (and arguably too strong).
I also think that reducing the unhappiness from population from puppets (while possibly increasing the yield penalties from the governor's palace) is worth considering, so that puppets would be low yield but also low unhappiness. This would make them different from annexed cities, rather than just weak cousins.
I think it is worth thinking about (and I'm not sure what the right answer is here) whether all the various food boosts have made it a bit too easy to get super-cities of size 30 or more.
I have difficulty believing at high difficulty levels that the AI has exactly the same happiness rules as the human; the AI regularly seems to have +40 or more happiness (sometimes +60) when I might have +5.
I disagree with those saying that conquest has been too hard, but I also disagree with those who have said that happiness has been too easy to satisfy; I think this set of complaints has come from people playing mostly Tall/culture games, who don't realize that it is much more of a struggle for wide empires.
I think reducing the length of resistance is reasonable. I think removing unhappiness during the resistance period (if puppet) is worth considering. I dislike the idea of faster razing or less unhappiness while razing or larger population loss from conquest.
I think people have too much of an idea of Civ4 in their heads, where if you beat the enemy army, you could rapidly capture an entire empire without any significant controls on you doing this. I think the inability to do this is a good thing. The ability to rapidly conquer without consequence was part of why conquest was so central to Civ4 (and arguably too strong).
I also think that reducing the unhappiness from population from puppets (while possibly increasing the yield penalties from the governor's palace) is worth considering, so that puppets would be low yield but also low unhappiness. This would make them different from annexed cities, rather than just weak cousins.
I think it is worth thinking about (and I'm not sure what the right answer is here) whether all the various food boosts have made it a bit too easy to get super-cities of size 30 or more.
I have difficulty believing at high difficulty levels that the AI has exactly the same happiness rules as the human; the AI regularly seems to have +40 or more happiness (sometimes +60) when I might have +5.
Thats a nice thought, but really the only people historically to say "WTH atrocity", sadly, seems to be people outside of the situation and not actually involved.
Examples? Germany, Serbia, Africa, etc. The people on the "winning" side of the atrocity didn't seem to have too much problem with it, sad but true.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced this is what we need to do:
Upon City Capture
1)Raze- putting a city into raze creates 0 extra happiness for the empire. However, if ever the razing is stopped, the city experiences a much longer period of resistance decay than normal, and will produce a small amount of additional unhappiness (beyond what a normal annexed city would produce) during this period of resistance decay.
2) Puppet- upon puppeting, the city enters resistance, but as Thal has previously mentioned, the resistance decays every turn so that it will produce a small percentage more each turn until it leaves resistance. Happiness modifiers remain unchanged from current code.
3) Annex- If a city is immediately annexed, the resistance time and resistance decay period is much shorter than that of a puppeted city. No change to the normal happiness mechanics.
Now we have 3 REAL options upon city capture, instead of the normal 2. (If you were going to annex you would just puppet until it left resistance, now you have incentive to annex from the get go.)
Also razing no longer completely stalls your army, but actually capturing and holding cities does (more accurate to real life, more enjoyable in game)
Upon City Capture
1)Raze- putting a city into raze creates 0 extra happiness for the empire. However, if ever the razing is stopped, the city experiences a much longer period of resistance decay than normal, and will produce a small amount of additional unhappiness (beyond what a normal annexed city would produce) during this period of resistance decay.
2) Puppet- upon puppeting, the city enters resistance, but as Thal has previously mentioned, the resistance decays every turn so that it will produce a small percentage more each turn until it leaves resistance. Happiness modifiers remain unchanged from current code.
3) Annex- If a city is immediately annexed, the resistance time and resistance decay period is much shorter than that of a puppeted city. No change to the normal happiness mechanics.
Now we have 3 REAL options upon city capture, instead of the normal 2. (If you were going to annex you would just puppet until it left resistance, now you have incentive to annex from the get go.)
Also razing no longer completely stalls your army, but actually capturing and holding cities does (more accurate to real life, more enjoyable in game)
Ahriman
Tyrant
0 unhappiness from razing is a definite no no in my point.
The design is supposed to *deliberately* be one where conquest is slowed, and where you can't beat the enemy army and just rapidly capture or burn down their empire.
If you had no unhappiness while razing, then it would be easy to go on a massive conquest/burning binge without any unhappiness consequences, and you would only ever fight one war per player, because once you beat them you would just capture what you wanted and burn the rest of the empire down.
It is very deliberate in the current design that you can't do that.
I also dislike the idea of making resistance a gradual modifier that changes each turn; a binary state (in resistance or not in resistance) is much simpler.
I don't see why you should have less resistance from annexing a city than you would from allowing it to keep a puppet government of locals.
The design is supposed to *deliberately* be one where conquest is slowed, and where you can't beat the enemy army and just rapidly capture or burn down their empire.
If you had no unhappiness while razing, then it would be easy to go on a massive conquest/burning binge without any unhappiness consequences, and you would only ever fight one war per player, because once you beat them you would just capture what you wanted and burn the rest of the empire down.
It is very deliberate in the current design that you can't do that.
I also dislike the idea of making resistance a gradual modifier that changes each turn; a binary state (in resistance or not in resistance) is much simpler.
I don't see why you should have less resistance from annexing a city than you would from allowing it to keep a puppet government of locals.
Similar threads
