Civ5's Biggest Weakness

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by LordTC, Nov 21, 2010.

  1. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Jul 29, 2010
    But with libraries you can unlock the techs needed to get the buildings for culture, gold etc. If you can entirely rely on miliatiristic CSs for updated units, you must be playing on a very low level.
  2. Creepy Old Man

    Creepy Old Man Warlord

    Oct 10, 2010
    My problem with the current happiness system is that it forces me to use the "prevent growth" button on so many of my cities. (And that's the main reason I raze-and-replace instead of puppet - I can't use the "prevent growth" button in puppets).

    If I want a core of large, productive cities, then I have to stop all my other cities from sucking up my happiness. Just because Nowhereville keeps growing, Rome gets unhappy?

    And, using the "prevent growth" button, is to me the biggest game breaker in V. The whole point of the Civ franchise is to develope big, productive, thriving cities. In previous versions, there was no need to prevent growth, because if a city grows too big to stay happy, you turn some people into entertainers. Now, though, the only way to maintain happiness is to stop growth, and thus stop the development that makes Civilization what it is.
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam If A implies B...

    Jan 26, 2008
    If you want to show understanding of the happiness mechanic in civ V, you do not compare it to happiness in civ IV. You compare it to maintenance and corruption. IMO the biggest problem with this mechanic right now is simply that it is called "happiness" - that throws people off. Its real function is simply another "expansion rate limiter".
  4. ezwip

    ezwip Prince

    Oct 4, 2006
    You can build the great library after writing you don't even need a library. After that you'll pop some great scientists for free techs. Couple that with research agreements, plenty of golden ages, other paths to free techs, and you'll be ahead for quite some time. Long enough to take over your continent which means you have a score victory.
  5. Clement

    Clement Layman

    Oct 7, 2010
    You know i think i agree with you, in fact you just pointed something out i probably would'nt have realised, happiness used to affect all sorts of stuff and be affected by all sorts of stuff too, like where to place cities, how far away they could be founded, war weariness, overpopulation, now i think about it, it's probably the area that was most streamlined since the last game.
  6. iggymnrr

    iggymnrr Deity

    May 20, 2003
    I'm not sure happiness the biggest weakness. The games loses me at turn one now. The choices on the tech screen are always the same. No amount of UAs or UBs or civ specific music can ever change it. If Civ V were a library and the UAs and stuff were the cover jackets, forwards or whatever, no matter which book I select chapter 1, page 1 would always be the same. I'd never turn the page and turn in my library card.
  7. GomerPile

    GomerPile Chieftain

    Nov 21, 2010
    I coudlnt agree more

    In addition, i would like to see the return of 'jails'. The current Fascist policy isnt fun because of the happiness problem, where in this game, it really should be one of the best parts.

    I would also like to see localized happiness, and if a city becomes too unhappy, they revolt and become a city state.

    Also, i would like to see less emphasis on the unhappiness due to # of cities. is that realistic? do people go, im pissed off because my country has too many cities? Whereas, im constantly stuck in traffic, and am pissed off about the # of people...
  8. Crispin

    Crispin Chieftain

    Sep 28, 2005
    Maybe calling it something different than happiness would work better, because as it stands now, it is the most illogical and stupidest thing I can think of in any game atm. I doesn't make sense whatsoever, but I can see the some would argue its there to stop expansion etc. Fair enough, but there must be certainly be better ways than this, because its nothing more than braindead.

    I miss units that speaks :( A small gimmick but to the overall feeling I find it important. If I'm french by god I want to hear my language!(Not that I understand French)
  9. neilkaz

    neilkaz King

    Oct 1, 2010
    Chicago Suburbs
    The global happiness system in Civ5 is really strange and makes no sense when compared to most real life situations. However, this is a game, and it is a different game than Civ4 or earlier versions. So I really don't mind global happiness at all.

    In my play I am learning to better manage happiness initially getting the first wave of colosseums built around the time my happiness is near zero and I am making new settlers for the next wave of expansion. It is very important to trade excess luxuries with the AI's even if you're allready happy. Hitting those 10 turn GA's is really nice and I'll hit my third (1500 accumulated excess :)) at about turn 325 in my Standard Immortal Small Pangaea game, and hopefully this amps things up enough that I can get enough army built to put a real dent into Hiawatha (noting I have only 8 Uranium and 8 Aluminum which is a reason why I haven't crushed him earlier)

    I find it quite difficult to get a fair (1 for 1) luxury trade when I am allready unhappy and sometimes difficult when I am almost unhappy and this is dealing with an AI leader or two who call me "friend" and say it is a pleasure to speak to me.

    Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..
  10. Zechnophobe

    Zechnophobe Strategy Lich

    Sep 1, 2006
    Goleta, California
    A... Score victory? You only get that if you play until the end of 'time' without winning 'for reals'. If that is happening, maybe you should consider a little more tech? I'm sure your strategy is awesome on Settler or whatever, but saying libraries aren't worth it... is just amazing. 50% Boost, and that is if you don't use scientist specialists for more, and those specialists also give GPP for great scientist, for more free tech.
  11. Deep_Blue

    Deep_Blue Knight

    Aug 2, 2005
  12. Rystic

    Rystic Turtle Wizard

    Jun 28, 2008
    New Jersey
    The happiness system makes a lot more sense if you append of Borg to the end of every nation's name.
  13. Zydor

    Zydor Emperor

    Dec 3, 2005
    They have retitled the "Prime Directive" from:

    Build an Empire to stand the test of time


    Capture an Empire to stand the test of time

    but didnt tell anyone they were doing that until the cash came in for first Beta [aka first release].
  14. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Jun 8, 2006
    Yep, this is right. Happiness really doesn't have anything to do with happiness, but with limiting expansion, just like maintenance costs did in Civ IV. Personally, however, I prefer and think it makes much more sense to see my economy go in the tank and start losing money because of overexpanding than my people getting angry because I'm overexpanding.
  15. Zydor

    Zydor Emperor

    Dec 3, 2005
    It is a wierd mechanism conceptually, that it would appear our populations now get more unhappy in direct proportion to the size of Empire thats been taken over. Success breading unhappiness doesnt gell somehow.

    I think TheMeInTeam encapsulated it nicely when suggesting it was merely the name thats causing confusion, as at the end of the day its only a game mechanic. Lot of truth in that, maybe retitle it/realign the concept to "growing bureaucratic structures weighing all down as the Empire expands" and call it "Beaurocracy", close enough to believeable and prevent any esoteric push backs. Happiness is stil entwined in that - no one likes big bureaucracies, and also leaves the door open to creating new buildings/structures/policies should they ever be needed by having the ability to develop the beaurocracy theme in later patches / expansions.

  16. ashmizen

    ashmizen Chieftain

    Sep 21, 2010
    Civ 5 tries to limit empire size with unhappiness. In Civ 4, empire size was controlled through corruption and maintance.

    Let us look to history to see what large empires suffered from in real life.

    Most large empires had fatal flaws in history. They went through a period of expansion, then waned and waxed through a period of dominance, and then fell due to outside military aggression. But let at look closely at some examples.

    Rome - some historian point to Rome's economy being heavily dependant on spoils of war, and once Rome's borders stablized and Rome could no longer depend on the constant influx of gold from conquest, it could no longer afford the armies required to defend its borders. Of course, Rome lasted many hundreds of years after it stop its conquests, so others point to the constant civil wars that drained the western empire's legions, allowing the fall of rome in the next century. In my view, Rome's military tradition also seemed to have broken down in last few centuries, with more and more mercenaries as Roman citizens no longer desired to serve in the military.

    Persian empires - there were many persian empires throughout history, mostly unrelated to each other, but they all seemed to be large, wealthy, and mostly happy subjects. They seemed to all fall because their wealthy empire and citizens grew decandant and their military became out-dated and poorly led, with a reliance on quantity rather than quality and got conquered by much smaller countries.

    Chinese, Indian empires - Again, large, populous, and wealthy, they were often at the forefront of certain sciences, but fell behind in military technologies. Often decadant, their armies were mostly in defensive mode to prevent "lessor" people from raiding their wealthy cities, and were often conquered by them as well (usually in periods when already weakened by civil war).

    Russian empire - for much of its history, Russian armies were poorly trained and ill equipped, and fought on numbers alone. Its enemies, like Sweden or Prussia, had tiny but well trained armies that often defeated Russian armies.

    Looking at these examples, it seems that large empires suffer more from decadence and neglect of the military rather than unhappiness. Rome did not suffer unhappiness as it expanded it size, but it did become harder and harder to manage and defend. Chinese, and Indian empires suffered from neglect of their militaries due to long periods of peace. Persia, China, India, and Russia all had vast armies that lost to smaller, more experienced/motivated armies. It seems to suggest that the manpower available to a large empire often causes them to rely on quantity rather than quality, while smaller nations like Greek cities or Prussia win in history due to being forced to focus on quality. Of course, Rome is the great exception, as it was both large and had a well-equipped and trained army. By the time the western empire fell, however, Roman legions were not better equipped than their enemies, less motivated, and consisted largly of barbarian mercenaries.

    So to make it historically accurate, large empires should suffer an increasing penalty to military units, and researching military technologies. This could games more historical as well, instead of a snowball, you can get swings back and forth as the winner's military gets penalized as the empire grows (to represent the decadance).

    Sorry for wall of text :)
  17. Jolly Rogerer

    Jolly Rogerer Prince

    May 16, 2008
    One wonders why they don't just force the first pop to work the city tile and get rid of the main ICS advantage once and for all instead of breaking a host of things that worked well in previous iterations of the game.
  18. LordTC

    LordTC Warlord

    Nov 30, 2003
    Interesting and accurate but probably unfun for a lot of people. If you're going for historical accuracy you might start by getting rid of units like longbows that can shoot further than they can walk in 15 years :p
  19. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody Emperor

    Feb 21, 2009
    I've often noticed how Dyes, Whales, & Theatres offset beaurocratic red-tape.

    "You'd like me to fill out that form in triplicate, you say? How about a Whale instead?"
  20. mmmfloorpie

    mmmfloorpie Chieftain

    Sep 15, 2010
    Worldwide happiness paralyses your civ instead of an individual city. This is what makes me mad! In other civs, if a city was unhappy, then that city's production would suffer.

    If you slip below 0 on smiley faces, your WHOLE civ is paralysed. So stupid.

Share This Page