Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[beetle]

Thank you so much for the complement, and for being so civil!

I agree with you that the historical plausibility, however far abstracted, is where much of the game's appeal comes from. I disagree with the characterization that the global happiness mechanic is historically implausible, but maybe you are more of a historian than I? In any case, I think we can also agree that it is not the most historically implausible aspect of the game! Maybe not even in the top ten? I am sorry that you find it immersion breaking.

There are plenty of war games, and even a few simulations, that don't incorporate anything like war weariness. I would remind you that the civ series has always (well, at least since II) had some game mechanic that worked against rampant war mongering. There has also always been a happiness mechanic as growth limiter and as main component to balance the difficulty settings. I feel like the global happiness metric is more integrated, more elegant, and less gamey, than what we have had before. YMMV

 

[Naokaukodem]

That is typically about what I experince anytime I take a cap. It slowly comes back up, it will be okay!

The problem being that I'm lower than 10 and that will make barbarians spawn in my territory where i have no army.

Honestly, having +20 happiness should prevent you to have such things, even if you take a capital. I've seen plenty let's plays, they are far to suffer such penalties in the same cases. Let's players even seem to have a constant flow of increasing happiness, when I, whatever I do (taking Egypt for temple and building them in all my cities), seem to constantly having to fight for happiness, a coin is a coin, i would even say that i have a constant flow of decreasing happiness.

City of 10 people = 13 unhappiness, resource pillaged = 4 unhappiness, say dissidents came up the same turn all of a sudden = - 11 happiness. It makes - 28 happiness, so i should be at -8, but not even, because i've completed a courthouse in the same turn (let's say +5 happiness) and the Eiffel Tower (+5) so I should be at +2 happiness. No CS alliance lost this turn (not that I know off) nor lux trades (again, that i know of) Let's say i lost a lux trade in this turn, and a CS alliance i was not aware of. This makes still 2 flying happiness i have no idea from where i lost them, considering i should be at -8 and not -14.

Either I played of very bad luck, adding all those negative effects in the same turn, plus some i'm not even aware of, either there's definitely something wrong.

But don't say it's common to have a -34 happiness drop while taking any capital, it's just untrue. (unless the said capital is a 62 population city)

 

[Browd]

If you post a save file from the turn before you took the capital, we might be able to reconstruct the happiness drop.

 

[Aristos]

The problem being that I'm lower than 10 and that will make barbarians spawn in my territory where i have no army.

Honestly, having +20 happiness should prevent you to have such things, even if you take a capital. I've seen plenty let's plays, they are far to suffer such penalties in the same cases. Let's players even seem to have a constant flow of increasing happiness, when I, whatever I do (taking Egypt for temple and building them in all my cities), seem to constantly having to fight for happiness, a coin is a coin, i would even say that i have a constant flow of decreasing happiness.

City of 10 people = 13 unhappiness, resource pillaged = 4 unhappiness, say dissidents came up the same turn all of a sudden = - 11 happiness. It makes - 28 happiness, so i should be at -8, but not even, because i've completed a courthouse in the same turn (let's say +5 happiness) and the Eiffel Tower (+5) so I should be at +2 happiness. No CS alliance lost this turn (not that I know off) nor lux trades (again, that i know of) Let's say i lost a lux trade in this turn, and a CS alliance i was not aware of. This makes still 2 flying happiness i have no idea from where i lost them, considering i should be at -8 and not -14.

Either I played of very bad luck, adding all those negative effects in the same turn, plus some i'm not even aware of, either there's definitely something wrong.

But don't say it's common to have a -34 happiness drop while taking any capital, it's just untrue. (unless the said capital is a 62 population city)

Doesn't the temporary rebellion in taken city also add unhappiness? That one slowly decreases with the rebellion population, turn by turn...

Plus, during rebellion, ALL buildings with bonuses are temporarily disabled (including hap-generating buildings).

 

[rschissler]

Yet this is not how we establish a good foundation for evaluating reality. As an analogy, theologians, when confronted with the brutality and immorality of the bible, go to great lengths trying to somehow reconcile the book with our modern understanding of morality and their perceived notion of a good god. In order to rationalize the bible's barbarism, they essentially make up more and more nonsense to cover what is nonsense in the first place.
Likewise, you can make up all the stories you want about global happiness, but that won't ever turn it into a mechanic which even remotely resembles anything that ever occured in human history.

Your rant against Christianity is false, offensive, and has no place in this discussion! If you want to promote your anti-Christianity mentality, take it somewhere else!

 

[Crus8r]

Going from +20 to -14 ? Just how can this happen ?

It's actually quite easy to figure this out if you have a save from the turn before...

Load the save, open the Economic Overview (F2 will do it), and click on Resources & Happiness at the top... here you will find your total Happiness and what sources it is coming from, as well as your total Unhappiness and where it is from. Note these stats, then load the current turn and do the same... it will clearly show what changed.

Note that if you are playing a map smaller than standard, or if you annexed (rather than puppeted) that city, then it is producing a good bit more than 13 unhappy!

I personally find the mechanic of adding cities increasing unhappy perfectly realistic... when you add a city to the empire, you have essentially reduced the 'share' of resources, attention, importance, and money to every other city, resulting in increased unhappiness (on the other hand, increasing happiness as a result of losing cities to your enemies IS rather unrealistic!)

during rebellion, ALL buildings with bonuses are temporarily disabled (including hap-generating buildings).

I'm not sure this is the case, as in my current game, I was razing a city, and demolished a Zoo to save some cash, and my happiness went down as a result...

 

[beetle]

Thanks Crus8er, your response to Aristos makes it clear he talking about cities being in resistance (for several many turns after capture), not rebellion per se. I was really confused.

The problem being that I'm lower than 10 and that will make barbarians spawn in my territory where i have no army.

This often happens to me. Obviously, something I try to avoid because it is so annoying. You definitely need a couple strong units back home. Just two will do. It is predictable that they will spawn near you cap. Left unchecked, they will pillage your luxes, and that just compounds your happiness problem!

Honestly, having +20 happiness should prevent you to have such things, even if you take a capital.

That is really only a marginal buffer.

I've seen plenty let's plays, they are far to suffer such penalties in the same cases. Let's players even seem to have a constant flow of increasing happiness, when I, whatever I do (taking Egypt for temple and building them in all my cities), seem to constantly having to fight for happiness, a coin is a coin, i would even say that i have a constant flow of decreasing happiness.

They definitely play better than I do, and don't seem to every have the happiness problems you and I have to manage. But are you suggesting they cheat or something?

City of 10 people... This makes still 2 flying happiness i have no idea from where i lost them, considering i should be at -8 and not -14.

Without a save file I cannot hope to help you with the math. I have long given up trying to closely follow the happiness swings. Could you have been under ideology pressure at the same time? I find that very unpredictable.

Either I played of very bad luck, adding all those negative effects in the same turn, plus some i'm not even aware of, either there's definitely something wrong.

There's nothing definitely wrong, and not really bad luck. Sounds like business as usual to me. Post the file if you want real insight.

But don't say it's common to have a -34 happiness drop while taking any capital, it's just untrue.

I don't know that it is common, but I don’t think it is really uncommon either. People have chimed in, concurring that the global happiness mechanic is bad. But no one has affirmed that a -34 happiness drop between turns to be a crazy unusual experience. OTOH, if such an experience was crazy unusual, there would probably be less hate for global happiness!

 

[Walter R]

I get some pretty big happiness falls when conquering enemy cities, especially capitals. Any Dom player will tell you to make a point of getting real happy BEFORE you go to war, 'cos you're going to get hit for six - try capturing Delhi mid/late game for instance, it will be huge and your happiness will tank.

 

[Funky]

Your rant against Christianity is false, offensive, and has no place in this discussion! If you want to promote your anti-Christianity mentality, take it somewhere else!

"Rant against Christianity"? "anti-Christianity mentality"? Erm...

I merely used my observation how theologians try to rationalize the immorality of the bible as an analogy to make a point. I am sorry you find that offensive.

 

[rschissler]

"Rant against Christianity"? "anti-Christianity mentality"? Erm...

I merely used my observation how theologians try to rationalize the immorality of the bible as an analogy to make a point. I am sorry you find that offensive.

"Immorality of the bible" and referring to the bible as nonsense in your previous post? Your skewed views seem pretty clear to me. Thanks for the apology, though.

 

[Socratatus]

"Rant against Christianity"? "anti-Christianity mentality"? Erm...

I merely used my observation how theologians try to rationalize the immorality of the bible as an analogy to make a point. I am sorry you find that offensive.

Actually you did seem to go off on a personal rant, rather than stick to the point. And it was against one religion, too. That`s never a good sign. Your personal religious views should not have been used as it was like you were preaching, which is kind of ironic.

 

[Aristos]

@mods, please stop the bs about cristianism-anticristianism.

@beetle, yes I meant resistance, was in a hurry and could not remember the "official" word

@Crus8r, you may be right, I might have been confused by the wonders of a resisting city being rendered temporarily void... not sure.

 

[beetle]

Emphasis, and one implied qualifying word, added...

As an analogy, some theologians, when confronted with the brutality and immorality of the bible

Funky used a familiar source for an example. I don’t see how that could be interpreted as picking on one religion. Omitting the qualifying “some” barely makes the analogy hyperbolic. Is it not an objectively true statement that the bible contains lessons that a modern western perspective can only characterize as brutal and immoral? It would have been just as offensive to some, but made the point less well, if Funky had used an example drawn on politics or global warming (or maybe immunization, to pick something in the news lately).

please stop the bs about cristianism

That is my favorite portmanteau ever!

yes I meant resistance, was in a hurry and could not remember the "official" word

I was not trying be a pendant. The games does has both rebellion and resistance. I was just confused.

you may be right, I might have been confused by the wonders of a resisting city being rendered temporarily void... not sure.

Cities in resistance do have other defects besides all the unhappiness. I am pretty sure they don't provide culture or tourism. I don't think they generate science or gold either. I don't think wonders being temporary void is correct.

 

[Funky]

Thank you beetle. A preacher with skewed views on a rant against Christianity like me can certainly use some support!

 

[rschissler]

Emphasis, and one implied qualifying word, added...



Funky used a familiar source for an example. I don’t see how that could be interpreted as picking on one religion.

Really? Describing the Bible as nonsense (according to Funky) is not picking on only one religion? Especially, since Christianity is the only religion associated with the Bible.

I wish the mods would stop this too. I responded to them yesterday about it, but they ignored it.

 

[Funky]

Really? Describing the Bible as nonsense is not picking on only one religion? Especially, since Christianity is the only religion associated with the Bible.

Let me just clarify this, in hope that we can lay it to rest. In my post I described the immorality and brutality found in the bible as being nonsense. I didn't say the bible itself is nonsense. I could have just as well used the immoral passages in the Koran.
As beetle pointed out, I was giving an example. I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.

I wish the mods would stop this too.

I hope you now realize there was no reason to jump on me in the first place.

Peace be with you!

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Please stop this line of discussion. It is unproductive and off-topic. Any more and we'll have to start infracting folks for thread-jacking.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aristos]

I don't think wonders being temporary void is correct.

I am pretty sure that when conquering a city containing, i.e. Notre Dame, I only see the +10 jump clearly when the resistance is over... I don't think it's some sort of selective memory, because those type of cities are usually the ONLY ones I tend to conquer ...

P.S. bloody hell, now that I see it, I am also derailing the thread! I forgot this is the rants thread... he. No more mechanics discussion, I guess.

 

[Walter R]

How about CS units that get in the way! Bugs the hell out of me, especially when they are allies

1. CS would like a road. I move worker. Oops, where did that spearman come from - and he won't move.

2. I'm just moving my fleet (and GAd) around a tight headland. Oops, is my CS trireme/worker/any-old-junk blocking your admiral?

3. Just DOW'd and am moving my only range-promoted ship to attack coastal city. Oops did I just put my CS caravel in the only place with line-of-sight at 3 hexes?

and so on... (fumes)

 

[Enoch_Root]

Long time lurker, first time poster here...

Loved Civ3 & 4...But I have a few issues with Civ5.

1 - Who decided that the longbow was a better long-range weapon than a freakin rifle? Not a musket, but a rifle.

2 - I have to wonder if electing 'friendship' with another country basically guarantees you an altercation with them in a few years. Is it better to tell them we'd rather go it alone? It's especially frustrating since you cannot control how countries will approach diplomacy.

3 - Speaking of diplomatic solutions...What's the deal with attempting to end a war? Click on a country's city, a weary Queen Elizabeth says "For the good of both of our countries, let us end this conflict...". Sure sounds good. OK, so I click <Negotiate Peace>, and then click the basic allotted peace option where you each agree to a peace treaty. Her response is to basically laugh at me, and then when I ask how to make this work, she doesn't see any way. THIS IS BAD PROGRAMMING (I'm a software developer). It's a waste of time and it breaks many tenets of fluid programming principles (firstly, it's a senseless bit of circular logic).