Courthouse "bug"...

[Kwik E Mart]

...for annexed cities...is there plans to fix this soon? if so, anyone have an ETA?

 

[Tabarnak]

It looks like a bug, but i think the devs decided that the courthouse is only the capacity to resolve extra unhappiness from annexing a city and get a particular advantage(extra happiness) at being a warmonger. But you get an increase of the policy bucket. Place your bets.

The courthouse is not free, you don't have 600 everytime, and if you hard build it this can take quite a few turns while you get extra unhappiness.

 

[Strategist83]

So, so bad they haven't fixed this yet. This one is severe enough (and easy to fix) that it should have been hotfixed months ago.

Tabarnak is hopefully wrong - I certainly don't hope they've decided to turn a bug into an undocumented feature, that really would be a new low. If they really wanted to let it stay how it currently is they'd need to update the civilopedia to list courthouse as providing +3 happy. But that won't happen, because it is a bug...

 

[Becomedeath]

And it benefits you...you get the extra +3 happiness and get rid of occupied unhappiness but at the cost of higher social policies etc. Bonus, but with a negative effect. A city that's worth annexing isn't going to be one of the teeny population ones so you're going to spend a few turns with a hefty unhappiness penalty anyway.

Sounds fair enough to me.

Really not seeing the negative point here.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Really not seeing the negative point here.

Why would settled cities cause more unhappiness than occupied ones? It doesn't make any sense and narrows optimal strategies to... well, basically just one.

 

[Becomedeath]

Because you have crushed their spirits and don't care about their happiness. Therefore, as the overlord of your empire you basically just presume they're happy.

Why do you do this? Because if they complain you take them to the courthouse and imprison the dissenters.

Therefore, Courthouse creates happiness by eliminating unhappiness and allowing you to ignore the standard rules that apply to your own citizens who you do care about.

Voila.

There are plenty of reasons not to annex a city and there are plenty of reasons to do so. I don't see how this creates an "optimal" strategy. I've managed huge puppet empires with happiness through the roof, so you don't have just one option.

 

[jmick175]

I don't see how this creates an "optimal" strategy.

With this bug, it is much more viable to have 1 capital city. Have it mass produce military units. Take over rival cities; when you have enough money, you buy-rush the courthouse.

You will always have more happiness for like cities if you do this. Any city that you create cannot compete with the happiness generator that is annexed cities with a courthouse. That's why there is an optimal strategy.

 

[Becomedeath]

Unless you plan on having social policies.

 

[jmick175]

I believe I said

for like cities

You have to compare apples to apples. If you want to have building control over 3 cities, you are much better off starting with 1, capturing 2, and annexing them with a courthouse rather than simply settling 3.

Sure, if you're going for SPs, then you want to keep the number of cities to a minimum.

 

[timtofly]

I do not puppet cities, due to the fact by the time I am city conquering, it is not a problem.

If you puppet, can you later annex the city?

There is a SP that you only have to pay 360 for a courthouse and even then, if you annex, you cannot purchase one or even build one until the city is healed. I see no bug in that. It just means you have unhapiness, until "life" settles down and the locals have adjusted to a new way of thinking.

Unless you have a lot of allies, or luxury sources, expanding rapidly is not going to work no matter how it is accomplished.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And it benefits you...you get the extra +3 happiness and get rid of occupied unhappiness but at the cost of higher social policies etc. Bonus, but with a negative effect. A city that's worth annexing isn't going to be one of the teeny population ones so you're going to spend a few turns with a hefty unhappiness penalty anyway.

Sounds fair enough to me.

Really not seeing the negative point here.

The negative point is that you can't build courthouses in settled cities.

Puppets have balance issues, but you should not make annexed cities Better than settled cities (equivalent would be fine).. ie fix the courthouse and weaken puppets.

 

[Kwik E Mart]

LOL! now i understand why this hasn't been "fixed"...it's not even clear that it is a bug! call me OCD, but i'd like to know if i'm taking advantage of a "bug" or using an undocumented feature. right now, it feels too easy to annex cities, but maybe that's as intended...

 

[Tabarnak]

So, so bad they haven't fixed this yet. This one is severe enough (and easy to fix) that it should have been hotfixed months ago.

Tabarnak is hopefully wrong - I certainly don't hope they've decided to turn a bug into an undocumented feature, that really would be a new low. If they really wanted to let it stay how it currently is they'd need to update the civilopedia to list courthouse as providing +3 happy. But that won't happen, because it is a bug...

I don't think it's a bug because the have fixed some other bugs after last patches pretty rapidly. Why not courthouses too? Probably just undocumented.

I don't think it's too overpowered. There is penalties at being a warmonger. Haters are sometimes hard to control.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Because you have crushed their spirits and don't care about their happiness. Therefore, as the overlord of your empire you basically just presume they're happy.

Why do you do this? Because if they complain you take them to the courthouse and imprison the dissenters.

Therefore, Courthouse creates happiness by eliminating unhappiness and allowing you to ignore the standard rules that apply to your own citizens who you do care about.

Voila.

Well, as the overlord I want to crush the spirits of my own citizens to. Why would I care about them? It cannot hurt my reputation.

There are plenty of reasons not to annex a city and there are plenty of reasons to do so. I don't see how this creates an "optimal" strategy. I've managed huge puppet empires with happiness through the roof, so you don't have just one option.

Just one too. SP's. However, in domination game you want SP's primarily to deal with unhappiness. You don't need these - and you have more than enough culture to spend on other ones.

 

[joncnunn]

Yes.
When intending to annex I always first puppet and then wait for the city to come out of resistance before annexing.

I may leave it a puppet for a few extra turns if I'm really close to the next social policy or it's a city that I intend to cash rush the court house rather than slow build if I need more cash.

For that matter, you can puppet initially and later raze (via annex)

And you can initially raze but cancel before it finishes.

You just can't un-annex to turn it back into a puppet.

Back the OP, this "undocumented feature" has been in ever since release (which is over a year now). First reports on this forum were only a couple of months after release; my guess is if they intended to change it, they would have done it by now.

If you puppet, can you later annex the city?

 

[NotSure]

If they "fixed" the courthouse I would hardly ever annex a city. At 4 gpt & the increase to SP costs I would either puppet or raze & replace every time. That rare exception - a mine covered city with the HG. It only seems to be a big exploit opportunity with India unless I'm missing something.

 

[Becomedeath]

Just one too. SP's. However, in domination game you want SP's primarily to deal with unhappiness. You don't need these - and you have more than enough culture to spend on other ones.

Your national buildings get more expensive, you have to personally manage each city, you have an initial outlay of 600g per city or however many insane turns it takes to build in the city + continuing maintainance costs.

In an domination game, I'm just as interested in SPs that help manage my empires production, growth, research etc and when you have a wide empire, the tiny benefit of +3 happiness for annexing simply doesn't counterbalance against the spiraling cost of social policies.

You can easily have an empire of 20-30 cities on a standard pangea before the renessiance hits, so you can kiss goodbye to getting any benefit from the post-renessiance policies if you've annexed them all. And razing each city that early simply invites your opponents to settle more cities, so you're not making any headway at all.

If that's not a deterrent then what is? The perceived issue of the courthouse "bug" simply, in my view, isn't there. It's a trade off, which as far as I can see is exactly what it should be.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Your national buildings get more expensive

If you actually compare extra hammers gained by annexing cities and marginal National buildings costs, you'll laugh. It's not even close.

have to personally manage each city

Well, someone's laziness cannot be a valid argument. Game mechanics doesn't care about it and serious players (unlike lazy me) too.

you have an initial outlay of 600g per city or however many insane turns it takes to build in the city

600g in domination game isn't much. At all. One descent medieval unit. City will produce eventually more than that.

continuing maintainance costs.

All the garbage puppets build also has maintenance costs.

In an domination game, I'm just as interested in SPs that help manage my empires production

Annexed cities increase production.

growth

With each courthouse you currently can grow more than without it.

research

University in annexed city will give you more beakers than turtling puppet will ever be able to.

You can easily have an empire of 20-30 cities on a standard pangea before the renessiance hits, so you can kiss goodbye to getting any benefit from the post-renessiance policies if you've annexed them all.

If that's not a deterrent then what is? The perceived issue of the courthouse "bug" simply, in my view, isn't there. It's a trade off, which as far as I can see is exactly what it should be.

You don't need policies just for the sake of it. You need them to help you. When you don't need help you just don't need it. If what you say was true, OCC would have been the only optimal path. It is not. All of this definitely applies to cultural games, but other than that your thesis fails. SP's don't win games. Hammers and beakers do. The more cities you have which produce hammers and beakers the better. And ironically enough, building a wide empire by yourself is currently less optimal than taking over foreign cities. If that's not narrowing to a single strategy, what is?

 

[Becomedeath]

All of which would be wonderful if buildings appeared instantly.

Conversely, if the argument is so darn strong that the couthouse is more beneficial to use than not use then my point still stands, where's the issue? Even moreso really.

As far as I can tell the current argument is that there is this wonderful building that solves all of your problems and makes your life and your game easier and somehow that's a bad thing?

You are not forced to use them, you can play perfectly without them, you can play perfectly with them. So what is the freaking problem? (Other than the desire for there to be one.)

The courthouse does not narrow you to a single strategy, if anything it opens up strategies. Stay small and build your own or grow wide and take other peoples or grow wide and then tall by taking control yourself. Options are everywhere.

 

[headcase]

If you're taking cities so quickly that building Courthouses quickly enough is becoming a problem, you're probably on the track to winning anyway. Maybe this isn't so true on higher difficulties though.

Honestly I can't decide on the courthouse bug\undocumented feature, but if they keep it like this, I think puppeted cities should generate a little less unhappiness. Just a little, like 20% or 30% less per pop or something (just picking those numbers on a hunch, I'm no balance whiz) OR give control over the focus (gold, hammers, etc), while still not giving control over what's being built.

I agree that since war is costly, the rewards should be decent enough to justify it beyond "The dumb AI thought war was a good idea and I have to do this to get them to stop bugging me".