Dealing with Angry Citizens

LordMalice

Chieftain
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
10
Location
USA, Florida
I want to know if you guys have any good strategies in this. A very common problem I have when playing this game and building a large empire, is that people get angry pretty fast because they don't like that my empire has too many cities(I don't mean the other leaders in this game, I mean the population of my nation). I have no idea WHY any people would get angry over the number of cities their civilization has, but it can get annoying when they get angry, thus hurting production/gold/culture.

Does anyone have a solution to this, or is it something I have to work around?
 
That's the whole point - only expand as your happiness can manage; otherwise there would be no consequences to spamming out settlers and doing a city sprawl. But if you must have more than 4 cities under your control (as oppose to puppets), only settle sites that have a luxury (or two) that you do not have (and have a worker working it asap).
 
The unhappiness from city number is a necessary game mechanic to prevent infinite city spamming.

And it almost works!

It's 3 unhappiness per city so you just have to wipe out that three unhappiness and you can sprawl as far and wide as you like. Several social policies give a one happiness per city type bonus if used properly. These include the order opener, a policy in Piety that gives happiness from monuments and temples and a policy in honour that gives you happiness from garrisons.

It can be hard to pull off in practice but that's sort of the point.
 
Civ 5 penalizes expansion with an increased anger modifier for each additional city and an another increased anger modifier for population. At four cities or less anger is usually manageable via the development and/or trade of luxury resources. As the game progresses you can adopt Social Policies to mitigate anger as well as build Circuses and Colosseums to increase happiness. While it's tempting to settle a city everywhere you possibly can, as you've discovered, unhappiness can rapidly become unmanageable. It's possible to win the game with one city thus the OCC (One City Challenge). It's easy to lose the game with more than four Settler-built cities.

To expand a bit on Buccaneer's advice; you only get the happiness bonus once from each luxury resource. In other words, the first Silk on which you build a plantation will increase happiness by 4, the second and subsequent Silk resources add no more happiness.
 
Thats...rather lame. This anger management thing is why I don't play Civ5 as much as I play the other civ games. I like to build large empires that span the globe, and the fact this game is practically designed only for smaller civs annoys me.

I thank you all for your advice!
 
If you want to be able to more easily overcome the unhappiness penalties associated with having a greater number of cities, you might want to try playing as Egypt. Their unique building, the Burial Tomb, replaces a building that you were likely going to build anyway (the Temple), and only requires a Monument already in place to build it. If you time Legalism properly, you can even get them built for free in your first four cities. It has no maintenance cost and provides an extra +2 happiness, making the per-city unhappiness penalty much easier to manage. You'll also probably want to keep cities relatively small if you're going to build a lot of them. I recommend looking up some strategy tips for running an ICS (infinite city sprawl), since I've never tried it myself and can't really give advice on that front. Similarly, Persia's UB, which replaces the Bank, also provides +2 happiness, but building a Bank in each city requires a bit more effort.

Egypt's UA can also be helpful in combating unhappiness, helping you to hard-build useful wonders like the Circus Maximus, Taj Mahal, Notre Dame, and Forbidden Palace more quickly. Policy-wise, you'll want to target Meritocracy (+1 happiness for each city in your trade network, which should be every city), and Organized Religion, which grants an additional +1 happiness for the Monuments and Burial Tombs you'll already be building everywhere. Altogether, this can net you +5 extra happiness per city, negating the per-city modifier and the first two population points completely.
 
Happiness isn't the only thing in Civ V in which fewer cities are better; it's simply the most obvious.
The others are:

1. Every city in your empire (not counting puppets) needs improvement X to build National Wonder. (And hammer increase hammer cost of national wonder itself)
2. Increased cultural policy costs
3. Increased GA cost (on top of the increased difficulty of getting that happiness to begin with)

Basically in Civ V if the city site (post full cultural expansion) has none of luxury, strategic resource, nor natural wonder, it's at best a marginal city site and in Civ V terms shouldn't be built at all unless something changes. (such as future strategic resource appearing.)

It is also generally best to 2 City National College unless you just got a major cash early in the game (such as being first to El Dorado and/or playing Spain and being first to discover natural wonder very fast)

Also Circus Maximums is a very important happiness national wonder on Emperor+.
The AI that plays with Chieftain happiness bonuses can get away with its city placement, the human can not. (Some people have experimented with a mod that forces the AI to Prince happiness: Result was pretty much wide spread AI unhappiness.)
 
To expand a bit on Buccaneer's advice; you only get the happiness bonus once from each luxury resource. In other words, the first Silk on which you build a plantation will increase happiness by 4, the second and subsequent Silk resources add no more happiness.
There's a commerce policy for that, but it's way down - last one I think.

I have no idea how the AI handles it's unhappiness at Immortal or even Emperor. I think they get a rather larger starting happiness bonus. You get 10.

Also, if you play Harun the bazaar will double your luxuries. Which does not increase your happiness directly, but can give you more to trade for happiness.
 
I think we're spitting into the wind, sort of speak. The OP obviously is looking for a sandbox simulation instead of a strategy game where managing positive/negative modifiers (like happiness) is critical.
 
I think we're spitting into the wind, sort of speak. The OP obviously is looking for a sandbox simulation instead of a strategy game where managing positive/negative modifiers (like happiness) is critical.

THIS ^

I'd tell OP to think of the unhappiness as the result of the inefficiency of any government in administering a far-flung empire. Some citizens are unhappy because they don't get the newest social amenities (Opera House) and some wish their city was more "safe" (Barracks, Arsenal, and whatnot). It sounds as if OP wants to sweep the map without regard for the actual logistics of managing a campaign.

I play for fun and rely mainly on my knowledge of strategy and tactics to win the oh-too-often wars that occur in Civ (I always TRY for a scientific or cultural win). That said, if you accept a scenario/map where there is limited resources, accept that you have to manage your people... another limited resource.
 
Mebbe it's just me, but I didn't find that much difference in unhappiness between annexing and puppetry. At least if you annex you can jam a courthouse down their throats.
 
The big difference I think (could be wrong) is in policy cost and a the cost of other things that go up for every non-puppet. What bugs me, is puppets don't show what they are building (or they aren't building anything).

Unless I'm mis-remembering (Always a possibility art my age) a puppeted city's current build does show in the little circular icon on the right side of the city's name bar. You just need to know what all of those tiny icons signify.
 
You should also be able to view a puppeted city at any time; you just can't change anything that they're doing, obviously.
 
Back
Top Bottom