Deity

[Tasonne]

My first time playing a deity game and I have a question. I really hope I get the answer i'm looking for.

When building cities I notice that every citizen+1 is unhappy. IE: I build a city with a unit ready to implement martial law x1. AND I have to hire an entertainer. Another thing that's weird is that the first unhappy citizen isn't wearing red but rather black, I'm a seasoned civ player and I'm baffled as to what this citizen with the black hat means and also why I have two unhappy citizens with a size one city. I really hope i'm missing something. And I also really hope I don't have to allocate some of my taxes to luxury.

Any help would great, i'm really at a standstill right now. lol, if i've been missing something this long I want to fix it before I continue any further

 

[Prof. Garfield]

A black hat means that a citizen is very unhappy. What happens is that the riot factor (unhappiness due to having too many cities) diminishes the number of default content citizens. If there are not enough content citizens to "absorb" the riot factor penalty, citizens become very unhappy (black).

Black hats can be "cured" in three ways. The first way is to use 2 luxuries on them, which turns them into happy citizens directly; this makes black hats very useful when playing as a republic or democracy and you use luxuries anyway.

The second way is to hire specialists. The specialists will cover up black hats first, leaving only regular unhappy citizens.

The third way is to use contentment improvements (and/or martial law). When done this way, all the black hats must be turned to red before any red hats can be turned blue. It is, therefore, usually the most expensive way to get rid of black hats.

As a side note, communism doesn't suffer from the riot factor.

The best way to deal with the black hats, in my opinion, is to switch to republic and use luxuries.

Check in the stories and tales forum for the "People's Republic" succession game if you want to see a game with black hats in a prolonged monarchy.

 

[Tasonne]

(unhappiness due to having too many cities) diminishes the number of default content citizens. If there are not enough content citizens to "absorb" the riot factor penalty, citizens become very unhappy (black).

This sounds a lot like my situation, having too many cities. I have a ton of cities. Are you saying that when have enough large cities with enough content citizens to absorb my riot factor my newly built cities will stop having very unhappy citizens? Or does it not matter wether I have a ton of huge cities vs a ton of small cities like I have now. Probably 25-35 cities most with a population of 2 or 3.

I'm thinking for now throwing my luxuries on 10% is a good short term solution, what do you think?

 

[Tasonne]

I tried 10% and kept it for the last 100 turns or so. It didn't make a huge difference, I guess it helped, a little maybe. And my science got sloooowwed down a bit too. Oh well, what can ya do.

 

[Magic_gorter]

This sounds a lot like my situation, having too many cities. I have a ton of cities. Are you saying that when have enough large cities with enough content citizens to absorb my riot factor my newly built cities will stop having very unhappy citizens? Or does it not matter wether I have a ton of huge cities vs a ton of small cities like I have now. Probably 25-35 cities most with a population of 2 or 3.

I'm thinking for now throwing my luxuries on 10% is a good short term solution, what do you think?

The riot factor does not look at other cities. Every (new) city has the same problems. Sometimes it's better to have the luxuries higher then 10% (sometimes 60%) when needed. Some wonders will help all cities. So having Michelangelo's could help all cities but at higher levels it's more difficult to get rid of all unhappy people. Changing to Republic or Democray will help a lot in combination with the luxury rate. After finishing this game just try more games at Deity to get the feeling for happy/unhappy issues.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I tried 10% and kept it for the last 100 turns or so. It didn't make a huge difference, I guess it helped, a little maybe. And my science got sloooowwed down a bit too. Oh well, what can ya do.

10% luxuries are usually a waste, because of the way they are applied. Taxes and science are cumulative for all your civ, so producing small amounts in each city can add up. Luxuries, however, are applied on a per city basis, and you need at least 2 in order to get any value.

You have described having a large civ with lots of small cities, therefore few, if any, have enough trade to produce 2 luxuries at a 10% setting.

Try a 30%-40% luxury setting and go through each city and alter the worked tiles somewhat to get more trade. Specifically make sure that each city actually produces 2 luxuries.

Alternatively, grow your cities to size 5 as quickly as possible (cities still produce food and science while in disorder, so you may want to leave them there for quicker growth) and hire scientists and tax collectors to cover the black hats.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution beyond switching to republic. If you want to play Monarchy, you will have to accept either a luxury rate or a lot of entertainers or other specialists.

 

[Tasonne]

Sometimes it's better to have the luxuries higher then 10% (sometimes 60%) when needed ... Changing to Republic or Democray will help a lot in combination with the luxury rate.

Dude. I think having my luxury rate at 10% actually does make a difference. I may have to do like Prof. said and try to get my cities up to about 5, which is sort of what i'm having to do, before noticing any effects. And I know if I raised it a little more I could help out the smaller cities, except I really don't want to sacrifice any more of my science. I feel like i'm barely keeping up as it is ...... And as for changing to a republic instead of a monarchy. That's nearly impossible when i've been at war since the beginning of the game. Maybe it's just the game that i'm in but when someone attacks me and they offer me a treaty, after a while, I never take it. If I do I feel i'm giving them a chance to replenish their forces before they just sneak attack again and overun me. The way I look at it as long as I stay at war with an opponent I can keep them in check, while I don't want to expend to many resources trying to invade them. Are you guys following me?!? lol.....

Try a 30%-40% luxury setting and go through each city and alter the worked tiles somewhat to get more trade. Specifically make sure that each city actually produces 2 luxuries.

Can't do that, science is too important. If I do by the time I have a bunch of nice cities my pikemen will be getting overun by dragoons no doubt.

(cities still produce food and science while in disorder, so you may want to leave them there for quicker growth) and hire scientists and tax collectors to cover the black hats.

Nothing personal, lol, that sounds like crazy talk

You have described having a large civ with lots of small cities,

They're a little bit bigger now and the 10% is starting to help, thank god


Thanks for all the help guys i'll try to keep you posted and i'll continue to enjoy civ II muhahaha... lol, who needs civ IV

 

[Magic_gorter]

Ah..I now understand more how you play and it makes more sense why you keep the luxury rate low. Staying at war means that shieldproduction is most important and research is also important. The only thing left for big techjumps is trade deliveries. That way you can get more arrows to use with the 10% luxury.

If I play conquest game I do not attack somebody unless I have the right army. So I try to keep them happy in the beginning and can play with the luxury rate. If I do early conquest I stay in monarchy also but work out an atacking strategy. First thing is to grow fast and research high and when having enough cities and Elephants/Crusaders available I only build an army. Perhaps looking at Peaster's Early Conquest guide might help you with that. If you just like playing the game a little different this guide might help a bit.

Have fun with the game.

 

[Tasonne]

I try to keep them happy in the beginning also. Except, when someone does sneak attack me, I take defensive positions in their territory (phalanxs, catapults and fortresses). And for me to accept peace I'll have to give up these positions that are usually in mountains and hills next to their cities which I've already, in most cases, fought very hard for. As for the early/late or more of just a general conquest strategy I've found works for me is finding a city that has a mountain or hill beside it, fighting my way to it and building a fortress on that square. I then sabatoge their walls and and use catapults or cannons to take their city. I know crusaders can also work except when your enemy aqcuires musketmen they become a lot more ineffective, while cannons have a good shot at riflemen and alpine troops. That's just me personally I might use elephants and whatnot in the right game though I seem to usually resort to the fortress, diplomat, cannon tactic .

So yes, happiness is killing me. It's almost impossible to even keep the country expanding. Now, it seems the best option is to build a city with a defender present and build a temple right away. Considering that if you build your city on plains, your city won't grow and will have one production, buying the temple after a few turns seems like the only reasonable thing to do. This costs a lot and I supplement my wracked income by building courthouses and selling them in my larger cities, another trick I have employed.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I'm going to suggest that you change your warmaking tactics. Either build up enough forces to take enemy cities (and thereby permanently reduce their warmaking capacity), or take up strong defensive positions that can be maintained with minimal expense. "Keeping the enemy in check" but not actually taking cities will just drain resources that could be put to caravans or settlers.
Moreover, a republic can usually put up with the expense of these kinds of wars, eliminating the need to stay in monarchy.

When I suggested you raise the luxury rate, I expected you to cut taxes to 10% and minimize the reduction in the science rate, especially since disorderly cities do not produce taxes anyway. In any case, you can always build diplomats to steal techs from your enemies if they get too far ahead of you.

If you are already suffering from the riot factor to the point that you are having severe difficulty maintaining order, stop building new cities. If you don't have Mike's Chapel or if it can't overcome your riot factor, the general admonition to build new cities doesn't apply, because they are so expensive to set up.

I think having my luxury rate at 10% actually does make a difference.

Thinking something is or is not working is not good enough. Either cities are producing enough luxuries to keep order or they are not, and you should be checking your cities to find out. If only a few cities actually benefit from the 10%, consider making other arrangements for those cities, and put the 10% into taxes or science, or increase the luxury rate to make the expenses worth while in more cities.

 

[Tasonne]

take up strong defensive positions that can be maintained with minimal expense.

I guess you didn't understand this correctly "I'll have to give up these positions that are usually in mountains and hills next to their cities which I've already, in most cases, fought very hard for."

Saying that I fought very hard for them is kind of misleading. I don't expend too many resources obtaining these position. However, I'm not eager to give them up upon signing a peace treaty, thus, I've been at war basically the entire game which has prevented me from becoming a republic.

What I'm trying to say is, this is exactly what I've been doing for the last 2000 years.

You are right about the luxuries though, having your luxuries at 10% is almost pointless. So, I've switched my luxuries back to 0%, wasted the last 150 turns or so, oh well. I'm using entertainers and temples, for now, and seem to be doing alright. Thing is, since I've never played a Deity game the only time i've ever used luxuries is when using a democracy or republic, which I've already stated earlier I can't do since I'm at war. Obviously, war weariness is too prominent during a two thousand year long war to ignore.

If you are already suffering from the riot factor to the point that you are having severe difficulty maintaining order, stop building new cities. If you don't have Mike's Chapel or if it can't overcome your riot factor, the general admonition to build new cities doesn't apply, because they are so expensive to set up.

Stop building new cities?! My friend, that just isn't an option. I always though thw first commandment of civilization has always been stop building cities when there isn't any space left on the map to build them. I may have to build temples in all of my cities, but I can hold of any civ's right now if any one of them were to try an attack and am hopefully on my way to being able to hold off all of them, if need be. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst, right?

When I suggested you raise the luxury rate, I expected you to cut taxes to 10% and minimize the reduction in the science rate, especially since disorderly cities do not produce taxes anyway. In any case, you can always build diplomats to steal techs from your enemies if they get too far ahead of you.

You're saying I can cut my taxes almost completely and rely on diplomats to stay afloat? And minimizing my taxes to 10%? I'm already losing money at 50%. How can I possibly keep this up?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

guess you didn't understand this correctly "I'll have to give up these positions that are usually in mountains and hills next to their cities which I've already, in most cases, fought very hard for."

What I meant by defensive positions was to place units such that you could repel invaders (which might sometimes involve attacking those units) in or near your territory, not fortifying in enemy territory.

Stop building new cities?! My friend, that just isn't an option.

It is an option. People (myself included) have won the space race with just one city. You don't need lots of cities to win.

I always though thw first commandment of civilization has always been stop building cities when there isn't any space left on the map to build them. I may have to build temples in all of my cities, but I can hold of any civ's right now if any one of them were to try an attack and am hopefully on my way to being able to hold off all of them, if need be. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst, right?

There are no "commandments" as such in Civilization, with the exception of "Thou shalt always play one more turn." A commandment is something that you should be doing without thinking about its costs and benefits, and expansion certainly is not one of those things.

The costs and benefits of expansion depend on circumstances, and usually the circumstances suggest that expansion is the best option. If founding a city will only cost the settler/engineer, then it is probably a very good use of those resources. If, however, you have to rush buildings and move in defenders, the city becomes much more expensive and you have to weigh the benefits.

Founding a city (unless it is founded for strategic purposes) is an investment. You have to weigh the costs of building (the settler, any otherwise unnecessary defenders, any necessary structures) and maintaining (structure maintenance costs, the extra unhappiness in your other cities) the city with the expected return (any taxes and science produced, any "spare" units, probable caravan payouts) to be produced. Timeliness of returns is also a large factor, and the fewer spare resources you have, the less time you should allow for returns to come in.

The fact of the matter is that you are having trouble keeping order due to the riot factor, and yet you are still founding cities which must have contentment structures rush built immediately. These new cities are draining your economy, and therefore making it harder to defend your nation.

the only time i've ever used luxuries is when using a democracy or republic, which I've already stated earlier I can't do since I'm at war. Obviously, war weariness is too prominent during a two thousand year long war to ignore.

War weariness can be dealt with, and with much less expense than several black hats in Monarchy.

You're saying I can cut my taxes almost completely and rely on diplomats to stay afloat? And minimizing my taxes to 10%? I'm already losing money at 50%. How can I possibly keep this up?

If your cities are in disorder, they are not producing taxes anyway, so you may be able to reduce the tax rate if you can collect from everywhere. If you need 50% taxes, you probably have too many structures, and should sell some of them off.

If you can, I would be interested in seeing a save of your game. It might give a better idea of what can be done to improve your circumstances.

 

[Tasonne]

What I meant by defensive positions was to place units such that you could repel invaders (which might sometimes involve attacking those units) in or near your territory, not fortifying in enemy territory.

Yeah, and if our cities are overlapping, and there is a mountain on that square, I'm not building my fortress on the grassland and letting them have the mountain fortified so as to not precipitate war. So, technically, I am fortifying in my territory. The borders system is a lot better in Civ III where there are no disputes over overlapping cities.

I know what you're saying.

There are no "commandments" as such in Civilization, with the exception of "Thou shalt always play one more turn." A commandment is something that you should be doing without thinking about its costs and benefits, and expansion certainly is not one of those things.

I think I've played too much Civ III in the past where I think the expansion concept changed a lot. It's been a while since I've gotten back to Civ II and it will take some adjusting. I think, in Civ III though, it is one of those things.

"Thou shalt always play one more turn."

lol

War weariness can be dealt with, and with much less expense than several black hats in Monarchy..

Is that a fact?!

If you can, I would be interested in seeing a save of your game. It might give a better idea of what can be done to improve your circumstances.

Well, if you haven't already guessed, the game I'm talking to you about, my first Deity level game, is also my first GOTM, lol, GOTM 99 that is. And I'm finished it now, didn't conquest, didn't alpha centauri, just survived.

I'd love to show you a save, a few of them perhaps. What I'd also like to do, though, is show a nice collection of screenshots I've built over the course of this game, detailing my tactics and whatnot. If I could, I'd also like to post them in a spoiler thread. Display my Sioux empire possibly see other's SS's to compare what our civs looked like, where we chose to build are cities and such. Wouldn't that be neat? I sure think it would.

One thing I can tell you for sure is that the next time I play a deity level game I guarantee you I'll do a lot better. For one thing I noticed communism completely eliminated ALL my problems . I think if next time I put a little more enphasis on getting to it I'll greatly improve my chances of an actual conquest.

Well, get back to me when you can, and as soon as you can pm your address I can send you a few of those saves.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Yeah, and if our cities are overlapping, and there is a mountain on that square, I'm not building my fortress on the grassland and letting them have the mountain fortified so as to not precipitate war. So, technically, I am fortifying in my territory.

I understand your problem now. In this situation, build a couple of caravans/freight as "placeholders" while you are at peace. Then, if they attack you, bring in defensive units from a nearby city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Garfield
War weariness can be dealt with, and with much less expense than several black hats in Monarchy..

Is that a fact?!

With some planning, yes. It just involves supporting units from the correct cities, and being a little careful with unit placement. Democracy is somewhat harder to manage than republic, but it can be done. The fact is that you can afford the luxuries in republic and democracy to keep enough citizens happy to counteract the unhappiness caused by troops.

Well, get back to me when you can, and as soon as you can pm your address I can send you a few of those saves.

Just upload them as attachments in a future post. Do you play classic or Multiplayer Gold Edition?

 

[Tasonne]

I understand your problem now. In this situation, build a couple of caravans/freight as "placeholders" while you are at peace. Then, if they attack you, bring in defensive units from a nearby city.

That's a really good idea.

With some planning, yes. It just involves supporting units from the correct cities, and being a little careful with unit placement. Democracy is somewhat harder to manage than republic, but it can be done. The fact is that you can afford the luxuries in republic and democracy to keep enough citizens happy to counteract the unhappiness caused by troops.

I'll have to give that a try sometime. Once I've tested it perhaps I'll put it to use in a gotm.

Just upload them as attachments in a future post. Do you play classic or Multiplayer Gold Edition?

I'd love to upload them but shouldn't I wait until the gotm is over? I don't really want to, though, I'd rather just post them right now.


And, finally, I play MPGE. I love how unlike the old civ, you don't have to save backup copies of all your rules/units and such. Thanks!