Firaxis: Inherited Unhappiness is Ridiculous

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by BridgeBoy, Apr 3, 2002.

  1. chiefpaco

    chiefpaco Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,381
    Location:
    Fanatika - Where did everybody go?
    As strange as the whole concept is, your analysis here is the best I've ever seen. :) Happiness is one thing, but new conquered territory churning out tanks & Universities the next turn?

    I am still not convinced the unhappiness should be compounded over centuries though. Perhaps an alteration of the compounding rule is in order.
     
  2. SirPleb

    SirPleb Shaken, not stirred.

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,415
    Location:
    Nanaimo BC Canada
    In my last game I had two cities which I captured (because they contained wonders) which did not recover from the AIs rushing unhappiness for about 270 turns. The earlier one I captured before 1400AD. At 2050 it (and the other captured just a bit later) remained just one unhappy citizen. Allowing for the temple I added and my 8 luxuries, the underlying unhappiness level must I think have been over 400 turns worth. And it wasn't even caused by my attack in one case, it was already size one when I got there. An inter-AI war must have caused it earlier.

    The problem is quite severe and has made the raze-and-replace approach even more necessary than it was with 1.16, despite the reduced risk of culture flipping. I no longer capture any cities (instead of just razing them) unless either 1) It has a wonder I want or 2) I can be sure it hasn't been under seige at any time in the game before I reached it.
     
  3. Bill_in_PDX

    Bill_in_PDX Grumpy Submariner

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,880
    Location:
    The Wilderness of Orygun
    I agree that this latest fix of the problem has gone to far in the unhappiness direction, but I do see some irony in your note...I mean you did exterminate their race...you expected them to be happy with you?

    :lol:

    Bill
     
  4. Park Ranger

    Park Ranger Wonder hog

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    St. John's, NF
    Especially if the oppression was largely used to defend against that "liberating civ" that has been invading for several turns...

    Since the AI only seems to pop rush its cities to size 1 when they're about to lose them (to my civ or anyone else's), I'll swallow the pill and go with Zachriel's interpretation, and just not take the "we cannot forget your cruel oppression" message personally.

    Maybe someday Firaxis will get it right, and conquerors who bombed and pillaged, who raised taxes after they moved in, and who took away all the luxuries will find unhappy subjects; while the noble liberators who sacrificed dozens of cavalry so as not to injure any civilians behind the walls, who brought fine wine and silks with them, and who lowered taxes will be greeted with (after initial skepticism wears off) parades and fireworks. :)

    Until the AI can discriminate among conquerors, we'll just all have to suffer the (however misapplied) despotic label. And hope to get those towns quick before the AI knows what is happening...:D
     
  5. chiefpaco

    chiefpaco Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,381
    Location:
    Fanatika - Where did everybody go?
    I know advice was banned from this thread, but I'll give some anyway. I just mean to try to help, but see my above post to see why I agree with you already.

    Try to do your conquering in the Middle ages. Chances are your opponents will be in a govt that can't rush and drafting hasn't been invented yet.
     
  6. ArtofWar

    ArtofWar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    New Zealand
    This might sound stupid be maybe you should get bonus happiness for retaking a city from an enemy. The cities population should be ecstatic to be part of it's mother land again. The rest of your population should be happy to be reunited with it's lost city. Also it would give you a reason to want to retake your old cities.
     
  7. JuicyCivNewbie

    JuicyCivNewbie Greatest civ player ever!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    244
    Location:
    Western Europe
    True, but they don't take millenia to recover, especially if they were under a more free government like democracy for example. Generally it wouldn't take more than a generation for the people to become satisfied with the new system, sure, if they were under the old government stories could be passed along over the centuries and history books record the event. The very harsh unhappiness penalties still don't make sense.
     
  8. JuicyCivNewbie

    JuicyCivNewbie Greatest civ player ever!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    244
    Location:
    Western Europe
    I mostly raze wonder cities too... it's just too risky if the wonder's been in there say, 20 turns, the culture is likely to be too great for me to hold the city.
     
  9. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    I've never seen unhappiness last that long, even in a city where almost the entire population was conscripted.



    http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/gotm5/
     
  10. JuicyCivNewbie

    JuicyCivNewbie Greatest civ player ever!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    244
    Location:
    Western Europe
    It's not a problem with my own cities really, I pop rush every 40 turns max and usually temples only, if I have a lux except in emergencies - but some AI cities (generally size 1) just never seem to settle down (captured in 1000BC 1000AD they are still unhappy). I usually go for rapid style blitz type conquests if I can so they have little time to pop rush anyway, but the odd city stands out, especially the ones that survive the first few turns, say when it's an out of the way city and I end up one or two units short of capturing it.
     
  11. Salvor

    Salvor Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Chicago
    This is just my opinion, but I think we have several things going on here, and it's possible that some people are misinterpreting what they observe.

    I haven't seen the savegames of everyone who's posted here, and a lot of this is just conjecture so I might be way off, but it appears to me that:

    Some people might be seeing unhappiness in cities long after the effects of whipping/drafting have gone away, and without clicking on the unhappy citizens, just assume that the whipping/drafting is the cause.

    Some don't think that ill effects should apply at all to a "liberated" city. They're entitled to their opinion, but I personally disagree. There are a couple examples posted above that illustrate that cities don't just pop back to full productivity just because a few conquering heroes ride through the center of town.

    Some might not be aware of the cumulative effect of whipping/drafting. For example, if I whip on one turn, the next turn I can expect to have 39 turns to go. If I now draft, I might expect this to get reset to 40. From my experiences, it doesn't seem to work that way. From what I can tell it ADDS 40 turns, for a total of 79. Now imagine if a communist metropolis was beseiged for three turns. Ill effects lasting well over 100 turns are not that hard to believe.

    And finally, it seems some people are just put off by the game's choice of words, and don't like being blamed for things they didn't do.


    Personally, it's the cumulative thing that bugs me the most. Sure drafting twice is worse than only doing it once, and the effect should be longer, especially to avoid exploits. But there should be some kind of diminishing returns. Like if the first causes 40 turns, the second might add 20 or 30, the third maybe 15, etc.

    I also think that 40 turns is too much for one pop-rush or draft. Pop-rushing should be worse than drafting anyway. 30 turns for a pop-rush and 20 for a draft would sit better with me.

    Also the effect should be lessened for a conqueror. Sure, there are still ill effects, but if you come in and rebuild the city, investing in it heavily with cash-rushes and maybe adding workers or settlers to the population, as well as improving the surrounding terrain, that should show you care about the people's welfare and should reduce (but not eliminate) the effects.

    As for the wording, it could probably be improved, but it doesn't bother me, as I have a good enough imagination to overcome it. Still, to make the game into the polished gem that's expected of this series, it's probably worth the effort to come up with better phrasing.

    Anyway, that IMHO would be an improvement. I'm not vain or arrogant enough to demand that Firaxis change the game to suit my personal desires, but I will say that I think it's a good idea and would be one big step towards making this already great game a true classic gem like its predecessors were.
     
  12. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    I haven't seen "unhappiness" last more than 40 turns, and the game is quite playable in this respect in its current incarnation.

    But hey, I'm all for improvements in the game. I'm sure the gamemakers peruse these forums looking for suggestions.

    :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:
     
  13. BridgeBoy

    BridgeBoy Regent

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida, USA
    Yeah really, if the effects of whipping/killing people lasted cumulatively based on how many people have been killed, there wouldn't be a productive Jewish person on this planet for eons to come. (The Holocaust)

    Good Point!
     
  14. Salvor

    Salvor Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Chicago
    I agree that the game is quite playable, generally the inherited unhappiness is nothing a temple, cathedral, and marketplace can't fix. I do think, though, that it's a bit excessive, and the game would be better if it were reduced the ways I described above. I'm not holding my breath, and will continue to play and enjoy the game for a long time to come even if Firaxis does nothing.

    I have, however, seen ill effects last for more than 40 turns. In the game I'm playing now, there are a couple Indian cities I captured in the early 1400's (I eliminated Ghandi in 1420) that have a draft-dodging hippie or two and it's now 1710. That's at least 59 turns by my reckoning. The cities are quite productive, but less so than they would be if I didn't need to use entertainers to keep them in WLTKD.
     
  15. BridgeBoy

    BridgeBoy Regent

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida, USA
    Well, in my case, that originally started this thread, there is only three people in that town...they have built a temple, there is two military police there, and there has always been five to eight luxuries available to them......I don't see how any more improvements could possibly effect those three people...there is already more happineess/content instruments in place than there are people?
     
  16. Alc0p0pz

    Alc0p0pz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    I've never used the Despot pop rush strategy - don't like it.
    (And it took me a while to realise this is how the AI can expand seemingly twice as fast as me on Regent ...)

    I never, ever rush population, and never, ever draft citizens.

    The AI does both all the bloody time.

    In my last game, I conquered France for it's vital terrain (mine was shoddy) with swordsmen around 500 AD. At the end of the industrial age, late 1800s early 1900s, 8% of Joan's old cities were still unhappy because of her using the whip one and half millenia ago. See that? That's bollocks, that is. :mad:

    btw, I'd say with about 80% certainty that if you disband a city, the AI sees it as destroying that city. So, not only does any unhappiness transfer when disbanding, the AI will also hate you for doing so. :mad:
     
  17. Tassadar

    Tassadar Master

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,171
    I dont understand why you want too capture ennemy city with all the problem you got, just raze it, and if you need the location have a settler ready, brand new city without any problem. i think capturing ennemy city is a backside effect of civ 2, but in civ 3 i learn to raze it.
     
  18. Kilroy

    Kilroy Bitter.

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    865
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Could someone clear something up for me?

    I'm confused how unhappiness caused by pop-rush/drafting works. Until now I thought that only the unhappiness effects were cumulative, not the time involved. For example, if I pop-rush four citizens into oblivion, I can expect dire consequences for 40 turns, but after those 40 turns ALL the unhappiness is gone. But now people are saying that I'll have unhappiness problem for 160 turns? If this is what is happening, I haven't noticed it. But if that is the way it is done, let me say that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
     
  19. cegman

    cegman Scott Walker Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
    Mabye you should have a city defence option. You have conscripts that can't move and that after the war they go back into the population. The only problem would be that it can't grow past the number of men you need to add once the war is over
     
  20. Selous

    Selous King

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    766
    Location:
    aussi
    i think the description milita would better fit that? ... then u could also have your conscripts to send off to war if that is your thing
     

Share This Page