Happiness - what was Firaxis smoking?

[DavidPBacon]

I find it funny how people can still sugarcoat this garbage. In Civ 4, there's an increasing gold penalty for adding additional cities that will eventually stifle your science. You need to grow those cities before expanding again. In Civ 5, there is no maintenance, only global happiness. Which means that it penalizes vertical rather than horizontal growth because happiness buildings are limited.

Building a ton of cities with capped growth and coliseums is so much better than building fewer, larger cities. With trade routes and meritocracy, each of these small cities gives additional gold to your empire. With tons of cities, you can easily defend them because multiple cities can shoot any attacker at the same time. Not to mention you can just rush purchase anything because your are rolling in the gold.

That rigth here is ICS in a nutshell. How someone can say it was the same or similar in Civ IV is beyond me...

 

[MadRat]

So I think firaxis wasnt smoking anything and had a really good idea... But they need to fix unhappiness because as it stands it can just be ignored and can just go around rampaging...

Really?? My cities are upset due to overcrowding and settle anew size 1 city and they get MORE pissed off. I can repel the invader but to end the war i have to take their cities - but as my victorious army marches closer to victory my loyal citizens get pissed off - I'm sure they be happier getting conquered Oh but my wise people will cheer up the moment some backwater town builds a coliseum???

Although I do agree it is easy to bypass it - the reason folks do so is because otherwise it is INSANE to try to deal with it.

Yeah very realistic...


Rat

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Really?? My cities are upset due to overcrowding and settle anew size 1 city and they get MORE pissed off. I can repel the invader but to end the war i have to take their cities - but as my victorious army marches closer to victory my loyal citizens get pissed off - I'm sure they be happier getting conquered Oh but my wise people will cheer up the moment some backwater town builds a coliseum???

Although I do agree it is easy to bypass it - the reason folks do so is because otherwise it is INSANE to try to deal with it.

Yeah very realistic...


Rat

Yep, this in a nutshell !

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

There have been so many cities completely burned and sacked in our own history that it fits right in, imo. However, Brawndo is absolutely correct...the penalties in the modern era should be very high.

The complete obliteration of a city as large and important as those depicted in Civ games was rare even in ancient times. Sacking and reduction yes, but obliteration, no.

 

[Fool_U]

Really?? My cities are upset due to overcrowding and settle anew size 1 city and they get MORE pissed off. I can repel the invader but to end the war i have to take their cities - but as my victorious army marches closer to victory my loyal citizens get pissed off - I'm sure they be happier getting conquered Oh but my wise people will cheer up the moment some backwater town builds a coliseum???

Although I do agree it is easy to bypass it - the reason folks do so is because otherwise it is INSANE to try to deal with it.

Yeah very realistic...


Rat

Well if we look at real life as it is today it is impossible for a civ to go to war with out the backing of its citizens. As it stood in more ancient times a civ could go to war without the backing of its citizens simply because the people were less informed. So as you progress through the era's the more you conquer more more unhappiness that should be accumulated. Perhaps unhappiness could be progressively accumulated throughout the game.

As it stands now happiness needs to be fixed! I like the idea of global and local happiness to include two separate smiles on the display. I hope they implement something like that in a future update. I still think this idea that firaxis came up with is a good one.

 

[Ribusprissin]

Trading posts look like big stretches of circus tents instead of, you know, actual trading posts.

OH, ok. I thought he meant the circus building.

I think they look like irrigation ditches.

 

[Biz_]

You should try playing it sometime. The crossfire from close-knit cities will often be enough to wipe out enemy units, but even if that's not enough, the gold from all those circus tents you're working will allow you to buy a unit in at least one, more than likely two or three, vulnerable cities. That's suboptimal, sure, but if you need to buy units, you can, easily.

city attack is damn near useless. all it takes is 2 horsemen to kill a city. that costs far less than the 2 coliseums you need to make to support it.

even if you have an army, it'll be a much smaller and weaker one, and it won't be able to defend all your cities.

ICS works against an AI not because it's especially good, but because anything will work against an AI

 

[vandyr]

Ha ha, that's hilarious. You know how many settlers I lost to wild animals &-later on-barbarians because I failed to send them out without an escort? I've not run into this problem in Civ5 yet. Your defense of the bad mechanics of Civ5 is bordering on fanboisness, it really is. I've yet to see any better argument from you than "Civ5 was great" & insulting those who disagree with you. You'll need something a little better to convince us than that!

Aussie.

Through unshadowed territory? None, unless you weren't paying attention at all. I'm not sure you even understand what you're arguing against here.

I don't have a problem that he *likes* Civ5 over Civ4, I just grow tired of the way he insults people who dare to criticize his beloved game-even when they use some pretty compelling in-game arguments to do so.

Where did I insult you? If you're referring to my sig, its a direct response to someone else's sig, someone that happens to support your arguments against Civ V. But I'm sure theirs is ok, right? Don't get too hypocritical on me.

 

[vandyr]

The complete obliteration of a city as large and important as those depicted in Civ games was rare even in ancient times. Sacking and reduction yes, but obliteration, no.

Not as rare as you might think, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree with you. However, we're rewriting history, right?
Besides, that kind of atrocity in the olden days was met with very little consternation because nobody knew about it. Brawndo's right about the massive uproar it would cause in the modern age.

 

[Uniform Sierra]

I think happiness is a very important factor, and it's "Realistic" too. I mean, sugar, wine, etc. are things that make people happy, to some extent, and happy people work better, happiness also involves "Moral" in the military units of the game, so that's also "Realistic". A happier unit will fight better, that's a proven fact.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Not as rare as you might think, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree with you. However, we're rewriting history, right?
Besides, that kind of atrocity in the olden days was met with very little consternation because nobody knew about it. Brawndo's right about the massive uproar it would cause in the modern age.

The Mongols certainly made a negative impression in Persia and the Middle East when they did this on a couple of occasions, though any diplomatic malus was probably offset to some extent by a fear bonus when dealing with states that were within striking distance. Obviously there was no protest from the Incan ambassador.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Through unshadowed territory? None, unless you weren't paying attention at all. I'm not sure you even understand what you're arguing against here.

My point is that sending an undefended settler or worker into *any* kind of territory (shadowed or unshadowed) is a certain way to *lose* said settler/worker in Civ4. In Civ5, the odds of losing an undefended Settler/Worker are significantly less &-even if you do-you can usually rescue them by destroying the barbarian encampment they've been taken to. So you see, once again, my actual *knowledge* of both games is significantly better than your baseless assumptions. Heck, I've lost a settler even when it *was* being defended, because I got attacked in a situation where I lost the warrior defending it! Might I suggest you actually go back and *play* some Civ4 before making claims you can't actually back up?

Aussie.

 

[VladTepes]

You need larger cities to generate more production and gold to build and pay for the happiness generators that are needed by larger cities. You build a colosseum, your cities grow by five so that happiness gain is gone. You build roads as sparingly as possible, but oh crap you're being invaded because you are too close to an AI who turns into a kid in the backseat of a car screaming "STOP TOUCHING MEEEEE!!!!!" and now your expensive roads aren't enough since you have to go the long way to reinforce. You play as Hiawatha, but that only works until railroad as to saving on road costs.

I started playing IV again, because I want to have fun with my games, not pull my hair out. Firaxis, you really messed this up. Big time.

 

[MadRat]

the more you conquer more more unhappiness that should be accumulated

I am yet to think of an example in history prior where a successful war of conquest resulted in the equivalent of an empire wide french union strike. YOu are right TODAY it is very hard for most states, especially democracies, to go to war - but game wise that means the mechanic is pretty much valid for only the last 20-25% of the game. In fact at the outset of some wars populations may actually be very supportive (WWI, First Gulf War).

I would bring back war weariness instead as a happiness mod (temporary until war ends) that escalates as a war drags on - subject to the age the civ (AI *AND* human) is in after x number of turns. I really dont like how happiness is linked with the capture of cities.

QUESTION FOE EVERYONE - I haven't thought about this - but is I suspect it is true - Does the acquisition of cities through other means (trade, peace treaty) also increase unhappiness?

To me it is bone stupid that the happiness seems counter-intuitive to logic. Founding a new city, having a peaceful annexation, winning a war or simply growing - actually annoys people. But having East Bupkiss build a circus makes everyone happy??

I would also like to see the unhappiness only increase in cities as a function of era - ancient cities probably had more of an issue with overcrowding than modern cities. Perhaps this can be reflected in a wonder/city building like "sanitation system", or "public works"

Rat

 

[lschnarch]

Not as rare as you might think, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree with you. However, we're rewriting history, right?
Besides, that kind of atrocity in the olden days was met with very little consternation because nobody knew about it. Brawndo's right about the massive uproar it would cause in the modern age.

The poor fact is that people don't uproar (even not in modern times) when you RAZE. They uproar when you annex!

By any means that game mechanic is not plausible, since it contradicts any real life experience.

 

[Jharii]

The poor fact is that people don't uproar (even not in modern times) when you RAZE. They uproar when you annex!

The bolded has me confused. Are you talking about the game or real life, because...

By any means that game mechanic is not plausible, since it contradicts any real life experience.

Just trying to better understand your comparison of the game to real life, thanks.

 

[vandyr]

My point is that sending an undefended settler or worker into *any* kind of territory (shadowed or unshadowed) is a certain way to *lose* said settler/worker in Civ4. In Civ5, the odds of losing an undefended Settler/Worker are significantly less &-even if you do-you can usually rescue them by destroying the barbarian encampment they've been taken to. So you see, once again, my actual *knowledge* of both games is significantly better than your baseless assumptions. Heck, I've lost a settler even when it *was* being defended, because I got attacked in a situation where I lost the warrior defending it! Might I suggest you actually go back and *play* some Civ4 before making claims you can't actually back up?

Aussie.

You might take your own advice here. I can't say I've ever lost a settler unless I sent it off into the fog of war, and its happened in both games. Just because you aren't very good at either of the games doesn't mean they're broken.

 

[Fool_U]

I am yet to think of an example in history prior where a successful war of conquest resulted in the equivalent of an empire wide french union strike. YOu are right TODAY it is very hard for most states, especially democracies, to go to war - but game wise that means the mechanic is pretty much valid for only the last 20-25% of the game. In fact at the outset of some wars populations may actually be very supportive (WWI, First Gulf War).

I would bring back war weariness instead as a happiness mod (temporary until war ends) that escalates as a war drags on - subject to the age the civ (AI *AND* human) is in after x number of turns. I really dont like how happiness is linked with the capture of cities. .

I agree, hence my reasoning for a type of progressive unhappines in relation to your conquests and era. Also a global and local setting for happiness (someone mentioned this idea already) one for your own cites and one for the cites you have conquered. If they could find a way to work this in there I think it would make for a much more balanced gameplay.

Implementing what you said about a national wonder for a civ at a specific era that with out it unhappiness increases into that era would be a good idea as well.

I dont think the idea of happiness is counter intuitive but the way it is implemented in game play is flawed. From a sociological pov it makes complete sense. The more a population grows the unhappier it becomes. The only way to combat this is by giving the people more to do, hence the reason for buildings like the circus. But building a circus in "East Bupkiss" should not affect your happiness because you took over a city. The idea of Global and local happiness would solve this issue.

 

[gilmore606]

You might take your own advice here. I can't say I've ever lost a settler unless I sent it off into the fog of war, and its happened in both games. Just because you aren't very good at either of the games doesn't mean they're broken.

NEVER?! You've never lost a Settler because of an unlucky barb encounter that killed the escort? Never had a bear eat the warrior? I don't see how this is possible unless you always double up your escorts or you just haven't played Civ 4 very much. Or maybe you turn off barbs?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You might take your own advice here. I can't say I've ever lost a settler unless I sent it off into the fog of war, and its happened in both games. Just because you aren't very good at either of the games doesn't mean they're broken.

Sounds to me like someone's making things up as they go along. I've played Civ4 almost continuously since it came out, & I still am to this day, & I was taught *very early* not to send settlers out into *any* kind of territory undefended. Why? Because animals & barbarians move around A LOT-& can come leaping out of the FoW without warning. Even areas you've explored, but not recently, can be the source of animals & barbarians. Once you lose that settler or worker, then thats it-its lost FOREVER. Your only choice is to build a brand new one. With Civ5, though, they clearly didn't want to upset people who couldn't be bothered to invest in a military escort for their settlers/workers, so they made it such that barbarians are highly unlikely to spring out of the FoW unannounced &-even on the rare occasions that they do, you won't have to worry because you won't lose that settler forever-just until you can get it back again. How many ways can I say LAME?

Aussie.