I Don't Like to Complain, But This Is s@#$!

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by marshalljames
It seems to me that what many of you aggressive players don't realize,is while you've been building military units your opponent has been building culture.
To put it simply while you and your men have been ****ting in the woods your opponent has flush toilets,and when you take your opponents city its inhabitants have no desire to give up their flush toilets to join you and your men ****ting in the woods.
If you were paying attention during any economics lecture,the simple economy begins with guns and butter and it's finding the right mix of this that will enable you to take cities without inheriting un-happiness.I willing to bet that those that loose cities by flipping have luxury goods set to 0..a definite no no.IMO
My personal pref is 4,4,2 or if I can 3,4,3 or better 2,5,3.Allthough I have never been able to maintain a 2,5,3
It seems to me that those that complain the loudest know the least about simple economic principles.
A prime example is the placement of aluminum on some world maps that ppl have created.Some falsley assume that bauxite = aluminum.WRONG,bauxite is worthless(ask the jamaicans) without electricity,As far as I know Quebec is the largest producer of aluminium in the western world and not one grain of bauxite is to be found here naturally,what we do have is cheap electricity.

I am not usually very "agressive", and i build culture in ALL my cities. Then in the industrial age, when lack of creativity by firaxis causes the game to get boring, i go to war. Cities flip on me regardless of garrison, regardless of my culture (which is about three or four times greater than theirs. My people are hardly ****ing in the woods. And i have a ton of luxuries, and lux rate at least 10%. Higher than that is a waste of money, because it simply does not stop flips. It seems every post where there is a complaint/suggerstion about a feature (flawed or not) there are a bunch of people who come in with links to their strategy page, or say we need to check our tactics, or we suck at civ3, or giving us real-life analogies that simply are NOT represented in civ3: "if you subjugate your conquered with force, they will live for revenge". Where is something as complex as that represented? Is it really fun to have a city worthless forever because the AI decided to whip it? Is it really fun to have the same PRNG that has combat reduced to civ1 level also decide whether a city eats up 30 modern armor? And what does aluminum and bauxite have to do with this thread?

"This is not simply a war game for you to wipe everything out."

No, but that doesnt mean they should intentionally make stupid rules to make conquered cities eat up units, or be useless forever. That is like saying that because civ3 is not just a wargame, it should have a worthless combat system.

"If you were paying attention during any economics lecture,the simple economy begins with guns and butter and it's finding the right mix of this that will enable you to take cities without inheriting un-happiness. . . ."

What are you talking about? You inherit the AI's whip unhappiness no matter what, or you raze the city. Economics has nothing to do with it! Unless civ3 was meant to be a genocide game, where you raze every enemy city and build your own "pure" cities.

 

[marshalljames]

Cities flip on me regardless of garrison, regardless of my culture (which is about three or four times greater than theirs. My people are hardly ****ing in the woods. And i have a ton of luxuries, and lux rate at least 10%. Higher than that is a waste of money, because it simply does not stop flips.

Your completly wrong.you can have all the luxuries you want but if you don't let you citizens have access to them then they are of no benefit(as far as I know you have to have lux>0 for citizens to benefit from them).10% is not high enough as to many of your surplus citizens become entertainers(USELESS PEOPLE) and not taxmen and scientists(VERY USEFUL PEOPLE).
And when those un-happy whipped people join my civ they lose their un-happiness because they have access to luxury goods(color TV).As oppossed to you and your civ "here's a gun go and shoot that guy over there".You wanta go around killing people when your culture is developed be prepared to pay the price.....
If you go to the creation and customization user created maps saved game maps or,http://www25.brinkster.com/fredco/Civ3/Civ3.html you can d/l proof that my theory is correct(Be forwarned it's a huge map.).The other civ's cities culture flipp to me,their culture(russians,chinese) is higher than mine.I never fired one shot at the germans yet have 90% of their territory.There is high corruption in N.A because they are far away(from palace and central authority,Top level civil servant's are not sent to some outpost in the woods,incompetant ones and someone's brother-in-law are) and an illerate bunch of slobs.(few LIABARIES,COURTHOUSES,BANKS,UNIVERSITIES not culture buildings but social structure ones).
As for real world examples this game is completley based on current economic theory,the bauxite example was an not very good analogy of ????,but I said it already to late...

 

[Talar]

With the 1.16 or 1.17 patch it is possible to prevent flipping completly if you have enough units in a city.

 

[simwiz2]

"And when those un-happy whipped people join my civ they lose their un-happiness because they have access to luxury goods(color TV).As oppossed to you and your civ "here's a gun go and shoot that guy over there".You wanta go around killing people when your culture is developed be prepared to pay the price....."

First, I give them access to luxuries. Its called a road network, and it hooks up these luxury resource-things to the city. Whats with the whole "heres a gun go kill people?" I give them temples. I give them libraries. I treat them as well as civ3's limited depth allows (no, i cant go and give them nice little speeches, or give them these color TV's you speak of, maybe in civ4). How do you know my civ is just some "heres a gun" civ? Have you seen any of my games? If someone declares war on me, sure i fight them. And sometimes i may even start a war. Does that make my civ a primitive bunch of swordsmen ****ing in the woods with no color TV's? I dont think so.

BTW i think this is a bit OT, the thread is about inheriting whip unhappiness, not about the optimal luxury rate or how you managed to get flush toilets and TV's in your civgame. You play it your way, and ill play civ my way. And you imagine my civ as a worthless military camp, and i will imagine yours as a spineless artist and composer culture club. Im sure you can find other people who want to listen to your tactics, since you OBVIOUSLY are soooo much better at civ than everyone on this thread who doesnt like the whip rule.

You mentioned lux must be higher than 0 to benefit from lux resources: first of all that is false, second, is 10 greater than 0? Btw if im in a long war i would increase lux to 20. If you want to waste all your $$ on 40% lux, then have fun, but good luck keeping up in science race and maintaining an army. I have JS Bachs, which easily makes up for some lux rate. 10 is usually fine for me, if some people become entertainers i dont really care.

Now back to the topic, is it really fair for a civ, just because they dared to fight in a war, inherit another civ's happiness? No. I think it would also be a major exploit in MP, if your going to lose a city just draft and whip it, abandon, let the other person deal with the disorder.

 

[romelus]

Originally posted by simwiz2
Now back to the topic, is it really fair for a civ, just because they dared to fight in a war, inherit another civ's happiness? No. I think it would also be a major exploit in MP, if your going to lose a city just draft and whip it, abandon, let the other person deal with the disorder.

i think i'll take advantage of that when the opportunity arises

"sir we have beaten the persians back and occupied another one of their cities, yet the only people left in that city are a bunch of hippies playing scramble and painting lotus flowers all day!"

"again? let's try something different this time. disperse the hippies and disband the city!"

(a day later)

"sir, we have dispersed the hippies, but now our very own New York is starving to death because all New York citizens have also become hippies!"

 

[marshalljames]

Geez No wonder your citizens are un-happy sounds like they get it from you.

And re-reading your posts youv'e done nothing but bad mouth the game the entire thread.If you don't like it don't play it.I think it is a fantastic game where you can let your imagination run wild and dream up what you want.And people of all skill levels can enjoy it at the appropriate level..were not all brainiac's like you who finish the game in ten minutes and wonder aloud why the rest of us are so stupid.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by marshalljames

Your completly wrong.you can have all the luxuries you want but if you don't let you citizens have access to them then they are of no benefit(as far as I know you have to have lux>0 for citizens to benefit from them).10% is not high enough as to many of your surplus citizens become entertainers(USELESS PEOPLE) and not taxmen and scientists(VERY USEFUL PEOPLE).

WTH??????

If you connect a city to a lux by road, rail, harbor or airport, the citizens have access.

!!!!!The tax rate has nothing to do with it!!!!!

Higher lux rate (= less tax/tech) simply means that part of your beakers in each city goes to making people happy. The effect of this is increased by and increasing the effect of entertainers. Thus with a lux setting of 50 % 1 entertainer make smore than with 10 % or 0%.

The rate also sets the default for new specialist citizens. But you can change them (entertaineer->taxman->scientist->entertainer->.....) by clicking on them with the mouse.

please marshalljames, read the rules.

people here named many cases where the inherited unhappiness is simply ridiculous and your comments are far from helpful.

No offence meant.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by simwiz2
Now back to the topic, is it really fair for a civ, just because they dared to fight in a war, inherit another civ's happiness? No. I think it would also be a major exploit in MP, if your going to lose a city just draft and whip it, abandon, let the other person deal with the disorder.

War is not fair. But in any case, you are describing the Nazi retreat in Europe, kill as many people, disrupt as many lives, destroy as many factories, burn Paris to the ground, just destroy all that has been built over thousands of years, just so your enemy will suffer (yes, be unhappy) a little longer after they regain their lands.

 

[Ironikinit]

I don't make a habit of running around yelling IT'S A BUG but the phenomenon of your cities getting unhappy when you disband an unhappy captured city is indeed a bug, IMO. Still, easy enough to work around, just don't disband that city... raze it or keep it. I'm sure the bug will be patched in a month or three.

Heck, no need to wait for MP to exploit unhappiness in soon-to-be-captured cities, the AI does it to me all the time.

 

[romelus]

Originally posted by Zachriel


War is not fair. But in any case, you are describing the Nazi retreat in Europe, kill as many people, disrupt as many lives, destroy as many factories, burn Paris to the ground, just destroy all that has been built over thousands of years, just so your enemy will suffer (yes, be unhappy) a little longer after they regain their lands.

so... the ai is a nazi after all... the true colors of the game are hereby revealed by zachriel, testify! testify!

 

[marshalljames]

Sorry Killer buy maybe you should have a read of the rules.
When I set the luxury rate higher my governors do not have to waste time making entertainers(Using entertainers in my games is a last resort only),Entertainers are USELESS.Instead my governors make Scientists and Taxmen which given time will lower the corruption by collecting more taxes and enabling scientific advance faster.
So maybe before you tell me the rules you should get a better grasp of them.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by romelus
so... the ai is a nazi after all... the true colors of the game are hereby revealed by zachriel, testify! testify!

I've seen AI raze entire cities, that's true. But I've seen them build great wonders, too. I've seen them take lands from their neighbor, but I've also seen them give land for peace.

 

[Moulton]

Maybe I build too big. by the time I go on a war trail I may have more than 100 cities. OBviously more than optimum, and newly conqurred cities will be far from home.
As a result these dities are non-=producers. one shield, maybe one commerce. I link them by road to my network, or often they already are linked. So, they immediately have access to my luxury supply--lets say 6 or 7, typical. However, often they city will have NO peole not unhappy. So maybe they turn the luxuries into hash.
Ok, set the empire-wide luxury rate to 10% It goes by city. A city with 50 commerce gets 5 happy faces. A city with one commerce gets---less than one. even assuming they round up, you have to set the luxury to 50% to get one happy citizen when you only produce one commerce.
What happens is th e city starves down to 1, and eventually the last one decides it is better to eat than starve, even if he has to work for it... Setting the luxury rate higher only helps if you have more than one commerce from that city.

I am trying a smaller empire currently, it may not be winnable, not having enough cities to keep up in research -- ie to get the space ship built first, or build the UN first, or whatever. Cant win on score alone without territory. At least my corruption is manageable.

 

[Spunky Alven]

It's not microsoft's games they have just bougth them so they can have their nice mark on it, to get a good profile. Realize Microsoft are real backstabers (look at Halo Microsoft gave them tons of money so they get it to X-box).

 

[romelus]

Originally posted by Zachriel

I've seen AI raze entire cities, that's true.

nazi

But I've seen them build great wonders, too.

they would be foolish not to

I've seen them take lands from their neighbor

nazi

but I've also seen them give land for peace.

nazi germany gave france back didn't they? japan gave east asia back didn't they?

there's no use trying to be moral and politically correct in this game, face it dude!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by romelus
nazi

You are obviously fixated on only one possible strategy.

One time, the Zulus had razed Chicago, my neighbor's city, and were threatening other American cities. Playing as the Iroquois, I immediately attacked the Zulus and destroyed them saving the Americans. Ever after, the Americans were my allies.

Many historical figures have made the mistake of believing that brute power alone was sufficient to make one Great. Nevertheless, razing, betraying, attacking, are all legitimate strategies in Civ3, just not always necessary or wise.

 

[Cavalry]

A war strategy is almost always effective in Civ 3, since increasing your size helps you tremendously. I raze cities 70%(or maybe more) of the time to prevent fliping.

The problem with fliping is units loss. This results in almost constant city razing, which could lead to problems when multiplayer comes, out.

They should make it to where at least 50% of your units in the city relocate during a flip, this would be suffcient to fix the issue. It doesn't make sense and cannot be rationlized that 90% of your army was killed/desired to 'join' your countries *hated* foe.

Btw, this can hurt a player that is playing defensively with a democracy trying to make peace.

Therefore the issue should be addressed since it has dire consquences in multiplayer(when it comes out) leading to irrational amounts of city razing.

 

[romelus]

Originally posted by Zachriel


War is not fair. But in any case, you are describing the Nazi retreat in Europe, kill as many people, disrupt as many lives, destroy as many factories, burn Paris to the ground, just destroy all that has been built over thousands of years, just so your enemy will suffer (yes, be unhappy) a little longer after they regain their lands.
_________________________

Many historical figures have made the mistake of believing that brute power alone was sufficient to make one Great. Nevertheless, razing, betraying, attacking, are all legitimate strategies in Civ3, just not always necessary or wise.

well the problem is that, the ai, without fail, whips/drafts its cities to death after nationalism whenever it's in a war - and it gets itself in a lot of wars. so according to your definition of nazi (killing many ppl, disrupt many lives, razing cities, etc.), the ai the perfect nazi - cruel to its own citizens, and bloodthirsty for expansion. in any game, unless you give the ai what it demands 100% of the time, you MIGHT have a chance at eternal peace, you MIGHT.

conclusion: the ai is nazi at heart.

 

[Bamspeedy]

When I set the luxury rate higher my governors do not have to waste time making entertainers(Using entertainers in my games is a last resort only),Entertainers are USELESS.Instead my governors make Scientists and Taxmen which given time will lower the corruption by collecting more taxes and enabling scientific advance faster.

One entertainer makes one person happy or an unhappy person content. So this usually enables the city to grow more (otherwise you just get another specialist instead of someone to work the fields, limiting growth from lack of food). A scientists adds JUST 1 BEAKER!, a taxman JUST 1 GOLD so 1 more citizen working the fields would be more efficient (unless in a highly corrupt city, then specialists are better because that 1 gold or beaker is immune to corruption).

The problem with luxury rates is that it takes a percent of each city and only helps the hapiness in that city. So with luxury rate at say 30%, your capital is spending enough money to keep 10 people happy, but it may only need 2 because of all the other improvements you have in your capital. And you might need it at 50% just to get one happy person in a high corrupt city. So your core income generating cities are wasting money on entertainment they don't need.

Luxury resources on the other hand are free and produce smiley faces regardless of corruption.

The governor assigns specialist based on what you are spending. Set science to 10%, he'll make them all scientists. Put science at 90%, he'll make them all taxmen.

 

[Klasanov]

I agree, and I don't think Civilization II, or Civilization, for that matter, were intended to be war games.

But knowing the blood-thirstiness of strategy gamers, it's a given that they'll do so. Even in real life, there's been power-hungry leaders who have striven to take over the world, so I don't see how being a warmonger is a bad thing.

I'll consider building culture too as well to help prevent this from happening to cities I conquer. I'm a warmonger myself. Well, actualy, I'm not. You see, the continent, no, the world I'm on, is mine. For, you see, I have the power to take it from you.

But on a more serious note, does culture and idiot citizens flipping over to another empire (Or to yours, or whatever) depend on national culture or culture from that city and others that are near it?