March Patch Notes (formerly february)
- Thread starter lietkynes
- Start date
- Status
Even if the AIUnhappinessPercent=200, the AI won't be unhappy.
So, only the human player, who should be having fun, suffers from this feature.
In a very bad and uncreative way.
There's no point when suddenly 2 (barbarian) GDRs appear in your territory.
Only civ1 had the right implementation of rebellion.
In civ4, culture caused rebellion, which was also implemented well.
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
Troytheface? Is that you?
Seems that even the devs regard quite a lot of their BIG selling points for Civ5 as being weak.
1) Why?
2) Why?
3) Why?
Actually, I don't see any real life reason for any of these unhappyness-causing factors.
Want to try answering that one again, this time without the political proselytizing?
How in the world am I politically proselytizing, may I ask?
Bewhilders me that someone could rationally come to this conclusion. Wasn't intentional.
uh?
To me TROY was targeted by a Greek armada within the poetic writings of Homer in the Iliads - only.
Sure, there was the BO hit too trying to cash in on the myth with Hoplite'd Brad Pitt using some sort of superpowers against Eric Bana's superb character composition of Hector... but "the face" - you lost me there.
Not that i care one way or another.
Ya know, suburbs, Ghettos -- worldwide. Sort of.
You claim that a country ruled by a capitalist government with large cities would naturally = more unhappiness. How is that NOT an indictment of a particular form of government?
I can see the argument that each city might be more unhappy as it suffers from overcrowding, but why would unhappiness have anything to do with the capitalist nature of the government?
I too am interested in hearing the answer to this.
@Psilon: Troytheface was a poster here notorious for his rather unusual writing style.
EDIT: Though a search for some of troy's more classic posts doesn't turn up any good examples. Not that I searched long; I mistakenly closed the window and am too lazy to go search for the again. Now that I think about it, I probably should have searched CIV strategy and tips; that's where I recall some of his best stuff coming from.
Oh, thanks for the clarification. DE-
The first has a potential to cause micromanagement to be needed when starting to build a settler.
The second is a major nerf to golden ages production.
These are good changes
Hopefully this also eliminates the "pretend friendly".
In addition to nerfing the ICS strategies; this is a major production hit to cities just founded, and it's also likely to lead to a situtation that the trade route to your new city won't pay for itself until it reaches a certain size (even if your capital is huge)
Martime states nerfed again. Still remain the most useful city states though.
The palace boost just brings your capital back up to where it was considering the loss of 1 production & gold each in every city.
Good idea on the Granary.
In most cases, +2 hammers + 15% production will come out slightly ahead of the old +20% production.
Stable & Forge becomes much more useful.
In the case of Factories: +3 hammers + 25% production likely to be less than the old +50% production by that point in the game.
The hospital change to major food bonus definitely needed in light of the Aquaduct.
Reductions to maintance costs: good
Not happy about the reduction of unhappiness from those buildings though.
Overall; this pushes back the ability to have specialists until later in the game.
Rail production bonus did seem a bit much. I am hoping that the capital will now be considered to have a rail connection to itself though.
These appear to all be in the direction of less commerce, particularly early on.
But in most cases, doesn't actually change what the best improvement is.
(And in the few it does : such as flat plains not on a river, those are low priority tiles anyway.)
Basically looks like Tradition & Liberty branches were torn up and rewritten. Overall, Liberty looks much better than before, but even Tradition appears better than it was.
So big thumbs up.
Minor nerf to Marble, but considering that so far I've never started near Marble, don't mind much.
The settler cost increase seems to be directed against ICS again.
The second is a major nerf to golden ages production.
These are good changes
Hopefully this also eliminates the "pretend friendly".
In addition to nerfing the ICS strategies; this is a major production hit to cities just founded, and it's also likely to lead to a situtation that the trade route to your new city won't pay for itself until it reaches a certain size (even if your capital is huge)
Martime states nerfed again. Still remain the most useful city states though.
Love the Aqueduct building.
The palace boost just brings your capital back up to where it was considering the loss of 1 production & gold each in every city.
Good idea on the Granary.
In most cases, +2 hammers + 15% production will come out slightly ahead of the old +20% production.
Stable & Forge becomes much more useful.
In the case of Factories: +3 hammers + 25% production likely to be less than the old +50% production by that point in the game.
The hospital change to major food bonus definitely needed in light of the Aquaduct.
Reductions to maintance costs: good
Not happy about the reduction of unhappiness from those buildings though.
Overall; this pushes back the ability to have specialists until later in the game.
Rail production bonus did seem a bit much. I am hoping that the capital will now be considered to have a rail connection to itself though.
These appear to all be in the direction of less commerce, particularly early on.
But in most cases, doesn't actually change what the best improvement is.
(And in the few it does : such as flat plains not on a river, those are low priority tiles anyway.)
Basically looks like Tradition & Liberty branches were torn up and rewritten. Overall, Liberty looks much better than before, but even Tradition appears better than it was.
So big thumbs up.
Early game nerf in the case of fish. Especially in non capital.
Minor nerf to Marble, but considering that so far I've never started near Marble, don't mind much.
Modern ear techs did feel way too cheap.
More early game nerfing for coastal non capital cities, especially if your capital isn't coastal. Later on it just means your work boats are even more likely to be built from an established city.
The settler cost increase seems to be directed against ICS again.
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
@joncnunn - too much copy&paste, edit it, ok?
Moderator Action: Please don't tell others how to format their posts.
Moderator Action: My apologies, missed the double-paste.
Moderator Action: My apologies, missed the double-paste.
Martin Alvito
Real men play SMAC
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,332
Nah, he makes way more sense than that.
Troy's in it for the lulz and the odd bit of humor.
Moderator Action: Lets get back on topic, please.
AndrewDJ
Warlord
Well, I can give some real life reasons:
On point 1: The farther a city is from the capital, the longer the central government's OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop for dealing with that city becomes. If it takes three months to send a message one-way between the frontier city and the capital, the instructions coming from the capital are going to be six months out of date. To the people in the frontier city, the government in the capital will seem out of touch and unresponsive. The young United States nearly split East-West because of the problems with communication between the frontier and Washington, D.C. It was canals, Ohio & Mississippi river steamboats, the railroads, and the telegraph which managed to hold East and West together long enough for the US to split North-South.
Points 2 & 3 are related: The more cities you have and/or the more population you have, the more interest groups there are to deal with. The more interest groups there are to deal with, the harder it is to keep them all happy, or at least content.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Units appearing in your territory is better than generic city flipping.
Although the units should Capture those cities rather than merely raiding/destroying them (either liberating them for the civ with the most dominant culture or forming a new Civ.. if you have the most culture)
And andrew DJs reasoning is right...
The more of the empire is "not me" (ie other cities, far away cities) the less it does what I want, and the more unhappy I am with it... ie the more I want to change it.
(and in a gameplay sense that means
too many cities OR your cities get too big->unhappy->rebellion->less cities
And a Big city won't be more unhappy... it would just take more to Make them happy (and they would make Other cities more unhappy)
"other civ culture" should also cause unhappiness
noncognosco
Warlord
And yet, using modern-day examples: Is Hawaii less happy than Virginia? Canada is a huge country which seems fairly happy. The least happy part of Canada seems to be Quebec, which is not all that far from the capital. Belgium is a tiny little country that is close to falling apart due to unhappiness.
Granted, some of the dynamics are different in a modern world than an ancient world.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
