New Version - August 7th (8-7)

[tu_79]

A sudden drop might be caused by AI building something that increases their output greatly. For example, all AI building castles everywhere might increase your crime in all your cities at once.

I think this starts happening when AI gets villages, but there are other periods with same behavior with constabularies, and later, museums.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

A sudden drop might be caused by AI building something that increases their output greatly. For example, all AI building castles everywhere might increase your crime in all your cities at once.

I think this starts happening when AI gets villages, but there are other periods with same behavior with constabularies, and later, museums.

Wait, castle increases crime of the city? I didn't know that.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

Still having Massive problems with happiness. All cities building everything, with full trade routes (in multiple cities), no war, many imported lux....and yet unhappiness from poverty, 'unsafe', and 'boring' just climb and climb.
This is on Huge Pangea, immortal, 9 civs.
Is there something in the happiness mechanics that can cause this?
I was hovering at 1 happiness for a while, but then just steadily dropped to -17.
I am okay with a mechanic that i can do something about, but i do not appear to be able to alter this. I always hover over cities to see what they are getting unhappiness from. If it is "boring" i build some cultural building, etc.
Help?

Avoid growth will be help a lot. Basically, unhappiness can't increase over city's pop. Also, more pop means more unhappiness threshold.

 

[Gokudo01]

Wait, castle increases crime of the city? I didn't know that.

he didn't explain well but unhappiness is not that easy to explain.

overall it's a value per habitant. this value is linked to your tech level and the average value in all cities.

Which means that its value change from a game to another and increase with the number of technology.
For example, korea or babylon in the game will naturally increase the illiteracy threshold because they produce more science than the average civ. it works the same for crime and poverty.


If everybody build castle in the world, it increases the defence per habitant needs.

What you have to know is :

Poverty is linked to gold
Illiteracy to science
boredom to culture
Crime to defense

If you increase those stats, you will reduce unhappiness from those sources

Moreover there are buildings to reduce threshold ( arena, barrack, university ,aqueduc for culture/crime/illitery/poverty )which will allows to reduce the NEEDS per habitant on which you have almost no control because it changes from a game to another and over the course of thze game

If AI pick order, you will have a harder time fighting crime.
If AI picked Thrift and spread his religion to another AI ( not you included) it will be harder to fight poverty.

 

[Hitsuommy]

Oh god, just left from a 4 hour game with non stopping wars, the AI declared war against me, I took 3 cities from Carthage and then accepted the peace, 40 turns later, Carthage with only the capital and his ally, Byzantines, declares war again, I won against both after annexing more 3 cities, then another AI declares war because he didn't like that I took the cities, basically if anyone declares war on you I feel that anything I do is bad, razing is bad, annexing is bad, puppet city is bad, everything makes the other nations dislike me, don't know what to do anymore, my games are like 90% of the time war. What should I do?

 

[Dawnpromise]

Oh god, just left from a 4 hour game with non stopping wars, the AI declared war against me, I took 3 cities from Carthage and then accepted the peace, 40 turns later, Carthage with only the capital and his ally, Byzantines, declares war again, I won against both after annexing more 3 cities, then another AI declares war because he didn't like that I took the cities, basically if anyone declares war on you I feel that anything I do is bad, razing is bad, annexing is bad, puppet city is bad, everything makes the other nations dislike me, don't know what to do anymore, my games are like 90% of the time war. What should I do?

I've got a similar situation with the Zulu's apparently they found a way to break peace treaties just to keep declaring war on me. (Because I refuse to let him bully my city-states).

Only way to do PR control from war is to ignore cities completely and just focus on unit kills and tile pillaging. I'm pretty sure that simply declaring war makes other civs dislike you regardless of outcome.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

he didn't explain well but unhappiness is not that easy to explain.

overall it's a value per habitant. this value is linked to your tech level and the average value in all cities.

Which means that its value change from a game to another and increase with the number of technology.
For example, korea or babylon in the game will naturally increase the illiteracy threshold because they produce more science than the average civ. it works the same for crime and poverty.


If everybody build castle in the world, it increases the defence per habitant needs.

What you have to know is :

Poverty is linked to gold
Illiteracy to science
boredom to culture
Crime to defense

If you increase those stats, you will reduce unhappiness from those sources

Moreover there are buildings to reduce threshold ( arena, barrack, university ,aqueduc for culture/crime/illitery/poverty )which will allows to reduce the NEEDS per habitant on which you have almost no control because it changes from a game to another and over the course of thze game

If AI pick order, you will have a harder time fighting crime.
If AI picked Thrift and spread his religion to another AI ( not you included) it will be harder to fight poverty.

Thx to your kind explanation, now I understand!

 

[Hitsuommy]

I've got a similar situation with the Zulu's apparently they found a way to break peace treaties just to keep declaring war on me. (Because I refuse to let him bully my city-states).

Only way to do PR control from war is to ignore cities completely and just focus on unit kills and tile pillaging. I'm pretty sure that simply declaring war makes other civs dislike you regardless of outcome.

Yeah, another thing that I noticed was that the AI founded cities near my already founded cities and when my city was expanding naturally they denounced me for expanding my territory, WTH?! My city was already there and it's my fault that they found a city so close to me? Can't understand this.

 

[Dawnpromise]

Yeah, another thing that I noticed was that the AI founded cities near my already founded cities and when my city was expanding naturally they denounced me for expanding my territory, WTH?! My city was already there and it's my fault that they found a city so close to me? Can't understand this.

Territorial dispute. You both say that spot belongs to your respective empire (even if they settle right next to your capital's border) depending on how volatile the civ in question's temperament is the more obvious they'll be about it. You're lucky they made it clear up front. Normally they'll go all cloak and dagger on you then declare war out of the blue over it.

Remember! Being denounced can make civs who dislike your neighbor like you more! (Enemy of my enemy, etc.)

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Yup, nothing like Monty coveting your lands from 30+ tiles away with 3 cities of other civs/CS in between.

And as for the wars -> I prefer playing against warmongers and my games are full of wars with most of DOWs against me a result of bribes, even before I take any cities etc. I like it, it represents history of civilization as the bloodbath it's been for 90% of the people for 99% of the time.

 

[Hitsuommy]

Yup, nothing like Monty coveting your lands from 30+ tiles away with 3 cities of other civs/CS in between.

And as for the wars -> I prefer playing against warmongers and my games are full of wars with most of DOWs against me a result of bribes, even before I take any cities etc. I like it, it represents history of civilization as the bloodbath it's been for 90% of the people for 99% of the time.

I can understand that, but for me the key factor that makes Civ V great is the diplomacy, if I wanted to go all out war during 90% of the game I would probably play AoE II. I prefer to focus on trading and diplomacy on all my matches.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Have you tried playing with civs that are more builders and not warmongerish? I know that sometimes I can set up my 7 opponents so that they almost never declare war on me (unless I'm playing aggressively or I reallllly lag behind in having a good military). So if you haven't tried yet, set up a standard game against Morocco, Netherlands, Portugal, Korea, Babylon, Gandhi (or Germany, if you're wary of Gandhi's nukes) and Byzantium.

 

[busted_bunny]

Now i really think, that embassy - something that should be removed out of the game.
All it does - make diplomacy impossible. You are friends with nation for 200+ years? You signed declaration of friendship witht them? Doesn't matter, you just can't make intrigues and exchange cities. Just because he doesn't want embassy. That's all. Damn.

 

[Dawnpromise]

Now i really think, that embassy - something that should be removed out of the game.
All it does - make diplomacy impossible. You are friends with nation for 200+ years? You signed declaration of friendship witht them? Doesn't matter, you just can't make intrigues and exchange cities. Just because he doesn't want embassy. That's all. Damn.

I have never had a situation where a friendly civ did not accept an embassy, even if it did take a minor bribe for them to accept it. General rule is if they haven't denounced you or are at war with you they will exchange embassies. That said I do feel the 'requirements' should be reversed in that YOU must accept THEIR embassy to share intrigue and etc., not the other way around.

EDIT: Or better yet why not make it a two way arrangement similar to research agreements and defensive pacts? I never understood the advantage of a one-way embassy.

 

[busted_bunny]

I have never had a situation where a friendly civ did not accept an embassy, even if it did take a minor bribe for them to accept it. General rule is if they haven't denounced you or are at war with you they will exchange embassies. That said I do feel the 'requirements' should be reversed in that YOU must accept THEIR embassy to share intrigue and etc., not the other way around.

EDIT: Or better yet why not make it a two way arrangement similar to research agreements and defensive pacts? I never understood the advantage of a one-way embassy.

But still, it's something like rudimental feature.
Why can't i just gift city to someone? I need an embassy to do it. But they would never accept it.

 

[busted_bunny]

Another some stupid thing about embassy:
sometimes AI wants my embassy. I don't know why. But they giving out gold for it. Just for nothing. They don't even use it's features.

 

[Dawnpromise]

But still, it's something like rudimental feature.
Why can't i just gift city to someone? I need an embassy to do it. But they would never accept it.

Why would you want to 'give' a city to anyone? Ceding territory like that is something real world leaders and the AI are both loathe to do.

sometimes AI wants my embassy. I don't know why. But they giving out gold for it. Just for nothing. They don't even use it's features.

Part of why I suggest making embassy a 2-way deal. Most of it's effects require friendly relations (of the sort where you'd likely ACCEPT and embassy at least). I guess it gives you a tourism/espionage/science boost or something to have an embassy in a civ?

 

[busted_bunny]

The only thing why i need it:
I want to leave cities i don't need. It's a capital and i don't want to control it.
So i just want to give it to someone. But no one would accept my embasy or city as it's like billion miles far from them.

But there are other stupid thing about it. For example. Why can i offer someone trade agreement without embassy, but can't trade cities with it? Why can i sign declaration of friendship and can't have open borders with this nation? And for god sakes, why can i make someone vassal without embassy?

I really think, that should either be removed or edited, so it would be a feature of diplomacy, but not heart of it.

 

[Dawnpromise]

The only thing why i need it:
I want to leave cities i don't need. It's a capital and i don't want to control it.
So i just want to give it to someone. But no one would accept my embasy or city as it's like billion miles far from them.

Question, why did you take the capital if you did not want it? Should have sieged then forced capitulation if possible. Expanding due to war, even defensive war, make you look like a warmonger in the eyes of other civs. Odds are the reason you have no friendly neighbors anymore is because they see you as a threat to world peace and want you dead now due to your war victories.

 

[busted_bunny]

I thought the goal of AI is world domination (victory), isn't it?
I don't need explanation why they won't take my embassy. These rules are fine. But in my opinion, embassy shouldn't be part of city trade or different agreements.