Razing cities should NOT cause unhappiness!

[hardcore_gamer]

The new happiness system in Civ 5 is working ok overall, but there is one major issue that I have with it.

Taking over an enemy empire so that you can burn it into the ground with no intention of keeping it should not result in a massive empire wide uproar that sends dissent through the roof thus sending the nation spiraling into anarchy.

This would not be so bad if only annexed cities caused unhappiness for a while, but the fact that cities you are razing can cause your own cities elsewhere to revolt is stupid beyond believe. Why the hell does it even matter what the people in the cities you are razing have to say? You are razing their homes. Its not like you have to care about their complaints!

Also, isn't the whole point of razing cities in the first place that you DON'T have to deal with the unhappiness cost that comes with annexing?

I do like it that it now actually takes time to destroy cities thus giving the defender some time to take it back, but the city should not affect happiness if you are razing it into ashes.

Thoughts?

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Its a mechanism to slow down the attacker. In the same way as in Civ4 your war weariness would increase every time you won a battle/captured a city.

There is slowing down and then there is this. In Civ 4 you could invade and destroy a whole enemy empire in a single war so long as the war did not go on for too long. In Civ 5, just taking a single enemy city can be enough to send your happiness rating beneath zero if it wasn't that great before. Taking a whole empire in a single war will completely demolish your happiness rating.

Slowing down my ass, it effectively destroys your ability to take any cities from your enemy if you don't already have a large amounts of happiness that you are willing to sacrifice.

 

[civnoob13]

Your people have morals. Just because their specific city isn't being razed doesn't mean that they don't think of you as a brutal dictator. In real life would you be fine with your leader razing cities and killing thousands as long as it wasn't you? If anything, there should be more unhappiness for it, but of course this would make the game very dull because warfare is such an important part of it.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Your people have morals. Just because their specific city isn't being razed doesn't mean that they don't think of you as a brutal dictator.

Of course, as has been demonstrated countless times in history.

Like that time where the Mongols turned against Khan after he sacked the Middle East.

Or that time where angry Germans started raging in the streets after the German army devastated Warsaw.

Or that time where the Japanese public started mass protests fallowing the Nanjing massacre.

Or that time where people all over the US protested the brutal Atomic bombing of Japan.

Yep, history is full of examples where whole countries rise up in defiance because its leaders are being mean towards other countries.

 

[Karnokki]

I have to agree; razing cities should not routinely cause unhappiness throughout your empire. Although, I do understand the argument relating to "people having morals." Still, I think this might have something to do with the national disposition toward the enemy and what had taken place prior to the razing of an enemy city. What was the general sentiment of the American citizenry after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan?

 

[CaptainKapow]

What was the general sentiment of the American citizenry after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan?

I believe it was along the lines of "YAY THE WAR IS OVER WOOOOOOO! YEAH! GO TEAM! YOU-ESS-EH! YOU-ESS-EH!"

 

[Malkaviel]

I haven't noticed an empire-wide unhappiness specifically for razing cities...

I know when you opt to raze, for the duration, you annex the city, and thus take the hit for the # of cities and # of population, then the occupied city penalty...

but when the city is gone, the happiness returns to normal, the way it was before you took the city.

 

[bonafide11]

The unhappiness only lasts until the city is razed, which is only a couple turns or so. The unhappiness is from the city who you're about to raze, and they would obviously be angry as you're about to burn down their city. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

 

[AfterShafter]

I believe it was along the lines of "YAY THE WAR IS OVER WOOOOOOO! YEAH! GO TEAM! YOU-ESS-EH! YOU-ESS-EH!"

That would be the hispanic minority in the US at the time?...

 

[Sonereal]

Taking over an enemy empire so that you can burn it into the ground with no intention of keeping it should not result in a massive empire wide uproar that sends dissent through the roof thus sending the nation spiraling into anarchy.

Committing genocide usually pissed people off.

Usually.

This would not be so bad if only annexed cities caused unhappiness for a while, but the fact that cities you are razing can cause your own cities elsewhere to revolt is stupid beyond believe. Why the hell does it even matter what the people in the cities you are razing have to say? You are razing their homes. Its not like you have to care about their complaints!

Because they're still under your administration? I don't see the problem here. It slows down the attacker and probably spawns rebels which makes sense because you're wiping out the life's work of a few million people.

Also, isn't the whole point of razing cities in the first place that you DON'T have to deal with the unhappiness cost that comes with annexing?

Annexing just means you have to deal with unhappiness a bit longer until your build a courthouse. Razing the city is more temporary than that.

I do like it that it now actually takes time to destroy cities thus giving the defender some time to take it back, but the city should not affect happiness if you are razing it into ashes.

I like that cities take some time but the unhappiness thing doesn't bother me since it only lasts a few turns.

 

[Nabob57]

Your people have morals. Just because their specific city isn't being razed doesn't mean that they don't think of you as a brutal dictator. In real life would you be fine with your leader razing cities and killing thousands as long as it wasn't you? If anything, there should be more unhappiness for it, but of course this would make the game very dull because warfare is such an important part of it.

Middle eastern muslims danced and cheered in the streets over the downing of the World Trade Towers in New York. You don't think the people of an empire can be supportive of the utter destruction of an enemy empires cities?

I can see a bonus to happiness from razing vs puppeting... it makes room for my empire's citizens to settle in new areas, gains access to new luxuries, and it protects the folks closest to the razed city from being attacked.

My point is that the change is an arbitrary mechanic introduced to increase the percieved difficulty of the game by slowing down the speed at which you can overtake entire empires.

 

[Sonereal]

Middle eastern muslims danced and cheered in the streets over the downing of the World Trade Towers in New York. You don't think the people of an empire can be supportive of the utter destruction of an enemy empires cities?

When you take things wildly out of context, anything's possible.

I can see a bonus to happiness from razing vs puppeting... it makes room for my empire's citizens to settle in new areas, gains access to new luxuries, and it protects the folks closest to the razed city from being attacked.

Indeed.

Political hit from razing? Sure. But I would think that should be attenuated by circumstances. I doubt Genghis would have been upset about you razing a city (unless it was one of his) and of course the preachy nations like America would be denouncing your barbarism.

Maybe Social Policies should play a role in this then.

From what I read in the patch list, the unhappiness hit is only while the city is being razed. I havent seen the effect yet since I have only played once since the update and only razed one city (one of those blasted one tile island cities with no resources on or nearby).

In my latest game, I took over a pop ~16 Mexico City. Jesus Christ was the penalties huge.

11 Unhappiness for annexation
7 for Puppeting.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Committing genocide usually pissed people off.

Perhaps in the modern era democracies, but its not like the Roman peasants of 12 AC would give a damn about some Roman legions sacking some city somewhere in a far away land they have never heard of.

Also, I don't recall the population of Nazi Germany exploding with outrage while its soldiers were demolishing everything in its way.

Because they're still under your administration? I don't see the problem here. It slows down the attacker and probably spawns rebels which makes sense because you're wiping out the life's work of a few million people.

So if the Soviet Union under Stalin were to attack and destroy the population of London, it would make sense for the people of Leningrad to rise up in rebellion to protest the killing, which they probably don't know is taking place to begin with?

Also, "still under your administration"? Are you kidding me? They are being exterminated.

If the real world worked exactly the same as Civ 5, then world war 2 would have ended after the first couple of years because both Germany and Japan would have simply collapsed do to the massive public outrage and rebellions because of all of the murder and sacking taking place in Russia and China.

The only reason and only reason only for why the game appears to treat enemy cities you are razing as "your own" while you are razing them is to keep things simple it seems. Not because it makes even a shred of sense. By deciding to raze the city, you have declared that you don't want the city to be a part of your people, so why would should its population be treated as being a part of it by the game? Its just a poor implementation of game mechanics.

I like that cities take some time but the unhappiness thing doesn't bother me since it only lasts a few turns.

No it doesn't. Like I mentioned above, the city you are razing looses 1 population point each turn, so large cities can easily take over a dozen turns to destroy depending on their size.

 

[Sonereal]

I really don't see the problem here. There's realistic reasons for both arguments but its a gameplay reason why razing gives you an unhappiness penalty.

And if you hadn't picked at my post, you'd probably would've seen that I said something about social policies which is why Japan and Germany would be able to get away with it while the United States would not.

Then again, you are making a big deal out of such a minute problem that can be solved by getting your population A.) Really happy before war or B.) Slow down on your razing.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

its a gameplay reason why razing gives you an unhappiness penalty.

A very poor gameplay reason.

If the developers feel the player should not be allowed to wage war for too long then they should just bring back war exhaustion. Not artificially halt expansion by literally punishing the player for doing well.

And if you hadn't picked at my post, you'd probably would've seen that I said something about social policies which is why Japan and Germany would be able to get away with it while the United States would not.

Doing such a thing would still do nothing to explain why some ignorant peasants living under the Roman empire would even care about some city somewhere they probably don't even know existed getting sacked by Roman troops. The idea of mass killing in war being wrong isn't an idea that became the norm among nations until after thousands of years worth of warfare

you are making a big deal out of such a minute problem that can be solved by getting your population A.) Really happy before war

Getting lots of happiness is hard when most of your time is spent dealing with aggressive neighbors. In my current game my economy and happiness is hanging on a thread because I haven't been able to spend much time focusing on the economy because Germany keeps attacking me. Maintaining a very happy population prior to war isn't always an option. An even if it were, there is nothing that excuses a -21 happiness penalty for the next 7-13 turns because you crushed your enemies.

 

[Buccaneer]

Why not? Something has to be added to unhappiness, so why not this mechanism? There has to be negative consequences or else the game would be even easier. Besides, why get into a fight if you don't have the proper happiness level?

 

[AfterShafter]

A very poor gameplay reason.

Actually, I don't mind it. Think it does its job well. Nice alternative to war weariness, and fits the flavour of the current system.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

There has to be negative consequences or else the game would be even easier.

Then why not just actually make a good AI instead of trying to simply get around the fact that the AI doesn't pose a challenge by itself by imposing a bunch of limitations to the player (limitations that the AI is immune to by the way because of the bonuses it gets) to slow down his progress? Its almost as if everything in the game is designed to make up for the poor AI. At the moment, almost every single challenge I have faced has had something to do with the game mechanics limiting my progress and nothing to do with the AI doing a better job then me.

Besides, why get into a fight if you don't have the proper happiness level?

Flawed argument. Just because I want to stay peaceful, that isn't to say that the AI won't attack me.

 

[Malkaviel]

In my latest game, I took over a pop ~16 Mexico City. Jesus Christ was the penalties huge.

11 Unhappiness for annexation
7 for Puppeting.

Unless you're India, should be 1 unhappy per population, then 1 unhappy for number of cities, 4 (5?) unhappy for annex, then minus policies... sounds about right. Learn the formula so you can anticipate it.

 

[MadRat]

I always found annex to be about 8-10, puppets about 5ish and raze (temp same as annex).

Rat