Razing cities should NOT cause unhappiness!

[MadRat]

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

Rat

 

[Dralix]

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?

Don't think so literally, everything in the game is an abstraction.

What happens in game terms when Stalin razes London? Actually, the real question is what happens when the population under Stalin's control (which includes those Londoners) reaches an extreme level of unhappiness*? We'll assume that the unhappiness is only because of the razing for this discussion.

*Happiness itself being an abstraction that represents more that just whether people are happy or not.


1) Production is slowed - Some of the bulldozers that are working on that Stadium in Leningrad are sent to London to flatten houses.

2) Combat penalty - Half of that infantry division that took London continues advancing into England, while the other half stays behind to kill citizens.

3) Population growth halted - It seems those Londoners aren't just happily lining up for the firing squad. Some of them are rising up and inflicting damage. Some of those bulldozer operators were injured or killed. Medical resources are diverted to London, affecting care back home.

4) Rebels - Some of those Londoners are getting more organized and managed to acquire weapons and do some damage.

5) Can't build settlers - Sorry, we can't build any new cities right now, we're to busy flattening London. Once we knock down those crappy English houses, we can build new Soviet houses.

 

[Malkaviel]

This is a horrible example. You can't raze capitals.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Don't think so literally, everything in the game is an abstraction.

What happens in game terms when Stalin razes London? Actually, the real question is what happens when the population under Stalin's control (which includes those Londoners) reaches an extreme level of unhappiness*? We'll assume that the unhappiness is only because of the razing for this discussion.

*Happiness itself being an abstraction that represents more that just whether people are happy or not.


1) Production is slowed - Some of the bulldozers that are working on that Stadium in Leningrad are sent to London to flatten houses.

2) Combat penalty - Half of that infantry division that took London continues advancing into England, while the other half stays behind to kill citizens.

3) Population growth halted - It seems those Londoners aren't just happily lining up for the firing squad. Some of them are rising up and inflicting damage. Some of those bulldozer operators were injured or killed. Medical resources are diverted to London, affecting care back home.

4) Rebels - Some of those Londoners are getting more organized and managed to acquire weapons and do some damage.

5) Can't build settlers - Sorry, we can't build any new cities right now, we're to busy flattening London. Once we knock down those crappy English houses, we can build new Soviet houses.

You are missing the point, if it were only the city of London that was upset about being razed sure it would make sense, but there is no reason whatsoever for why what you just described should happen in all of your cities.

Don't think so literally, everything in the game is an abstraction.

Saying something like that is just avoiding the issue.

 

[Dralix]

No, not missing the point, not avoiding the issue. The point is that it is an abstraction, that happiness means more than "are your people happy," and when bad stuff happens in one city there are negative impacts to other cities.

If some type of terrible disaster hits a city like, I don't know, New Orleans, then that will have negative impacts on other cities in the country, as resources are diverted to help. That was the parallel I was making.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

If some type of terrible disaster hits a city like, I don't know, New Orleans, then that will have negative impacts on other cities in the country, as resources are diverted to help. That was the parallel I was making.

And your parallel doesn't make sense if the city that is suffering doesn't belong to you. Just because the city you are razing technically gets treated by the game as "being yours" while its being razed doesn't make it so. It belongs to another Civ, and you are razing it. Hence why your own people in other cities getting angry makes no sense at all.

Cities that you decide to raze should not be annexed in the first place.

 

[Dralix]

Happiness represents more than your people being angry. My first post specifically addressed the game consequences that result from increased unhappiness, and gave hypothetical reasons why this could occur after razing a city.

But really, the discussion is silly. It's a game mechanic that makes no more or less sense than how you can cut wood and turn it into a hospital.

 

[civnoob13]

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.

touché

How about they change it to a 50% chance on unhappiness?

 

[Flexmaster]

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

In a fascist state those that have not been brainwashed are too afraid to protest what ever crimes against humanity their leader is doing. In a democracy a terrible leader is kept in check by his angry voting citizens.

Perhaps we need a declaration of government (democracy, fascism, socialism, communism) back into the game.

 

[GenericPlayer]

I agree with the OP. This is just another symptom of making Happiness/Unhappiness calculated globally. It would make sense for the cities being razed to be unhappy, it would make sense to see the city being razed to spawn partisan units, but not for people in the capital to revolt.

 

[Luckystrike77]

To the threadstarter: Don't go to war if your nation isn't stable enough (have enough happiness) to tackle it, or just take that one city you want and then try to make peace (if you want to be greedy and taking everything it has a price). I can't believe all this complaining. Don't blame the game because you don't know how to play it! There are actually other sides of this game then pure warmonger stupidity!

 

[Sneaks]

I really like the unhappy mechanic, though I am always open to ways to improve it. Frankly I was always confused that razing a city did not add unhappiness pre-patch. My thought was that if I am razing a size 10 city, thats still 10 citizens my empire has to control in some way til I flatted the place.

Also, you need to remember that the razing option is a lot more dynamic than kill everyone. You can stop razing as well, meaning you are simply getting the city down to the size you want it through some nefarious means. Either way, folks aren't going to like being decimated, and will probably be a lot unhappier than normal folks.