Shangri-La: Any sufficiently populated capital is unconquerable

[DarkSchneider]

I was just thinking about it the other day, and any sufficiently populated city is unconquerable in Civ V. Because if you do the unhappiness generated by the extra population will cripple your entire nation.

Which just sheds further light on how ridiculous the global happiness system is. Conquering a super-city hundreds of miles away isn't a cause of celebration for your empire, it is the cause of nationwide unhapiness. And it happens instantaneously. Conquering this one city brings the entire empire down.

 

[Slowpoke]

Unless of course it's so INSANELY populated it makes the unhappiness worth it lol.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Depends on your happiness buffer and what luxuries they might have.

That being said, it's not like the real world is full of examples of giant cities being conquered without difficulty. It's not like when Germany occupied Paris they were faced with no problems as a consequence.

 

[DarkSchneider]

Depends on your happiness buffer and what luxuries they might have.

That being said, it's not like the real world is full of examples of giant cities being conquered without difficulty. It's not like when Germany occupied Paris they were faced with no problems as a consequence.

If the city being conquered has a high enough population it won't matter how many luxury resources you have. Plus it is rare to ever be more than 10 or so ahead of your limit, since the cities you have will always expand towards it.

The main problem being the global part of the happiness. I can understand a large city rioting and making itself useless to its conquers. I can't see those problems spreading to an entire other continent instantaneously.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Think of it more as administrative problems dealing with a new city opposed to your rule.

And a size 10 city with two new luxuries in the radius isn't too bad, is it? You get a courthouse in there and a Colosseum, you'll have covered most of the problem. Sure it gives you greater problems, but not insurmountable ones.

 

[DarkSchneider]

The situation I posed was more of a thought experiment, and hasn't come up in the actual game in the form. Although I do have problems with cities in the 10 range once I've already gotten all of the luxury resources in my empire. At that point I'm usually running at only a little positive hapiness, and the one city sends it completely negative.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

It would have to be pretty damn huge to start with. I find the population drops around 80% whenever I take a city. I've never had a freshly conquered city over pop 6.

 

[Saarud]

Happiness should really be named stability. There are many exampels in our real history where nations really can't conquer or expand at will because of happiness/stability. So it simulates that quite well. While I think global happiness is a good thing to keep expansion in check there should also be local happiness so that individual cities revolt and go for independenace if their local happiness level were negative.

 

[brento1138]

I think that Civ 5 got it wrong in that taking over a city generates unhappiness. In reality, when a nation takes over another city, other neighboring nations start to lose patience and generally develop hate towards that nation.

I think that your relations with other nations shouldn't so much be based on trade and agreements, but with how much of a warmonger you are. The more war and attacks you pull off, the more other nations will band together to stop you. Look at Hitler in WW2. Everyone banded up to stop him.

Look at the end of world war 2. When the USA and Russia were allies, conquering the Germans, suddenly they ended up in the process of a long cold war. Why? Because they threaten each other with immense power.

I think the moment your military gets too big or your empire expands a little too much, you SHOULD be rewarded. But you should also expects LOTS of ANGRY nations who are going to team up and perhaps even sneak attack you.

That's how this game should work.

 

[UKScud]

Happiness should really be named stability. There are many exampels in our real history where nations really can't conquer or expand at will because of happiness/stability. So it simulates that quite well. While I think global happiness is a good thing to keep expansion in check there should also be local happiness so that individual cities revolt and go for independenace if their local happiness level were negative.

This is actually one of my major gripes with Civ5...there is no real feeling of the expanse of empire.

There is no edge of empire to revolt or crumble, and no centre of empire to protest when their sons are sent off to war.

I think you are definately right that what global happiness should really be all about is stability. I wonder why they never bothered.

 

[Agent327]

I was just thinking about it the other day, and any sufficiently populated city is unconquerable in Civ V. Because if you do the unhappiness generated by the extra population will cripple your entire nation.

Which just sheds further light on how ridiculous the global happiness system is. Conquering a super-city hundreds of miles away isn't a cause of celebration for your empire, it is the cause of nationwide unhapiness. And it happens instantaneously. Conquering this one city brings the entire empire down.

You could ofcourse simply make it a puppet city - or raze it. No problem.

Depends on your happiness buffer and what luxuries they might have.

That being said, it's not like the real world is full of examples of giant cities being conquered without difficulty. It's not like when Germany occupied Paris they were faced with no problems as a consequence.

Occupying Paris in WW II didn´t pose major problems to the Reich; in fact, a stay in Paris was considered a vacation for troops recovering from frontline duty.

 

[Pantastic]

From what I've seen, a city's population gets cut in half when you conquer it, and sometimes loses one additional pop. So if you started with a size 30 city, you'd end up with size 15, which is clearly manageable - you puppet the city until it's out of revolt, then annex it and buy happiness buildings, and you just have a mild hiccup in your happiness. If the city was really insanely huge, that means the AI had control of most of the maritime city-states for the food, so the city would starve down on your watch anyway.

Occupying Paris in WW II didn´t pose major problems to the Reich; in fact, a stay in Paris was considered a vacation for troops recovering from frontline duty.

Germany didn't annex France until late in the war, they made it a puppet. Had they not made Vichy France and tried to immediately annex France, they would have had a lot of problems.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Conquered 2 capitals on Emperor in my last game. No problems. Playing Immortal now and going to conquer at least one.

If you manage happiness correctly, you should have a huge happiness at the end due to having all luxury resources, some happiness buildings, wonders, etc. And if you conquer capitals early, they don't grow that much.

 

[dannythefool]

Which just sheds further light on how ridiculous the global happiness system is. Conquering a super-city hundreds of miles away isn't a cause of celebration for your empire, it is the cause of nationwide unhapiness. And it happens instantaneously. Conquering this one city brings the entire empire down.

Reminds me of Baghdad just a few years ago. I'd say it's quite realistic.

Anyway, getting happiness is not a problem. I regularly produce more than 400 when I build large empires. I your empire can't deal with even one city, your strategy is broken.

 

[Alki]

Yup. If you can't handle an extra city to have no business being at war. You have to prepare your civ for war. Build up a buffer of happiness as well as your troops.

 

[Zenstrive]

Huge number of cities = huge number of money = ability to purchase happiness building = annex them one by one, gift them happiness building when annexed. I once have 20+ cities under my rule, on three continents, and won Diplomatic Victory (12 vote for myself, 12 vote needed)

 

[snoochems]

Global happiness is a bit ********.

I liked the idea I heard somewhere on these forums to make food the global stat, and happiness local to the city. Basically swapping food and happiness roles. It's an idea not without its merits.

 

[lschnarch]

Reminds me of Baghdad just a few years ago. I'd say it's quite realistic.

Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. Wrong in any possible way.

US citizens didn't become unhappy due to Baghdad being conquered, they became unhappy because of the war itself and the losses of (in terms of Civ0.V only, just to make this clear) very small numbers of soldiers.

Yet, in Civ0.V you can slaughter the enemy eternally without having have it any impact on your happiness situation, as long as you do not occupy foreign cities.
Even losing own units doesn't contribute a bit to your happiness/unhappiness ratio.

In Civ0.V, the US could have fought in Iraq for 10 years with literally killing each and everybody as long as they would have stayed outside of the cities.
Now tell me, how this ever could be "realistic"?

 

[Agent327]

Germany didn't annex France until late in the war, they made it a puppet. Had they not made Vichy France and tried to immediately annex France, they would have had a lot of problems.

Thta´s incorrect: Paris was occupied in 1940, Vichy France in 1942, following the Allied invasion of French North Africa from November onwards. Vichy France was officially ´neutral´ (although in practice collaborating willingly with Germany); the rest of France was already occupied in 1940, following the armistice signed by Marshal Pétain. Neither occupation of French territory posed á lot of problems´; in fact, the allies had more trouble occupying French North Africa, although they only met with Axis forces when entering Tunisia.

 

[dannythefool]

I liked the idea I heard somewhere on these forums to make food the global stat, and happiness local to the city. Basically swapping food and happiness roles. It's an idea not without its merits.

That's no more realistic, not even in 2010. In fact I'm pretty sure that going to war and annexing cities causing unhappiness is more realistic than equalizing the viability of all settlement locations.