Shocked, and suddently hating the patch

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Creepy Old Man, Dec 19, 2010.

  1. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Location:
    Under the sink
    You're assuming the result is actually orchestrated by AI the to screw the player in the peace. That isn't the case it is just a lousy mechanic. I'll state this- would this be valid mechanic for a human player? Surrender 2-3 cities and watch what happens - the AI would be laughing all the way to the bank!!!

    a) The AI has so much happiness that it doesn't get a penalty for occupying ANY cities
    b) Sure that city would be unhappy. But why on earth would the rest of your loyal cities get pissed off?
    c) plausible - but why is it always conveniently the happiness building that seem to die?

    I dont like the notion that the player had to "plan" for a ridiculously unbalanced mechanic. It is like asking to take an opponent's cheating into account when playing any game.

    Historically nations have ceded territory in exchange for pace but rarely does it result in the victor getting completely shafted. Oh look Holland just ceded Leige to France and oh looky looky Paris is in revolt, Normandy is in flames. All the while the dutch cheer lustly as losing bloody war a major city and fortress has decimated their opponent's entire economy for the next 300 years.

    By this logic the Confederacy should have won the US civil war by ceding Kentucky! :lol:

    Rat
     
  2. Venereus

    Venereus This Is Streamlined!

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,026
    C) OK, but why are buildings destroyed when a city is gifted or sold?
     
  3. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407
    The other cities don't get pissed off. They suffer consequences because your empire as a whole is unhappy, even if the city in question is happy.

    For example, it doesn't matter how happy the people in Shangri-La are. If they are spending work time discussing the terrible situation in Annexedistan, they are still less productive.

    Stupid analogy I'll admit, but as someone else posted in a thread far away, people tend to complain about realism when they don't like the game mechanic, and not if they do like it. I don't see anyone complaining about how unrealistic it is that chopped wood can somehow turn into a hospital.
     
  4. cf_nz

    cf_nz Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    414
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I'm under the impression that buildings have a chance of being destroyed, it's not a 100% thing. I've captured cities with happiness buildings intact.
     
  5. Bad Brett

    Bad Brett King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    828
    I've already given up on the game, but I think it's pretty obvious what they've done wrong here:

    The original design was broken in many ways, and when they realised that, they panicked and made some radical changes to fix these issues as quickly as possible. But, ironically, they managed to do the same mistake again by not doing enough playtesting.

    For example, originally it was not possible to sell buildings. A clear design flaw since you would suffer for the rest of the game if you built a few defensive buildings that you needed in an early war. People complained, so they added the options to sell buildings. However, at they introduced a mechanic that allows you to grow a city up to 20, sell all the buildings and completely ruin an opponents happiness. Must work great in multiplayer games...

    Also, earlier puppet states could ruin you by building a lot of crap buildings.

    To fix this, they will need to change something else. Remove the ability to sell happiness buildings or maybe remove the entire feature and instead makes it impossible for puppet cities to build anything else than happiness buildings... see where we're heading?

    The core design is really bad. Therefore, improvements will consist of workarounds instead of actual fixes.

    Their method is bacially introducing limitations that makes it a bad strategy to use the exploits; Not fixing the actual causes.
     
  6. Islet

    Islet Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Messages:
    62
    This.

    IMO, if the game was designed for the "casual" audience from the start, don't make a 180-degree spin and bring it to the other extreme; Global Happiness mechanic suddenly being bolted down to a more localized version. The result is an awkward mess. The casual crowd being unhappy that they're cramped down on expansive game-styles while the traditional crowd being annoyed at the arcade-like elements.

    First-impressions count. If I'm of the impression that the game is flawed in design (to the more traditional Civ fanbase), then barring a full redesign of core mechanics, patching is unlikely to make me view the product as a worthy sequel.

    Patching should be more of fixing technical faults, gameplay bugs and AI competency rather than gameplay mechanics.
     
  7. Ayt

    Ayt Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    It makes perfect sense to me that a good way to cripple an opponent is to cede to them as much land as you can in a peace deal.
     
  8. Mac2411

    Mac2411 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    79
    I'll state again that I find it ridiculous that the basic mechanics of the game essentially lead to one strategy once conflict becomes inevitable, which it does in every game of Civ 5: burn down the entire world. Almost all of my games end this way and it is rapidly wearing thin with me. I understand that courthouse costs are cheaper now so that is, perhaps, a step to correct this but I don't know if it is enough given the underlying game mechanic.
     
  9. Manifold

    Manifold ModderProtectionAdvocate

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,580
    Resell your cities to another civ and take the price as additional loot.
     
  10. Bad Brett

    Bad Brett King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    828
    I think it's really strange that they decided to not go with the Civ IV model that the knew worked. ICS wasn't possible until banks, if you didn't start with unlimited gold mines, and by that time the world would have very few spots to settle. This lead to an interesting race to optics/astronomy, so that you could be the first to colonize uncharted lands.

    Another major design flaw is that even though happiness is a lot more important now, the ways of getting it are more limited than ever. Resources, buildings and policies, that's pretty much it. In Civ IV you had luxury tax, you could spread religion, you could customize your civics depending on the situation... which often was a key to success.

    I really respect everyone's opinions, I really do, but seriously, can anybody actually believe that trading cities to avoid unhappiness is a good game design?

    "Finally, we conquered the holy city of Jerusalem... wait a minute... damn it, now our nation is overpopulated, let's sell it to the highest bidder! But first, let us sell all the temples in the city, to give them a nice surprise! Heheheh...!"

    I mean come on.
     
  11. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Which is not resembled in Civ5. Large borders actually are the least problem, as it is completely meaningless where your cities are located.
    In Shafer_5-terms, they did annex both countries. It was in 1949, when Germany was granted a very limited sovereignty and I think, for Japan it was even later.
    Actually, it had to become 1990, before Germany was given back full sovereignty.

    Yes, because they couldn't support big armies being far away.

    Napoleon's France crumbled, when his armies lost the war.
    France was absolutely fine as long as he was successful and implacing his family members in formerly foreign countries as kings and dukes.
    See above.
     
  12. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Location:
    Under the sink
    I think that is misconception that just talking about something would make them so grossly unhappy that all growth would cease, production would drop and the army would be less effective - because it won a war. It seems like being on the ropes makes you fight and perserve more for your homeland - but in CiV actually winning the war pissed your people off??? I dont recall seeing any mass protests, work stoppages or civil unrest on V-E day or V-J day??

    In CiV you lose the game by winning wars.

    Rat
     
  13. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Location:
    Under the sink
    Which 1) makes no sense. By this logic the USA can beat the taliban by giving them hawaii?? 2) The human can't do the same thing. It is a function of the AI happiness cheat; it is not an intentional strategy, in my opinion.

    Last time I checked the Louisiana purchase didnt cause mass rioting in American cities.

    Rat
     
  14. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Location:
    Under the sink
    In the end the French never turned their backs on Napoleon, they even jumped to support him for the 100 days. France was defeated militarily but the french population didnt get pissed off as Napoleon won war after war. Yes there were revolts in the empire (Spain, Tyrol) by France itself was generally fine. Indeed, over half of the french armies were recruited from non-french territories. For most of history annexations were pretty much a non affair as leaders and territories changed regularily.

    Rat
     
  15. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407
    I accept the fact that absorbing such population as the OP did should cause unhappiness, but I absolutely do not think that selling the cities is a good game design. Personally, I don't like the fact that you can sell cities in the first place. Never have, in any game of the series, so I don't do it.

    Again, these things are abstractions. First, the people in other cities are not more unhappy because other cities are unhappy. Unhappiness in one city doesn't affect happiness in another, but it does effect production, growth, and army effectiveness.

    Ok, no ill effects after V-E and V-J day, I'll give you that. What about after the liberation of Iraq? I disagree with lschnarch that in game terms, Germany and Japan were annexed, but I'd say that Iraq was puppeted (not trying to turn this political, but I think the game concept of puppet most accurately describes the state of Iraq after liberation). As a result of winning that war (again, the war was won in game terms) resources were diverted to Iraq that otherwise wouldn't be needed if the army had simply pulled out the day after Saddam was captured.

    But again, why do we debate this, but not how chopping wood makes hospitals pop up?
     
  16. Islet

    Islet Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Messages:
    62
    In EU3, absorbing a large portion of enemy territory would result in a huge relations hit with every other nation in the world (the badboy mechanic) and would suffer the results of Over-extension (a penalty, that increases Stability costs and increases rebel spawn).

    Perfectly fine in an arguably realistic simulation game of empire management. But even EU3 managed to keep in under logical terms; a -3 stability didn't mean that your army effectiveness would be crippled by 50%; army effectiveness is dependent on Generals attached and Support sliders.

    Not so in CiV, prepare to see your veterans fall prey to green troops after you win 3 major wars.
     
  17. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    First, I do think the AI is coded to do this, yes. But, that's irrelevant to the points I listed. Whether or not the AI is doing this as a tactic or a bug, by accepting those cities when they can't be supported by your infrastructure, you're either exhibiting poor planning (taking something you want but haven't prepared for) or lack of attention to detail (not even noticing the cities are being offered).

    Unbalanced? My last game was started pre-patch and finished post patch. Just before the patch was released, I had finished taking over almost my entire continent. When the patch came out, I took a HUGE hit to happiness, down to something like -31. Now, if the mechanic were unbalanced, that would've been an impossible situation from which to recover. Instead, I chose to annex a bunch of puppets because now Courthouses can be bought for 450g (revenue was way high as I was pursuing an economic...er...diplomatic victory). I purchased a bunch of Colosseums, Circuses, built Notre Dame, etc., and before long I was running a happiness surplus. Circus Maximus wasn't even available as a build for some reason (I'm assuming/hoping it was simply a glitch due to the game being started pre-patch), so I didn't have that empire-wide boost.

    IMO happiness is utterly manageable and you can easily prepare adequately for mass on-loading of cities via war or other means. Keep happiness flush with pop level in most/all cities, build Notre Dame, Circus Maximus, annex and purchase/build Courthouses (post patch, puppeting definitely isn't as obvious a choice), etc. And...PAY ATTENTION when accepting peace deals!

    And, the thing about overexpanding and happiness is, IRL, when you occupy a city, you take on the responsibility/burden of managing that city. In terms of most of the American population, anger in Baghdad was mostly just an abstract concept that probably only marginally affected productivity; in terms of the American government, it was a huge problem and a huge drain on resources, and it most definitely affected the gov't's ability to conduct its affairs adequately across the board. If you think about the reduced population growth mechanic in ciV, what it really is is a cut in food 'income'. This results in pulling workers off of mines and trading posts so they can farm to maintain population (or even continue growing it in some cases), which leads to decreased production/income. The cut in food income is a bit arbitrary, but it leads to a reasonable cut in empire-wide productivity and available funds, which is a pretty realistic simulation of what happens when a government overextends itself.

    It cracks me up when I see this, considering I've had no trouble playing games with very limited war. I even won a cultural victory with 6 cities on turn 499 with zero war the whole game while fielding 6 units that I never upgraded past swordsman.

    Sometimes, I think people just fail at ciV diplomacy and decide it's the game's fault.

    [edit]: regarding buildings destroyed during a siege, it is correct that there isn't a 100% chance of any one type of building being lost. I've certainly attained a city with an intact colosseum, for instance.
     
  18. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407
    I've not played any of the EU games, but if it's anything like Victoria (and my understanding is that it is) then it's really an apples to zebra comparison, IMO. The Civ series has never pretended to be as complex as Paradox titles, so it has to model penalties differently, in ways that fit in with the flavor and capabilities of Civ. Is EU3 more realistic in this. Again, I haven't played it, but I can say with 100% certainty that it is. To me, that doesn't mean that Civ V got it wrong. It's a different game, with a different level of complexity and scope.
     
  19. Islet

    Islet Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Messages:
    62
    I beg to differ, good sir. While I can agree that the overall products cannot be compared, similar mechanics can.

    Both EU3 and CiV attempts to limit warmongering. What EU3 got right is that this limitation didn't break the existing game scenario, it introduced something else: rebels.

    CiV attempts to clamp you down on warmongering through breaking your existing game structure; military effectiveness, growth limit, production penalties. Only at 20 :c5angry: will rebels spawn.

    I'm not trying to say that EU3's approach is inherently superior, but the CiV method seems like a desperate way to shut you out of war; if army and production nerfs aren't enough, we'll create enemies to ruin your empire till you get the message, capiche?!.
     
  20. Dralix

    Dralix Killer of threads

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,407
    Don't think I agree that Civ V breaks the existing game structure. In all seriousness, and with all due respect, I'm not sure what you mean by that.

    In every game in the series, as your population grew, you had to keep them happy or suffer consequences. The big change introduced in this iteration is that unhappiness in one city has empire wide consequences.

    Some people (not saying you specifically) complain that Civ V is more of a collection of city states than an empire. I disagree completely. Civs I and II were a collection of city states. There wasn't even the concept of a national border. Civ III added culture, and now we could finally define the borders of the nation.

    I see global happiness as another step in that direction to building a nation instead of a bunch of completely independent cities that fly the same banner. I don't expect we'll see a province/state concept like Vicky (and I imagine EU) has, but with global happiness, we now have to deal with the fact that what happens to one city affects the entire nation. I think it's intentional.
     

Share This Page