The Happy Happy cult

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
I know this already exists in the contentists thread, but I have found that NO ONE WAS READING IT! so I will make it again here :)

our belifs:
we belive that all citizens should be content by the cheapest means possible. we should use martail law when available, and when not, entertainers or "happy" buildigns like temples. some people would run an empire in the year 1000AD, a city with 20 citizens, will have 10 of them unhappy and 10 of the happy.

There may be times when we need happy cities that will produce as if they were celebrating. we accept this, so long as it is not a permanent thing. 20-30 turns however is quite alright. more will be accepted, but 100 turns + is pushing it.

We will all promice to vote in favour of things that will make citizens content, without wastefull spending. its usless to have a Temple, Cathedral, AND Colleseum, for a city of 1, for example, but we should have things set up, especially, in a democracy, so that these buildings are made at minimum 1 turn before the pop grows so that we will need them. so we dont fall into disorder and a possible collapse

our sig is: :sleep:

this group merges with the contentists. all members of that group are not part of this group.

Memembers in good standing:
(*)Pellaken

Temporary and allied members:

(*)donates official government rep {aka, in cabinet}
 

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
yea. a friend of mine is running for the provincail leadership. I joined in hopes that he could 'take me to the top'

why? you canadian?

also, I dident bump it cause NO ONE WAS READING IT! so far only u 2 have responded, and you said nothing about the cult. I really wish that the people that read this thread would say SOMETHING! even how stupid of an idea it is. honestley, I am really beginning to get offended
 

Ohwell

Deity
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
5,586
Location
Bringing enlightenment to you
Originally posted by Pellaken

also, I dident bump it cause NO ONE WAS READING IT! so far only u 2 have responded, and you said nothing about the cult. I really wish that the people that read this thread would say SOMETHING! even how stupid of an idea it is. honestley, I am really beginning to get offended

Alright. Fine. This idea is not practical because we NEED happy people. Your contentists idea was worse, it said that content people are better than happy. That is very dumb. Happy people allow for great benefits. Explain your ideas a little more, I am wondering what you mean.
 

Apollo

Emperor
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
1,016
Location
Seattle
I think the idea here is to use wonders and improvements that turn unhappy people over to content people, rather than use a high luxury rate to create happy people that balance out the unhappy ones.

This is, of course, what everybody wants to do if they can, but sometimes situations arrise where you have to raise your luxury rate for a while before you can build the needed improvements and wonders.
 

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
its hard to be more specific!

ok
lets say that we have 20 people in our city. if we have 10 happy and 10 unhappy, we will get no gains. if we have 11 happy and 9 content, we will. we will have a celebration day "we love the president day" from now, on, I'll call this a WLPD

I belive that sometimes, WLDP's are needed. but I DO NOT belive we should have this all the time. I have yet to see how its cost effictive. especailly with luxeries at the federal level. with entertainers in citys that have no available terrain to produce, however, this ia not only a good idea, its a GREAT idea. we should watch our population though, as under some types of government, WLPD's increase population

I think that a city with 20 content people is better then one with 10 happy and 10 unhappy ones. perhaps 1 or 2 or even 3 happy people in each city will serve as a good 'buffer' against added people who come in as unhappy. but we shouldent have all cities WLPD all the time. we also should have, as out key goal states, "AS MANY CITIZENS AS POSSIBLE CONTENT". sometimes we need 1 or 2 happy people to fight war-werriness or addition of unhappy people, especailly in a democracy, but I eblive that we should try to make people content first and foremost.

I am not as much fighting against happy people. we DO accept that there probabbly will be happy people, but our main objective is to have not a SINGLE unhappy person in the entire empire. this is hard but its doable.

I hope that this makes things clear. I am not fighting against WLDP cities, just agianst those ones that the computer builds, with 10 happy and 10 unhappy citizens.

edit-
apollo, I agree totally with you. we do allow for this, and would not stop it. but if everyone wants this, then why has NO one joined? including you? I mean GEEZE! if everyone wants to insult me, they are doing a pretty good job.
 

Ohwell

Deity
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
5,586
Location
Bringing enlightenment to you
Ah it is clearer now. You say that content is better than unhappy. Your goal is to not have any unhappy people. I agree, the red is annoying :lol:

But, it is highly possible once this is done we can get happy people in to give WLTPD. If you say it like you say, we should not have WLTPD's, I don't get it.

A WLTKD requires thhe city to have NO unahppy, and at least half are happy. They give great benefits, especiallu under despotism, monarchy, communism, and fundamentalism.

If your meaning to say content is better than unhappy, I agree. If you say content is better than happy, I don't.

I don't know why so many people disagree with you, they must view you as a wild imagination person. You are, and that is a good thing. :)
 

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
I am only opposed to WTPD's in democracies and republics, where they make the population grow so large. in those governments is the design of this cult.

If they fit "Pellaken's Economic Reform" then they should be allowed. more on this tomarrow in my long awaited post on "government reform"

so in short, I will accept WTPD's in monarchies, fundy, and my fav, communisim. {the 6-martail law really helps out too}
 

jomey

Watcher
Joined
Sep 8, 2001
Messages
160
Location
Middle Earth
I am only opposed to WTPD's in democracies and republics, where they make the population grow so large. in those governments is the design of this cult.

I don;t understand why it is a problem. Purpose of expanding is not just for population growth to increase overall score but also to expand on economy/resource etc. If the issue that once the population has been maximised then it is pointless to continue with WLTPD , then I'll agree with you purely that we a playing a democracy game and not a GOTM

The comment about you being a wild imagination person is probably not accurate 100% of the time as some of your ideas are definitely thought provoking which is great. I believe that this type of person is referred to as a 'PLANT'. Added to this your enthusiasm for putting your ideas down for the general public's viewing then thats fine also. It's the equivalent of standing on a soapbox in the middle of the street.;)
 

Kev

Hired Goon
Joined
Feb 23, 2001
Messages
1,895
Location
Ringwood, NJ USA
Originally posted by Pellaken
I am only opposed to WTPD's in democracies and republics, where they make the population grow so large. in those governments is the design of this cult.

If they fit "Pellaken's Economic Reform" then they should be allowed. more on this tomarrow in my long awaited post on "government reform"

so in short, I will accept WTPD's in monarchies, fundy, and my fav, communisim. {the 6-martail law really helps out too}

Boy, I'm lost on this logic. WLTPD's in a republic or democracy is key to boosting everything from commerce, to science, to eventual domination.

Boost your civ when you have cities with auqeducts, Mike's Chapel and maybe Bach's and you'll have some great producing size 12 cities in no time. Then put luxuries back down to minimum levels.

Later, rush some sewers in cities with nicely developed land and boost luxuries again and soon you'll have a great deal of cities that can be powerhouses. Then, again, lower your luxuries to the minimum levels necessary.

Please notice that I give the caveat that the two happiness wonders and proper infrastructure play a key role in this.

More citizens simply means more work being done and more of just about everything. As long as we're able to keep our happiness under control with wonders, trade, and improvements, then there should really be no reason to leave a democracy - including during a war. I can see where we may wish to go fundy for a short while to fight a protracted war and/or to earn some fast cash (especially with Mike's!), but forcing a WLT_D in fundy, monarchy, or communism I just don't really get. I know the positives involved, but I don't know why you'd think them better than booming pop growth. I mean, with a Monarchy, WLTKD's will have the civ perform as if it were a Republic in essence, which is nice. However, we'd probably have to boost luxuries so high to ge to that level that the benefits are almost nil.

Look, happiness is a key concern in Emperor and Deity levels - it just can't be avoided. This adds to the importance of Mike's and Bach's as well as great trade and things like marketplaces. Frankly, though, unless I'm trying to boost population with WLTPD's, I would just assume keep luxuries down to the lowest possible level - even if it forces an entertainer here or there. If I have to have 10 happpy and 10 unhappy to keep the peace, then so be it. Put that added %age into tech and taxes and we'll be better off.

I'm sorry, I don't wish to force my own playing style on this Democracy Game, and I know that the other forms of governments offer their own pro's. I just always saw pop growth with We Love Days in Republic and Democracy kind of a staple of play for the civ looking to dominate through speedy tech and superior commerce.

Finally, I don't understand the draw to the martial law of the communist government. Why should we build 3 units in each city to keep them happy - seems a waste of shields. In a tech-advanced democracy, very often it's enough to keep a single, upgraded defensive unit in most cities - perhaps more in border cities, but certainly not to the extent used in communism.

I don't mean to pick so much, I'm just more confused than anything and I'm always willing to listen to differing ideas. I just don't really get the whole plan here.

I guess I'll have to wait for "Pellaken's Government Reform" to get a better idea as to your proposals. Hope to see it soon. :)
 
Top Bottom