Unhappiness from captured cities?

[krunsh]

I acknowledge your right to your opinion and I mean you no disrespect by this comment:

Opinions like this may eventually bring the Civilization franchise to ruin.

No, it will take player like you away (Or not, because you will probably like the new system once it release), and player like me much closer.

Having game more complicated does not make them better. The slider for culture, tech and espionnage were all very Obscure aspect of the CIV 4 gameplay wich only a few people were able to enjoy (I certainly did not).

Hapiness over the whole empire is just a new way of representing the stability of your empire as a whole, in reality, having one unhappy city at the border could very well make the management of the rest of the empire more complicated for the ruler as he needs to put more energy and ressource (Manpower and financial) to balance everything. So that's there way of representing this into the game.

And I mean... Puppet cities are a new feature, I don't understand why it's ''bad'' not being able to assimilate every city you conquer when your empire is not stable enough. It make sense and seems fun.

PLUS, having to much city from conquest was VERY annoying in civ 4 since you were always asked to build new building for city you didn't even cared about. Overall, I think it's great new gameplay feature that will make conquest a lot more fun.

 

[PawelS]

And even if you do keep a sizable happiness buffer, a successful war would quickly consume it with just a few cities being added to your empire. I saw a review (sorry, do not recall which one specifically) where the player conquered a city, then took a peace deal where the AI gave up two more large-ish cities. A nice, successful little war -- and about 40 additional unhappiness added to the player's civ. Is it going to be common to have that much spare happiness, or would such a deal plunge your civ into extreme unhappiness -- massive unhappiness for winning the war?

So when you win a war by grabbing some cities, you think everyone should be happy with your glorious conquests? I don't think so - the population of captured cities doesn't have to be very happy about that, and can cause conflicts with your original population. Also a larger empire is harder to manage, which is one of the things that the happiness system in Civ5 simulates.

 

[Schuesseled]

You know that you can put cities on automated production in civ 4.

 

[krunsh]

You know that you can put cities on automated production in civ 4.

Yes, but I think puppet city is a much better feature since the game give you a bonus for making the city a puppet instead of using it's production to it's full potential.

In Civ 4 it's annoying to have such a large empire... so the game tell you, well the AI can do it for you since we know it's boring. In CIV 5 they've used this to create a whole new gameplay element that should hopefully be a lot of fun.

And it was always a better choice to do it manualy if you wanted your empire to work at a 100% efficiency. To me it's just like in some RPG were I could not defeat the boss at the end of the story because I hadn't done enough grinding on the way there.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Yes, but I think puppet city is a much better feature since the game give you a bonus for making the city a puppet instead of using it's production to it's full potential.

Plus you can fully annex a city you decided to turn into a puppet later on at any point.

 

[Gath]

So when you win a war by grabbing some cities, you think everyone should be happy with your glorious conquests? I don't think so - the population of captured cities doesn't have to be very happy about that, and can cause conflicts with your original population. Also a larger empire is harder to manage, which is one of the things that the happiness system in Civ5 simulates.

Generally any population is happy about a war won. After WW2 people were throwing parades in the street. The ancient romans got to hear regular reports of their victories. It gives people pride to know their civilization is strong. For every peacenik protesting you in the streets, if you're winning you'll have five hawks patting each other on the back for how great their civilization is. The conquered people will be unhappy sure, but they're always under military rule and not liable to cause major trouble.

LOSING war on the other hand, makes people unhappy. And there's plenty of modern examples.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Generally any population is happy about a war won. After WW2 people were throwing parades in the street. The ancient romans got to hear regular reports of their victories. It gives people pride to know their civilization is strong. For every peacenik protesting you in the streets, if you're winning you'll have five hawks patting each other on the back for how great their civilization is. The conquered people will be unhappy sure, but they're always under military rule and not liable to cause major trouble.

LOSING war on the other hand, makes people unhappy. And there's plenty of modern examples.

They weren't happy the war was won - they were happy the war was over. The "winning" side in WW2 was not the side that started the war. You can't tell me that the occupied Iron Curtain countries were happy that their side had "won". History says otherwise.

Being occupied makes people unhappy - the winning and the losing is irrelevant.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I keep seeing people saying this -- that the effect is not "massive". But say the city is size 12 -- sizable but not huge. If I am understanding the happiness mechanics correctly, that is 14 additional unhappiness. With the difference between full happiness and "very unhappy" being 11 points (if you were right at the happiness limit), that would mean a huge shift for your entire empire from one city.

You do realize that 14 unhappiness would come from a NORMAL size 12 city (if one of the citeis you founded reaches size 12... it gives you 14 unhappiness).

A captured one pre-courthouse, would probably give even More unhappiness. (a Puppet might just give the 14)

Of course the new city might have Happiness buildings.

So you really want to invest in Happiness... a lot.

 

[Cyberian]

Is it known if you can rush buy a courthouse in a freshly annexed city?

 

[Thyrwyn]

It is known that you cannot.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

It is known that you cannot.

How long does it take to build a courthouse anyways?

 

[Resender]

The thing I'm least happy about is that cities can no longer revolt to your side if culture is high enough.
That used to be 1 of my key strategies.

And what if you conquer a city with a courthouse already in it.

 

[krunsh]

My guess is the courthouse is destroyed... The thing I am wondering about is, can you build a courthouse right from the start or do you need some tech like code of law.

Anyway... these are very small detail and I don't realy mind waiting a week to see how it works.

 

[Cristoval]

I don't like this global happiness. It takes away from the individuality of the cities.

 

[Kruelgor]

Have you ever seen the video of Hitler and Goering up in the window in Berlin and the tens of thousands of jubliant German people after the fall of Paris?

Have you ever seen the jubilant ticker tape crowds in the streets of New York after the fall of Berlin or surrender of Japan?

I see no unhappy people there.

 

[Schuesseled]

Have you ever seen the video of Hitler and Goering up in the window in Berlin and the tens of thousands of jubliant German people after the fall of Paris?

Have you ever seen the jubilant ticker tape crowds in the streets of New York after the fall of Berlin or surrender of Japan?

I see no unhappy people there.

Well your second examle doesn't fit as america didn't annex berlin and niether does your first as germany turned france into a puppet state, in civ terms.

And seeing as how neither of these produce extra unhappiness, your argument is clearly flawed.

 

[PawelS]

Have you ever seen the video of Hitler and Goering up in the window in Berlin and the tens of thousands of jubliant German people after the fall of Paris?

Have you ever seen the jubilant ticker tape crowds in the streets of New York after the fall of Berlin or surrender of Japan?

I see no unhappy people there.

They can't be seen during such events but they exist (and in case of Berlin and Japan the USA didn't annex them).

Anyway, gameplay-wise, getting extra happiness (or at least no unhappiness) from conquered cities would create "positive feedback" - the empires that are already big will become even bigger, which will disturb the balance of the game (and it will make it too easy for the human player to conquer the whole world).

 

[Kruelgor]

And seeing as how neither of these produce extra unhappiness, your argument is clearly flawed.

What are you talking about? I pointed out how HAPPY their people were, not unhappy. The point being is that the empire as a whole is much more happier when an enemy city is conquered despite the unhappiness which might reside in the conquered city. It's irrelevant how unhappy a conquered people are because they become subjugated by martial law.

 

[Kruelgor]

They can't be seen during such events but they exist (and in case of Berlin and Japan the USA didn't annex them).

...and what are you talking about? From what I understand in Civilization 5 there will be UNHAPPINESS if an enemy's city is conquered regardless of what terminology you want to apply to it. You can use the word 'annex' if you like, but it really makes no difference. If you want to get technical, there were many islands and colonies which were 'annexed' away from Japanese control.

 

[bjbrains]

Happiness isn't just "How happy people are" in game. It's a measure of public order, reflected by how the average citizen feels. When you conquer a city, it causes your empire to become more unstable until you can establish a working government (in-game, the courthouse).

It's a game, it's an abstraction. It seems to work well as a game device, and that's really what matters.