Unhappiness penalty with Emancipation civic

[hendis55]

This is my first post here, so first of all: Hello everybody!

I'm a Civilization I, II and III veteran (although not a very skilled one), and I've now played my first couple of Civ IV games. I have two questions:

The description for the Emancipation civic mentions an unhappiness penalty for civilizations not employing this civic. What does that mean?

And what does it mean that certain wonders "centers world map"?

Thanks

 

[Hived]

Hello first of all, although I am a very new user, I greet you here

In Civ4 your map will always look central, after your first few turns, of course, because your citizens believe, that they are the center of the world
but after having built Stonehenge or discovered Calendar (would be more realistic with astronomy, in my opinion), your people realize, that they don't live in the middle of the world but maybe near one pole or in the southern or northern regions. You will now see, although (maybe) not yet recovered all the map, how big the whole map is, you can also zoom out (by using your mouse wheel... dunno, if you can do it also before).
Shortly: you now know where you are, on the map.

The Emancipation civic gives you (or your opponent) for all other nation with Emancipation a 'unhappy face' in every city, if you have anything else than Emancipation.
Example1: you play against 6 opponents. Everyone of them has Emancipation, you don't: you will get +6 unhappy faces per city.
Example2: You and one of your opps. have E.: all other Civs then you two get two unhappy faces per city.

 

[Thedrin]

Civs with emancipation don't get unhappy faces due to other civs having emancipation. Civs without emancipation do get the unhappy faces if other civs have emancipation.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

screw emancipation!!! Caste system 4eva!

 

[Wodan]

The Emancipation unhappiness penalty, by the way, is one of the broken design elements of Civ 4. It's one of the few places that Firaxis messed up, big time.

Wodan

 

[Sisiutil]

The Emancipation unhappiness penalty, by the way, is one of the broken design elements of Civ 4. It's one of the few places that Firaxis messed up, big time.

Wodan

What makes you say that?

 

[CivDude86]

Cause it forces everyone into using thats why.

 

[sirford]

Cause it forces everyone into using thats why.

while it doesn't "force" you to use it, it does have it's own merits and faults. If no one uses it, no -happyfaces. If you use it, it gives -happyfaces to people who don't use it. And it's placed on the bottom of the charts because it's believed it the most "enlightned" of the civics, so society gravitats towards it, because eventually everyone will want to be free.

 

[Sisiutil]

Cause it forces everyone into using thats why.

I don't think you're forced to use it, though it does get more compelling with time. And why shouldn't it? Look at a real world example like apartheid: pressure builds up over time to abandon such a repressive system until it becomes too much.

That being said, there are alternatives. I played one game towards a cultural win that relied heavily on caste system's unlimited artist specialists. I dealt with the unhappiness from other civs adopting emancipation with the culture slider, which was also conducive to my desired win condition.

 

[GIO888]

Welcome!

I always try to get Emancipated first to penalty the AI Civ's anyway - but it does cause unhappiness if someone else has it and you don't.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

The Emancipation unhappiness penalty, by the way, is one of the broken design elements of Civ 4. It's one of the few places that Firaxis messed up, big time.

Wodan

I don't think it's broken... I rather think it perfectly reflects the progression of how people view freedom in the world. When Emancipation is first implemented (by whatever civ) other civs citizens get a little jealous. But, they're used to being servants, slaves, castes, etc, so they deal with it well. As time passes, though, and almost all the civs are emancipated, your citizens will be overwhelmingly jealous making them angry. It seems very realistic to me.

Unless you were refering to a game designer's comments that specifically state that Emancipation is broken... in that case my bad.

 

[Hived]

In my opinion the major reason for calling Emancipation one of the broken design elements of Civ 4, is, that it doesn't matter, how many other Players are joining the game. If you play against 10-15 Civs and half of them are emancipated, the effect is much harder, than against 4 Civs, all having emancipation.
It's, by the way, the same problem like the one with religion. When playing against 4 Civs, there are (in my opinion) simply too much religions in game... playing against 10 it seems just to be right.
Maybe it would be also interesting, if it depended on the percentage of 'emancipated' citizens in the whole world. When there are 10% emancipated, you get 1 'bad face' per non-emancipated city, 20% -> 2 bad faces, etc...
sounds more balanced to me.

 

[Wodan]

What makes you say that?

It's poor game design.

One of the goals with any game is replayability, through variety of experience. Replayability = happy customers who come back again and again to play. They want the expansions and they want the new releases.

Would you play Solitaire if the deck was set up (instead of shuffled) so that exactly the same sequence of cards came up every time?

Would you like it if Civ gave you minus happiness if you research Bronze Working before Writing?

Emancipation is designed to encourage the player to adopt the SAME gameplay every game. It is designed to discourage variety, which results in less desire of replayability.

Consider this: right now, we have a negative to other civics. What if we instead gave a bonus to Emancipation itself? That is, if I am Washington and Huyana adopts Emancipation, and I also adopt it also, I get a + happy bonus?

Think about it... instead of discouraging Slavery, or Caste System, we are now encouraging Emancipation.

For one thing, there's a perception benefit. I (as a player) no longer view it as a negative for Caste System. It's a dog biscuit instead of a smack on the nose.

For another, there is a limit to how much happiness will benefit you. There are diminishing returns on getting additional happy faces. So, the mechanic does not have as big of a game effect. For example, a couple of weeks ago I was playing and noticed I had a -9 unhappiness for not having Emancipation. Minus NINE. Come on! Give me a break. It wasn't even the modern era.

For the accuracy and correspondence to real life, who is to say that Emancipation is somehow "enlightened?" A world where a civilization built on caste system dominates the planet might well have an entirely different view on whether emancipation is somehow superior.

But the biggest thing by far is the effect on gameplay. Variety of gameplay = good design.

And, don't even get me started on the U.N.

I'm not angry, I just think it's poor game design, period. I like the game a lot. And I think it's a shame that the game couldn't be even better than it already is.

Wodan

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^You have convinced me, Wodan. I am in agreement! Give a bonus for Emancipation rather than a penalty for not having it. It does make more sense. And I still think the Emancipation they have implemented would more accurately reflect the real world (more civs with = more of a penalty) because even if the government/upper caste are thriving under a caste system, the peasants/lower caste/workers probably would rather have emancipation. But in the name of game play we can throw that out the window.

 

[Wodan]

I don't think you're forced to use it, though it does get more compelling with time. And why shouldn't it? Look at a real world example like apartheid: pressure builds up over time to abandon such a repressive system until it becomes too much.

This is what I call a "story" argument. Story = "realism" or correspondence to real life. This has no bearing on the gameplay whatsoever.

My objection is entirely with the gameplay. The gameplay is poor.

As for the "story"... frankly I don't care. The story can be rationalized either way.

Anyway to respond to the story... who's to say it's repressive? With proper civil regulations or laws, any labor civic is just as enlightened as Emancipation.

The main reason slavery, serfdom, and caste system have such a bad rep is that historically they had little to no control over the excesses of individual situations or social conditions. There's nothing inherently evil over one person having responsibility over another. In fact, there are usually quite substantial benefits to the subordinated person. Heck, children have this kind of relationship even in an emancipated society. With adults it would be slightly different but again there's no reason the society can't have laws etc to prevent abuses and to make sure the rights of the subordinated person are respected (as we have for children).

That being said, there are alternatives. I played one game towards a cultural win that relied heavily on caste system's unlimited artist specialists. I dealt with the unhappiness from other civs adopting emancipation with the culture slider, which was also conducive to my desired win condition.

That's a situational supporting example, rather than a typical one.

Wodan

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^It can be said, then, Wodan, that you are a sociologist of the functional perspective? I can see what you are saying about the ability for a society to benefit from labor systems other than Emancipation (keeping it in CivIV terms for simplicity), however I am of the Conflict school of thought . Damn the man!

 

[Wodan]

^^^It can be said, then, Wodan, that you are a sociologist of the functional perspective? I can see what you are saying about the ability for a society to benefit from labor systems other than Emancipation (keeping it in CivIV terms for simplicity), however I am of the Conflict school of thought . Damn the man!

I'm not any kind of -ologist. I simply have a brain and put some thought into things rather than blindly following the masses.

I'm not especially enamored of democracy or any other specific form of government. I think all systems have pros and cons. Each needs balances and measures in order to keep it in line. Democracy, for example, is based off the idea that 5 million people are smarter than one. How's that, again?

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

Emancipation needs to be changed, it needs it badly.

Wodan

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^Bro, Democracy is not based on the thought that 5 million people are smarter than 1. Get over yourself and your brain. It is based on the fact that the people get to choose the 1 person they think is best able to lead their nation. Since there are no true Democracies in the world (well maybe 1) it really doesn't make much of a difference. I put thought into this as well, and I've gotta say that any system of labor or anything else that supports the suppression of any person because of social status, birth, or wealth is a system of ignorance and abuse. No matter what equalizers you put into it, it ends up benefiting the ones in charge a hell of a lot more and manages in keeping the "lessers" ignorant and therefore comfortable in their place. Is ignorance bliss in your opinion? hmmm.

Don't think that because you challenge the thoughts that the masses "blindly follow" that you are immune to the "rebel" complex. Simply going against the rivers current doesn't make you a pioneer.

 

[Hived]

@wodan:
If you want a different gameplay, play other settings, for example smaller maps, fewer Civs, other leaders, other map-settings, such as Continents vs. Archipelago...

 

[Wodan]

While we're at it, we might as well mention the U.N.

Take everything I said about Emancipation and add a factor of x10.

Any creative gameplay a player comes up with, whatever exciting and interesting civilization, a model government of "what if" Hatsepshut and Egypt had been a world power in the modern era...

let's stomp that flat right now. There vill be NO creative gameplay in zis game! (said in best gestapo accent.) Ve vill wote it out of existence!

That's right. Come up with an interesting and fun to play civ using, say Mercantilismk. Representation, and Caste System that can actually be competitive in the modern era. Bad player! No creativity allowed.

Let's add a game mechanism where other players (even the computer AI!!) can force the player to conform to a specific set of civics: Universal Suffrage, Free Speech, Emancipation, Environmentalism, and Free Religion. This will of course scuttle that creative player's civ and plummet him to the bottom of the scoring, and probably ruin his research as well, ensuring he will lose the game for sure.

What's worse, knowing the UN exists and can be inflicted upon them, the wise player will use foresight and simply build his infrastructure toward those civics anyway. The advantage here is twofold: "do unto others before they do unto you" and also the avoidance of the scuttling.

Thus, the wise and foresightful player will discourage his own creativity and will adopt a single gameplay style, perfecting it until the moves are mechanical and scripted in stone, without thought or any sort of enjoyment.

How's that again?

Wodan