Should Happiness be renamed?

[Optimizer]

Happiness in Civ 4 (and previous Civ games) does not represent what we usually mean with happiness.

It is true that people become happy from luxury goods and colosseums, but hardly from jails, barracks or military units. The latter examples inspire people with fear rather than joy. When it comes to religious buildings, it is harder to tell what happiess represents. A player with a negative view on religion would say that the happiness from a Cathedral represents the brainwashing of critical ideas.

More accurately, Happiness is the will to obey the leader.

Maybe we should rename it to "discipline", "loyalty", "allegiance", "obedience" or something like that?

[Apocalypse Cow]

I really like loyalty. You can get loyalty from fear or from gifts. Another possibility would be fealty, but thats possibly too specific.

[Bill3000]

I like the way it is, if you arn't changing it to banana. To me it seems to be a lack of serious disruption in the nation - more of satisfaction than happiness.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Perhaps "Order" (this is synonomus with but much less of a mouthfull then "lack of serious disuption in the nation" which I admit is a very acurate description of what your getting)

Unhappyness would also have to be renamed (Disorder ofcorse being the apropriate foil to my proposal) as well so keep that in mind when your thinking of names.

[Bhruic]

Re: Should Happiness be renamed?

Originally posted by Optimizer
It is true that people become happy from luxury goods and colosseums, but hardly from jails, barracks or military units. The latter examples inspire people with fear rather than joy.

Fear? How so? The people that "fear" police are generally criminals. The people that "fear" the military are generally the other side.

Most people, I suspect, are happy to know that their streets are safer (thanks to police) and their country is protected (thanks to the military). I don't see any reason why "happiness" wouldn't apply.

When it comes to religious buildings, it is harder to tell what happiess represents. A player with a negative view on religion would say that the happiness from a Cathedral represents the brainwashing of critical ideas.

Well, certainly, but the happiness is aimed at the followers of the religion, not people who aren't. Someone who is a Christian is likely to be happy that his city has a Christian temple.

Guess I'm voting for status quo.

Bh

[Junuxx]

I voted Allegiance, but could go with something like Authority or Order (like Impaler suggested) as well.

[Optimizer]

Re: Re: Should Happiness be renamed?

Originally posted by Bhruic
Fear? How so? The people that "fear" police are generally criminals. The people that "fear" the military are generally the other side.

Most people, I suspect, are happy to know that their streets are safer (thanks to police) and their country is protected (thanks to the military). I don't see any reason why "happiness" wouldn't apply.

This only applies to democratic societies, which is a minority of all societies through world history.

It is Hereditary Rule (obviously non-democratic) that gives a happiness bonus for military units.

[Junuxx]

@Optimizer & Bhruic

More accurately, it applies to societies with a proper division of powers. Even a state with a democratically elected government can have a police or military force that give more fear than 'happiness'.

[Bhruic]

Re: Re: Re: Should Happiness be renamed?

Originally posted by Optimizer

This only applies to democratic societies, which is a minority of all societies through world history.

It is Hereditary Rule (obviously non-democratic) that gives a happiness bonus for military units.

Again, how so? Are you suggesting that peasants in the middle ages weren't happy that their ruler had an army that prevented another country from coming in and pillaging their land (in theory, at least)? Are you suggesting that citizens in Totalitarian countries aren't happy that they have a police force to deal with rapists, murders and criminals of other sorts?

The military (in general) protects the populace from outside forces, no matter what the government type. The police (in general) protects the populace from internal issues, no matter what the government type. Yes, both can cause problems, the police force can be improperly used against the citizens, as can the military. But that type of 'real world' modeling doesn't really fit within the scope of Civ IV.

Bh

[CarnalCanaan]

I think the real trick is this:

iconic representation of "happines" (sans Santaman hat):

iconic representation of "macrosocial satisfaction":

[Aloriel]

I voted Loyalty, but Order/disorder makes more sense to me.

I think the point being made is that in a totalitarian regime, often the people are the ones being considered the enemy of the state. Thus why the military turns the 'disorderly' into the 'orderly', at least in a heredity rule system... Personally, I think Police State ought to have perhaps every 2 military = 1 "happy"... but that's besides the point :P How many massacres have we seen where a dictatorial regime had their troops fire upon civilians who disagreed with them? That's fear.

However, fear doesn't quite work in all cases, which is why I like order/disorder, or loyal/disloyal

[Blake]

Happiness works for me.

Technically they don't need to be loyal to still serve you, they just need to be controlled. They can be completely unloyal, but too afraid to act on that unloyalty.

The mechanisms used to control population seems to be a combination of happiness (ie luxuries), fear, loyalty and distraction.

Control/Dissent is probably the most logical pairing.

[Junuxx]

'Approval' maybe?

[MoonWolf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should Happiness be renamed?

Originally posted by Bhruic


Again, how so? Are you suggesting that peasants in the middle ages weren't happy that their ruler had an army that prevented another country from coming in and pillaging their land (in theory, at least)? Are you suggesting that citizens in Totalitarian countries aren't happy that they have a police force to deal with rapists, murders and criminals of other sorts?

The military (in general) protects the populace from outside forces, no matter what the government type. The police (in general) protects the populace from internal issues, no matter what the government type. Yes, both can cause problems, the police force can be improperly used against the citizens, as can the military. But that type of 'real world' modeling doesn't really fit within the scope of Civ IV.

Bh

When it came to everyday-life, I don't the pesant cared that much who owned their land. One lord might be just as brutal as the other and the pesants' lives were hard anyway. But if they had a just and fair lord, they would probably be more happy with him. Otherwise, I think they feared the military no matter who that was; it was the local Lord who deceided anyway...

In more modern terms, I don't feel "happy" with a military force present. In fact, I wish every country could get rid of that waste. But, to be happy to have a military that protects you, you first need an enemy to fear... In several wars through history the people have suffered because 1) the enemy would pillage etc and/ or 2) the "home" forces would take the resources for their own benefit and "recruit" hard working men with the result of an entire family suffering.

So who make you happy? Those with the same banner as you or those that leave you in peace? In Civ-terms, happiness cause of military presence is based on fear. But that Civics lack other benefits as well...