No longer happy with ivory or fur

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by couerdelion

This is a reason for people to be more happy not less.

You're ignoring how easily people take things for granted once they become readily available to everyone. By the standards of most of history, most of the poor in the United States are phenomenally wealthy. They have multiple rooms to live in, indoor plumbing, modern medicine, several sets of clothes, entertainment that's brought to them in theiir own homes, and so forth. But because they generally compare themselves to the middle class and wealthy in the U.S. today and not to the overall picture of how people in the rest of the world live or have lived in past eras, they often focus far more on what they don't have than on what they do.

Civ IV's model is a bit simplistic, but basically what happens is that once the synthetic substitutes become readily available, people take them so much for granted that the presence of the synthetics has no real impact on people's happiness. And, unlike the situation with a lot of other things, taking away access to the natural product has no significant impact. (In contrast, we take sugar for granted as long as we have it, but what if our supply were cut off?)

As I said, Civ IV's model is a bit simplistic, and arguments could be made that other luxuries should be handled differently over time from how they are. For example, how important are natural dyes these days? But since Civ IV is a game, not an attempt to precisely model world economics and social dynamics, the important thing is that the design not be clearly unreasonable, not that it be perfect. And I think having furs, whales, and ivory become obsolete passes the "not clearly unreasonable" test - even if I do find that particular dynamic more than a little inconvenient at times when I've been the world's leading fur or ivory exporter.

Nathan

[johnmcd]

I wonder then if a nicer system might be that the goods obseleted are random each game?

Alternatively, you could make the first person to plastics choose one and the first to corporation and so on. Mind you, the rewards for being ahead on tech are good enough as is.

[nbarclay]

Re: No longer happy with ivory or fur

Originally posted by couerdelion
Is all of the late game happiness linked to culture spending?

No. A lot of it is a matter of trading for (or acquiring through force) as many happiness resources as possible, building buildings that increase the effect of happiness resources (including broadcast towers or the Eiffel Tower), and keeping cities from getting so huge that people start getting angry. Warfare can require temporary culture spending to counteract war weariness, but a properly managed civ with enough luxuries and buildings to maximize their effectiveness can have large, acceptably happy cities in peacetime even with civics that don't provide extra help with happiness.

[MasterDave]

Most women still value real fur greatly anywhere where it gets cold. Whale oil going obsolete makes sense, and ivory to a lesser extent (although it is no longer widely used, it is still valuable enough where poachers will risk getting shot by rangers shooting endangered elephants).

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by MasterDave
Most women still value real fur greatly anywhere where it gets cold.

What do you base this statement on? Is it just your impression, or do you have something else you're going by?

My impression is that real fur - at least of the more expensive varieties - is still something a lot of women would like to have if they could afford it, but it's not something that most women both are able to afford and care much about. Then again, as an Alabamian, I don't exactly have a lot first-hand experience with what women in colder parts of the world wear.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by nbarclay

Then again, as an Alabamian, I don't exactly have a lot first-hand experience with what women in colder parts of the world wear.

Come down and visit Pretentiousness City, err, Mountain Brook. You'll see a good bit of fur for its own sake. "Fifty degrees? I better get my mink."

[couerdelion]

So the pop limit gets hit early

I think this means that once you have the building modifiers and all the resources your maximum population can only be modifed by the free religion and culture modifiers. Excluding these last factors, you can actually hit maximum population (happy) before you enter the industrial age.

Ergo, skyscrapers and the like will only make space for unhappy malingers in your post industrial cities.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by nbarclay


What do you base this statement on? Is it just your impression, or do you have something else you're going by?

My impression is that real fur - at least of the more expensive varieties - is still something a lot of women would like to have if they could afford it, but it's not something that most women both are able to afford and care much about. Then again, as an Alabamian, I don't exactly have a lot first-hand experience with what women in colder parts of the world wear.

The fur trade is a huge business, like it or not. Check out www.fur.org and feel free to throw a bucket of blood on your monitor if you are so inclined...



Even in California, you see rich women walking around in furs. When I Googled Fur industry I got the fur business council site and about six protest sites. I guess it does not make everyone as happy as it does in Civ.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by MasterDave

Even in California, you see rich women walking around in furs. When I Googled Fur industry I got the fur business council site and about six protest sites. I guess it does not make everyone as happy as it does in Civ.

Which means it's accurately reflected in the game. If it makes half the populace happy and half unhappy, the net effect as it's modelled in CIV would be... nothing. No happies, but no unhappies, either. Sounds about right to me, even if the proportion isn't actually 1:1.

[Cerri]

Originally posted by nbarclay


What do you base this statement on? Is it just your impression, or do you have something else you're going by?

My impression is that real fur - at least of the more expensive varieties - is still something a lot of women would like to have if they could afford it, but it's not something that most women both are able to afford and care much about. Then again, as an Alabamian, I don't exactly have a lot first-hand experience with what women in colder parts of the world wear.

Well, sure, I mean...fur hasn't gotten any cheaper, but, speaking as a woman raised in the North, there's still quite a few fur lovers/wearers. I live in Texas now, but I still have my fur coats, and treasure them.

Granted, these days they spend most of their time in cold storage because living in Dallas doesn't really require fur even in "deep winter" (hah, as if there's such a thing in Dallas), but I still break them out when I visit home in the winter months.

I promise you, there is *nothing* as warm as real fur. Not even very high quality fake fur (of which I also have a couple coats). Fake fur is pretty warm in and of itself, but it still doesn't compare to the warmth of real fur, imo.