Always unhappy citizen?

[Captain]

Not sure how well this actually works, but I believe there are resistance modifiers that are supposed to make certain governments more attractive than others. For instance, if you are democracy and you conquer a despotic city, the citizens will resist less (or quit resisting sooner) and assimilate faster. If you are a despot conquering a democratic city, the citizens will be harder to absorb into your empire.

But I really don't know what the exact numbers are or how they work. Sorry. Will post if I ever figure it out. Then you could mod it so that your "good" government can actually "liberate" enemy cities more easily.

I am also not sure how this affects "carryover" unhappiness from pop-rushing and drafting, if at all.

-edit-
I can see how the production and commerce might not recover for 20-40 turns or so, but I don't see why they should be angry at you for something their former masters did. If you had bombarded them and killed lots of civilians, then yeah, they should be mad at you. But if you were a "civilized" conqueror, they shouldn't be as mad as they are.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Captain
but I don't see why they should be angry at you for something their former masters did.

I agree - I'd like to see someone post even _one case_ of a group of severely mistreated people directing thier anger at an inappropriate target.

OK, maybe someone could come up with one or two examples of that... but how about misdirected anger at a new conqueror? Esp. a conqueror that has
1) destroyed all buildings symbolic of the oppressor's (and people's) culture,
2) didn't kill all _that_ many of the citizens during the seige,
3) has razed less than a majority of the civ's other cities,
4) cut off any luxuries or other resources the citizens were used too,
5) or ravaged the countryside.

Anybody?


Okay, sarcasm aside, I agree, the game _always_ gives the conquerer all the "anger" generated by the origional owners, and no more, and no less. That just isn't realistic. However, I'd put having the game always consider the human player the "good guy"-liberator pretty low on the list of things that need to be changed about the game. Hmm.... maybe last, actually. It isn't always inappropriate, and give most things that make winning militarily the benefit of the doubt.

One thing the game could _really_ use is a more developed set of Culture rules/systems. A more appropriate treatment for drafting/whipping anger could very well be included in an expansion of the Culture rules.

[romelus]

Originally posted by Captain
Not sure how well this actually works, but I believe there are resistance modifiers that are supposed to make certain governments more attractive than others. For instance, if you are democracy and you conquer a despotic city, the citizens will resist less (or quit resisting sooner) and assimilate faster. If you are a despot conquering a democratic city, the citizens will be harder to absorb into your empire.

But I really don't know what the exact numbers are or how they work. Sorry. Will post if I ever figure it out. Then you could mod it so that your "good" government can actually "liberate" enemy cities more easily.

I am also not sure how this affects "carryover" unhappiness from pop-rushing and drafting, if at all.

-edit-
I can see how the production and commerce might not recover for 20-40 turns or so, but I don't see why they should be angry at you for something their former masters did. If you had bombarded them and killed lots of civilians, then yeah, they should be mad at you. But if you were a "civilized" conqueror, they shouldn't be as mad as they are.

check the civilpedia in the game, it tells you how many turns it takes to assimilate ppl under each government.

[Bolleck]

Thanks for the answers!

@romelus
The original problem were not the resisting or not assimilated citizen but the unhappy own citizen.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
I agree - I'd like to see someone post even _one case_ of a group of severely mistreated people directing thier anger at an inappropriate target.

Inappropriate to whom? Mao liberated. Ho liberated. America liberated. Generally, an oppressed people still look apprehensively at any new tyrant. If (big if) the new leaders are truly benevolent, only time will convince the people.

Even if they are your own people, war leads to the breakdown of civil order, so production is nil. (Currently in Afghanistan, you can't even travel the roads without risking life and limb.) And to repeat, the more oppressed the people were under the old government, the more traumatized the situation will be. It takes time, and investment, to return the situation to any sort of normalcy.

Everyone seems to be stumbling on the word "happy." You may be "happy" to get out of the concentration camp, but you aren't thereby going to be immediately productive. Rather, you will spend your time digging through the rubble of your society looking for lost love ones.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
I agree - I'd like to see someone post even _one case_ of a group of severely mistreated people directing thier anger at an inappropriate target.

From the American point of view, we were liberating Vietnam. We were benevolent compared to the communists. Yet, the people of Vietnam would rather a local tyrant to a foreign one, no matter how despotic. While U.S. allies in Saigon were partying at the disco, the communists could recruit thousands in the villages to prosecute the war, thousands willing to die for their cause.

So looking at Saigon from the viewpoint of Civ3, you would have a city full of entertainers, a large military garrison, and a "flip" in the making.

[Whoha]

Why are you defending a design flaw that straight jackets the player into an equally unlikely historical scenario,namely raze everything and deal with no consequences whatsoever? The VC went into villages and strung up the village elder, then threatened the rest of the people, that is why they had their army, not because everyone thought the US was going to kill them and the Commies were going to lead them to the workers paradise. Also the city did not flip until the Military presence was withdrawn.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Whoha
The VC went into villages and strung up the village elder, then threatened the rest of the people, that is why they had their army, not because everyone thought the US was going to kill them and the Commies were going to lead them to the workers paradise. Also the city did not flip until the Military presence was withdrawn.

The Vietnamese people, like most people, obviously preferred a local tyrant to a foreign one.

I never raze cities. I civilize them. Players raze in Civ3, like tyrants of the past, because that is the best strategy they can devise. Conquering is easy. Ruling is hard.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Whoha
Why are you defending a design flaw that straight jackets the player into an equally unlikely historical scenario,namely raze everything and deal with no consequences whatsoever?

Big "I disagree" there. If there's anything straightjacketing people into razing cities it's culture-caused "flipping" and/or corruption. The "inherited unhappiness" will go away after awhile - because of flipping _your city_ is what tends to "go away."

I think people are getting worked up about this because of the wording in the "Why we're unhappy" messages - always attributing the unhappines to the owning player. I just think the people are unhappy, and it doesn't matter all that much to them who's in charge.

Now, IF you were fighting a "just" war, or a war against a truly oppresive enemy (ie - one that's actually far more "oppresive" than _you_) then a "liberation" bonus would be nice. But then we'd need new code of the game to determine if you're really a "liberator" or an "imperialist aggressor" (I bet you are, aren't you?). As part of a revamped and much expanded on Culture system, that'd be great. As a more or less independent alteration, I'd rather see Firaxis spend it's time on something else.


Also:
"I agree - I'd like to see someone post even _one case_ of a group of severely mistreated people directing thier anger at an inappropriate target. "

Sarcasm guys. Thus the "Okay, sarcasm aside..." later in the mesasge. You really don't need to supply an example.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Whoha
Why are you defending a design flaw that straight jackets the player into an equally unlikely historical scenario,namely raze everything and deal with no consequences whatsoever?

But that's just what 1.17f fixed. There are now consequences for razing enemy cities. Namely, the unhappiness jumps to one of your cities. Personally, I'm not into the ultra-realism thing, but I suppose you could say that razing some Indo-Chinese villages mad some folks in Berkeley, CA unhappy.

[Whoha]

Ive razed a bunch of cities post patch, and the unhappyness does not move to other cities. that only happens if you disband a city.

"Big "I disagree" there. If there's anything straightjacketing people into razing cities it's culture-caused "flipping" and/or corruption. The "inherited unhappiness" will go away after awhile - because of flipping _your city_ is what tends to "go away."

No, it does not go away as it is cumulative. Draft once, 40 turns, draft twice, 80 turns, then 120, then 160, then 200
pretty much one nationalism rolls around that means for the rest of the game.

[Whoha]

"I never raze cities. I civilize them."

You sit there with size 1 cites for the rest of the game? or you wrote a save game editor, as the format is available in the creations forum. Oh what version are you playing, you raze cities that have no culture when you walk into them.

"Players raze in Civ3, like tyrants of the past, because that is the best strategy they can devise. Conquering is easy. Ruling is hard."

Razing cities is not the best strategy we can devise, it is the hands down best strategy. Do anything else and you shoot yourself in the foot.How is ruling hard? turn the 1 guy thats pissed off forever into an entertainer? or a taxman? or drop several thousand on improvements so that 2 people can be happy? or secure all 8 resources through trade or conquest of more size 1 cities to get maybe 3 or 4 people, so that right as the game ends you can get another unhappy person to be content?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Salvor
Personally, I'm not into the ultra-realism thing, but I suppose you could say that razing some Indo-Chinese villages mad some folks in Berkeley, CA unhappy.

More like Cambodia or Laos.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Whoha
"I never raze cities. I civilize them."
You sit there with size 1 cites for the rest of the game? or you wrote a save game editor, as the format is available in the creations forum. Oh what version are you playing, you raze cities that have no culture when you walk into them.

We do not seek war, but when attacked we will defend ourselves and our allies. People die in war. We know that. But we do not target civilians. Ever.

Evil can be effective sometimes, that is why it exists. Good only prevails when it is very, very careful.

[Zachriel]

What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul!

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. All "successful" conquerers.