Inherited Discontent

[Dry]

Originally posted by nationalist
Why would these English citizens even care what happened in Dublin before the English took control, and why would they blame the English government for it?

I don't think it is the case in civ3. When you click on your citizen (whichever it is, English or Irish), it will say something like "10% unhappy due to draft". These 10% are the remaining (re: parents, survivors) of the Irish oppression, regardless on which citizen you clicked.
If you have, say 3 english and 1 Irish citizen in your Dublin city, no more than 25% (the one and lonely Irish) will be unhappy.
And as someone said before, maybe the reason for unhappyness should be updated. They do not held you as direct responsible for the draft, but as indirect responsible.

[chiefpaco]

I think there should be more unhappiness in your own cities when you go on a razing rampage. Then there would be a real incentive not to raze. I guess the unhappiness might not happen in an ancient era despotism, but after that...

Inheriting unhappiness rarely bothers me since I do little with the conquered land other than holding territory, resources, etc. Right now, the decision is unbalanced in the favour of razing, which, as discussed before, should also come as some expense other than that particular civ never liking you again. I'm not sure whether this is patch material, but I can hope.

Some good points already. I agree that the newly captured civ should not necessarily love the new ruler. The conqueror will always see themselves as the "liberator" but the people won't necessarily agree.

It's sort of backwards now, don't you think? If the previous civ did no drafting & oppression, they should be unhappy when you capture them & vice versa.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
I think there should be more unhappiness in your own cities when you go on a razing rampage. Then there would be a real incentive not to raze. I guess the unhappiness might not happen in an ancient era despotism, but after that...


Some good points already. I agree that the newly captured civ should not necessarily love the new ruler. The conqueror will always see themselves as the "liberator" but the people won't necessarily agree.

It's sort of backwards now, don't you think? If the previous civ did no drafting & oppression, they should be unhappy when you capture them & vice versa.

I also think that starving people out should cause general unhappyness in a republic or a democracy. If you are deliberately trying to starve off a group off people, this type of genocide should raise some concern. It would make the game more realistic, even though I would have to change my strategy. I agree with your last statement. A people who were content with their government should become unhappy when you conquer them, and a unhappy population should become content when you liberate them from oppression.

[Arrian]

This has been a problem since Civ I. City in disorder? No problemo! Create an entertainer or two. Oh, it's starving? Good, then we can keep it happy. Starvation isn't penalized, other than the loss of the population point(s). In CivIII, I keep nearly all of the cities I capture, up until the Industrial Age. I starve them all down to pop1, and then let them fill up with my people. In other words, I'm a genocidal maniac. I agree there should be penalties... strong ones... for such behavior. Whether or not it can be implemented in CivIII w/o screwing up other things is unknown. It may need to wait for Civ IV.

-Arrian

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Arrian
This has been a problem since Civ I. City in disorder? No problemo! Create an entertainer or two. Oh, it's starving? Good, then we can keep it happy. Starvation isn't penalized, other than the loss of the population point(s). In CivIII, I keep nearly all of the cities I capture, up until the Industrial Age. I starve them all down to pop1, and then let them fill up with my people. In other words, I'm a genocidal maniac.
-Arrian

Arrian I like the way you think!

[godinex]

I hate when They say: Stop the agression against our mother country!" .....urrrrrrrrrrrrrrg So I Send them to work at the mountains!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
This has been a problem since Civ I. City in disorder? No problemo! Create an entertainer or two. Oh, it's starving? Good, then we can keep it happy.-Arrian

Generally, it is more important to establish law-and-order. Once that is established, then the city can resume a more normal life. So, yes, some hunger is likely. In the recent conflict in Afghanistan, people in the mountains were eating grass. This is with modern, global airlift capability.

Try not to be too literal on what an entertainer is. Maybe they are just extra militia trying to help restore order. Maybe they are refugees. The point is, they are not workers. Restore order first. In the long run, fewer will die if you can maintain order.

[GeneralTacticus]

The Vietnamese were upset at French oppression, then Japanese oppression, then French oppression. For some reason, they did not see America as liberators, but as more of the same.

The Vietnamese were pissed at the Americans becuase they were propping up a government whose Civ 3 equivalent would be Despotism. NOT a good idea if you want to endear yourselves to the local population.

I don't think it is the case in civ3. When you click on your citizen (whichever it is, English or Irish), it will say something like "10% unhappy due to draft". These 10% are the remaining (re: parents, survivors) of the Irish oppression, regardless on which citizen you clicked.

Unhappiness makes no distinction for nationality. I recall once I captured Berlin as the Romans, then made peace. Some Roman citizens grew up there, then the Germans declared war and took it back. When I got it back AGAIN, there was 1 person in the city unhappy, due to 'aggression against their mother country', and he was a ROMAN.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
I think there should be more unhappiness in your own cities when you go on a razing rampage. Then there would be a real incentive not to raze. I guess the unhappiness might not happen in an ancient era despotism, but after that...

So you can't raze because your cities become unhappy. You can't capture because they flip. So basically war becomes useless and you just sit there in the land you could grab in the early landgrab. If razing is penalized, I might just stop playing.

Razing enemy cities doesn't have to cause unhappiness. The Germans weren't unhappy when their armies razed polich adn russian cities. The British and Americans weren't unhappy when their armies razed German cities. The North wasn't unhappy when Sherman burned (military useful parts of) Atlanta or when the confederates torched Richmond. Razing leads to happiness!
If this type of warfare leads to unhappiness, I would like to see a propaganda option to raise happiness and increase support for the war effort.

Robert

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by kailhun
Razing leads to happiness!
If this type of warfare leads to unhappiness, I would like to see a propaganda option to raise happiness and increase support for the war effort.

Robert

In despotic governments, you are right. However, razing should have diplomatic consequences, and in democracies or republics it should have war weariness effects.

BTW, there is no reason you can't capture and hold cities, as has been pointed out many times.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Zachriel


In despotic governments, you are right. However, razing should have diplomatic consequences, and in democracies or republics it should have war weariness effects.

I don't think the WWII USA and Britland could be qualified as despotic. Go, Bomber Harris, go!

BTW, there is no reason you can't capture and hold cities, as has been pointed out many times.

Yes, there is. The cursed things flip before all the resistance has broken down and I lose all the units guarding it. So burn 'em, I say. Burn 'em.

Robert

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich


Arrian I like the way you think!

You gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right? Actually, in order to achieve true greatness, you must convince the eggs to break themselves, in order to aspire to omlettehood.

-Arrian

[Whoha]

the deal with the roman citizen, you probably inherited the ai's unhappiness from a war with you.