famine should create unhappiness

[The diplomat]

I think that famine should create a certain amount of unhappiness. After all, if people are dying of hunger, wouldn't the population get pretty angry at the government for the situation?
So, I think it just makes sense to make famine be one of the factors that determines a city's unhappiness.

It's a small change but one that would make civ3 just a little bit more realistic and more interesting.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe unhappiness untended to will cause rebellion. As it stands, it seems riduculous to leave a city in disorder for centuries without anything happening.

[DarkCloud]

How about if you have famine for 1 turn .5 people become unhappy and if famine continues for 5 turns 1 person becomes unhappy. Every increment of 5 would cause .5 people to become unhappy.

The .5 people is better explained in my Cities 0.1 post I believe.

However any questions are welcome.

[UltraSonix]

Famines should definitely cause unhappiness, as stated above, but on a minor semi-related topic - once a city has been maxed out on its population (ie half the city's gone into entertainers), and the food supply is odd numbered - the last person in the town would only require one food to survive. I got tired of getting messages that my city was starving. Building a food caravan in this instance seemed to be trivial.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...