 |
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7
Still, you have a valid point, and I have asked myself that same question in my games. Perhaps there would be only 50% of the effect, unless you started drafting from that city (in which case you would be slammed with the full 100% immediatly). |
This is, in fact, the way it works... if you capture a city, the previous effects of draft/rushing are cut in half.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
FrantzX
|
|
You know Soren, one day you are gonna hafta post all of the little things about Civ III we don't know about.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HazieDaVampire
|
 |
The British Empire
Apr 2002 time: 05:19
|
|
What would be cool would be if you could prepear reserves, Draft units that don't give the anti-draft civilian effect, but they only get drafted in after somthing like a nuclear attack, or if you lose 5+ of your original citys, or your normal army gets killed off loads!
-----------------------------------------------
Another idea for reserves, is you can pay to train as meny as you want, and if you ever need them you can alocate them to different areas (land, sea, air) and those units take half the time to build (cuz your only building the unit, the trainings already complete!). So, if you ever find you have a cash flow problem, but really need to research for that new weapon, you can keep your militerys size a bit lower than normal, and if a few of them die in a war, you can get your reserves into action!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Moonsinger
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Example : Washington has been drafted twice and lost one pop to rushing by the evil Abe. Then the Babylonians capture it, and draft another unit. Then Egypt jump on the city and pop-rush two people. Then Americans retake the city.
Here is the city "unhappiness" : 3 toward Americans, 2 toward Egyptians and 1 toward Babylonians.
Simple, logical and practical. |
It's not that simple in real life! If that really happens to you in real life, how do you feel? If the Americans treated you badly, the Egyptians treated you badly, the Babylonians treated you badly, then now the French is talking over. How do you feel about the French? Do you really think that they are your savior or do you think that they are no different than your previous evil rulers?
In real life, there is a thing called psychological and emotional damage. If you are getting hurt by humans over and over again, eventually, you will distrust all humans. It's a lot like brain washing...you will eventually hate all rulers even though the last one is your true savior.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001 time: 06:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Moonsinger
It's not that simple in real life! If that really happens to you in real life, how do you feel? If the Americans treated you badly, the Egyptians treated you badly, the Babylonians treated you badly, then now the French is talking over. How do you feel about the French? Do you really think that they are your savior or do you think that they are no different than your previous evil rulers?
In real life, there is a thing called psychological and emotional damage. If you are getting hurt by humans over and over again, eventually, you will distrust all humans. It's a lot like brain washing...you will eventually hate all rulers even though the last one is your true savior. |
That's true.
But we don't need to have a psychological analysis of the damages done and the recovery time and so on. We need a simple and efficient system to SIMULATE reality.
I think that linking the unhappiness to each civ make the player to "take his responsabilities" in the fact that he's not punished just because the AI forced labored its population, and that he can't hamper the AI the same way.
And well, your example works for population that is constantly tyrannised.
Now, imagine that you are the Japaneses, you have a city with perfectly happy citizens, and China capture it, pop-rush three pop points, and you retake the city. Still, you have to cope the hatred of people toward you, while you defended the city and liberated it.
Maybe that my method is not perfect, but it still makes more sense in my opinion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
dubwai
|
|
I have a variation on this complaint. I captured a city and all 8 or 9 of the population were angry saying "stop attacking our mother country and quit oppressing us" So I made them all entertainers. After a few staved to death I sent a settler so that I could feed the jerks. Then my settlers showed up as unhappy also with the same thing "stop attacking our mother country and quit oppressing us." I don't get it. You should be able to send citizens of happy cities to a newly conquered city and have them act as 'carpetbaggers' I am their mother country, just because I move them to a dfferent city, they switch allegiance?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Keeper of Hell
|
|
Similar problem with "assimilation". Even after you've occupied a city for thousands of years and the overwhelming majority of the population is made up of natives of your country, it will almost always begin to riot if you declare war on the mother civ. I had this happen to me- 14 out of 16 citizens in the city were mine, but about 10 of my own citizens became unhappy when I declared war on the civ I'd taken the city from in the distant past. The citizens who were actually native to the mother civ were actually both happy for no particular reason. There definitely needs to be better tracking in regards to what nationality laborers in a city are.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|