Happiness Pool

[DarkCloud]

The civilizations should have a happiness pool that regulates the
entire civilizations happy rate, this happiness pool should be
poured out to each city like so

Civ Happy Rate (Base 85%)
1. Lose x Units a turn (x% unhappiness for 2 turns)
2. Government Type (+ or - happiness)
3. Tax Rate (Fluctuates) (10%= 1% unhappy)
4. Luxury Rate (Fluctuates) (10%= 1% happy)
5. Wonders

When happiness is above 95% production is increased by 50%
When happiness is above 90% production is increased by 20%
When happiness drops below 75% production is halved
When happiness drops below 60% you have a revolt in the city

City Happy Rate (Base 85%)
1. Civ Happy Rate (Affects this)
2. "Happy" Structures (Colosseums,etc)
3. Proximity of Enemy Units (if within city radius and at war, -5% happy for 1, an extra 2%
for 2, an extra 1% for over 2.)
4. Proximity of Friendly Units (if in city, or within radius, +5% happy for 1 unit,
+2% for 2, an extra 1% for up to 3.)
5. Wonders


------------------
QUOTE LINES FOR RENT:

Maximizing Macromanagement
--A snake in the hand is worse than two in the bush

Perpetual Prince

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

This is pretty much already in civ2. But good idea anyway.

[DarkCloud]

Not quite- it is in CTP, however.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Alright, I read it again, and yes, some of this stuff is not in civ2. But some of it is. I have to say something about taxes though. In civ2, I usually have taxes at 10 or 20% (with fundementalism government). I think taxes should be much lower, going by 2's, not 10's. Just look at the American Revolution, when Britain taxed the States for tea, guess what rate it was at, (im not axadurating about this percentage) 5-6%, and then they revolted.

[airdrik]

Actually, it wasn't just about taxes on the tea, it was about taxes on everything, as well as the lack of representation in the governing body in England. Also, the reason why they made such a big fuss over the taxes is because these taxes were above the usual [federal/sales] taxes that were paid at the time. Don't ask me for the figures on these.

Let's compensate, shall we? 1% unhappyness per 5% tax rate, and 1% happyness per 10% luxeries.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited December 17, 2000).]

[orange]

airdrik hits a good point - no Civ should get by easily with above 50% tax...no matter what the government (well...maybe communism)

I think Economy should affect happiness as well, depending on how the tax and luxuries are set up. I do fear, however, a Sim City approach which I for one am not interested in with Civ 3.

I don't know about using 85% as a base #...and definitely not 60% as a revolt #...

More than half were unhappy in the USSR...but it survived for 80 odd years. 21 million died of hunger, and you can't forget the gulags (sp?), or the horrible standard of living. So maybe 40% and below causes revolution...and 65% is the base. Also - production should be affected by the economy and government not just happiness...

Hmmm...possible thread idea...


------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[orange]

oh, the American Revolution was really a joke. England did very little to piss us off tax wise. They even offered to lessen our woes with some of the acts, we were just to blind to see it...

The roots are in our long growing taste of freedom, and disobedience of authority...

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 01:35 PM airdrik hits a good point - no Civ should get by easily with above 50% tax...no matter what the government (well...maybe communism)

Actually, we here in America have an average tax rate of about 40% (it depends on your income what the actuall tax rate is, the bracets have tax rates from 0% for people with no-low income, to about 60%(?) for people with high income people).

quote: I don't know about using 85% as a base #...and definitely not 60% as a revolt #... More than half were unhappy in the USSR...but it survived for 80 odd years. 21 million died of hunger, and you can't forget the gulags (sp?), or the horrible standard of living. So maybe 40% and below causes revolution...and 65% is the base. Also - production should be affected by the economy and government not just happiness... Hmmm...possible thread idea...

Actually the USSR was about 50 years old when it 'disolved,' (it was established durring WW2) and it was the military control of the people that kept the people in line.

[orange]

yes, but it did survive didn't it?

Sorry about the years...I thought 1917 revolution = birth of USSR which is wrong...lapse in thinking

Also - American's have a lot of luxury to balance it all out...

So perhaps a system which weighs luxury and tax...

30% tax and 10% luxury = 20% discontent (not bad)
60% tax and 10% luxury = 50% discontent (revolt!)

Well that does at least change my view about what I said earlier...using the examples I just said I guess 40% discontent (or 60% happiness) would be a good base.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[DarkCloud]

England was right to tax the colonies, the Americans were nothing but curse fiends who wanted to create trouble. The people in England were being taxed more than the Americans, and the French and Indian war was fought in AMERICA! not England.

However, in the end it all worked out for the better. (WWI, WWII)

[orange]

I agree DarkCloud.

:ducks the fist of MWHC:

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[cubbyphan1138]

The American Revolution was not really about taxes at all. The colonies actually had low taxes (as Darkcloud pointed out). For a good discussion on the subject I would suggest reading The Radicalism of the American Revolution. I read it for school about 3 years ago and it was one of the most interesting books I've ever read. Also, you need when discussing this topic you need to distunguish between the American Revolution, which was a social revoultion, and the American War for Independence, which was the actual breaking away from England.

As for the original happiness idea, I think it is good and I definitely agree that the way trade is balanced needs some work.

[DarkCloud]

Well, welcome to the boards cubby.

Notes:

The cities you conquer in all ages should have a higher chance of revolt than
the cities that you have built. Their percentage should be 10% for revolt than
the original normal rate for your built cities, and every 3 turns it should go
down by 1%.

[orange]

Good point DarkCloud. I supported this (back when I was hardcore Civ 3 ) and continue to do so. I think it's a great way of keeping the rise and fall of empires idea in the game. Especially when religious or cultural boundries are crossed (IE Canadians would be less upset by American Domination than China would be)

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[airdrik]

Orange, I just realized I was wrong about the USSR being born 50 yrs ago, you were right. I was thinking it was started around WWII, but it was WWI. My bad.

As for the taxes and the american revolution, the taxes was more like one of the straws on the camel's back. It didn't break it, but if it weren't there, the camel's back might not have broken.

[orange]

Ah! So 1917 IS right! I confused myself. And when you said WWII was the birth of the USSR I thought "oh, yah he's right." I guess I was thinking about the Soviet Bloc. Ok I don't know what I was thinking.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I have two things to say:

1. I think we have some Brits here who blaim us Americans for losing the American Revolution!

2. I probably know more about the American Revolution then all you put together (dont jump on me for saying that, I am not trying to brag). I am not kidding, Ive studied the war for...lets just say, quite a while. THe American Revolution was partly because of taxation, but it was also for several other reasons, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. WE, now notice I am a full-blooded, proud to be, American. WE wanted to be our own nation. But those stupid fags across the sea said nope, we cant allow you to do that, or it will emparris us in front of the world. so, we went to war, and we still embarrased those fags! IN 1812, they came back, and said that we had embarrased them back in the war, so we said, ok, want to prove it? so they did, at least tried to. we womped them that time. and said, get the hell out of america, we are americans now.

now, if those brits would be around today, look at america now!

p.s. dont mean to sound like a history professor.
p.s. the taxes England put on US americans were NOT low. they were very high for the time. in britain they were less then 3%.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 18, 2000).]

[Rollo Tomasi]

About the War of 1812...

We did not "womp" the "fags". The war ended in a stalemate, not because we kicked British ass, but because Britain had bigger problems to deal with (e.g. Napoleon). True, the war was about American nationalism, but it was mostly about invading Canada, which failed horribly. Also, Washington D.C. was put under siege and occupied. Does that really sound like we won? The one major American victory happened weeks after the peace treaty was signed!

P.S. I don't think I've ever heard a history professor use the term "womping fags"
[This message has been edited by Rollo Tomasi (edited December 18, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

In Britain the rates were higher than in America!

Also the War of 1812 WAS STARTED by the US. You may be able to say that the United States only started it because they didn't want a trade embargo, but the trade embargo was about to be lifted and it really wasn't hurting American trade horribly.

Looking at documents of the period the American trade was still doing quite well and the Americans were 'greedy' to seize Canada, also the British were suffering almost more than the Americans.

P.S. "THREAD USURPERS!"
-start a thread in OT about this. so I can have back this thread!

[Deity Dude]

I dont think tax rate was meant in the sense of filing out a tax form. Its just a one of three components in the representation of the distribution of resources between treasury, science and luxury. Does anyone think we really accumulate beakers or that an advanced society in the 20th century only has a few thousand pieces of gold. The concept is what is important - not the actual number.

ps I looked thru an old history book and never saw the Britsh refered to as fags during the Revolutionary war nor did I ever see the war of 1812 considered anything better than a draw for the US. we did win a bunch in a row after that though - to quote Bill Murray from Stripes "we're 11 and 1"
[This message has been edited by Deity Dude (edited December 19, 2000).]

[orange]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-18-2000 10:11 PM I have two things to say: 1. I think we have some Brits here who blaim us Americans for losing the American Revolution! 2. I probably know more about the American Revolution then all you put together (dont jump on me for saying that, I am not trying to brag). I am not kidding, Ive studied the war for...lets just say, quite a while. THe American Revolution was partly because of taxation, but it was also for several other reasons, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. WE, now notice I am a full-blooded, proud to be, American. WE wanted to be our own nation. But those stupid fags across the sea said nope, we cant allow you to do that, or it will emparris us in front of the world. so, we went to war, and we still embarrased those fags! IN 1812, they came back, and said that we had embarrased them back in the war, so we said, ok, want to prove it? so they did, at least tried to. we womped them that time. and said, get the hell out of america, we are americans now. now, if those brits would be around today, look at america now! p.s. dont mean to sound like a history professor. p.s. the taxes England put on US americans were NOT low. they were very high for the time. in britain they were less then 3%. [This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 18, 2000).]

I have more than two things to say...

1) This is one of the biggest loads of horse**** that I have ever read on Apolyton.
2) I find it hard to believe that you know so much about the American Revolution with a 3rd grade spelling level and a thug's vocabulary
3) The American Revolution was fought because of long growing feelings of "freedom" and "liberty" which define our culture today. Half of what England did wasn't bad, and some was even beneficial. We only fought the revolution because we thought we could win it. And that's all. If it was truly about the colonists being oppressed, there wouldn't have been so many middle-class loyalists - willing to be hung by outraged radical followers of Patrick Henry.
4) We HARDLY beat the Brits in 1812. If it wasn't for our doubled land size with the Lousiana Purchase, it could have been our ultimate demise. We were absolutely bludgeoned by the motherland. Yes...the Brits were wrong to impress our sailors, but the only reason we fought the war is because Republicans had to make a stand against the "Evil British" to save face for their own mishaps. If the federalists were in power, we would have been fighting the French.
5) I'm not trying to be mean, but never, EVER make a claim that you know more than people here. There are some absolutely brilliant people at this message board who know just about everything there is to know about any topic you could even fathom.
6) If you refer to other nations as "fags"...prepare to be flamed. There are tons of Brits on this message board who would love to blacklist you for such comments (of course...you could always befriend MWHC )

Welcome to Apolyton

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"
[This message has been edited by orange (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by orange (edited December 19, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

'Republicans', orange I hate to correct you, but you couldn't be more wrong.

The Republican party was formed in 1850

What you are referring to is the 'democratic-republicans' which were 'also known as the Republicans- but to keep it straight we should refer to them as either the Jeffersons or the Demo-Republicans'

quote: Find in this article Print article Democratic-Republican Party Democratic-Republican Party, early political party in the United States, originally led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the 1790s in opposition to the Federalist Party and the ideas of Alexander Hamilton. Although the party was also known as the Republican Party and the Jeffersonian Republican Party, in fact it was the forerunner of today's Democratic Party. The philosophy of the Democratic-Republican Party favored states' rights, rather than a strong national government; rural, agricultural interests; and supported the legitimacy of the French Revolution (1789-1799). The party opposed close ties with Britain. In 1796 Thomas Jefferson was the first Democratic-Republican candidate to run for president. Jefferson lost to Federalist John Adams, but became vice-president, creating the only administration with a president and a vice-president from different parties. In the election of 1800, Jefferson defeated Adams and became the first Democratic-Republican president. Jefferson was succeeded as president by two more Democratic-Republicans, James Madison in 1809 and James Monroe in 1817. By 1820 the Federalist Party ceased to function as a contender in national elections. At about the same time, the Democratic-Republican Party started to split into factions. One faction, led by Andrew Jackson, took the Democratic-Republican name, while supporters of John Quincy Adams, elected president in 1824, became known as the National Republicans. By the time Jackson was elected president in 1828, the name Democratic-Republican Party had been shortened to Democratic Party. See also Political Parties in the United States. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE "Democratic-Republican Party," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[orange]

well of course i was referring to the Jeffersonian-Republicans

I didn't think I'd have to type at the full name

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

orange, I know I am about to get flamed.
and also, DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOOOT MAKE FUN OF MY PERSONAL PROBLEMS. I happened to be in a hurry last night.

I have several other things to say:

1. brits, please dont take offence when I said, "fags", I was completely refering to the ones back then, NOT today.
2. ORange, you say, "We" when you talk about the americans, but you speak as though you were British.
3. We clobbered the British in the war of 1812, the only great thing they did was burn down Philadelphia.
4. The American War for Independence was because of...quote:

"Taxation Without Representation."

5. I know because Ive done more study, reading, etc. on the American Revolution then all other subjects combined, Im not kidding. what I said about being smarter about this subject then any other people on this page was stupid, I realize that.

p.s. Sorry it took frikkin' 8-12 editings to get this message completed, my computer was screwy at the time, and I could only type a few lines at a time.

another thing, LETS GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF CIV3!!!!!!!!!!!!
and lastly, a question for orange, what history books do you read on the American Revolution??!!??
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]

[orange]

::in an attempt to take this off the boards::
...please check your PMs Diablo...

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Grumbold]

*agrees with Rollo*

Now, back to Tax rates:

Throughout the "developed" nations the tax rates are actually very similar when you compare not just what the Government takes (in both direct and indirect taxes, from companies and from individual workers) but what you get for what you pay. Tax is slightly lower in the US than the UK, but you get funded medical health in the UK, for example. However Civ in its present form isn't about accurate economic simulation (thank goodness, no-one fully understands it anyway )
so a nice simple 1-10 or 10%-100% is easier to follow than 40% +/- 1% increments. Perhaps they could even just switch it to textual None, very low ... high,punishing,despotic! That way there is no confusion over exactly what rate of tax is being used since it varies widely. Even in the Soviet USSR (if memory serves) tax wasn't too dissimilar - it just went into the military instead of providing services for the citizens.

[Grumbold]

I'd be happy to see the original idea reposted and the rest deleted, it seems to be impossible to get the thread back onto its original track.

I believe high happiness should be its own reward. If you pamper your citizens they will not revolt even if there is a setback or two. Giving production bonuses or increased population growth is unrealistic because it is just too easy to make people more than content. Living in London I am surrounded by all the "happiness" improvements that Civvers have dreamed of, and don't see daily parades saying how wonderful the Gov't is, or anyone volunteering to put in more overtime for free

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Grumbald is right, we are getting way off the subject at hand. pretty much all this thread has turned into is a depate on the American Revolution.