Happiness / Polytheism

Does anyone else have trouble keeping a lot of their core cities happy besides me? It seems like without a good governer, your on low taxes and have a decent sized garrison. Even after spy and assassin building, nothing seems to turn up that would cause unrest, and this is italy, there are no foreign buildings. Would it be possible to implement Polytheism into the game, so that we can keep the people happy. Certainly cities didn't build to a single god. If this isn't possible, could larger bonuses be added to temples with building times for the very first one and possibly second being quick, and then the latter ones taking a very long time to build to balance the effects?

It's probably due to squalor (overcrowding). Counter that by building more troops to keep the population a bit lower, and always leave governors in your core cities. Try to build public health bonus buildings to increase happiness, and put taxes up as high as possible.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

It's probably due to squalor (overcrowding). Counter that by building more troops to keep the population a bit lower, and always leave governors in your core cities. Try to build public health bonus buildings to increase happiness, and put taxes up as high as possible.

Just remember that health buildings can add to population growth also.

you could try making the population rebel then exterminate hehehe

why bother, just give it to some warring faction then immediately take it back again. that way, you can repeat the nika riots and its aftermaths in good ol' constantinople.

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

why bother, just give it to some warring faction then immediately take it back again. that way, you can repeat the nika riots and its aftermaths in good ol' constantinople.

It's uber gamey, it sucks alot, it's totally anti-climax, BUT, it's the only way to avoid a full-stack rebellion of 3 gold-chevron units.

Had to do it in two different cities already. Annoying, but inevitable.

I've got nearly everything but a final military building built, and something about having to slaughter my cities seems wrong. Though, it is rather amusing when you've conquered the entire map minus two provinces and give it to the enemy, then slaughter them all. Holocaust?

If you've got a decent governor in them then you can keep them happy until the population growth gets negative.

In my current campaign as the Ptolemai I got Alexandreia from about 35k down to a population of around 25k with my faction heir in it and taxes on very high. Now I'm able to put them on high taxes without a governor present with a population growth of 0%.

Also when you conquer a settlement either enslave or exterminate the population, especially later on in the game (unless it's one of your homeland provinces)

Edit: I forgot, I also built lots of cheap troops (akonistai I believe) and shipped them over to settlements I exterminated to disband them there

In 1.5, won't we be able to recruit governors/generals?

Originally Posted by Dayve

In 1.5, won't we be able to recruit governors/generals?

Perhaps; this is a question we've been debating. In addition, we've been debating whether or not to try to make all recruited units led by generals, which would have some major benefits but also some drawbacks.

Originally Posted by khelvan

Perhaps; this is a question we've been debating. In addition, we've been debating whether or not to try to make all recruited units led by generals, which would have some major benefits but also some drawbacks.

Thanks for the nice feedback Khelv.

Originally Posted by khelvan

Perhaps; this is a question we've been debating. In addition, we've been debating whether or not to try to make all recruited units led by generals, which would have some major benefits but also some drawbacks.

Like in MTW? Could be good, but if battles with two or more generals on a side can cause a CTD I can't imagine a whole army of generals helping much.

They'll get it fixed in a while, don't worry.

Are they going to be like BI? No chance of being the heir or leader.

Also, enslavement doesn't help squalor problems.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Also, enslavement doesn't help squalor problems.

Why not? It decreases the population so if that doesn't decrease squalor then I don't know what will ...

Enslavement just moves he problem somewhere else, unless most your cities are happy and can handle extra population.

I usually exterminate or occupy. Enslavement doesn't help me at all.

RTR allows multiple tempels in each city but only one can be the largest temple i think this is realistic it should be implemented

But you already can have multiple temples in EB...

How do you build multiple temples in one city? It seems like once you choose one that's it, unless you mean having other factions temples in your city?

Multiple "major deity" temples would imbalance the game badly. "Realistically" the town would have many dozens of such buildings - we can't be realistic about buildings. Buildings are abstractions.

In this case we abstract the "patron deity" of the city. That is, the city has an affinity for one deity, as we see throughout the classical world. It doesn't mean there are no other temples in the city. Even so, in EB there are "minor" temples available, some that replace functions that "normal" buildings would have had otherwise. But I don't think we'll ever have multiple major deity temples available, it would be too imbalancing.

Originally Posted by khelvan

Perhaps; this is a question we've been debating. In addition, we've been debating whether or not to try to make all recruited units led by generals, which would have some major benefits but also some drawbacks.

How exactly would that work? I've never played 1.5 or BI and didn't realize that was possible. When you recruit a unit would you automatically get a general that becomes part of the family or would they be non-family members that get traits and what not?

That makes sense, though, will there be something done to help deal with the unhappiness of the general population? Or is it not considered a problem? (that sounds far more arrogant than I intend it to be in my head)