[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#12905) RFC: normalizing the effects of happiness buildings

["(Eddie Anderson)" <saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12905 >

>The order of application is
>
>1.  base unhappiness
>2.  luxuries
>3.  building effects (temple, cathedral etc)
>4.  military unhappiness / martial law
>5.  wonders
>
>however, 'wonders' can be a funny thing, because some
>wonders act as a building in each city; so
>shakespeare's theater cures military unhappiness but
>michaelangelo's chapel does not.

     Hence the surprised response from many players the first time
that they see the game handle the effects in this way.  :-)


>The argument in favor of not allowing most buildings
>to cure military unhappiness might be a realism one. 

   Agreed.

>Military unhappiness basically is antiwar protest.

   Agreed.
 
>Will building a new sports stadium really make these
>people content?

    Probably not.  But maybe we shouldn't have to make those
particular people "content" in order to prevent the city from
falling into disorder.

    Consider what would happen if the sports stadium *could* make
two or three other people happy.  Those two or three happy people
would counterbalance the two unhappy people caused by the military
unit that is away from home.  Thus the city would not fall into
disorder (as long as the rest of the people in the city are
content).

    Note that this secondary unhappiness (caused by military units
away from home) would still have an effect - it would prevent that
city from celebrating.  Before that city can celebrate, its
secondary unhappiness would have to be quelled by Bach, Shakespeare,
or a Police Staion.


>The effect of the police station
>improvement seems more convincing here.

    For a long time, I've felt that the police station metaphor was
flawed.  It does "fix" unhappy citizens; but it reminds me of what
someone once said about martial law (under Monarchy or Communism):
The citizens may not actually be content; They are just *forced* to
act like they are.


>Also, making other people, who are not against the
>war, so wealthy that they love the current order of
>things, might give support 5o that current order.

     For better or worse, that sounds realistic to me.  :-)

-Eddie