Ugh.  Good Riddance.  The constant need to build more and more "happy-buildings" which have less and less effect of appeasing the whiny populace is my least favorite part of Gal Civ, Civilization, etc.  Having planets go from happy to rioting because the population crossed some arbitrary threshold drove me crazy in GC2 - researching the next tier food tech could send half your planets into riots!

I'm OK in general with the idea of influece conversion of cities - that doesn't bother me (except that it's generally tied to the whole stinky happiness system.)   But in Elemental's post-apocalyptic world, culture and influence having such an effect doesn't really seem to fit.

The idea of 'morale' for cities is interesting.  Losing battles as you say or say, or being sieged or the like should have an effect on your population's morale.  It seems to be inline with the idea of meaningful consequences.  We might have morale in tactical battles so it may not be that much of a stretch to add it to cities.  Like LintMan, the idea of happy-buildings/resources doesn't interest me but if city morale is done in ways organic to the other parts of the game (for example -- get sieged and lose morale with morale loss increasing as siege continues, if siege is lifted without much damage then a net morale increase for surviving, siege the enemy and all cities gain morale, relief force arrives then gain morale, etc.).

I always disliked the idea of city influence/borders and city flipping (a la civ4) when it was done to me, but I appreciate it being in the game and wouldn't mind something like it in Elemental as another option for 'conquest'.  Frogboy said this won't be implemented?

I'm not against unhappiness in itself, but in civilization and partly in galciv2 the reasons happiness changed were just ridiculous. It was like reach city/planet lvl x and build happiness generator y z number of times. Quite boring and unimmersive.

I like the happiness in Empire:TW the most of all the games I've played. Where the mayor and stationed troops mattered more than some inns and brothels. If an enemy invaded the country it was nationality that mattered. So when I invade Russia they won't have to worry about happiness but that slowly drains over the years you are in Russia. The same thing goes for liberation, so if someone captures a city and the original nation comes along, the population gets the courage to revolt in the city. Winning wars and losing wars has a global change on the homeland only, which I find a bit weird.

It's not exactly it, Osiris, and, anyway, when in the current version do you have negative prestige? No one feels like building slums, really.

I would, however, have prestige be the "happiness" factor, too. Lower prestige = Easier to flip cities etc?

In this, they'd just be an extension of current game mechanics to allow peaceful resolutions to conflicts. It'd also mean that any outposts that you build along an enemy's influence (which can currently slowly eat into his influence unless he builds right next to them) will flip quickly and become his.

This was my take on something Frogboy said in the past. Think of Prestige as the "Standard of Living Index"

0-1 = Poor L0 Usually only exists in Hamlets that are just underway.

2-5 = Not bad. L1-L2 Enough Food and Housing. Perhaps some Pubs and Educational Institutes may be in place.

5-10 = Now were talking! L3-L4 Street parties, coin abounds, with places to spend it. Huge Festivities on honored days and Mansions and Villa's abound. (in the South end of Town at least)

10+ = Good Times Baby! L5 Golden streets, no taxes, all politicians have been eradictaed. Life is just too good to be true... LOL

Now if a L5 City somehow gets down to 2-5 levels, folks may start looking elsewhere, even to the cities of your neighbors.

I sort of like this idea, as long as getting to these stages is somehow meaningful and not just building enough happy face structures. Beyond just faster population increase, though, there should probably be some incentive to try and achieve and maintain those higher levels (such as a production bonus of everything in the city, following the old cliche of happy people are more productive). I don't necessarily agree that people should start leaving at 2-5, since having enough food and housing and pubs and schools is a comfortable enough life, even if a bit basic. Might not attract hordes of new folk, but nothing that would make people leave in droves either.

The general principle of the idea, though, I can agree with if they decide to put in population morale. Still not really convinced that it's a needed mechanic, but that's more personal taste.

Prestige -IS- only related to population growth. However, I like the idea that prestige suffers a penalty at each city level. If you don't have any prestige buildings in a level 2 city it won't grow (It gets -1 prestige, cancelling out the base +1). L4 and L5 cities could have much harsher penalties because of all the estates and mansions you can plop down.  And fyi it is possible to have a negative prestige from having an insane soverien sitting in one of your cities. Just try marrying someone and leaving all your kids in town. Har.

Guys, i agree that prestige, as it is, is useless and boring. Thats because no negative modifications to it are in the game (ok, slums are in as proof of concept i guess) atm.

But we know buildings are able to give boni and mali to it and we know the sum can be negative. I believe that the gameparts that introduve negative numbers are just not in yet.

Buildings, spells, roaming monsters, quests, negative treasury etc. could all modify prestige in cities.

Also we are dealing with an Edn-of-the-World scenario here. As Joe Peasent even the worst city offers more security and comfort then the big wilds. So treashold should be pretty high.

jm2c

In B2B was a building called Tax Office, which should include a negative prestige hit.

I like your recommendations on how prestige works (more NPCs is a good idea - is that already in?). I would HAPPILY live without happiness though 

I enjoyed happiness meters.

Like it in total war and liked it in MoM. Really got to try Civ game for once.

Basically build churches, good defense building, stationed soldiers, and entertainment to make everyone feel loyal/protective/happy/whatever

And when you do you can raise taxes without them causing a revolt. get more money that way.

Or you can risk raising taxes just for a few turns before they get angry and turn around and destroy a building or two. Whats wrong with this simple productive strategy?

Maybe this game can be different and use a different method to deliver this. But i think there should be negative impacts to what you do with your city, as OsirisDawn said.

Strategy FTW!!