Let me start by saying English is not my native language and I'm no CIV 5 "pro". I play on Immortal and win maybe half of my games lately.
Historically fast conquest has proven to be possible with good benefits to the aggressor. In CIV 5 it doesn't work this way. A blitzkrieg is impossible. You'll go into -20 happiness if you move too fast. And even if you deliberately slow down your conquests, happiness is the biggest limiting factor on war. Even if you focus all your efforts on happiness (religion, buildings, policies) you'll struggle to stay positive.
The effects of unhappiness are that you lose large amounts of growth and science. Probably for the bettter part of the game. To make it worse your soldiers become weak, useless fools when your empire is unhappy. These effects don't reflect the real world and are, in my humble opinion, flawed by design.
There are "solutions" that are just as artificial. Like razing cities that don't give you a new unique resource. I don't think I need to explain myself when I say there is something wrong with this. The people of a foreign country you invaded shouldn't be happier because I just killed off half the population. This mechanic leads to other issues like civs settling bad cities in the few free hexes between your puppets.
In BNW things have gotten worse on the happiness front. On higher difficulties there's a good chance you haven't built up your culture enough. This means you'll suffer from pressure. I'm not saying that BNW nerfed warmongering into uselessness, like others claim. I'm not saying that you can't be aggressive. You definately can. My problem is the way the game handles the negative effects of war. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how this could be changed. For example.
1. No effect on happiness with the right ideology. Unhappiness from war should depend on the ideology of your country (like fundamentalism gave you a "free pass" in CIV II or III - can't remember) and the reason for the war (you were attacked not vice versa).
2. Force the warmonger to actively spend money and military power on the occupied territory. This is realistic. For example -5% gold for every occupied city (money for repairs, installing new officials etc.), rebels who may also destroy buildings in cities and the requirement to station at least one modern military unit in the city.
3. Lose production in the home state, not growth, happiness or science. Because as is the case in the real world, wars tend to take away resources from other manufacturing processes in favor of things needed for the war (materials as well as manpower).
Historically fast conquest has proven to be possible with good benefits to the aggressor. In CIV 5 it doesn't work this way. A blitzkrieg is impossible. You'll go into -20 happiness if you move too fast. And even if you deliberately slow down your conquests, happiness is the biggest limiting factor on war. Even if you focus all your efforts on happiness (religion, buildings, policies) you'll struggle to stay positive.
The effects of unhappiness are that you lose large amounts of growth and science. Probably for the bettter part of the game. To make it worse your soldiers become weak, useless fools when your empire is unhappy. These effects don't reflect the real world and are, in my humble opinion, flawed by design.
There are "solutions" that are just as artificial. Like razing cities that don't give you a new unique resource. I don't think I need to explain myself when I say there is something wrong with this. The people of a foreign country you invaded shouldn't be happier because I just killed off half the population. This mechanic leads to other issues like civs settling bad cities in the few free hexes between your puppets.
In BNW things have gotten worse on the happiness front. On higher difficulties there's a good chance you haven't built up your culture enough. This means you'll suffer from pressure. I'm not saying that BNW nerfed warmongering into uselessness, like others claim. I'm not saying that you can't be aggressive. You definately can. My problem is the way the game handles the negative effects of war. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how this could be changed. For example.
1. No effect on happiness with the right ideology. Unhappiness from war should depend on the ideology of your country (like fundamentalism gave you a "free pass" in CIV II or III - can't remember) and the reason for the war (you were attacked not vice versa).
2. Force the warmonger to actively spend money and military power on the occupied territory. This is realistic. For example -5% gold for every occupied city (money for repairs, installing new officials etc.), rebels who may also destroy buildings in cities and the requirement to station at least one modern military unit in the city.
3. Lose production in the home state, not growth, happiness or science. Because as is the case in the real world, wars tend to take away resources from other manufacturing processes in favor of things needed for the war (materials as well as manpower).