Years in office vs difficulty

[Mjara]

It is my opinion that the % multiplier needs to be adjusted from where it is now with regard to years in office.

The first 10-20 years are always fairly easy, as people are easily satisfied by satisfying their basic needs of food & shelter, and later religion & health care.

It is beyond this time that the challenge starts to pick up, and the factions that were getting unhappy can really start to make their presence felt.

For the 10 years to receive the highest multiplier, therefore seems a bit strange in light of this, generating some of the highest scores possible due to happy citizens, and building value getting multiplied exorbitantly.

The multiplier, in my opinion, should probably be something like (lowest to highest): 10 -> 20 -> 30 / 60 -> 40 / 70 -> 50.

For me, at least, 50 seems to be the hump, that if you can get over, you find smooth sailing while reaping your profits for the remaining time.

I can see how other people may find the difficulty of the game different at different points than myself, but I'm sure most will agree that the bonus % at the shorter duration games is far to high.

[Mjara]

How embarassing.
There is no 60 year duration.
My mistake.
The rest is accurate

[Omi-san]

That's weird.

I tought things were fine the way they are.

When I play, the 5 first years are ok, then from 1955 to 1970, it gets difficult.

Mostly because your population keeps asking for more services and stuff. It's usually after those 15 years that have have all the buildings I need to satisfy the population.

Then it becomes easier.

[Protista]

I have found in many scenarios that things go well up until about 2020 or 2030, and then suddenly the peoples opinions become very negative, resulting in either the loss of the next election, or my having to expend almost all of my resources to survive for the next 5 years, sometimes using up over $1,000,000 in accumulated funds. This usually happens when the population is over 630, and may be a natural response to overcrowding or overpopulation.  Otherwise, I find the balance of play to be very well implemented.

[Eddy]

I don't think there is a real problem with the scoring.  Remember that in the first ten years, your people my be happier, but you can't build much.  Over 50 years say, you have time to really build up the economy.  In the first ten years, you are just barely getting started.

[Esteban]

I think you may have a point there.

All but one of my games have been in the 40 to 70 year range.  I played one ten-year game just to see what it was like to "max out" difficulty levels all the way around.  And: in 30 minutes of micro-managed game time, I got what still stands as my third-highest score.

Caveat: I got lucky.  There was a close-in gold mine, and, in a Year 8 coup attempt, the one loyal solider managed to defeat the one traitor.  But you can also "get lucky" in a 70 year game.

[calm_blue_sea]

Hey all,

I've been playing open-ended games on a rather easy setting (about 40%...ok, so I'm a whimp). I'd like to try to stay with on island as long as I can but I find that after about 100-120 years it becomes impossible to appease my people. I've tried with populations from 350 to 750 to no avail. My economy is usually booming, but I can't keep the little (insert explicative)s happy -even with high saleries, tax cuts and all the fixin's. Anyone had any luck maintaining a population indefinately without having to resort to the sandbox mode?

I've found that very slow poulation growth and buiding slowly are key issues....but what else is a presedente to do?

[Coconut Kid]

It is my opinion that the % multiplier [as applied to difficulty] needs to be adjusted from where it is now with regard to years in office.
...
For the 10 years to receive the highest multiplier, ..., generating some of the highest scores possible due to happy citizens, and building value getting multiplied exorbitantly.
...
I can see how other people may find the difficulty of the game different at different points than myself, but I'm sure most will agree that the bonus % at the shorter duration games is far to high.

I believe that Mjara made some incorrect assumptions. Additionally, several posts wander away from her main point to the issue of rising and/or falling levels of difficulty.

I think that the assumption that the people are happier in the early years and that is the reason that gameplay is easier is unfounded. They are only tolerant. The introductory letter in the manual warns:

Initially, your people are willing to tolerate poor conditions and give you a political 'honeymoon', but if things don't improve quickly, they will start to grow upset with you.

Further, there are four "victory conditions" which produce scores. Those scores are frozen at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 & 70 years no matter how long the player chooses to play. So the last possible scoring year is 2020. None of the victory conditions apply "happiness" to value of buildings. Only two of them consider citizens.

All of map set-up conditions adjust the difficulty percentage -- length of game is only one of the adjustments. Length is related to the ability to accumulate money and buildings; and also to the time needed to make a real impact on the citizen's happiness. I simply can't accept the assumptions.