Acken
Deity
My point is: It's the same mechanics but it's easier to deal with on Prince. If you want me to enumerate the reasons why I think it's easier on prince to get happiness I can.
Just made the jump to Civ 5: Impressions
- Thread starter noto2
- Start date
My point is: It's the same mechanics but it's easier to deal with on Prince. If you want me to enumerate the reasons why I think it's easier on prince to get happiness I can.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,939
You can still continue to debate yourself, but i'm still affirming that happiness in Prince is not so easier than in Deity, whatever the number of tortured reasons you try to bring up, or the number of tortured "refutations" you try to invent.
Last game i played, i managed to reach 499 science beakers at turn 200, I built Notre Dame and Chitzen Itza, and had 3 CS as allies including one with double-lux. Without all this (considering that in Deity i would have 0 CS allies), my happiness would have been at 2, so still positive, whereas my cities kept growing at max rate. So in Deity that wouldn't change anything, in Prince I just build the happiness wonders because i had nothing alse to build, but i could easily spare them.
What I want to say is that with Prince abilities (I have barely Deity ones by now I believe) you have to have the same kinds of developements that in Deity, that you count Notre Dame or not, because anyway it's not just as if you could magically instant build it in turn 1. It's the way you develop that is similar, i don't talk about the different bonuses you can have during the course of the game as in like the very last turn of the game, so it's the same especially early.
I don't want to discuss like that, with no proper refutations and far-fetched excuses that are only excuses and not big picture visions.
Last game i played, i managed to reach 499 science beakers at turn 200, I built Notre Dame and Chitzen Itza, and had 3 CS as allies including one with double-lux. Without all this (considering that in Deity i would have 0 CS allies), my happiness would have been at 2, so still positive, whereas my cities kept growing at max rate. So in Deity that wouldn't change anything, in Prince I just build the happiness wonders because i had nothing alse to build, but i could easily spare them.
What I want to say is that with Prince abilities (I have barely Deity ones by now I believe) you have to have the same kinds of developements that in Deity, that you count Notre Dame or not, because anyway it's not just as if you could magically instant build it in turn 1. It's the way you develop that is similar, i don't talk about the different bonuses you can have during the course of the game as in like the very last turn of the game, so it's the same especially early.
I don't want to discuss like that, with no proper refutations and far-fetched excuses that are only excuses and not big picture visions.
I'm not sure what you mean here, I just don't follow the logic. Are you trying to say that getting happiness is just as hard on prince as it is for anything above prince? If you only look at the sheer stats on difficulties, then you might reach that conclusion, but in reality it's easier because you can get better settling spots, better religion as well. In terms of CS allies it's basically the same for all levels, except maybe the AI throws more gold at higher difficulty.
There may be a number of factors as to why playing at higher difficulty is more demanding compared to prince, but happiness is a very minor one if it is at all.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,939
That. That's why my conclusion would be : why not give more liberty to the Prince players regarding happiness ? I think that locking GH in such a way in lower difficulty levels since Prince is a mistake from the devs.
Aristos
Lightseeker
Nao probably refers to these values:
which do not change from Prince and on. So you have three options (discounting your complaining here):
1. For more freedom, play in Warlord where the values are considerably lower (12, 75% and 75%)
2. Mod the game (only those three lines) to give Prince level whatever values make you feel free.
3. Learn new strategies and developments that also give you more freedom at Prince level, without having to mod the game (this would be my choice, as the progression of dif levels is clearly meant exactly for that... you become better, you jump to the next level).
I see your point, and Acken does too, but I'm sorry man, this is a different beast from what we have known before. ICS has been put under restrains with these new mechanisms, they may be a little too restrictive, but to be honest, I was growing tired of the "more is always better" approach of previous civs, especially because the AI had no problems whatsoever in expanding like crazy while the human player had. Yes, some of that is still valid especially at higher levels, but at least now you can try and compete with a smaller yet more advanced empire, making each game potentially more "finishable", if a word for that exists.
Bottom line, my recommendation is for you to try new things, try to make sure you get one or more of the perks that help with happiness beyond the normal buildings and luxuries. That is the idea. The values above should be at 100% in Prince anyways, in any case you may have a case for further reducing/increasing those values at higher than Prince... would you like that?
Code:
<HappinessDefault>9</HappinessDefault>
<NumCitiesUnhappinessMod>100</NumCitiesUnhappinessMod>
<PopulationUnhappinessMod>100</PopulationUnhappinessMod>which do not change from Prince and on. So you have three options (discounting your complaining here):
1. For more freedom, play in Warlord where the values are considerably lower (12, 75% and 75%)
2. Mod the game (only those three lines) to give Prince level whatever values make you feel free.
3. Learn new strategies and developments that also give you more freedom at Prince level, without having to mod the game (this would be my choice, as the progression of dif levels is clearly meant exactly for that... you become better, you jump to the next level).
I see your point, and Acken does too, but I'm sorry man, this is a different beast from what we have known before. ICS has been put under restrains with these new mechanisms, they may be a little too restrictive, but to be honest, I was growing tired of the "more is always better" approach of previous civs, especially because the AI had no problems whatsoever in expanding like crazy while the human player had. Yes, some of that is still valid especially at higher levels, but at least now you can try and compete with a smaller yet more advanced empire, making each game potentially more "finishable", if a word for that exists.
Bottom line, my recommendation is for you to try new things, try to make sure you get one or more of the perks that help with happiness beyond the normal buildings and luxuries. That is the idea. The values above should be at 100% in Prince anyways, in any case you may have a case for further reducing/increasing those values at higher than Prince... would you like that?
Acken
Deity
You can try to dismiss what I say as much as you want. It's just a fact that your claim that happiness is too hard to get or as hard on Prince as on Deity is just wrong and betrays a lack of experience in the game. Easier CS alliance, less issues with taking detours to happiness generators, easy religion, easy notre dame, easy expansion, the list goes on and on. There is no need to go into details for each element. Anyone that actually plays Deity AND Prince will find that evident. Rules are necessary in a strategy game, and the rules here are consistent from Prince to Deity in regards to happiness. If you really don't like the system you can mod it to play Civ like a true sandbox experience.
You want to discuss with someone that agrees I guess
Whatever man, ignore the discussion if that makes you happy.If so then the easiest way out would be to probably play warlord, since the handicaps on the AI compared to prince is not really big. Also if you came from civ 4, then you might have to adjust the playstyle and admit that you can't play as wide as before. Of course, more cities--> more pop, more science, more gold, more culture, more faith, more production, more everything. But in an actual game you might not have well developed cities until the late game, so tall empires can still be really good.
then again, maybe you're looking for a ladder in terms of happiness that doesn't just stop at prince but keeps going?
59saintdane
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 230
The thing about Deity, however, is that the AI has more luxes and money available to trade, and also more workers to steal. That allows you to get more happiness from AI luxuries, and hook up yours earlier from worker steals. In my opinion that at least partially balances out the difficulties with expansion, wonders and religion.
Acken
Deity
It's true that you get faster available luxuries for trade in Deity and that partially redress the balance. But if you want to play wide (which is the subject here), having access to a happy religion and Notre Dame is in my experience a bigger factor (as well as other factors like the ease to grab good city spot, taking more time to build happy buildings, the lesser threat of angrying the AI etc). And it's not like the AI never has anything to trade either at Prince.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,939
I think it's obvious, but in case why not.
Playing warlord would just free my hands a little more yet, so not sure i could play how i want with only 3 more base happiness and the 75% thingies.
Let's face it, this is starting to be gaudy.
I'm criticizing the game, not the mods.
I'm not entitled to do so. Principally because I don't. I had to watch let's plays in order to give me objective. It's not like i could learn anything from myself. Again, either it's too hard or i'm not smart enough, but that's it. It's like that...
It's basically what i just said, if i get you correctly. That the ladder of happiness decreases with difficulty, and not only until Prince. Problably would decrease slower too, or proportionnally from Settler to Prince (if that's not already the case) and from Prince to Deity without any difference.
But don't jump on a mod writing right now, it's not really what i want, you guys always mix general criticism of a game with our actual playing issues. It's not a bout me. It's about the game. As I said i'm now probably a Deity player, thanks to LPs.
I said somewhere that i have habits from other Civ games. I know it. But i also underlined the philosophy of the game, which is a part of Civ5 also : a simplistic map where you move units. Everything is linked. What can you do in Civ ? Fun, i mean. There expansion and war. GH can prevent you to do them whevever you are ready for in every aspect of the game. GH is just not adapted to most of its difficulty levels. WHAT PROBLEMS DO YOU HAVE WITH THAT ?
I'm not looking for anything. Just criticizing a game. But, not all constructive discussions are about helping personnally anybody. It can be about general purposes too. Is Obama a good president ?
But yes, I think that the devs should have increment happiness rarity in EVERY difficulty levels. So that it would tie more to the actual level of the AIs, their aggressivity or whatever.
No, I brang this on the table, but apparently my arguments are obviously less valuable than his
He tries to minimize them, but i'm doing the exact same thing saying Notre Dame and the like are not so important compared to the Prince happiness starting setup. Like you never build Notre Dame in a finger snap. But, no, I'm wrong and he is right obviously.
This guy set up his own rage when saying peremptorily i'm WRONG.
Moderator Action: Please stop getting personal with other posters. Make your arguments and stop talking about the rage of others.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Ok, if you mean that global happiness is not adjusted as per the other parts of the game when you switch difficulty, then yes, you are correct. But I don't have problems with it, it's just a mechanic that you accept when you play the game. Not everything in game should scale with difficulty, like giving one extra trade route for every level lower than deity. War is a really fun aspect of civ, but capturing cities would only be a huge problem if don't manage happiness well. And it might be better to think of managing happiness, getting courthouses and happiness buildings, as part of the large war, just like the economy is a part of war.
The only thing about happiness that irritates me is that new cities give unhappiness. I get it if the city is captured, but otherwise it doesn't really make sense if I think about what happiness means
Acken
Deity
No, I brang this on the table, but apparently my arguments are obviously less valuable than his
He tries to minimize them, but i'm doing the exact same thing saying Notre Dame and the like are not so important compared to the Prince happiness starting setup. Like you never build Notre Dame in a finger snap. But, no, I'm wrong and he is right obviously.
This guy set up his own rage when saying peremptorily i'm WRONG.
I'll grant your wish to not continue this discussion because at this point you're getting too emotional.
Aristos
Lightseeker
After seeing some more 'let's play civ5' by Marbozir and some others mainly Deity level I must conclude that every turn looks the same.
Selling resources either for gold or happiness, turn after turn.
I don't know what players like about the civ5 combat system. Is it because the AI is very bad at it?
Some other cheesy moves by players I don't like are : killing an unprotected AI settler, stealing workers or
cancelling trades short after getting an amount of gold.
Playing the civ5 map is more interesting than the civ4 map, but the civ5 AI is far worse than the civ4 AI.
A civ5 AI with 60 cities losing to a human player with ~7 cities won't happen in civ4.
Selling resources either for gold or happiness, turn after turn.
I don't know what players like about the civ5 combat system. Is it because the AI is very bad at it?
Some other cheesy moves by players I don't like are : killing an unprotected AI settler, stealing workers or
cancelling trades short after getting an amount of gold.
Playing the civ5 map is more interesting than the civ4 map, but the civ5 AI is far worse than the civ4 AI.
A civ5 AI with 60 cities losing to a human player with ~7 cities won't happen in civ4.
Teproc
King
Which is bad why ? Going tall is an actually viable strategy in CiV, that's bad ?
Acken
Deity
@Tatran
That is true, but AI issues are a known complaint from Civ5 players, fans or not, deity or prince players. I'd bet it's the number one thing civ5 players would like improved. When it comes to comparing to civ4 I just feel civ4 is more AI "friendly": Stacks are easier to manage for the AI and there are less "traps" that slows down the AI. Doesn't really excuse the lack of a strong AI of course.
That is true, but AI issues are a known complaint from Civ5 players, fans or not, deity or prince players. I'd bet it's the number one thing civ5 players would like improved. When it comes to comparing to civ4 I just feel civ4 is more AI "friendly": Stacks are easier to manage for the AI and there are less "traps" that slows down the AI. Doesn't really excuse the lack of a strong AI of course.
The trades last for 30 turns, so it will be the minority of your turns. Plus, one can put effort into timing them to expire on the same turn.
This comment indicates that you are not really looking for insight.
I agree with you there, but one does not have to play that way. I like the plus maps, partially because those maps are not likely to temp me with the early easy CS worker steal.
That really was an exploit, but has not been an option since the Fall 2013 patch (at least).
But speaking of cheese, I am happy to say that there is nothing in V comparable to IV pop rushing.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
I'll add this to the table- I feel like people who complain about the happiness system and war mongering penalty being crippling in ciV are partially right- it is crippling early on.
My impression is that the mechanics aren't so much designed to cripple you as they are designed to slow you down, stretching out the early game to unbearable lengths, at least for me. This is why I liked slavery despite its overpoweredness, it really sped up the early game. In civ4 I loved playing boreal map as Russia, rushing to Bronze working, then whipping out workers and settlers while in a mad rush to simultaneously build the Great Wall, the Pyramids and the Oracle, self founding confucianism and bulbing philosophy to found Taoism. I can't achieve that kind of rush in ciV and without war, there's nothing to replace it. Just exploration and you know what? The barbarians not posing any serious threat kind of damps my enjoyment of that. The Rise to Erebus modmod of Civ 4 made exploration fun with the map over run by barbarians that were actually a massive threat. So I will admit that despite its problems, ciV is still okay in my opinion. It tries to be different, and the only thing I'd completely get rid of is the maintenance on roads. also I hope they allow workers to stack so improvements get completed faster.
My impression is that the mechanics aren't so much designed to cripple you as they are designed to slow you down, stretching out the early game to unbearable lengths, at least for me. This is why I liked slavery despite its overpoweredness, it really sped up the early game. In civ4 I loved playing boreal map as Russia, rushing to Bronze working, then whipping out workers and settlers while in a mad rush to simultaneously build the Great Wall, the Pyramids and the Oracle, self founding confucianism and bulbing philosophy to found Taoism. I can't achieve that kind of rush in ciV and without war, there's nothing to replace it. Just exploration and you know what? The barbarians not posing any serious threat kind of damps my enjoyment of that. The Rise to Erebus modmod of Civ 4 made exploration fun with the map over run by barbarians that were actually a massive threat. So I will admit that despite its problems, ciV is still okay in my opinion. It tries to be different, and the only thing I'd completely get rid of is the maintenance on roads. also I hope they allow workers to stack so improvements get completed faster.
Teproc
King
What's so bad about maintenace on roads ? That seems like a very weird gripe... it makes sense for roads to cost maintenance. They didn't (IIRC) in CIV because you were supposed to build theme literally everywhere, but since you don't build many of them, why would they not cost maintenance in CiV ?
Similar threads
