June/July Patch Notes

About the happiness nerf, I hadn't played in quite some time before the patch so I won't compare, but I'm doing fine actually. That doesn't mean I don't run into happiness problems all the time. But there is always some new buildings to build and get back to happy.

Then again, in all my games after the patch i managed to get notre dam. 10 happiness looks too good
 
Agent Cooper said:
I think it's a problem that we now lack a dedicated happiness SP, not to speak of a semi-dedicated happiness tree when you are playing for a large empire.

If you have to start building walls, castles and arsenals in your cities on top of circus, colosseums and theaters in every annexed city to keep happiness afloat, that's a hell of a lot of hammers for what is then essentially happiness buildings with a defensive bonus. Also, every one of those defensive buildings only give 1 happiness. And their defensive bonus are likely to never make a difference in the game anyway.
Click to expand...

That's right. There are often ways to get Happiness if that is your primary goal. After some point, getting happiness is really not worth the cost if you think of winning the game or your position generally - it makes your position weaker, not stronger. For example, if you think about your strength compared to others and your changes of winning the game, it could be a better idea to build units and send them to raze your opponents cities than sunk those huge amounts of hammers (or worse, money) to arsenals. Wide empires are still possible if they are what you want. After certain point however, growing empire wider won't make it stronger but weaker (this point is probably usually close when you need to build expensive defense buildings to get happiness). This is actually quite a difference to previous civs, where it was under certain conditions possible to build extreme strong huge empires.
 
Agent Cooper said:
The players going for world domination with a large empire to show for it are in trouble post-patch, especially harder levels/many civs because of happiness issues. At some point you can stall your progress and stop city growth where possible or keep going and just live with single/double digit negative happiness.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you were going for a domination victory with a large empire and you are complaining about happiness when you took Order. Order is not for domination victories, Autocracy is. With order you get 1 happiness per city. With autocracy you get SIX happiness per annexed puppet (3 + 3). Domination is just fine with happiness if you take the right policies for a Domination victory...

Would you be complaining that you didn't win culturally when you never took Piety? Scientifically when you never took rationalism? etc...
 
Agent Cooper said:
The players going for world domination with a large empire to show for it are in trouble post-patch, especially harder levels/many civs because of happiness issues. At some point you can stall your progress and stop city growth where possible or keep going and just live with single/double digit negative happiness.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I had a huge empire, and I was just slightly behind the tech leader in the game. Essentially, I had one of the two continents on a continents map. I was averaging 10-20 :c5happy:, and I was a war monger. I had the option of going for a domination victory, but I filed it away as too much work. Either way, I had a huge, happy empire and elected to go space race. Many of my cities didn't even have stadiums, so I could have upped my happiness even more. You can do it, you just have to change the way you play. I went completely through Honor and Tradition, I dipped into Order, and I got most of the way through Patronage. I built the Eiffel Tower and captured Notre Dame.

I had happiness issues on and off throughout the game, but that was the same situation I had pre-patch.

Learn the way of the happy empire young padawan.
 
Civsassin said:
I disagree. I had a huge empire, and I was just slightly behind the tech leader in the game. Essentially, I had one of the two continents on a continents map. I was averaging 10-20 :c5happy:, and I was a war monger. I had the option of going for a domination victory, but I filed it away as too much work. Either way, I had a huge, happy empire and elected to go space race. Many of my cities didn't even have stadiums, so I could have upped my happiness even more. You can do it, you just have to change the way you play. I went completely through Honor and Tradition, I dipped into Order, and I got most of the way through Patronage. I built the Eiffel Tower and captured Notre Dame.

I had happiness issues on and off throughout the game, but that was the same situation I had pre-patch.

Learn the way of the happy empire young padawan.
Click to expand...

Same here, except I had 1.5 of 2 continents on a standard map, massive puppet empire, completed both honor and rationalism.

At rare times (when doing a capture spree) I had to annex and rush buy a few building to stay above -10, But I saw no real change from pre patch happiness.

The happiness from defensive buildings and science buildings more then makes up for it (even makes up for theocracy)
 
PreLynMax said:
I'm going to get blammed for saying this (as it is this forum's custom), but this game is actually playable now. Sure it's not as good as Civ VI, but it has offically more playable than it's initial release.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize they made Civ 6 yet. Where can i get that ;)
 
Actually, my experience is that happiness wasn't so much nerfed as that Theocracy was basically abolished and you now have to acquire several policies to get a similar effect.
Organized Religion + Professional Army helps a lot, and if you really want to have a lot of cities you better combine Meritocracy + Militar caste + Orde. And conquering whole continents is supposed to bite you in the arse after all.
Pre-patch I used to puppet almost every city I conquered but now that they have incresed unhappiness from cities but reduced the policy cost increase from number of cities I often find it more beneficial to raze two or three cities and build a new one in a spot between them that covers all relevant resources.
 
I just finished a hotseat game on a standard map, and won, but did not get an achievement for the Standard Issue - beating the game on standard map size. Do achievements not work on hot seat?/
 
Carl5872 said:
I just finished a hotseat game on a standard map, and won, but did not get an achievement for the Standard Issue - beating the game on standard map size. Do achievements not work on hot seat?/
Click to expand...

I actually don't know, but I'd guess no because there's too much potential to cheat with one human playing multiple civs.
 
thadian said:
from my experience, arrow units were never good enough to damage a city substantially but i do shoot them anyway just for the exp. you can level units up a LOT actually, on those desert size 2-3 AI cities without defenders.
Click to expand...

Clearly you've never played as the Mongols.
 
victor jesus said:
Hello friends, why not have added more resources?
Click to expand...

This bothers me too! I would welcome Salt Petre, Tobacco (hate the stuff personally but it was critical to the history of the world), possibly coral (once more valuable than gold), Salt (brought much wealth to Mansa Musa), and many others.

Especially since strategic resources are not that important from musketmen until oil, saltpetre would be add a nice twist to the game.
 
I wouldn't add more strategic resources, but I would add bonus resources that are tied to buildings. Right now, I think units are well-balanced (with a possible over-reliance on Aluminum). But rubber in jungles that adds production, or salt, coffee, olives, etc. that add gold, rice that adds food (in jungles once again) are all ideas I'd like to see.

Plus, with things like Rubber, I could see Factories boosting production output of rubber even further (or even as an alternative to coal that allows you to build a factory in a city).

I think you have to be careful not to overdo it, but I don't think we'd be hurt by a slightly higher resource density.
 
Mods said:
Same here, except I had 1.5 of 2 continents on a standard map, massive puppet empire, completed both honor and rationalism.

At rare times (when doing a capture spree) I had to annex and rush buy a few building to stay above -10, But I saw no real change from pre patch happiness.

The happiness from defensive buildings and science buildings more then makes up for it (even makes up for theocracy)
Click to expand...

There appears to be a bug where courthouses removes the -3 unhappiness base from owning a city. So they're abit overpowered right now.

I wouldn't get too confortable with this.

Though the general premise that you can have a large and happy empire isn't unreasonable.
 
Doesn't this happiness go away after reload?
 
dexters said:
There appears to be a bug where courthouses removes the -3 unhappiness base from owning a city. So they're abit overpowered right now.

I wouldn't get too confortable with this.

Though the general premise that you can have a large and happy empire isn't unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I manage to keep large, happy empires without the use of courthouses. Occassionally, I will annex a city and build a courthouse if I need the production, but as a norm, I do not. There are plenty of resources, policies, buildings, and wonders that allow you to remain happy while building a tremendous empire if you know how to plan for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
(7-25) Approval level’s threshold change
Replies
10
Views
376
azum4roll
A
Y
(7-27) Ancient ruins rework:
Replies
8
Views
304
hokath
hokath
S
(7-35) Porcelain Tower Changeup
Replies
9
Views
433
azum4roll
A
Recursive
  • Locked
New BETA Version - 4.4.2 (December 31, 2023)
11 12 13
Replies
240
Views
35K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
New Version - 3.8.3 (August 27, 2023)
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
13K
Recursive
Recursive
Top Bottom