Flexible Happiness

Flexible happiness is a way to temporarily adjust happiness at a high cost. It would help solve two problems:

• Happiness encounters wilder swings up and down than other yields (like science, food, or gold).
• AIs have difficulty dealing with situations that drop them below 10.

Alpha Centauri added flexibility with the Empath specialist (2 psi), and Civ 4 with the culture slider. Secondary happiness is much costlier than normal sources, but provides a way to deal with unforeseen events. Civ 5 has only fixed happiness sources. The simplest approach in Civ 5 would be a happiness specialist like Alpha Centauri. For example, happiness from some sources (like policies) could be reduced slightly, but with specialist slots added to happiness buildings that provide +1 happiness each when filled. These specialists just barely counteract the unhappiness they create so they are a temporary solution to emergencies.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Thalassicus said:

The concept of the Entertainer specialist is one from earlier versions of Civilization and Alpha Centauri. It's a specialist which gives happiness. This provides a flexible way to control happiness in emergency situations, which is especially helpful for the AI to adapt to unforeseen events. Would you like to see something like this in the mod?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of this being a crippling issue for the AI, Most of what you read is the opposite: that the AI ignore unhappiness. Let's face it - most people in favor of this will want to use it for their own benefit, not the AI's. I don't see a need to make unhappiness easier to avoid, but if the consensus proves different...

Why not just make happiness easier to obtain instead?

This might explain it better:

• Primary happiness - efficient but inflexible
• Secondary happiness - inefficient but flexible

In the current situation we might have a fixed happiness level of 100. With secondary happiness, we could adjust our level between 90-110, at an increasingly higher cost to further up we go.

Thalassicus said:

This might explain it better:

• Primary happiness - efficient but inflexible
• Secondary happiness - inefficient but flexible

Adding #2 is different from increasing #1.

Click to expand...

I was aware of the difference - just not sure what the bottom line difference is, given the lack of information on what an entertainer does. My assumption is that it's an expensive fix. If we're talking about the AI - not to mention a successfully warmongering human player - then I suspect it will be a very affordable luxury!

I just want to brainstorm a bit on the overall idea for now, without planning too many specifics yet. The bottom line difference is it provides an inefficient but flexible source of happiness.

I assume this is more or less in response to the issue of happiness levels when warmongering.. If so I like the idea of flexible happiness but I'd rather just see city populations halved when taking cities rather than having to micromanage lots of happiness specialists. Although I like the concept of flexible happiness in general as a way to keep your cities growing while under minor levels of unhappiness, I don't like it as the solution to the issue I believe is facing conquest in the mod.

@EsoEs
It's a broader concept that does not specifically relate to conquest:

• Small empires often have too much happiness.
• AIs have difficulty dealing with situations that drop them below 10.
• Happiness typically encounters wilder swings up and down than other yields (like research or gold rate).

Thal - is there a way of gaining happiness for original empire or in capital city for conquests.

Example: If you kill an enemy and or capture a rival city it gives a happiness bonus for a length of time. This could be referenced that the civilians are proud from the conquest. In turn there could be a negative effect if war drags on for too long.

Just an idea:
1. 0.2 kill enemy unit
2. 1 per rival city population
3. -0.2 per turn of war

I was think something similiar along the lines for the units like gaining culture or gold from kills. The bonus from capturing cities would only last limited number turns - maybe based on city size also.

SgtCiv said:

Thal - is there a way of gaining happiness for original empire or in capital city for conquests.

Example: If you kill an enemy and or capture a rival city it gives a happiness bonus for a length of time. This could be referenced that the civilians are proud from the conquest. In turn there could be a negative effect if war drags on for too long.

Just an idea:
1. 0.2 kill enemy unit
2. 1 per rival city population
3. -0.2 per turn of war

I was think something similiar along the lines for the units like gaining culture or gold from kills. The bonus from capturing cities would only last limited number turns - maybe based on city size also.

Click to expand...

Some of this may already be incorporated in the warmongering policies, but if not, it should be. I'm not sure to what degree it would apply to a more humanistic "tall" civ.

The beauty of the entertainer specialist would be a recall to previous versions of civ. It also would be a step away from Civ5...

It'd also clear up the mess that is "Artists" right now (Temple Artists?). But where would these Entertainers go? Call them Priests and give them to temples? And the artist would move to the Colloseum or the Theater? The slots should be spread out over the various gamestyles, and it doesn't make too much sense to place it on happiness buildings (as in a case of emergency,buying these buildings would already mitigate the problem...) And how much happiness would they give? 2?

In conclusion, why not, although it might move away too far from Vanilla

SgtCiv said:

Thal - is there a way of gaining happiness for original empire or in capital city for conquests.

Example: If you kill an enemy and or capture a rival city it gives a happiness bonus for a length of time. This could be referenced that the civilians are proud from the conquest. In turn there could be a negative effect if war drags on for too long.

Just an idea:
1. 0.2 kill enemy unit
2. 1 per rival city population
3. -0.2 per turn of war

I was think something similiar along the lines for the units like gaining culture or gold from kills. The bonus from capturing cities would only last limited number turns - maybe based on city size also.

Click to expand...

I was going to suggest something similar; this approach seems more immersive to me than happiness specialists. I think both units and fractional happiness should be left out of the equation for simplicity's sake. So how about a flat happiness bonus (say, 3) for normal cities and a larger bonus for capitals (like 5) for a limited duration (equal to half the city's pop?) with an Honor policy effect that increases the amounts. I've suggested a war-weariness effect previously but it met with lukewarm enthusiasm - the longer occupation times (not halving the population) was the result, and I think it works pretty well (except on deity, apparently).

All this being said, I'm not strictly opposed to happiness specialists, but such a method does feel a little more "gamey" to me at first blush.

I see no need for flexible happiness. If you want more continuous effects, then tweak the benefits/costs of happiness, so there is not such a large shock at -1, and so that positive happiness is slightly more valuable. Or, better, tweak some of the happiness buildings upwards again (or reduce their cost). But I'm not sure that there is a problem. I think you *should* suffer significant losses if you bite off more than you can chew. It is very deliberate that going on a conquering rampage puts you into happiness problems; this is a deliberate design feature that makes mass conquest more painful, and encourages you to do it piecemeal. This will be severely weakened if you can just adjust a slider to fix your severe unhappiness problem for the short remaining duration of the war. You should need to build up a positive happiness buffer before a conquest war, in the same way that you need to build up an army.

I dislike the idea of just adding flexibility, it seems complicated, unnecessary, and it reduces the value of actually beelining for happiness techs (happiness techs - ie those that provide happiness buildings - are less valuable if you can get happiness without them, even inefficiently)

I also think that there are too many wonders providing too much happiness relative to the happiness available from buildings.

Just an idea:
1. 0.2 kill enemy unit
2. 1 per rival city population
3. -0.2 per turn of war

Click to expand...

This would be a huge benefit to the human player relative to the AI, and would make it easier to capture lots of cities, when happiness is there specifically to make it hard for you to capture lots of cities quickly.
I would oppose this.

Welcome back Ahriman!

@SgtCiv
Temporary bonuses done entirely through scripting are infeasible without full access to the game core AI. Specialists are feasible because they have "flavor" values the AI understands, such as flavor_happiness.

@Ahriman
Adjusting happiness level effects in a significant way would require game core access.

@Ahriman
Adjusting happiness level effects in a significant way would require game core access.

Click to expand...

You can adjust the number of excess happiness needed for a golden age (reducing this increases the value of positive excess happiness), you can probably adjust the impacts of Unhappy and Very Unhappy, and maybe you can adjust the thresholds where these kick in?

But in general, I think you're fixing a non-existent problem. It is good that you are punished for not planning ahead with happiness.

The main problem IMO is that not enough happiness is available from building infrastructure.

My thoughts from a bit of 9.9 play are here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10798369#post10798369

I don't really like the idea of flexible happiness as the A.I. will not be able to utilize it well. Instead I think we might be better off sticking to buildings, projects, and resources to improve happiness.

However, a middle of the road compromise could be building happiness in cities, like one builds wealth or research. I'm not sure what % of hammers (maybe 10 hammers = 1 happiness)would be an appropriate conversion, but that's something that is flexible and not something like specialists that could become overpowered with Freedom social policy.

I think you *should* suffer significant losses if you bite off more than you can chew. It is very deliberate that going on a conquering rampage puts you into happiness problems

Click to expand...

This is at the core of this. Yes, it's very deliberate that happiness is a hard counter to conquest. It means you have to focus on theaters and stadiums if you want to conquest places. Which is like, what? When the Nazi's conquered Europe, was their first order of buisness building theaters to places they conquered so that the population (their own population, as well as the conquered mind you) didn't turn on the leaders?

The happiness demand of conquest makes gameplay sense, and it makes sense if you want to govern the taken lands, reap benefits from them. But it would be great flexibility if the "happiness flexibility" comes in the form of crushing unrest under an iron boot, if you can't provide the happiness. The iron boot coming at a cost, too, of course. Perhaps this could be done by units, perhaps by adapting puppets to give less resources over, and generate less unhappiness. It's not very immersive that you have to keep conquered people happy, or your own people will revolt on you. Vae victus, as they say.

But from gameplay perspective, the old "entertainers" are a way to put resources into maintaining your conquests, which makes sense. And it should be expensive happiness. The idea that happiness is really a hard limit to the size of your empire dominates gameplay too much, in my opinion. Much better would be a soft limit of too big an empire turning ineffective, whether by requiring many people as entertainers, or old corruption of Civ's past.

I don't think the AI not being able to use entertainers matters much, as I would imagine AIs are fine with happiness by the handicap bonuses, anyway?

Why not just let the unemployed citizen be free of unhappiness, but remove its yield entirely?

If so desired, cause barbarians to spawn near cities dependent on how many unemployed citizens it has, same as would happen when you're under -10 happiness.

Whatever you go with though, given that entertainers wouldn't be supposed to be used under normal circumstances, I don't like the idea that inherent theater happiness would be reduced.

The idea that happiness is really a hard limit to the size of your empire dominates gameplay too much, in my opinion

Click to expand...

I think just the opposite of this. Happiness is the mechanic that merges maintenance costs, happiness and health from Civ4. It *is* the only mechanic that limits the size of your empire. So of course it has to dominate gameplay. This is a feature, not a bug.

I don't think the AI not being able to use entertainers matters much, as I would imagine AIs are fine with happiness by the handicap bonuses, anyway?

Click to expand...

I would oppose adding a new mechanic whose function is solely to make the game easier for the human player.

Why not just let the unemployed citizen be free of unhappiness, but remove its yield entirely?

Click to expand...

Because this would make it too easy to manage happiness without any kind of planning.

Thalassicus said:

Flexible happiness is a way to temporarily adjust happiness at a high cost. The simplest approach in Civ 5 would be a happiness specialist like Alpha Centauri. For example, Theaters could have 2 base happiness (down from 3) but 2 specialist slots that provide +1 happiness apiece if filled. The cost is these specialists don't provide other yields like gold or production.

Click to expand...

Maniac already mentioned that this creates more unhappiness in the basic game in exchange for a boost in times of trouble. As someone who basically never has happiness issue even playing Conquest, this does me no good... but others are bound to feel differently.

I'm responding to this partly because not everyone who has already posted on this thread may be aware that you added this to the opening statement. Sometimes I think a major change like this should be mentioned in a second post as well as via an edit.