Dale Kents ICS Killer - Happiness Remodeled

[Tomice]

If we assume that no luxury resource type can give more than 5 happiness, then if you find yourself with two relatively large deposits of the same luxury (which, lets face it, happens a lot), then your chances to trade are increased if you're not automatically locked out by someone having that resource too.

Aussie.

Yes, with a limit of 5 or so it could work well. Or maybe larger empires could need more of the ressource? But that's only some random thought I'm throwing out here, no idea if this would help or counter ICS.

 

[alpaca]

Second in 1980, 100 turns to go -- showing 124 Happy!!

You're getting the same bug I did, the 124 happiness are definitely not legit.

Up to a point, maybe, but I think it would end this stupid situation of "Well CivA already has Gold, so my Gold is now *useless* (as I'm already receiving maximum happiness from Gold)", which I think is less fun. That's how strategic resources used to work too, but now its much more enjoyable having units of resources to trade, I don't see any reason why luxuries can't work in a similar fashion.
Actually, in some ways its *not* the same. If we assume that no luxury resource type can give more than 5 happiness, then if you find yourself with two relatively large deposits of the same luxury (which, lets face it, happens a lot), then your chances to trade are increased if you're not automatically locked out by someone having that resource too.

Aussie.

I kind of like the idea, and I think it would work great if you added a diminishing return. For example, the first resource instance yields 3 happiness, the second 2 and the rest 1. That way, you'd be incentivized to trade for other resources (and get a significant benefit). I would limit the stack size for each resource to 1-3, I think.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yes, with a limit of 5 or so it could work well. Or maybe larger empires could need more of the ressource? But that's only some random thought I'm throwing out here, no idea if this would help or counter ICS.

Yeah, I should have made that more clear. I think if larger empires *needed* an extra resource just to maintain happiness at normal levels, then this would help counter ICS.

For example, lets say you have 4 cities-at this point you have the standard 1-5 units of a resource generating +1 to +5 happiness. From 5 to 8 cities, you need to have 2-6 units of a resource to generate +1 to +5 happiness. At 9 to 12 cities, you need to have 3-6 units of a resource to generate +1 to +5 happiness....and so on. Obviously this would scale to map size &, as an added twist, maybe small empires might get a *bonus* happiness from a given quantity of resources. For instance, 5-8 cities might be "normal" happiness from luxuries, whereas 1-2 cities might get +2 *bonus* happiness from a resource (up to the maximum of +5) & an empire of 3-4 cities might get a +1 *bonus* happiness from a resource. Hope that makes sense!

Aussie.

 

[gruven]

Have only just seen this Mod, so haven't had a chance to test yet (might give it a shot tonight), but I was wondering if its possible to change Luxuries so that they behave more like strategic resources-i.e. act as units. So, for example, one "deposit" of sugar might give only +2 happiness (2 units), whereas another "deposit" might give +5 happiness.
This might also create new trade opportunities, as the Civ with only +2 happiness worth of gold might now be interested in getting his/her hands on another +2 happiness worth of gold.
Aussie.

Valk is working on something similar to your idea in his Economy Mod thread here.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Alright, it's all done and here's my last impressions;

-- As you may very well know already, gameplay conditions are extremely variable. Such a context is bound to create bazillions of alternative situations where even the best of MODs wouldn't have any sort of an *obvious* impact over anything.

-- Strictly speaking, i managed to handle pretty much the same patterns & decisions as i normally do. Except for the feeling of an unstable economy as i said earlier.

-- I play for fun. I play 4X the traditional ways. I usually play only from vanilla context (not as a form of respect but to maintain continuity in both results & personal HOF progress) and almost refuse to modify even the slightest elements of the ruleset. I went for your stuff as a distraction. No regrets!

-- Colosseum was the only reflex i had for the highpop city of NewYork. Otherwise, everything needed not be used either consciously or to correct trends.

-- I don't get Bureaucracy principles - at all! I'm sorry, but it's just me.

-- Happiness went like a charm and eventually created huge assets.


CONCLUSIONS?

You'd have to fiddle a bit with the numbers and attack the current SP's design head-on for some drastic changes. Next patch will certainly resolve the Saving Points tactic and it would be wise to enforce players into making the right choices *continually*; good examples, i believe, is the Patronage tree with its CS advantages & Rationalism sad (but timely, as it happens) contradiction with Piety.

Maybe... Colosseum 15%+3G -- Theater 20%+5G -- Stadium 25%+7G ?_?_?

Secondly; ICS is for freaks. I'm serious, really. Dunno what they're missing with the smooth, reliable, steadily growing pace of normal gameplay. Sure, they can go for as much giga_scores as they want by winning much earlier than everybody who ever played this f**k** game. And yet, the Empire itself is greater than the King - or Deity.


ADDENDUMS as in Gameplay notes...

-- Looking at the B1, B2 & B3 in the second image;

B1 = Wanna culture_bomb me, oh my dear excentrico_parano_schizo Caesar? Okay, here's my revenge... Stealth hits the Capital before we're both Timed-out while the tiny fast Caravel has a quick glimpse just for kicks only to reveal their GP-Merchant as a sitting duck.

B2 = Oil is soooooo precious and since he had picked up two fields on the extreme top right near another CS realm, i plumped the 8th (costly culturally!) San Francisco soon after 1980 to snatch those away from him.

B3 = Uranium will get you a few GDR's and two Nukes (one for Egypt, one for Rome!). But, mostly bad luck... Philadelphia still can't reach *THAT* one and so does NewYork with its lonely island barely a tile off the darn territorial range!

-- The whole final shows off the strong Navy in hideout areas, ready for some action if need be. Plus, interesting numbers as usual.

PROOFING TEST(s)

I took the initiative to zipup the Map, the Replay, the Initial & Turn-499 Saves. Inspect or gamble a try from scratch if you want. Although, you'll need proper activation of the following essential (IMHO) MODs;

-- CityWillard(v3), DiploWillard(v6), GPInfo(v2), Improved Demographics(v3), AgS Resource Info Panel(v2), InfoAddict(v6) & hold-on to your hat... DK's AdvCivRanking(v1).
Strangely GPInfo & InfoAddict won't work though, so you might have to look around for compatibility flaws with your ICS temporary testing through TopPanel.lua and/or DiploCorner.lua.

Now, one last question...

"Would you please be interested in a Pact of Cooperation & Secrecy to help-out with my Z-Eras mod where (if all goes well as planned or wished for!) each of these screens (incl. ANCIENT, btw) will become totally interactive to scan through & cycle via auto clicks T/U/B/W libraries of worthy direct info?"

If so, PM me. If not, well...

PS; I may find time to start another game (Pangea, Domination_Diplomatic combo, 5+ enemies or somethin') later for some more testing.

 

[Thalassicus]

Changing happiness from a global to a local per-capita effect is an interesting idea, certainly a good one to explore. Significant base-concept changes are something I've been avoiding for the most part out of personal preference, mostly trying to solve problems within the fundamental framework of the vanilla game, there's always more than one way to approach the subject though!

Something else to consider when balancing wide vs tall empires is shifting a few bonuses away from per-city to per-empire. Some ways to do this are national wonders and/or difficulty bonuses. I took that approach as part of a solution to the ICS issue in the balance mods a few weeks ago:

• 66% maximum Maritime bonus in cities outside the Capital. - Diplomacy
  • +0 Friend (was 1)
  • +1 Ally
  • +1 Renaissance
  • Capital receives same food as before (+2, +2, +2).
• 1 Scientist moved from Library to Research Lab. - City Development
• Happiness - City Development
  1 moved from Colosseum to Stadium.
  +6 national wonder (Baths of Trajan).
  +2 from difficulty.
  +1 per city.
  -20% from population.
• Forbidden Palace - City Development
  -33% from number of cities (was -50%)
• Planned Economy - Policies
  -33% from number of cities (was -50%)

(Scientist and colosseum edits are from PieceOfMind's Icey No! mod, with permission)

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Hey-hey... look who's here!
I must repeat the same Pacts request towards you too, Thal'assicus!
Please?

Two or more heads are better than a lazy one such as mine (at times).

 

[LordTC]

I'm wondering if the following without the bureaucracy penalty would be enough:

1. Happiness buildings give a percentage of pop.
2. Specialists give a percentage of pop.

I think this might be just enough to make ICS difficult and sometimes suboptimal without destroying it entirely. The main drive with ICS has been using libraries like there is no tomorrow but if a science specialist in a 3 pop city gives only 1 beaker (25% of pop as a formula) then this gets seriously nerfed.

I think if you nerf the 2 buildings that ICS relies on you might well do enough to make ICS bad without eliminating it entirely, particularly since both of these nerfs make large cities stronger as well.

It's also quite elegant, because its only two changes and they both follow the same structural rule (25% of pop) so its quite an easy adaption.

 

[Deep_Blue]

Good job Dale

Now your mod is done I will try it for sure.

But I have one concern, you did nerf ICS without buffing huge cities. I mean there might be a balance problem when you nerf an overpowered strategy in which no other strong alternatives are available. Increasing the benefits of large cities in exchange of nerfing ICS may do the balance.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Zyxpsilon
I'm not entirely certain I understand your request, could you provide details or a link to the thread in question?

 

[Dale]

I'm experimenting with detaching science from population count, and adding 2 science slots to the palace.

 

[Dale]

I'm experimenting with detaching science from population count, and adding 2 science slots to the palace.

Well THAT idea sucked! Forget I even mentioned it.

 

[Dale]

I'm wondering if the following without the bureaucracy penalty would be enough:

1. Happiness buildings give a percentage of pop.
2. Specialists give a percentage of pop.

I think this might be just enough to make ICS difficult and sometimes suboptimal without destroying it entirely. The main drive with ICS has been using libraries like there is no tomorrow but if a science specialist in a 3 pop city gives only 1 beaker (25% of pop as a formula) then this gets seriously nerfed.

I think if you nerf the 2 buildings that ICS relies on you might well do enough to make ICS bad without eliminating it entirely, particularly since both of these nerfs make large cities stronger as well.

It's also quite elegant, because its only two changes and they both follow the same structural rule (25% of pop) so its quite an easy adaption.

Nice idea, but there'll still be a massive amount of gold and production for ICS'ers. Also to consider is that by the nature of Civ5 ICS your cities head up around 7-8 pop. So it would still be the equivalent of one and a half specialists (in a library). Maritime also needs a nerf, and the ability to found unlimited cities needs a nerf.

 

[LordTC]

Small empires managed a turn 233 win in the current version of your mod, wheras ICS was typically turn 190-200, I think the changes I've mentioned nerfed ICS to the point of being at least 40 turns slower so it should be on par with the smaller empire approach.

 

[LordTC]

7-8 pop cities with the happiness building changes are almost impossible for ICS, particularly if Colliseum is only 25%.

 

[Dale]

Oh don't get me wrong, I love the specialist idea (and had actually thought of doing that for scientists). I'll give it a test run and see how it works out. I just think more would be needed than those two.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

@Zyxpsilon
I'm not entirely certain I understand your request, could you provide details or a link to the thread in question?

Sure...
Z-Eras

Much more explicit details later should you (or DK) require any.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

V2 should correct the Bureaucracy bug thus nerfing the huge extra happiness amounts i've already experienced, right?
Gosh -- i'm sooooo screwed!

 

[Dale]

Version 2 is now available on the mod hub.

Features:
Applies to all players: humans and AI
Colosseum: 25% of city pop happy, 5 gold maintenance
Theatre: 25% of city pop happy, 7 gold maintenance
Stadium: 25% of city pop happy, 10 gold maintenance
Trading Post: only provides +1 gold
Resources: now provide +4 happy
Maritime friends: now provide +2/0 food
Maritime allies: now provide +1/+1 food
Library: now 0 specialist slots
Bureaucracy: increasing unhappy for city count
Top bar and Economics report reflect correctly happiness components

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Have you considered n*log(n) as a formula for population induced science. It breaks even at popsize=10 while hindering smaller cities and boosting larger ones.

n is the city popsize btw