Does Civ 5 (Gods and Kings) need a Happiness nerf?

[Terakahn]

Few questions/statements after a long thorough re-read.

1. Can someone clearly explain to me the differences between local and global happiness?
2. How would the game improve/diminish if we removed happiness entirely? Without details on how it would affect luxuries, etc.
3. Are we debating the issues of happiness in Single Player, or Multiplayer? Those are completely different styles of play and can't really be compared. Differences are monumental.
4. I think happiness overall needs tweaking, but its not terrible as is. Allow for more growth in the early game to help increase the game's pace, and make it require more management later in the game so its not just some null thing that doesn't affect anything. I'm sure there are a ton of ways to do this by era.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

Few questions/statements after a long thorough re-read.

1. Can someone clearly explain to me the differences between local and global happiness?
2. How would the game improve/diminish if we removed happiness entirely? Without details on how it would affect luxuries, etc.
3. Are we debating the issues of happiness in Single Player, or Multiplayer? Those are completely different styles of play and can't really be compared. Differences are monumental.
4. I think happiness overall needs tweaking, but its not terrible as is. Allow for more growth in the early game to help increase the game's pace, and make it require more management later in the game so its not just some null thing that doesn't affect anything. I'm sure there are a ton of ways to do this by era.

2. If we remove happiness entirely, it would be imbalanced because this will allow players to expand freely. In civrev there is no happpiness. you can make 50 cities and no penalty.

 

[poopfeast420]

It needs to be weaker, but also the AI needs a huge happiness nerf too. I faced a civ that basically went ICS because she was uncontested. Her religion had no happiness bonuses, she only completed the tradition tree (even though she had more cities than 3 other civs combined), and she only had 1 wonder because I stole all the happines wonders, yet she still had positive happiness

 

[nokmirt]

I don't think the consumers like the idea of having their happiness taken away. I wouldn't. Buffing anything is a horrendously bad idea.

Yes it is. It would ruin the game.

I don't know about you people, but I have to work to keep my people happy. Population, number of cities, and captured city unhappiness (which only lasts til' I buy them a courthouse) all make it rough for me.

Yes it is challenging enough to keep happiness in check. In many games I have seen played, happiness becomes a huge issue as the game progresses. It is almost like pulling a rabbit out of the hat to find extra happiness. From my own experience, I have found that annexing cites when you can, helps keep happiness more positive. Selling unneeded cities is also imperative. Again, If your getting huge amounts of happiness at lower levels, then perhaps you should consider moving up to the next difficulty level. I have noticed that many issues are from people playing at very low levels, which for those people, are simply unchallenging. So, when they get huges amounts of something they feel the game is broken.

*on another note* If anything needs a nerf in this game it should be artillery types , bombers, and battleships. We really should have to fight for cities. These units even without promotions, knock down cities, like the big bad wolf blowing down a straw house. Battleships especially are way overpowered.

The other thing that needs to go by the wayside is the offensive, culture bomb citadel. Really citadels should be used for strategic defense. Not for help gaining enemy capitals, and other important cities. The AI is already at a severe disadvantage against the human player. Why make it even more difficult for the AI? To me it makes no sense. Especially when the AI cannot even use them properly, or at all.

 

[Yzman]

I disagree. Those are supposed to be overpowered. If you didn't have anything that powerful...taking cities in the late game would be near impossible.

 

[nokmirt]

I disagree. Those are supposed to be overpowered. If you didn't have anything that powerful...taking cities in the late game would be near impossible.

Perhaps they did it so the AI could take cities, not sure. I remember in vanilla the Siamese tried to take a CS for 200 turns and failed.

 

[smallfish]

Perhaps they did it so the AI could take cities, not sure. I remember in vanilla the Siamese tried to take a CS for 200 turns and failed.

200 turns?

I remembered the Hills of Belgrade.

Whenever we think of "sending young men and boys to die needless deaths in the millions", the Flanders and General Haig comes to mind.

Here in this wonky civ world of Zhongguo, they think of Belgrade and President Nobunaga.

Though this picture doesn't show it, Oda has been sending samurais, then only recently rifles and cannons, to die trying to take that German-allied CS out at least since the 1600s.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

Yes it is. It would ruin the game.



So, when they get huges amounts of something they feel the game is broken.

*on another note* If anything needs a nerf in this game it should be artillery types , bombers, and battleships. We really should have to fight for cities. These units even without promotions, knock down cities, like the big bad wolf blowing down a straw house. Battleships especially are way overpowered.

I agree with you when you say that if ppl get too much of something they feel its overpowered.

on these forums I have seen threads that persia is too overpowered because their golden ages are too long

on thse forums I have seen threads that spain is overpowered because their early gold is too high

on these forums I have seen threads that egypt is overpowered because they get too many wonders

on these forums i have seen arabs, huns, austria, maya, all because too much power on the camels, too much power on the battering ram, too much power in buying extra cities, too much power because idk..

the list practically goes on...... even greeks getting 0 influence decrease on all city states with the right pantheon and patronage, has been seen too powerful ..

About the battleships, you can build your own battleships or submarines which are excellent to counter naval assaults.

the bombers, they do get hit when they attack, so they cant be alive forever, but then again what about the nuclear bomb? which is like a million bomber attacks hmm lol

 

[Terakahn]

People think everything is overpowered when its simply just a strength. You never hear that something is underpowered.

Say you take happiness away, people can expand freely, but its not unbalanced because everyone can do this. The only way you could unbalance it would be to make it only available to certain Civs, Social Policies, etc. The only change with keeping it is that AI can expand freely and you can't. Was CivRev particularly broken because of that mechanic? I never felt like I had problems playing it. Though it was a different game for sure.

 

[Agent Cooper]

I think it's basically fine.

I remember how much we used to complain about the harsh happiness mechanics in the vanilla game, how it essentially forced you to build/buy happiness buildings everywhere, if you wanted to go wide and for most civs, going tall with your core cities while going wide for the empire, seemed impossible.

G&K introduced more options when building your empire, because you aren't as restricted by negative happiness anymore if you make some clever choices with the new mechanics.

If it feels too easy to gain happiness, I'd suggest playing at higher difficulties where you might miss out on a religion etc...

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

Was CivRev particularly broken because of that mechanic? I never felt like I had problems playing it. Though it was a different game for sure.

No, there was a million things.

With expansion, most players didnt understand that expanding into infinity cities was the master strategy, most players go with 2 cities. For example, the 100g they achieved through barbs/huts/exploration they used it to rush a library, doubling their science, BUT, if they used the gold to instead rush 2 settlers (since settler = 20 hammers, and library = 40, you could rush 2 of them) this would tripple their science output. if you kept expanding non stop, you would reach the tanks like 500ad-1000ad.

Some civs have extremely powerful bonuses, the aztecs can conquer another civ in 4 turns, the zulu in 5 , and the arabs around 8-10 turns. if they didnt get you by then, they could all come at you3-5 turns later with horses. and you are barely exploring around. Other civs like usa/china had the perfect expansion bonuses, they were the 2 most powerful, and usa did have a broken bonus. The 1/2 cost rush was actually 1/3 cost. They could rush a whole army(3 units) for the same price another civ would rush for 1 unit. So, 3 settlers out, and you barely rushed 1. so when someone rushes 2 setlers, americans are alreday at 6 settlers.

Some wonders were extremely powerful. East india, gives you +1 science from water tiles, if you look at it carefully thats a +50% science/gold output, plus democracy, you double everything. Also, oxford university, it gives you a free tech.. well we discovered theres a pattern, ppl use oxford to get bombers at 200ad.. all you ned to do it research industrialization as your most advanced tech. This worked out nicely with the expansion strategy since you practically have 20-25 cities by then and still making, and each city gave you +5 gold, and if you were in democracy you got 7.

all the ancient artifacts were overpowered, 7 cities of gold, early game (many ppl rush libraries) but a good player would either use it to expand quick, or rush horses to rush someone. knights templar, that early knight can take cities by surprise, and force players to either rush archer armies or try to combat the knight with warrior/horses/legions. atlantis, 3 free techs.. (usually spain), agkor wat usually gave you pyramid, which calls for early republic for the expansion process, or fundamentalism to destroy someone.

the combat was practically a gamble, there is no health points, its either you win or you lose, at times even archers/pikemen got lucky against tanks.. which always angered many players.

artists, complete filps of a city ! with little effort.

I still somehow loved it and still do lol

 

[gunslinger6792]

I think if anything the AI needs a happiness nerf. that said though in many games the AI already seems to have problems making cities half the time so nerfing their happiness could be problematic. I don't think happiness needs to be nerfed though its hard enough on the player.

 

[stii]

I don't really understand people wanting the AI to have less happiness can't you just turn down the difficulty?

 

[gunslinger6792]

I don't really understand people wanting the AI to have less happiness can't you just turn down the difficulty?

if you turn down the difficulty the game just becomes to easy and isn't any fun. people want a balance between difficulty and fun; if its to hard its not fun and if its to easy its not fun.

 

[Yzman]

My only problem with the AI happiness bonus is it is so misleading. I used to think I played the game terribly because I would be in the low single digits for happiness when they would be upward near 70. Only from coming here for a long time did I learn they just cheat like mad. I don't get satisfaction beating something that's cheating against me profusely to win. And its not even a small bonus. The AI basically never has to worry about unhappiness unless they are on the brink of losing anyway.

 

[Furycrab]

I don't really understand people wanting the AI to have less happiness can't you just turn down the difficulty?

They get the happiness bonus at all difficulty levels, they just get some pretty silly growth/food bonuses the higher you go.

The reason they chose to make the AI disregard happiness was because if the AI ever blundered and got itself into some serious negative happy you would crush it. It also helps the AI when it comes to expansion decisions since they just need to put a "flavor" to how much it likes to expand and then pretty much let it run loose. That happiness will likely never change since there are about 10000x other moving pieces that can be improved on the AI (and to be honest, they have)


The ICS though... In singleplayer it's not "that" bad since if you play on higher difficulties you end up in situations where it's still decently hard enough to pull off.

In multiplayer... I know most people just play random, but whoever gets a decent civ to ICS, some space to ICS and some form of nearby faith... G f* G.

 

[Terakahn]

Everyone gets happiness bonuses at all difficulty levels as far as I know. its just not as high as they get.

If happiness was an issue for the AI, they wouldnt be able to expand or conquer as much. Which is how it should be. Instead of limitless expansion with no penalty. I don't know, I'm fine with it as it is.

I have a rule I took from Starcraft. Don't call the game unbalanced, just find the strategy that works with the current mechanics.

@HelloGoodbye I enjoy it too, haha. Just haven't touched it since I picked up Civ5.

 

[Mesix]

The other thing that needs to go by the wayside is the offensive, culture bomb citadel. Really citadels should be used for strategic defense. Not for help gaining enemy capitals, and other important cities. The AI is already at a severe disadvantage against the human player. Why make it even more difficult for the AI? To me it makes no sense. Especially when the AI cannot even use them properly, or at all.

Apparently, the AI knows how to use citadels offensively as well. In my recent game as Babylon, Elizabeth is making good use of GG to blaze a trail to the Inca capital.

Spoiler :

 

[hobbsyoyo]

on these forums i have seen arabs, huns, austria, maya, all because too much power on the camels, too much power on the battering ram, too much power in buying extra cities, too much power because idk..

Ok, I actually agree with most of the things you have said in this thread. But I have to call BS here.

You conceded that thread, remember? Why? Because you play MP exclusively and have never dealt with a runaway Austrian AI and all of the other things we have talked about concerning that UA. Wanna walk this statement back?

About the battleships, you can build your own battleships or submarines which are excellent to counter naval assaults.

I think the original statement was more about how the human can runaway with the game with these units (BB's, bomber's, artie). When not playing on MP, it is often the case that the human outtechs the AI and once you get these units, you win. The AI also doesn't build enough of them or use them effectively when they get them - of course this isn't always true, and certainly it isn't true of upper-difficulty level games.

Yes it is challenging enough to keep happiness in check. In many games I have seen played, happiness becomes a huge issue as the game progresses. It is almost like pulling a rabbit out of the hat to find extra happiness. From my own experience, I have found that annexing cites when you can, helps keep happiness more positive. Selling unneeded cities is also imperative. Again, If your getting huge amounts of happiness at lower levels, then perhaps you should consider moving up to the next difficulty level. I have noticed that many issues are from people playing at very low levels, which for those people, are simply unchallenging. So, when they get huges amounts of something they feel the game is broken.

I also usually have big or even severe happiness problems in my games until the end game, and then I still have one if I'm in a war that I'm winning or going for domination. (Can't raze fast enough!)

I'm honestly not sure where the happy-haters are coming from. Maybe they are just experts at the game? I don't understand...

The other thing that needs to go by the wayside is the offensive, culture bomb citadel. Really citadels should be used for strategic defense. Not for help gaining enemy capitals, and other important cities. The AI is already at a severe disadvantage against the human player. Why make it even more difficult for the AI? To me it makes no sense. Especially when the AI cannot even use them properly, or at all.

I prefer the culture bomb citadel over both the old culture bomb AND the old citadel. I don't see a problem with it, and the AI's do use it, but not always effectively. But since when has this not been the case for the AI in just about any situation?

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

Ok, I actually agree with most of the things you have said in this thread. But I have to call BS here.

You conceded that thread, remember? Why? Because you play MP exclusively and have never dealt with a runaway Austrian AI and all of the other things we have talked about concerning that UA. Wanna walk this statement back?

After much thought, I came to the conclusion that is it not the Austrian bonus that is Overpowered/Broken, it is indeed single player that lacks not only strength but weakness.

The AI is way too strong on higher difficulties but only because it gets such an unfair boost, that the only way to beat it is too strictly play certain strategies, making the game, not really playable. On lower difficulties the human becomes a runaway in every game, asking the question, "am i really even playing against another civilization?"

Single player lacks a descent AI, Austria is only strong because the AI has unlimited bonuses, the Unique Ability itself is not broken at all. Even as a human yourself, you are able to feel cheap in higher difficulties when you can purchase a city states that built tons of units and with a population size bigger than any of your cities, this is not Austria's fault, it is the fault of the developers for not creating an AI descent enough to play strategically, that the only excuse they have to make it better is to double up on bonuses, and hope that it counts as a descent AI.