FfH2 0.16 Balance Recommendations

[DieselBiscuit]

That being said, I probably would not have interperted your message the way I did, had it not come upon the heels of a intensely emotional, and to me, inexplicable, reaction from another poster.

Well, I reckon no real offense meant or taken then, so we can get back into the juicy mechanics discussion instead

Change the Gambling House to
Racetrack
+3 gold
+1 happyfaces
No effect on maintennce.
Available with Stirrups

AND Add a garrison +happyface effect to an appropriate midgame civic, but cap it at a maximum effect of +1 or +2 happyfaces.

I like the idea of more civics giving boni/mali to buildings. It forces you to make decisions, not only on what you build but the future price of building it
right now, especially with the mali. The combination of a capped garrison effect tied to a specific building/civic combo is nice, but may lead to pidgeonholing in the same way you consider the gambling house do now.

This change accomplishes a few things which I see as potential positives.

1) It does not reduce the happycap potential in the game, it redistributes them through the game. They would be accumulated incrementally, istead of al in one convieninet lump-sum.

I never reduce my science rate unless it's a major crisis and neither mathematics nor the gambling house are high on my list of priorities in any game and even so, reaching a happycap of 20 by year 150-200 in a normal speed game on Emperor isn't very difficult. Actually, I wouldn't mind an overall reduction in happycap but that's a bit beyond the scope of what we're discussing.

I still think that the price to pay for those are pretty high, even without a secondary penalty like maintenance. My view is that the is a compensation for the science you lose and not a viable source for in anything other than an extremely short perspective. One suggestion may be putting in a equilibrium point, say at 20% income/80& science&culture, where the gambling house gives a net zero in /. This would give the 100% science guy a +2 and the 50% gold gal a +3. Thus, it comes with a price if you plan on spending a lot and reduces the benefits if you expect to hoard a lot.

2) It returns the Threatre to its traditional role as the emergency happyface generator. Luxury spending is the appropriate way to raise morale, not financial taxing. I don't give a rat's ass about any semantical construct designed to support or destroy this notion. I am talking about game mechanics.
...2a) A second +happyface-per-10% slider on the Gold trace does nothing except destroy 99.83275% of any reason to use the luxury slider. Gold has many uses in the game. Why raise the luxury slider, when you can raise the gold slifder instead? Then you can rush construction, at a bare minimum.

One counterpoint to this is that culture rating should be more important in general. I haven't read through all the religion spreading code, but I don't find culture a big enough factor in e.g. the spreading of religions. Right now your only tangible benefit is the from theatres.

...2b) To which sceptics are invited to defend the concept of a happyslider on the R&D track. Why not include such a building too? After all, all that would happen is every city would get +10 no matter where the sliders were set. (One such building for each slider.)

Science is the most important avenue of spending in FFH. Both buildings and units are secondary to actually getting the tech where you can aquire them. If you play without tech trading this becomes even more true. You need no incentive to adjust that slider as far up as you can.

3) Changing the Gambling House to the Racetrack would interject strength to the Agriculture line. Drama would be needed for slider happyfaces, instead of something you pick up eventually, sometime.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Agriculture line here. If you imply that you do not research festivals/calendar/animal husbandry since you can beeline for mathematics, I'd have to try that strategy before I can criticize/praise it. An idea for making culture important could be making relative culture values have an impact on your trade income, as your empires goods would be viewed as superior by virtue of them being consumed by the cultural elite (your exalted citizens).

4) Current "useless" civics based largely upon happyfaces might no longer be considered quite so "useless".

5) Let us assume the harshest change possible: all happyfaces are eliminated from the Gambling House and they are not redistributed elsewhere. That means one's massive size 25 cities might have to get by as size 20 cities. Anyone here afraid of the AI when you have a dozen size-20 cities to draw upon?

As happyfaces are not hard to come by in FFH, even on Emperor and above, and the price is glorious, hard-earned science, it still comes off more as a choice of strategy rather than an all-purpose highway to victory. As implied, I do not go below 90% science if I have a choice and that leaves me with a building that gives me +1 , +3 and +10% maintenance. Not a very high priority, I tell you.

===================

Before I adopted my current state of quasi-retirement I was trained and employed to find "so-called root causes", as one of my legion of fans here put it. Well, this Gambling House is a classic exmaple of "root cause". It's like the butterfly flapping its wings in China that results in a hurricane hammering Florida. It's a small little thing that has unexpectedly large results.

If you have a legion of fans, you should either remove the "Dept. of unpopular ideas" part of your user info or get your black belt in irony

The Gambling House is like that. It's just one little building, but when you think about it, that one little building sends out big ripples. Root causes are neither evil nor good in and of themselves. They are just keys to understanding complex systems.

As a Masters graduate of software system engineering and intelligent systems I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of your analysis, on the basis of aforementioned grounds. You obviously prioritize happycap a lot more than I do, we both play the game at a reasonably difficult level and enjoy different strategies which are both potential paths to victory. Thus, it is hard for me to accept the gambling house as a "root cause" for pidgeonholing the gameplay.

When I think of something I feel would be beneficial to the game, I post it. That is my motivation, so I get a little testy when other posters set me up as a villain out to destroy the fun of other players. When I playtest a game, my thoughts are on long-term replayability. I've played Civ on and off since Civ One came out. The "off" periods occur when every game gets played the same way. IMO, the Gambling House seems like one of those 'Sameness Attractors'.

I did in no way try to silence your contributions to the forum. Your gambling house proposal was the only part of that 4 part post I disagreed with, mainly because it sought to remove a mechanic which appears relatively unique in the game (note: I seldom use neither theatres nor GHs) and replace it with a rather plain +1 . While we may not agree on this particular issue, I think that what makes FFH so appealing is the different paths and the mechanics available with these paths. As long as a mechanic is intuitive and smoothly implemented I would rather keep it, although at a higher cost if it is proven overpowered, than to replace it with something common.

All this being said, it's not up to me what happens to the GH, if anything. I hope Kael and the Team lets the idea rattle around in their heads for awhile. That's all I aim for. I am not going to lose any sleep if nothing happens to the Gambling House.

Well, at least in theory you should feel more about the GH than me because I usually refrain from building it If anything I'm glad that the issue is brought up because it opens for a broader discussion of mechanics in general. The only thing I regret is for the FFH team to sit through the long-winded ramblings of a select and very verbal group of FFH affectionados when they probably would gain more from a simple poll of the type "GH: Too powerful? Y/N/Hill Giant Cleavage" with 100 or so more casual gamer type respondants. That said, I do realize that the opinion that is to be polled has to come from someone.

Phew! Better take out this word barrow before it spawns an army big enough to raze the forum.

Note: Some of your happyface icons have been trimmed to get this post within forum limits.

 

[Sureshot]

oh, its definately setting dependent.

but if you play marathon big maps with few civs its quite easy to go the recon path (usually your smartest move since they can do anything you need them to do and are invincible to animals and the wilderness) and get all the animals you need, and quite early in the game get +7 happiness from the animals, silk (which you only need 1 of for global effect happiness) and carnival. thats better than the science killing gambling house which requires a more expensive tech (also animals gives other benefits besides happiness, great for get your new cities up and going culturally).

i play a variety of settings, and in some gambling houses are quite necessary, removing them would be as dumb as removing archmages, it only diminishes peoples ability to play the ways they like in exchange for some trivial setting-specific perceived balance necessity in a game that thrives on its outlandishness, variety, and double-win super powered methods.

 

[Gamestation]

oh, its definately setting dependent.

but if you play marathon big maps with few civs its quite easy to go the recon path (usually your smartest move since they can do anything you need them to do and are invincible to animals and the wilderness) and get all the animals you need, and quite early in the game get +7 happiness from the animals, silk (which you only need 1 of for global effect happiness) and carnival. thats better than the science killing gambling house which requires a more expensive tech (also animals gives other benefits besides happiness, great for get your new cities up and going culturally).

All right I see where you were going with the animal thing being unbalanced and needing to be removed. Although I don't think it's just the animals you think are out of control but the recon line itself. Am I correct when I say you've modified your own game so that hunters appeared on the tracking tech instead of at hunting? Ah well this is just idle discussion from me now since I'm not really making any recommendations to this.

 

[Sureshot]

i only move them to tracking for the civs i play. animals don't need to be removed anymore than gambling houses or archmages, but i tend to avoid that path so if theres some necessity to remove random things because of someones experiences with them on the types of games they play, might as well remove animals instead since recon is already a powerful line.
or wait, is it selfish to want things removed because its not my preferred play method?

leave it all in and let everyone enjoy their methods of play.

 

[Grey Fox]

Unser is talking game balance, and you are being a child seeing stuff in black & white. Thats how I see it.

 

[Kael]

Be nice guys. Unser is just providing his opinion, and I want to hear everyone's opinion so not only is it welcome, I have activily requested it.

And I welcome people to disagree. Just please keep the disagreements to matters of game balance and not attacks on other people. I appreicate people being very passionate about FfH, but at the end of the day Im the one that decides what goes in or not so Im the only one you have a right to be mad at if you don't like a change in the mod.

So please keep offering opinions and please try to be respectful of everyone elses opinion when you do so.

Specifically to the Gambling House I scheduled it for removal in 0.15. The feedback from the team, mostly Chalid, was that the Gambling House enables a new options and should remain. We had a talk about it and in the end we opted to leave it in. So I definitly see the the pros/cons of both sides but I dont forsee making a change to it anytime soon, and it certainly wouldnt be removed.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Well, I reckon no real offense meant or taken then, so we can get back into the juicy mechanics discussion instead

Fantastic, and please accept these same sentiments returned.

You posted a very long message, so forgive me if I end the quotes at that point. I don't think it neccessary to go over each point. I think it's probably best to just review a couple general points, as IMO I have so far failed to convery my entire meaning.

First, please do not consider the comments below the dashed line to be addressed to you. It was intended as a general venting to no one in particular. I am aware I annoy some people here. That is not my intention. My mind just naturally turns to gaming. I can't help it.

Anyway, I need one more qoute.

I never reduce my science rate unless it's a major crisis and neither mathematics nor the gambling house are high on my list of priorities in any game and even so, reaching a happycap of 20 by year 150-200 in a normal speed game on Emperor isn't very difficult. Actually, I wouldn't mind an overall reduction in happycap but that's a bit beyond the scope of what we're discussing.

(My emphasis)

Actually, this very notion is behind the idea. The prevalence of happyfaces has been discussed here by several posters. I am not saying we are 100% correct, I am just saying there are people who feel this way. Those people might naturally be expected to support some way of reducing or redistributing happyfaces.

It occured to me that one place ripe for such a happyface pruning would be our pal the Gambling House. And thus Item #4 of a post was born.

General comment #2 ... in a similar vein there has been much discussion along the lines that players tend to put off research in the techs that follow after Agricultire. There are quite a few players who feel the horse-related techs in particular need more to make them compare to the rest of the tech tree.

The last general comment I'd like to cover is your observation that Gambling Houses are not a critical issue, because you never reduce science when you have a choice. It's the "when you have a choice" bit that makes the difference. I am of the same opinion. Nevertheless I find myself operating substantially below 100% science in the mid and end games. Financial civs do better, but other traits are often running in the 60%-70% range.

And that means 3 or 4 'extra' s. Because if war in not on the immedeate horizon, I tend to keep padding the economy. So GH's eventually do go up. And since sub-100% R&D goes on for quite awhile, those 'extra' happyfaces start being taken for granted. Cities grow up into the bigger happycaps.

And if war is not only on the horizon, but a grueling way of life, the GHs go up. If I have to drive down the R&D slider, I might as well drive up Gold. Why not? When I get the exact same happiness bonus from generating gold as from generating luxuries ... luxuries ... i.e. the things that make people happy.

So in conclusion the way I look at it, the Gambling House seems like a great candidate if and when The Team wishes to redistribute happyfaces in the game. Such a motivation might exist in beefing up the relative value horse-related techs. Such a motivation might exist in beefing up the relative value of certain civics. Or such motivtion might never come to pass, ever.

It's just another idea to rattle around in the brains.

EDIT:

@Kael's post, immedeately above - Thanks for chiming in.

 

[uberfish]

Thessa has expansive/arcane. The expansive part is pretty useless, Ljosalfar running the (very cool) forest economy never have health problems. Any chance of changing it to something else?

Also, anyone else find themselves never switching out of agriculture? Sanitation +1 and aristocracy -1 cancel each other out neatly when they arrive.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I do tend to find myself hooked on the extra food like an addict.

 

[Endovior]

Thessa has expansive/arcane. The expansive part is pretty useless, Ljosalfar running the (very cool) forest economy never have health problems. Any chance of changing it to something else?

Also, anyone else find themselves never switching out of agriculture? Sanitation +1 and aristocracy -1 cancel each other out neatly when they arrive.

Unless I find myself beset by enemies, I usually switch out of Agriculture right away for Foreign Trade... I like the massive trade empire economy far too much.

 

[RavenXL]

I dont quote what I am answering, this would make the post long. Please read the last two pages if you are curios whats going on. All I do in this post is announce my oppinion.

1) The recon line is very powerfull. You don't need a ressource, and theres no improvement versus recon units.

2) I don't have probems with animals and carnivals. I try to avoid hunter/ranger armies, so I never get a lot of animals. And I often play with some more civics than the game suggests for a game/size.

3) I don't like the gambling house. I use gold for my empire, and the happyfaces are in no relation to one building. Maybe three would be ok, but not five+.

4) Cottages are a no-brainer for me. I often use them more than anything else. A lot of cottages, as many mines as I can, one to three fields and some lumbermills. No Watermills, windmills and only a few workshops.
Often, I am stuck with agriculture for the whole game.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

After playing a couple more games, I'm not so sure that the happicap in FfH is necessarily too high. I think the main problem here is happicap distribution. Almost every happicap increase comes in the first half of the game. The last half of the game goes by with virtually no increases in happicap at all, barring resource aquisition from expansion. If a few of those economic techs were to be moved back a bit, or even if the economic lines were expanded to reach into the later game, there would be no problem. Maybe the happiness bonuses from buildings could be uniformly toned down, and buildings like the vanilla market could be added (for those of you that haven't played vanilla recently, the market basically doubled the happy bonus you get from resources- a very nice mechanic, in my opinion).

About what to do about the gambling house specifically; I agree that it shouldn't be as efficient a happicap generator as the threatre, though the concept isn't inherently flawed. I'd recommend making it give a happy face for every +20% rate, and leave it at that. Of course, I also like the idea of making a similar building on the horse tech. Perhaps it could be renamed and moved to another tech, but keep a similar function.

 

[DieselBiscuit]

I am aware I annoy some people here. That is not my intention. My mind just naturally turns to gaming. I can't help it.

I am familiar with the notion. I tend to get looks at my board game sessions when I dissect an opponents gaming theory. Geek wars often ensue

Actually, this very notion is behind the idea. The prevalence of happyfaces has been discussed here by several posters. <snippy>

It occured to me that one place ripe for such a happyface pruning would be our pal the Gambling House. And thus Item #4 of a post was born.

My first target would be the Religion civic, because it's available very early, has no side effects and can easily give you 3 extra . Another observation here is to get incense as it provides happy with 3 religious temple types and the pagan temple. For additional bonus fun, try your hand at a little early power-teching with the agriculture/calendar combo if you're lucky enough to have a couple of incense inside your borders. Who needs gold?

General comment #2 ... in a similar vein there has been much discussion along the lines that players tend to put off research in the techs that follow after Agricultire. There are quite a few players who feel the horse-related techs in particular need more to make them compare to the rest of the tech tree.

Agreed. Sure, I'll produce a couple of horsemen if I luck out and get horseback riding in a hut, else it's a dead tech branch until very, very late if I decide to pound some neighbours with camels, knights and the like. The only honorable exception to this is the Kuriotate centaur who gets defensive bonuses, can pillage and can be built without stables, making it quite a formidable hunter replacement. Happy faces in a strictly military branch seems a bit misplaced flavorwise, though. You'd need quite a boost in happy spread out there to make up for the fact that the units are pretty tame atm.

Nevertheless I find myself operating substantially below 100% science in the mid and end games. Financial civs do better, but other traits are often running in the 60%-70% range.

I consider my empire economically flawed if i do not have a surplus at at least 80% science, even without financial or organized traits, so that explains why I never see the great output of the GH. Although I agree that if the GH just provides a lot of in addition to the +3 under a given method of play, it may be ripe for some change. My suggestion is that the mechanic should focus on adding happiness at the cost of gold, so that you build the GH in cities where you want to balance the need for with your need for income. How about -5% output per notch of the tax slider?

After playing a couple more games, I'm not so sure that the happicap in FfH is necessarily too high. I think the main problem here is happicap distribution.
Almost every happicap increase comes in the first half of the game. The last half of the game goes by with virtually no increases in happicap at all, barring resource aquisition from expansion.

I agree completely with this.

If a few of those economic techs were to be moved back a bit, or even if the economic lines were expanded to reach into the later game, there would be no problem. Maybe the happiness bonuses from buildings could be uniformly toned down, and buildings like the vanilla market could be added (for those of you that haven't played vanilla recently, the market basically doubled the happy bonus you get from resources- a very nice mechanic, in my opinion).

I mostly agree on this too, except that the Religion civic is my favourite culprit for clumping happiness boni. Imagine having rushed Priesthood, which is a pretty neat strategy even with str 4 priests: Sending out that priest to found a temple in your new city will effectively raise its happycap by 4, and that's not even considering the potential boni from God King and Religious Discipline (though these may come at a pretty steep price).

 

[RavenXL]

By the way:

- Bronzeworking only covers one thing, and that is axeman. You can have your bronze with 90% of the useable things at mining (and iron with smelting). Be it ships, other units, ore maybe wonders (are there wonders with copper?). They all need the addition bronzeworking (ironworking) as a precondition to be build.

- Domination has to cause war.

- Hidden nationality is not hidden...

 

[uberfish]

Once you get a religion, the religion+agriculture civic combo allows you to explode all your cities to size 10+ very quickly with just 2-3 farms per city and very few resources. Right now there is no reason not to always run these two in the early game because the other civics you can get don't offer anything comparable.

 

[Xuenay]

Specifically to the Gambling House I scheduled it for removal in 0.15. The feedback from the team, mostly Chalid, was that the Gambling House enables a new options and should remain. We had a talk about it and in the end we opted to leave it in. So I definitly see the the pros/cons of both sides but I dont forsee making a change to it anytime soon, and it certainly wouldnt be removed.

Would it be possible to get that discussion somewhere where it can be publically read, in case there'd be viewpoints in it that haven't been brought up here?

 

[Kael]

Would it be possible to get that discussion somewhere where it can be publically read, in case there'd be viewpoints in it that haven't been brought up here?

Done: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=177863

 

[katika]

The gambling house isn't too useful under Runes or the Order because then you probably have a high science rating, but + per 20% commerce wouldn't kill its usefulness.

 

[Xuenay]

Done: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=177863

Thanks. Hmm, is there any reason why the "make the GH require Consumption" change didn't get implemented? That might be a nice compromise between the "remove completely" and "leave it in"-camps here.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

how about making some buildings mutually exclusive? i.e., one cannot have a GH & a theatre in the same city.
Only problem would be if you changed your mind later there is no way to get rid of buildings now.
hmmm, a "configureable" building would be interesting... say, you build a "civic building" and can change it's function to be a theatre, gambling hall or courthouse, but not at the same time.
probably too much micromanagement, though.