Is it okay to just have 0 Happiness?

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

Unless you're putting happiness into culture (via Aesthetics), or you're a civ which needs a lot of happiness to work (Persia), I really don't see much point. Golden ages are so rare anyway that having an abundance of happiness seems like a useless goal.

The only reason I see for having a lot of happiness is if you want to build and grow a new city very fast, or you need happiness as a reserve if you lose a luxury resource and/or a city-state alliance.

Basically I just want to keep it at 0 the whole game and not have to worry about golden ages, except in a few rare instances as noted above.

Can someone convince me otherwise?

 

[joncnunn]

The main problem with being at exactly 0 Global Happiness, is the next time ANY of your cities grows, you go into negative happiness, which carries severe penalties.
In addition, it would pretty much mean you can't capture any cities without going into unhappiness (even to raze),
that should an AI fail to call you up as a trade deal is about to expire, you'll be subjected to unhappiness,
that should an AI you are trading with lose its copy of a luxury to the barbarians or other AI that you'll go into unhappiness,
that if anyone you are trading with DOWs you, you'll go into unhappiness,
and if you are still near zero when ideologies come along, then what are minor ideological happiness reductions will cause your global unhappiness to drop below zero for severe problems.

Basically, at a minimum you need to keep enough of a buffer to handle your cities growing and be able to handle losing a luxury in the middle of the AIs turn to avoid basically losing growth every time trade deals expire, and if a war is anticipated, enough spare happiness to be able to safely conquer cities.

 

[Socratatus]

Yea. `buffer` is the word. Like having a bank account. No wise person keeps it at `0` all the time. It`s too on the wire. Not smart. You can`t guarantee it`s going to stay at 0. Anything could suddenly drop it to -1 and lower. And from there it rapidly goes downhill.

Better to work at minimum 5 (better 10 or more) and at least you`ll get some warning if it drops.

You should always be keeping it higher than 0.

 

[danaphanous]

Penalties of being unhappy aren't THAT bad until rationalism in my opinion. I can live with reduced empire growth and a tiny production penalty as long as it's just a few faces, though obviously it is non-ideal.

ON a big empire game I might even purposely go into unhappiness because the effect of getting a couple cities a few pop higher is better until rationalism. After rationalism you start to lose that hefty 10% extra science if empire is happy bonus which is a lot.

 

[Makenshi]

It is the duty of a ruler to keep his/her people happy; thus, I find unhapiness to be unacceptable and do my best to aways be as happy as possible. If that can give me extra golden ages [and usually does], better; if not, that's ok, too.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I understand the need for a buffer.

I just don't see the point in, say, trading for more luxury resources just to get more happiness when I already have so much happiness as it is. My last game today I was at like 50-60 happiness [normal difficulty] at one point. I remember other games where I was up past 100. It didn't seem to do me any good besides, as a said, the occasional golden age...

5-10 seems to be a better number.

 

[Jaybe]

Happiness in the 50-60 range with next GAge in about 60 turns of 21 turns (epic speed, with Chichen Itza). So 1/4 of my time getting +20% production & culture. But I was short on great artist slots when I got another, so it extended another 15 turns. I Like my golden ages!

 

[Ryika]

The problem isn't really "not having a buffer", I can perfectly live at 0 Happiness without the danger of dropping into negative territory as long as my happiness comes from stable sources. The problem is that you need growth potential throughout the whole game. If you're at exactly 0 then that growth potential isn't there and THAT is the main reason why you want to get more happiness.

Unless I'm missing some exceptions... if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are at low happiness but wouldn't want to get additional happiness because you "can't grow anyway" then you've probably not played very well, because your empire is in the process of stagnating before it has used up the happiness that would be available.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

The main problem with being at exactly 0 Global Happiness, is the next time ANY of your cities grows, you go into negative happiness, which carries severe penalties.
In addition, it would pretty much mean you can't capture any cities without going into unhappiness (even to raze),
that should an AI fail to call you up as a trade deal is about to expire, you'll be subjected to unhappiness,
that should an AI you are trading with lose its copy of a luxury to the barbarians or other AI that you'll go into unhappiness,
that if anyone you are trading with DOWs you, you'll go into unhappiness,
and if you are still near zero when ideologies come along, then what are minor ideological happiness reductions will cause your global unhappiness to drop below zero for severe problems.

Had all these things happen to me in a recent game, was stuck between -5 and -9 happiness forever and was an absolute biatch to get out of. Everytime I managed to get happy again, something else would happen to cause me to lose happiness and totally compromised my game as I spent forever chasing techs, SP's and buildings to give me happiness, instead of being able to focus on my victory targets. I lost that game.

 

[Sherlock]

Aren't there penalties for combat if you're below 0? So if someone attacks you and you fall below zero... not good.

And I don't find golden ages that rare especially when you have 70, 80, 90 happiness.