Minus 20 and below health is...

[soprof]

Is not crucial at all.

I just played a 4p FFA game, which I ended with -90 health - being top1 production / science / army etc.

screenshot: http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/52116438353935312/848ECB1A96AF2988A80C34FB89188E77E6EDF37A/

It literally feels there's no reason at all to stay "positive" after a short starting while.

5% science penalty per city is also hardly significant, particularly because of the way it is counted - brief example: "k" going from 1.40 -> 1.45 isn't actually 5%, more like 3.5%.

Not saying that I don't like game being more of starcraft-like land-control strategy - but it clearly isn't designed to be played that way - many of the game aspects aren't balanced around that, so isn't AI ready for that.

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Moved to General Discussions

 

[Cannes]

Agreed there need to be additional and very very harsh penalties for going -30, -40, -50 and so on. At -50 I feel there should be next to no population growth at all and very severe science and production penalties in the range of 50% reduction.

 

[HandyVac]

If health get's low enough your population should actually reduce, because your extremely unhealthy citizens are dying of plague.

 

[Joch]

Yes, Health needs to have a much bigger effect, both positive and negative.

In my current game, I started a war with ARC when at +28 health. Based on my Civ5 experience, I expected to take a major hit. When the war ended, I had captured one city, made a Puppet of another and my health was at +24.

I see what the Devs were going for, but we need harsher penalties, closer to Civ5 levels.

 

[terraslayer]

I'm convinced the penalties are not working as intended, and needs to be fixed. Only the food penalty is working correctly. If you take a look at any city, the penalty for science, culture, and production is applied BEFORE any outside bonus (ie. trade routes). But for the food penalty, it's calculated AFTER, meaning your city growth takes a bigger hit. I'm sure there will be a bigger impact if those are fixed to make the other penalties calculate after bonuses just like the food one. But no one seems to have reported it yet as an obvious bug.

As an example, if your city only generates 10 science on its own, the 10% penalty you will lose only 1 science. Then you have trade routes giving you 30 science fore that city. It makes the penalty SUPER insignificant. On the other hand, if that same example, the city is bringing in 40 science (10 from city, 30 from trade route), after penalty you will now lose 4 science instead of just 1.

That still seems trivial for 1 city, but multiply that by 10+ cities and you you'll start to feel the penalty more. This same example applies to positive health bonus.

 

[Fabio1701]

indeed, not only shoudl drastic unhealth kill off population, at one point they shoudl start deffecting to other factions or push you to change affinity or something. there shoudl be rioting or some kind of outrage. something!

conversly, I managed to get 90 positive health at one game and the bonuses are no greater than positive 20. IF it were happiness I would be rewarded with more gold ages and be well buffered against any threat of other ideologies. in CBE... nothing.


EDIT: on a tangent, this really makes me miss SMAC's psiu mechanic for fighting aliens. health/happiness can be the determining factor in this. why did CBE just keep aliens under strength and not their own method of fighting?

 

[mnf]

Why not compare the actual health generated to the unhealth (instead of just the net difference), and base the penalty on this percentage?

Take (Health - Unhealth)/Health = X%, and simply apply this percentage on final (i.e. after trade route yields) Growth (including outpost growth), Production, Science and Culture (GPSC) when it's negative. For example:

• -10% = Dirty, -10% to GPSC
• -50% = Diseased, -50% to GPSC
• -100% = Plagued, -100% to GPSC, the colony is at a standstill. You either buy health buildings (if you don't have energy you must sell existing buildings) or give away your cities. Cities cannot gain population at this state.

If the land is really extremely good, you still have an incentive to expand rapidly.

Although this would affect the early game much more than the late game?...hmmm...

 

[The_Reckoning]

The thing is, without that much effort, you can almost ICS and stay at positive health, because cities can build buildings which give flat bonuses to health. Throw in the prosperity tree and health isn't an issue.

I do agree with harsher penalties, but you can easily surf above -20 by just building the few health buildings and maxing prosperity.

The way to fix ICS/REX is to turn those flat bonuses into %ages and nerf trade routes.

 

[forty2j]

Throwing some alternate, rather punishing ideas out there:
(all cumulative)
-10 = Diseased! -10% to production & military effectiveness
-20 = Plague! Random citizen in a city dies every 5 turns. Cannot build Colonist.
-30 = Quarantine! External cities & stations refuse to trade with you; all trade routes cancelled.

 

[Cymsdale]

In Civ 5, at release, players found that you could do very well simply ignoring the happiness mechanic completely to the point where it was pretty much an exploit. They fixed that, but I'm not sure why they made the same mistake again in this game after so much time.

 

[soprof]

The thing is, without that much effort, you can almost ICS and stay at positive health, because cities can build buildings which give flat bonuses to health. Throw in the prosperity tree and health isn't an issue.

I do agree with harsher penalties, but you can easily surf above -20 by just building the few health buildings and maxing prosperity.

The way to fix ICS/REX is to turn those flat bonuses into %ages and nerf trade routes.

Yeh it's possible, but it's kind of a waste of hammers and energy_per_turn, compared to having it at -500.

They fixed that, but I'm not sure why they made the same mistake again in this game after so much time.

Quality guy at designing eco model.

-30 = Quarantine! External cities & stations refuse to trade with you; all trade routes cancelled.

While the current system is abusive, I'ld also love to see it be fun in some way, not just superharsh like it was in civ5.

 

[Haggbart]

Yeh it's possible, but it's kind of a waste of hammers and energy_per_turn, compared to having it at -500.


Quality guy at designing eco model.


While the current system is abusive, I'ld also love to see it be fun in some way, not just superharsh like it was in civ5.

But what is "fun"? I don't find it the least bit fun to have soft penalties, much better to have some real urgency like in CiV. A side effect of soft health bonuses is the AI doesn't really have much advantage from its health bonuses on higher difficulty levels. So the game becomes too easy.

My suggestion would be to have MUCH harsher health penalties on the higher difficulty levels. That way noobs won't complain too much, and experienced players will have more of a challenge.

 

[soprof]

But what is "fun"? I don't find it the least bit fun to have soft penalties, much better to have some real urgency like in CiV. A side effect of soft health bonuses is the AI doesn't really have much advantage from its health bonuses on higher difficulty levels. So the game becomes too easy.

My suggestion would be to have MUCH harsher health penalties on the higher difficulty levels. That way noobs won't complain too much, and experienced players will have more of a challenge.

Yes, you're correct ofc, under "fun" I mean "in an untraditional way". Like -2% of hammers per 1 unhappiness is a funless way to do it. It is damn effective, though.

 

[forty2j]

Having a game mechanic that you can effectively ignore is no fun at all. Having a mechanic that forces you to make choices is where the fun comes in. Imagine if ICSing or blitzkrieging actually killed your economy! You'd have Civs begging to give you cities to end a war, and you might not even want them!

 

[Wolfman2032]

I think that Health wasn't meant to be a major mechanic in the game; what I think it’s meant to do is to stop the Dominance victory path feedback loop. For most victory paths staying healthy isn't an issue at all, it really only comes into play with the massive expansion of a Domination victory. In Civ4 (never played much 5) if you were taking a lot of cities before long you had such a massive economy that you could push for any victory you wanted or could build a half dozen Wonders at a time without hampering your unit production.

With Health as it is now capturing cities won't cause your empire to crumble but it will stop you from also rushing science/wonder based victories.

 

[Haggbart]

I think that Health wasn't meant to be a major mechanic in the game; what I think it’s meant to do is to stop the Dominance victory path feedback loop. For most victory paths staying healthy isn't an issue at all, it really only comes into play with the massive expansion of a Domination victory. In Civ4 (never played much 5) if you were taking a lot of cities before long you had such a massive economy that you could push for any victory you wanted or could build a half dozen Wonders at a time without hampering your unit production.

With Health as it is now capturing cities won't cause your empire to crumble but it will stop you from also rushing science/wonder based victories.

Disagree.
1) The penalities are not severe enough to delay teching at all.
2) Most cities you capture have buildings that compensate for health/tech-penalties. In my last game, i conquered 10 cities in the mid-game, erasing a couple that had very few buildings. Ended up with break even health and massive science boost. And even if you end up deep in the red with health see 1).

 

[Dux1]

In Civ 5, at release, players found that you could do very well simply ignoring the happiness mechanic completely to the point where it was pretty much an exploit. They fixed that, but I'm not sure why they made the same mistake again in this game after so much time.

Exactly what I was thinking. The "ignore happiness and ICS forever" exploit from Civ 5 vanilla is alive and well in Civ BE, except now it's additionally bolstered by imbalanced trade route spam. It really is remarkable that the developers have incorporated the exact same design flaw that was fixed previously.

 

[Wolfman2032]

Disagree.
1) The penalities are not severe enough to delay teching at all.
2) Most cities you capture have buildings that compensate for health/tech-penalties. In my last game, i conquered 10 cities in the mid-game, erasing a couple that had very few buildings. Ended up with break even health and massive science boost. And even if you end up deep in the red with health see 1).

I never claimed it accomplished its aim, only that massive penalties people are calling for don't seem to line up with what I perceive at the developers intent. Your economy going into the red, for example, quickly tears your civ apart, but being unhealthy is just a small tool to balance rapid growth.

 

[Haggbart]

I never claimed it accomplished its aim, only that massive penalties people are calling for don't seem to line up with what I perceive at the developers intent. Your economy going into the red, for example, quickly tears your civ apart, but being unhealthy is just a small tool to balance rapid growth.

No, but you did say that it stops you from also rushing affinity/tech-based victories. And I disagree.

But yeah, I agree that the developers' aim was to have something that was more forgiving with a gradual opportunity cost to dip into negative health. But that cost is way too low atm.