tu_79
Deity
I asked for an annexation worthiness QoL tooltip and Ilteroi was in the case. Not high priority, I guess.
The idea is letting a tooltip show the player how things will change after a puppet is annexed, happiness wise at least.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
New Version - July 17th (7-17)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
The idea is letting a tooltip show the player how things will change after a puppet is annexed, happiness wise at least.
ridjack
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,000
Ah, I figured it out. The message disappears after 20 turns but the AI's check to update the promise flag happens after greater than 20 turns (i.e. the 21st turn), and I confirmed this was the case through testing. Doesn't seem like the result of a recent change, but I'll send a pull request fixing it; minor bug, just wait one additional turn before declaring war.
Specifically, LuaPlayer which shows the counter on the modifier list is using the GetPlayerMadeMilitaryPromise function (which returns 20 - the number of turns since the promise was made), whereas the diplomacy AI is using the IsPlayerMadeMilitaryPromise function, which is only updated when it's greater than 20.
Looks like the bug has been here for a while, thanks for catching it
Edit: While testing I also found a second bug which resets the visible counter improperly if you break the promise - will also fix.
I just realized I have the "broke a promise" modifier from Russia; I never made any promise. When Russia asked if I was declaring, I said yes and wiped her out.
I don't a save file or any other useful info for you; I only just realized it's there and it would have been 20+ turns ago that it happened.
Enrico Swagolo
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,387
Happiness is pretty bad for wide/warmongering and was for many versions. Previous patch it turned unmanageable at 10 cities, now it's ~17 as the 21 I mentioned previously had 4 or 5 tiny puppets who'd be 100% unhappy if I were to annex, and they'd also each add 5% to needs everywhere, meaning the other cities would have a harder time - and that's at me balling out of control and outeraing everyone else, meaning I was definitely far above the median. I think the penalty for each city should go, or only increase up to a point, or be generated differently. Without balling it being at 11 with some puppets included doesn't surprise me much.
On another note, here's my version. In fact, three to choose from. As far as I remember they are:
play4ucforvp.zip - 100% divisors, increased tech penalty to 1% per tech, 1% penalty per city
Notvanilla.zip - same as current version of VP except penalty for cities is turned into 0
trycustomcivs.zip - 75% divisors, 1.25% per tech, 0% penalty per city
Penalty per city and per tech shouldn't be hard to explain, but I'll do it anyway: each owned non-puppeted city increases needs in all your cities by a certain value (5% in the base version), and needs are increased by 1% to every city for every tech, I change these values. Divisors basically mean the higher the divisor, the less unhappiness. They should all be very easy to manage in comparison to what it is now, but I provide choice just because.
As always, unpack the one of your choosing in the (2) Community Balance Overhaul/Modular Elements/Happiness mod, replace file. I don't think they're much different, they all provide a much Happier experience without having to do weird stuff to keep your empire afloat. Unlike my previous change in June 12th which was flawed as I didn't mess with the per city penalty, this allows for way more cities without problems.
On another note, here's my version. In fact, three to choose from. As far as I remember they are:
play4ucforvp.zip - 100% divisors, increased tech penalty to 1% per tech, 1% penalty per city
Notvanilla.zip - same as current version of VP except penalty for cities is turned into 0
trycustomcivs.zip - 75% divisors, 1.25% per tech, 0% penalty per city
Penalty per city and per tech shouldn't be hard to explain, but I'll do it anyway: each owned non-puppeted city increases needs in all your cities by a certain value (5% in the base version), and needs are increased by 1% to every city for every tech, I change these values. Divisors basically mean the higher the divisor, the less unhappiness. They should all be very easy to manage in comparison to what it is now, but I provide choice just because.
As always, unpack the one of your choosing in the (2) Community Balance Overhaul/Modular Elements/Happiness mod, replace file. I don't think they're much different, they all provide a much Happier experience without having to do weird stuff to keep your empire afloat. Unlike my previous change in June 12th which was flawed as I didn't mess with the per city penalty, this allows for way more cities without problems.
I haven't experienced that kind of unhappiness spiral but it is strange that despite having all buildings there is high unhappiness. What do you think Kim did wrong to get into such an irreversible state? Too much growth? Wrong policies?
My strategy for a similar game (wide warmonger Iroquois on standard, continents, emperor) was to slow down growth by always working specialists up to my happiness limit. You want to keep your capital in positive happiness as much as possible but going unhappy in other cities is okay as long as you can stay above 75% happiness. Often it takes 40-50 turns to grow a city but city states, buildings, etc can speed it up a a bit while you have plenty of time to keep up infrastructure.
But I am now really trying to avoid falling into this same unhappiness spiral lol
Last edited:
BiteInTheMark
Deity
I didn't wondering too. Before the local happiness system was introduced, we had the empire modificator too, but atleast had luxuries working in each city simultaneously. Now we have the empire modificator and luxuries are split among all cities. Like a double punishment for going wide.
Even without the empire modificator, it's very unlikely, that a new city is able to contribute as much happiness as the previous cities are able too.
In my eyes, it's only logical to remove the empire modificator, now we have the local happiness.
I didn't realize the needs modifier didn't apply to puppet cities. I guess the best call might to raze cities currently.
The challenge with going extremely wide is the city modifier to needs. You would expect if every city in your empire gives 4 unhappiness, that adding another city of the same size would add 4 more, but in reality it increases unhappiness in every existing city. This means that additional cities increase unhappiness exponentially.
To give a mid case example. I'm playing India right now in a 11 city scenario (on standard size), currently in Industrial. Happiness is difficult but managable, right now my cities are split into 2 camps. About half of my cities have so much unhappiness, that I don't do any growth and unit buildings with them. The other half have positive happiness and I use them for unit prod. My global varies between 68-85, so its reasonable.
So with this setup I consider happiness workable, but I could easily see how adding another 3 or 4 cities cities would start to teeter things into a bad spot.
So with this setup I consider happiness workable, but I could easily see how adding another 3 or 4 cities cities would start to teeter things into a bad spot.
What if the empire needs modifiers on defense buildings were flipped so that instead of reducing the modifier locally, they reduced the modifier that the city would add to your other cities?
So if unhappiness scales like:
1st city captured: ~4 unhappiness in your empire
2nd city: ~4.2
3rd: ~4.5
...
Now if you have walls reducing empire needs instead of local needs, the burden that each new city gives is scaled down:
1st city captured: (4) *(1 - .05) = ~3.8 unhappiness in your empire
2nd city: ~4.0
3rd: ~4.3
...
With walls+castle:
1st city captured: (4) *(1 - .1) = ~3.6 unhappiness in your empire
2nd city: ~3.75
3rd: ~4
...
So there is still an element of exponential growth but it can be scaled down somewhat with infrastructure.
Txurce
Deity
Stepping back from your scenario and the version with anoher 3-4 cities, is it reasonable to accept that a number of your cities ought to grow like crazy, and others are meant to stay small?
Puppets do count, at half value of standard cities:
Code:
int CvCity::getEmpireSizeMod() const
{
int iNumPuppets = GET_PLAYER(getOwner()).GetNumPuppetCities();
int iBase = (GET_PLAYER(getOwner()).getNumCities() - iNumPuppets) * GC.getBALANCE_HAPPINESS_EMPIRE_MULTIPLIER();
iBase += iNumPuppets * (GC.getBALANCE_HAPPINESS_EMPIRE_MULTIPLIER() / 2);
iBase *= min(100, GC.getMap().getWorldInfo().getNumCitiesUnhappinessPercent());
iBase /= 100;
iBase += GetEmpireNeedsModifier() + GET_PLAYER(getOwner()).GetEmpireNeedsModifierGlobal();
if (iBase <= 0)
return 0;
return iBase;
}G
If the message is "You refused to move your troops from their borders when they asked!"; that's a permanent -15 penalty with that AI for refusing to make a military promise. Not a bug; Firaxis design choice.
If it's the broken promise modifier, you should instead be getting a diplo hit with all AIs.
isn't that the point here? that tradition policy is catered on growth. that food nerf isn't that significant of a change. you just have to simply change your playstyle that you used to. about the border change i remembered g mentioned that in a reply here and saw that a 'problem' regarding the ai, so yes, he is that anyone. played the game with mostly as authority and it seems like i dont see that much difference to ai civs going tradition.
you are asking why about the growth and border wherein fact you already answered it yourself. read your post about huns.
To me, the only time I feel that growth should be forcibly stalled is if I'm going through a heavy expansion period. If I'm gaining a lot of cities, it makes to have to catch my breath, and stabilize with buildings.
But once the time is over, especially once all of the main buildings are built....growth should never have to be turned off to me. If it is, than that is an indicator that happiness is too restrictive.
That's my take on it.
Txurce
Deity
So you're okay with a huge city in a crappy location being happy despite lagging behind the leader and therefore subject to poverty and distress, because it "has all the buildings"? To me that's too easy, turning that part of the game into auto-pilot.
I can see a city becoming unhappy depite having all the buildings for the reasons I listed above: it's too big given your country's mediocrity. Consequently, you should improve your civ's standing to grow more and be happy. If you can't, then it makes sense to quit growing.
The problem the mod has had for a while now is that isolating your civ's problem and applying a fix has been too nebulous for most of the sub-deity players.
If this relative nebulousness can't be addressed — let's say, for example, by CrazyG writing a "how to be happy" guide — then tuning unhappiness down to auto-pilot fix levels may be the only way to go.
Yeah I disagree with you on this one. To me happiness' primary purpose is a check against underdevelopment. The player that spams a ton of cities without building them up, or the warmongering that conquers a ton and never improves the cities he has taken. That is what happiness is meant to curb.
If you have taken proper care of your cities, and "built all the buildings", than they should be happy. If you built in a crappy location than that city is already going to be crappy in terms of yields, so your already penalized. And if you took the time, effort, and money to build all of the infrastructure there, then its no longer a crappy city.
I feel like growth was pushed heavily into the happiness system because of a fear that growth would become the only strategy. But honestly I have never seen anything to tell me that is the case. That might be true in Vanilla, but the Mod has made two very big changes that impact growth.
1) Growth is no longer directly tied to science. In vanilla, population is your primary science driver. In VP its only a very small portion.
2) Specialists and Great People are very strong in VP. So giving up food/growth for more specialists is absolutely viable. In fact, it may actually be the more dominant strategy.
So to me, if you have a Size 40 capital....congratulations, enjoy it. You paid a whole lot for it, and I very much doubt it was worth it. But you shouldn't also get destroyed on happiness as well.
Txurce
Deity
I get this. In effect you're saying food is back to being a 100% good thing, like all the other yields, as long as you build the buildings... and other buildings are how you get the other yields as well. It's not the same equation, but close enough, and accomplishes the same thing. If you are lagging in tech or culture or military, you're paying a price without an unhappiness surcharge.
So now the moles to whack are strongly linking happiness to buildings and policy differences, right?
If my "misuse" of a few puppets is the culprit when I have everything else covered, then that's quite a volatile system to be dependent on considering that domination requires the player to maintain a mass of cities. I know we try to prevent snowballs, which are arguably easiest to achieve while warmongering, but I don't feel this is a good function even though I acknowledged a few days ago that warmongering was indeed the hardest to predict and account for balance. I thought puppets were supposed to be beneficial because you don't have to manage them (plus the aforementioned policies/tenets that promote and insinuate the need for them), and I feel the reduced yields and inability to choose buildings is already costly enough. Although I recall a while back when you tweaked puppets because you said puppet empires were performing too well, so what do I know?
This leads to less burden on the warmonger so you can continue doing your thing and focus on the battlefield instead of playing Sims for every city on a turn-by-turn basis. Instead it's apparently better to annex everything and continue adding more micro... Again, if there's the same results, but it's taken half the time with less tediousness and unhappiness issues, then tall is the better option. I'll provide another update once I annex all my cities and let the game progress a bit more.
Yes, I would like to know. I went Authority/Fealty/Imperialism with all cities perma garrisoned and +1 happy from constabularies. I'm second in techs, right behind Korea. No religious discontent because my continent has basked in Korea's Confucianism from the start. Playing as Huns takes war weariness out of the equation.
How is it too much growth when I did nothing but leave pop automated? Why do I have a prime food setup empire wide with abundant flood plains, plantations and Ekis, yet instead of sitting here marveling at my awesomely high pop cities (AKA fun), I'm wondering why I'm punished for these great tiles and having to lock growth in all but a couple cities? Other than early game, why would I ever use a food ITR to increase a city's pop, when every new citizen is almost always detrimental instead of beneficial (see Dumazulu pic)? I love VP, but wide gameplay and food is just not conducive to fun in this state. The increased micro alone is a tedious drawback, but having to tinker with pop turn-by-turn on a city to city basis, when you're on the scale of 20+ cities is just monotonous. I prefer my games to not take ages to complete, thus why I rarely play for domination, and I can't even fathom playing on huge maps. If population control through growth limitation is going to be the most impactful difference between unhappiness issues when dealing with wide vs. tall, then it needs to be clearly defined on how to go about this.
So basically, don't grow at all if going wide? Gotcha. Sounds fun!
This is my point. How are we, let alone novice players, supposed to know and differentiate this? To know what populations per city to be aiming for contemporary to varying points in the game based on all the factors, medians, need modifiers, etc.? I know this is a game of numbers, but it becomes too much of a headache sometimes; the average player probably aren't "nerds" like us. Every other victory condition consists of simply adding to your required pool - more techs, policies, tourism, votes, and gold are never taken with hesitancy because the more the merrier. Then warmongers attempt to fill their victory bucket by acquiring more cities, only for it to have a potential negative impact in the long run all because a few citizens were born (mongering will already be at the disadvantage of most civs hating you for the game's entirety from negative diplo). I realize there's implications with specialist balance and that it has greater risk/reward because your "victory yields" are entire cities, but I think the punishment is too harsh for excelling at something that is supposed to be your priority on the path to victory. Let the war weariness and opposing AI do it's job and slow me down, not the fact that I had a small baby boom over the course of 10 turns...
I love the thematic and history, but for simplicity, gameplay and fun, I think food/growth should = good, just like every other yield in the game. I know this discussion has occurred before and it's as simple as filling the bucket, but maybe less is more in this case. Right now it's food/growth = who knows 50 turns from now, situationally, and there's just not a whole lot of direction, breathing room, or margin for error with wide games. Unhappiness is supposed to punish bad gameplay, but instead I feel I'm being punished for being middle of the pack or above average, just because I went wide (even leaving growth automated, to boot). The penalties for abusing infrastructure should be worse than the penalties for simply doing my job and conquering lands, but here I am with great infrastructure on the brink of bankruptcy, struggling through unhappy quicksand. If I still neglected to build a damn library in year 1600 because I was too busy pumping out units and steamrolling everything in my path, then sure, throw all the illiteracy unhappiness that you want at me. I'm only on 14 cities with 1 (soon to be 2) captured capital! How in the hell is this going to work when I need another 10 cities minimum over the next 150 turns to win a dom victory?
Spoiler :
Zebo has done a great job introducing different UI elements to try and aid the user, but it's all still just too temperamental and like I said, it's a shot in the dark when dealing with a swath of cities. There's so many factors, might just be the nature of it I guess. I'm glad we switched to dealing with cities locally at least, and maybe it's still just a matter of tweaking more numbers until wide isn't punished as much.
Then again, maybe I'm just doo doo and need to git gud (hey, at least I'm on Emperor now)!
This is what I'm hesitant about with my reasoning, because I also don't want the game to become too easy, or for mechanics like city flipping to become nonexistent. I also want to be able to play a domination game without it frustrating the hell out of me and taking 3 weeks to complete...
Such a fine line.
If my "misuse" of a few puppets is the culprit when I have everything else covered, then that's quite a volatile system to be dependent on considering that domination requires the player to maintain a mass of cities. I know we try to prevent snowballs, which are arguably easiest to achieve while warmongering, but I don't feel this is a good function even though I acknowledged a few days ago that warmongering was indeed the hardest to predict and account for balance. I thought puppets were supposed to be beneficial because you don't have to manage them (plus the aforementioned policies/tenets that promote and insinuate the need for them), and I feel the reduced yields and inability to choose buildings is already costly enough. Although I recall a while back when you tweaked puppets because you said puppet empires were performing too well, so what do I know?
This leads to less burden on the warmonger so you can continue doing your thing and focus on the battlefield instead of playing Sims for every city on a turn-by-turn basis. Instead it's apparently better to annex everything and continue adding more micro... Again, if there's the same results, but it's taken half the time with less tediousness and unhappiness issues, then tall is the better option. I'll provide another update once I annex all my cities and let the game progress a bit more.
Yes, I would like to know. I went Authority/Fealty/Imperialism with all cities perma garrisoned and +1 happy from constabularies. I'm second in techs, right behind Korea. No religious discontent because my continent has basked in Korea's Confucianism from the start. Playing as Huns takes war weariness out of the equation.
How is it too much growth when I did nothing but leave pop automated? Why do I have a prime food setup empire wide with abundant flood plains, plantations and Ekis, yet instead of sitting here marveling at my awesomely high pop cities (AKA fun), I'm wondering why I'm punished for these great tiles and having to lock growth in all but a couple cities? Other than early game, why would I ever use a food ITR to increase a city's pop, when every new citizen is almost always detrimental instead of beneficial (see Dumazulu pic)? I love VP, but wide gameplay and food is just not conducive to fun in this state. The increased micro alone is a tedious drawback, but having to tinker with pop turn-by-turn on a city to city basis, when you're on the scale of 20+ cities is just monotonous. I prefer my games to not take ages to complete, thus why I rarely play for domination, and I can't even fathom playing on huge maps. If population control through growth limitation is going to be the most impactful difference between unhappiness issues when dealing with wide vs. tall, then it needs to be clearly defined on how to go about this.
So basically, don't grow at all if going wide? Gotcha. Sounds fun!
This is my point. How are we, let alone novice players, supposed to know and differentiate this? To know what populations per city to be aiming for contemporary to varying points in the game based on all the factors, medians, need modifiers, etc.? I know this is a game of numbers, but it becomes too much of a headache sometimes; the average player probably aren't "nerds" like us. Every other victory condition consists of simply adding to your required pool - more techs, policies, tourism, votes, and gold are never taken with hesitancy because the more the merrier. Then warmongers attempt to fill their victory bucket by acquiring more cities, only for it to have a potential negative impact in the long run all because a few citizens were born (mongering will already be at the disadvantage of most civs hating you for the game's entirety from negative diplo). I realize there's implications with specialist balance and that it has greater risk/reward because your "victory yields" are entire cities, but I think the punishment is too harsh for excelling at something that is supposed to be your priority on the path to victory. Let the war weariness and opposing AI do it's job and slow me down, not the fact that I had a small baby boom over the course of 10 turns...
I love the thematic and history, but for simplicity, gameplay and fun, I think food/growth should = good, just like every other yield in the game. I know this discussion has occurred before and it's as simple as filling the bucket, but maybe less is more in this case. Right now it's food/growth = who knows 50 turns from now, situationally, and there's just not a whole lot of direction, breathing room, or margin for error with wide games. Unhappiness is supposed to punish bad gameplay, but instead I feel I'm being punished for being middle of the pack or above average, just because I went wide (even leaving growth automated, to boot). The penalties for abusing infrastructure should be worse than the penalties for simply doing my job and conquering lands, but here I am with great infrastructure on the brink of bankruptcy, struggling through unhappy quicksand. If I still neglected to build a damn library in year 1600 because I was too busy pumping out units and steamrolling everything in my path, then sure, throw all the illiteracy unhappiness that you want at me. I'm only on 14 cities with 1 (soon to be 2) captured capital! How in the hell is this going to work when I need another 10 cities minimum over the next 150 turns to win a dom victory?Spoiler :
Zebo has done a great job introducing different UI elements to try and aid the user, but it's all still just too temperamental and like I said, it's a shot in the dark when dealing with a swath of cities. There's so many factors, might just be the nature of it I guess. I'm glad we switched to dealing with cities locally at least, and maybe it's still just a matter of tweaking more numbers until wide isn't punished as much.
Then again, maybe I'm just doo doo and need to git gud (hey, at least I'm on Emperor now)!
This is why I like playtesting (such as this), as it allows us to get a feel for what balance should feel like.
What if PWs gave empire mod reduction as well? Could be a useful way to combat wide empire penalties.
Empire penalties need to exist as a peacetime check to wide expansion/warmongering.
G
- Status
