Ninakoru
A deity on Emperor
I must still disagree.
Actually the only one witch provides outstanding happiness is tradition, liberty mean more cities and that is more base unhappiness. Providing a conquered city 1 less unhappiness rightaway is not a great bonus, you can have way more happiness waiting to be filled with the other policies.
Tradition happiness can double the number of cities by the capital happiness alone, with a fully developed liberty you get 1 per city plus 1 per 20 citizens. With honor you get one per city, but at the cost of maintaining part of your army stationary in your cities.
The problem I see is that honor provided the best happiness, maxing at 5 happiness per city in late game, witch is huge. Early on you could just build walls to not depend on garrisoned men, and then the bonus on conquest had some meaning. Now you will not have the economy to mantain an army early, plus 0 happiness bonuses if you actually use it for conquest, so you better get lots of different luxuries and CS quests to make it up for it, something extremely luck-based.
1) Honor does give you the best happiness options for conquest: Simply move a military unit into a city and it instantly yields both happiness and a large amount of culture.
Liberty and Tradition are both much worse of in terms of this so it isn't true Honor doesn't support the infrastructure for conquest. Still, Honor is one of the three ancient era policy trees and isn't supposed to leave you swimming in happiness: Notice how all three trees basically give you +1 happiness per city - they just have different ways of doing it, same as how they increase your production in different fields.
Actually the only one witch provides outstanding happiness is tradition, liberty mean more cities and that is more base unhappiness. Providing a conquered city 1 less unhappiness rightaway is not a great bonus, you can have way more happiness waiting to be filled with the other policies.
Tradition happiness can double the number of cities by the capital happiness alone, with a fully developed liberty you get 1 per city plus 1 per 20 citizens. With honor you get one per city, but at the cost of maintaining part of your army stationary in your cities.
The problem I see is that honor provided the best happiness, maxing at 5 happiness per city in late game, witch is huge. Early on you could just build walls to not depend on garrisoned men, and then the bonus on conquest had some meaning. Now you will not have the economy to mantain an army early, plus 0 happiness bonuses if you actually use it for conquest, so you better get lots of different luxuries and CS quests to make it up for it, something extremely luck-based.
2) No, you are not supposed to keep puppets as such permanently. The Courthouse is there for a reason. I realize a lot of people probably do keep puppets, and again: against the pseudo-balance that is vs-AI single player, you can certainly get away with it and it can even be the best option but overall, it really isn't efficient and isn't what the game is balanced around. To hammer the point home, on top of the puppet maluses they've even introduced a tenet that offers a free Courthouse on city capture with BNW, which would be meaningless if eternal puppet empires were indeed ever intended or even desirable.Faulty logic, puppets are there to give player an additional option: puppet, annex, raze, witch depending on situation you will decide for one, so is an intended mechanic. 5% penalty per city help about massive puppet empires, witch was abusable, but still puppets are a viable option.
3) There's a reason the +happy-per-fortification bonuses were moved into the lategame Autocracy. As per above, you are supposed to be greatly constrained by happiness. Reintroducing these bonuses into Honor would go precisely against the direction Firaxis has taken the game with the BNW expansion. You simply aren't supposed to be able to rule over a vast empire pre-industrial.
I understand the reasons, and I'm agree you shouldn't conquer the world by turn 100, but you should be able to smash a neighbour if you focus on it and get the right policy, witch is right now liberty.
Of course, we can probably never agree if you wish to balance the game around 'the single-player experience'. This is precisely one of the biggest failings of Civ V: It's 99% a single-player game, but because of the AI's ineptitude there's a gap between the way the game is balanced and the way it actually plays. I've just explained how the game is actually balanced, and even if it's mostly theoretical because the AI can't live up to these rules, this is how things were actually intended by Firaxis. Other than Honor, there are a number of other prominent examples of the same, such as the Japanese Zero which gets mocked for being a bad unique unit despite the reality being that it's quite powerful - just this power mostly doesn't apply against the AI where it isn't needed. You can mod the game to suit your tastes and perhaps create a better single-player balance, but I'd hate to see Firaxis cave in and balance the game with the abysmal AI in mind rather than keep the current strong balance and improve the AI instead.
A strategy game is about options. You have your grand strategy, and the oportunity cost of each actions, you have your preferences, what works better with your play style, many variables. The problem right now Honor is not a best option in any situation right now. True that honor is better in multiplayer, where the enemy is not as useless in combat, but still a good early setup is more important.