A core set of balance changes

[Thalassicus]

By specialists and tiles I was using a shorthand for "specialist economy" and "tile economy", the wording was just getting a little repetitive. Basically what I'm referring to is globalized strategic power (game as a whole), not localized tactical power (of individual yields). The overall strategic power is about equivalent between the two economic choices for a small empire, with the comprehensive balance changes.

The topic of small vs large empires is discussed in the link I provided earlier (2 posts, one at the top and another a little down). Basically, you can pursue a specialist economy if you're following a conquest or rapid expansion strategy, but in practice it's not as powerful a choice as other policy trees like Honor, Liberty, Autocracy, and Order. Some reasons for this are unhappiness to empire size ratios, capital power to empire size, city production-yield availability, and other factors. With extra unhappiness from #cities added in, specialists will become even less viable for large empires.

In regards to the ignore-happiness issue, curve smoothing is definitely something I'll pursue, with the %'s mentioned a few posts up, and I will add your idea for a science penalty. Still, we'll have to wait a few months to do this (if it takes them as long to release the c++ as it did with IV), and population control is one fix in the meantime. It's a tough issue. Do you have any thoughts of how to address the problem other than curve-smoothing and population control?

 

[Ahriman]

The overall strategic power with the comprehensive balance changes is about equivalent between the two economic choices for a small empire.

I agree that overall strategic power is what we should consider, but I disagree that they are equal in your setup. I think you underrate the synergistic effect that occurs when you stack all those specialist bonuses on top of each other, and I think you are making straight yield comparisons without considering the large strategic value of the GPPs (consider valuing each GPP at ~0.3-0.5 gold, for balance purposes).

but in practice it's not as powerful a choice as other policy trees like Honor, Liberty, Autocracy, and Order

This is an opportunity cost, not an absolute cost.
There is nothing stopping me from getting Freedom and Rationalism with a large empire, and using 3 gold specialists from markets and banks in every city.
A large puppet empire will gain a lot of power from picking up Freedom, Civil Society, Rationalism and Secularism, because of the tendency of the AI to auto-allocate lots of specialist slots (Puppets like building Temples and Libraries and Universities).

Do you have any thoughts of how to address the problem other than curve-smoothing and population control? It's a tough issue.

As a temporary fix, you can just increase the penalty for Very Unhappy. Add a -50% science penalty to the Very Unhappy state, for example.

Its not something I've exploited that much, I don't really enjoy a strat that ignores happiness completely.

 

[Celevin]

Percent changes to hammers/science depending on unhappiness are definitely not the way to go. It's either going to feel like too little, or too much. Remember that larger empires have bigger happiness swings, yet if it's done by a percentage, then it would affect them more. The best way to go is to calculate the yield of 1 extra citizen, then make the detriment of going unhappy slightly larger.

1 extra citizen working a tile gives:
-1 unhappiness
-2 food
+x food, +y production, +z gold
+1.25 gold from trade
+1 science

Take the overall gain, and multiply it by about 1.5. Make that a loss for the empire by taking a portion of each and spreading it as a loss to the cities based on their population. IE if you have a size 4 city in a 21 population empire, it would receive 4/21 of the loss.


Now we have a consistent unhappiness detriment that hurts big and small empires equally. No, it's not very transparent.

EDIT:

Its not something I've exploited that much, I don't really enjoy a strat that ignores happiness completely.

I was the original person who posted it on this board, and I regret the way I did. People are now using the term "strat" when it's really a straight up exploit of game mechanics. You're right, it's really no fun. You give up half of the fun mechanics in the game in order to amplify your other ones two-fold. The only reason I posted it in fact was to create buzz on ways to fix the huge problem.

 

[Captain Queeg]

Sorry for being so late to this thread - can I throw out another suggestion on the MCS topic?

I agree with the idea that MCS food supply should be fixed rather than given on a "per city" basis. Maybe make it based on MCS city size, and maybe handle the granularity by having the food go preferentially 1 each to the closest cities 'til it runs out (or if it doesn't, start over again from the top).

And, as has been mentioned already, once you've nerfed MCS's, your own food shortage does become an issue. This has been true at least on the no-MCS games I have played. If you try to keep some level of city growth, you need farms. This is good, since it gets rid of TP spamming. But then you run out of money (even without the gold needed to pay off the CS's). So perhaps an increase in TP gold, but limit building to (say) 1 TP per 4 owned tiles? All Civilizations need zoning laws!

On the topic of puppets, how about allowing the player to control production. (Isn't this what a puppet is? A government controlled by a foreign power?) But the people hate you (more unhappiness) and contribute much less than normal (less gold, beaker, and hammer production because most of the economy goes underground). The garrisoned unit idea makes a lot of sense, not least from adding "realism" to the game. Annexation would make the people even more unhappy (or really unhappy again), since they lose even the illusion of autonomy. Effects might slowly decrease with time, but never go to zero.

On the topic of making razing less attractive, maybe razing could add a lot to empire-wide unhappiness (especially among puppets and annexeds), and give a rep hit as well. Perhaps base it on city size and wonders destroyed, so bulldozing one of Cathy's ICS size 2 spam towns doesn't cost much, but burning a size 10 city containing the Eiffel Tower would make everyone angry with you?

 

[Ahriman]

Percent changes to hammers/science depending on unhappiness are definitely not the way to go. It's either going to feel like too little, or too much.

How so? I don't see any argument for this.

Remember that larger empires have bigger happiness swings

My formula would scale by map size. I don't see that larger empires swing by that much more, holding map size constant, and so what if they do? Yes, a larger empire gets get harder by a -X% penalty, but so what? Its precisely the large empires growing out of control that we're trying to limit. If you have a small empire, you're not going to be very powerful despite a large negative unhappiness.

No, it's not very transparent.

Transparency is far more important.
We don't need to calibrate penalties exactly relative to a marginal extra citizen, we just need them to be a decent stick.

The only reason I posted it in fact was to create buzz on ways to fix the huge problem.

Oh, absolutely, there is definitely value in stress testing a model in this kind of way. Strat is just a useful shorthand for abusing a particular mechanic weakness.

I agree with the idea that MCS food supply should be fixed rather than given on a "per city" basis. Maybe make it based on MCS city size, and maybe handle the granularity by having the food go preferentially 1 each to the closest cities 'til it runs out (or if it doesn't, start over again from the top).

The seems basically like http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9776848&postcount=182

And, as has been mentioned already, once you've nerfed MCS's, your own food shortage does become an issue. This has been true at least on the no-MCS games I have played. If you try to keep some level of city growth, you need farms. This is good, since it gets rid of TP spamming. But then you run out of money (even without the gold needed to pay off the CS's).

You have less food, and so less gold, and so your overall economy is weaker.
I don't see this as a problem, I see this as the main point of the change.
Currently, the game is not challenging at all except on Immortal and Deity. The game is at least ~1-2 difficulty levels easier than Civ4 was (Civ4 Monarch is like Civ5 Immortal). In large part this is because of the human's ability to exploit MCSs. So weakening the human's economy will make the AI economy larger relative to the human's, and will make the game harder.

So perhaps an increase in TP gold, but limit building to (say) 1 TP per 4 owned tiles?

I would strongly oppose this kind of hardcap. The engine shouldn't be hard-coding how the human lays out their improvements.

On the topic of puppets, how about allowing the player to control production.
But the people hate you (more unhappiness)

This sounds like an occupied city (annexed but no courthouse yet).
The whole point of a puppet is that you are *not* putting in place your own ruler, you're still acting through local rulers.
The best contrast would be occupied France in WW2 (ruled by Nazis) vs Vichy France (puppet state, still ruled by Petain).

On the topic of making razing less attractive, maybe razing could add a lot to empire-wide unhappiness

It already does to some extent, because you have to annex the city to raze it.
I think the right approach to razing is to make cities keep more buildings (and population) when captured (why do culture buildings have to be destroyed, this feels like a hangover from Civ4, where there was a reason for it, since you had to start from zero territory control and build it with culture), and to make sure that the diplomatic penalties for razing are significant, and fixing MCS so that a newly built city does't grow super-fast on its own.

 

[Paeanblack]

Regarding the "puppets are in revolt without a unit garrison":

I don't like idle units from a gameplay perspective. I don't want to be rushing a bunch of scouts that need to run around and get plugged into cities. It's unnecessary micro.

How about puppets just adding the marginal upkeep cost of one unit? (An invisible, unmoveable unit magically created to patrol the city)

Also, puppets should not contribute to unit supply limits. This means a small empire trying to puppet the world is going to run into the empire-wide production penalty at some point. That will put a hard limit on the puppets, forcing annexing at some point.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't like idle units from a gameplay perspective. I don't want to be rushing a bunch of scouts that need to run around and get plugged into cities. It's unnecessary micro.

How about puppets just adding the marginal upkeep cost of one unit? (An invisible, unmoveable unit magically created to patrol the city)

I have no problem with forcing units to be idle to get a particular benefit, but you have a fair point on it creating an incentive to keep around deliberately inferior units.
Part of the problem is that scouts don't have a later game superior version. Scouts need to go obsolete at some point.
The nice thing about requiring an actual unit to do it though is that its much more transparent, than just adding extra gold costs that don't seem to come from anywhere or have even a placeholder showing their presence.

Also, puppets should not contribute to unit supply limits. This means a small empire trying to puppet the world is going to run into the empire-wide production penalty at some point. That will put a hard limit on the puppets, forcing annexing at some point.

Supply limits seem like a failed mechanic at the moment. They never actually bind. Which is fine with me, really, I think gold maintenance costs are a better way of controlling military size than hardcaps.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No it wouldn't. Adopting your proposal (where puppets have no gross costs) would lead to endless conquest with no downside.

Razing cities leads to endless conquest with no downside.

It is possible to take a city with no gross cost... you raze it.

The idea is to make an option better than razing.

Part of this involves making razing worse (ie not even territory benefits while you are razing the city/enemy units spawned, etc.)

Another part invoves making puppeting "better".... as a substitute for Razing.... so give it no gross cost, except possibly a unit garrison. (just like razing)

For more general conqueror penalties, extend resistance, and make it worse (you don't get the territory benefit, and the city stays at str 0 (ie it can be liberated by anyone))

 

[Ahriman]

It is possible to take a city with no gross cost... you raze it.

Razing hurts you diplomatically, and hits you (briefly) with unhappiness. It has some costs. It also gives you no benefits (it only hurts opponents). Under your system, puppets would give minor positive benefits, and no costs at all.

The idea is to make an option better than razing.

Which can be done by reducing the population and building loss hit from capturing cities, so that preserving cities is better.

Part of this involves making razing worse

It need not do so, but the simplest way to do this is to require a military unit present in order to sustain a raze.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Razing hurts you diplomatically, and hits you (briefly) with unhappiness. It has some costs. It also gives you no benefits (it only hurts opponents). Under your system, puppets would give minor positive benefits, and no costs at all.

Well Diplomacy is a complicated 'cost' and the unhappiness is temporary.

I agree Some costs might be needed (besides improvement maintenance)... a Garrison makes the most sense for that.

Which can be done by reducing the population and building loss hit from capturing cities, so that preserving cities is better.

That would help... but then that speeds up conquest.
(although making the pop hit smaller would have the two fold effect of making conquest more costly in unhappiness , but also more beneficial in production.... and also making razing take longer.) Overall I'd say making the population hit be only 1-2 population would be better.

It need not do so, but the simplest way to do this is to require a military unit present in order to sustain a raze.

That I definitely agree with.



The biggest issues with puppets are
1. Puppets get you culture without social policy costs (making them better than a native city for culture wins)
2. "Pop increase by Conquest" is never prevented regardless of unhappiness


for #1, puppets should produce 0 Social policy culture

for #2 Either
A-puppets produce nothing, and you can't annex if at -10
or
B-Cities stay in continual resitance if happiness at -10

(You could also add on a starvation function if happiness was at the -10 stage).. population will slowly decrease. (each turn you are at -10, your largest cities all lose 1 pop)

 

[Ahriman]

That would help... but then that speeds up conquest.

Actually it doesn't, because the larger residual population means that your unhappiness climbs faster as you conquer cities. This is part of why unhappiness doesn't slow conquest, because half the population gets butchered every time you conquer.

Particularly if you increase the time that cities spend in unrest (which I agree is a good idea).

Cities stay in continual resitance if happiness at -10

I'd have no objection to this.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Cities stay in continual resitance if happiness at -10

I'd have no objection to this.

The issue then is that (currently) is the same as my proposed Puppet.... city produces nothing but gives you Territory.

So Minimal Changes I would see to make puppeting, conquering sensibly limited

1. On conquest cities lose 1/5 of population rounded down (pop 1-4 lose none), maximum of 2.

2. If a city is in resistance, its territory does NOT count as friendly territory for any purposes (combat bonuses, healing, road movements, resource access).. except to the original owner of the city.

3. Puppets provide no culture to Social Policies (but full culture to territory), and provide 30-50% of normal gold+science (including trade route gold)...they still pay full unhappiness and building maintenance.

4. If a civ is Very Unhappy, then "turns of resistance" does not go down.


That ensures that conquering a city at Very Unhappy gives you NO benefit until you fix your happiness, it only hurts your enemy


Optional, and probably good

1. Cities Being razed count as if they are "in resistance" (ie no production, unfriendly territory), but their # of "resistance turns" never decreases.

2. Cities "In resistance" have no combat value AT ALL, the unit in the city defends on its own. (if the unit in the city is killed, the city is open to everyone)

3. Cities "in resistance" that have no unit in them at the end of the current owner's turn, flip to the original owner*

So you Must keep a unit in Razing/Resisting cities or they "self-liberate" (shouldn't be too much of a problem as it only checks at end of turn.... ad a tooltip if you want to move a unit out of a resisting/razing city)

This gives you a Penalty if you conquer while unhappy, you have to support 1 unit for each city, until you raze it (or fix your happiness so you can puppet/Annex it)


4. You should be allowed to puppet your own cities (granting autonomy) at the time you settle/liberate them.... basically cutting the Social Policy Cost in exchange for lower output.




* I realize that flipping may be extreme... but if a city is already in resistance, and you are Very Unhappy, it can't be any worse for you... you have a city that isn't producing OR moving towards producing... so have it start helping your enemy again if you don't have "boots on the ground"

Of course this means at Very Unhappy the strategy may be to Raze all conquests.... but then your conquests are easy to take over because your army is stuck inside them.

There will probably have to be some method of keeping the player from mass producing "Occupation Scouts".... possibly Strength of unit v. Population of city... or give scouts the "can't Occupy Cities" ability.






On a side note, I think if Maritimes gave +X food for the top N cities, (Looping if you had less than N) that would make the most sense. Additional Maritimes increasing N (so 1 CS gives +2 food for the top 4 cities, a Two CS gives you +2 for the top 8)

 

[Ahriman]

The issue then is that (currently) is the same as my proposed Puppet.... city produces nothing but gives you Territory.

No, its not the same at all. Your proposal has the city produce nothing for as long as its a puppet. Mine has it give positive yields after Uprising wears off as long as you are above -10 unhappiness.
Very different.

1. On conquest cities lose 1/5 of population rounded down (pop 1-4 lose none), maximum of 2.

Fine, but I see no need for a Max of 2. 1/5 population rounded down is fine.

2. If a city is in resistance, its territory does NOT count as friendly territory for any purposes (combat bonuses, healing, road movements, resource access).. except to the original owner of the city.

I still see no reason for this, and it would be incredibly hard to code.
This would be a massive engine chance. You would have to create some way for territory to not be tied to ownership of the city.

Cities "In resistance" have no combat value AT ALL, the unit in the city defends on its own.

This would require a major engine change. Currently there is no scope for a unit in a city tile to ever defend. I think you need to move away from some hypothetical model that you might like more towards what might actually be feasible to implement.

So you Must keep a unit in Razing/Resisting cities or they "self-liberate"

No. Just prevent resistance counter from decreasing or razing to take place without a unit, at the most. This will already require an AI rewrite.

On a side note, I think if Maritimes gave +X food for the top N cities, (Looping if you had less than N) that would make the most sense. Additional Maritimes increasing N (so 1 CS gives +2 food for the top 4 cities, a Two CS gives you +2 for the top 8)

This was one of my proposals above, where Era increases N.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No, its not the same at all. Your proposal has the city produce nothing for as long as its a puppet. Mine has it give positive yields after Uprising wears off as long as you are above -10 unhappiness.
Very different.

Well admittedly in your proposal you can't Choose to keep it at 0 yield... but

I still see no reason for this, and it would be incredibly hard to code.
This would be a massive engine chance. You would have to create some way for territory to not be tied to ownership of the city.

The problem is that tile ownership is a major benefit of a city, especially for a conqueror (movement bonuses, healing bonuses, combat bonuses, and resources).

Perhaps change it so that a city in resistance isn't "Owned" by anyone.

However, see ** below

This would require a major engine change. Currently there is no scope for a unit in a city tile to ever defend. I think you need to move away from some hypothetical model that you might like more towards what might actually be feasible to implement.

Well then City Strength= a direct fraction of Garrison Unit Strength. (1/2 or 1/4 or whatever would allow it to be comparable given the city has 20 hp... none of the normal city Strength applies... possibly remove the cities ability to bombard while in resistance)

and if no Garrison unit, city will take 20 hp damage from any attack.

No. Just prevent resistance counter from decreasing or razing to take place without a unit, at the most. This will already require an AI rewrite.

see the note*

There needs to be some penalty otherwise we just have lesser version of "Ignore Unhappiness" by saying "Ignore Resistance". Especially if a Resisting city gives you the benefits of territory (resources+movement+bonuses) with exactly 0 costs (especially if happiness doesn't matter to you)


**"Self-Liberating"/Garrison Requirement is a way for that territorial control to actually Cost you something.

The game engine is definitely is capable of transferring city control so the options would be

Initial conquest:
Resisting city->Territory benefit, but you Must keep a Garrison or you lose the city
OR
Raze city->Temporary Territory benefit, but you Must keep a Temporary Garrison or you lose the city to your opponent

IF you have sufficient Happiness, then the Resisting option becomes temporary as well leading to
Puppet-> reduced benefits with reduced extra costs (no Social Policy)
OR
Annex-> full benefit with extra costs of 5 gpt + temporary unhappiness/hammer cost



So.... Self Liberation/Garrison Requirement > Unfriendly Territory.

Because if Resistance is the Conqueror's cost of Unhappiness... then Resistance should have either a Cost or no Benefit... since the benefit (territory) is complicated to remove game engine wise, add to the cost (Garrison).

(and the "Self-Liberated" city could start with 0 hp so if you forget for a turn you just have to move a unit in.. assuming you are at war with them.)


Perhaps Resistance can Increase or Decrease. A city starts with X turns of resistance (based on pop+game speed).

If no unit is present, Resistance increases by 1 per turn.
If the Civ is Normal Happy/Unhappy and a unit is present, Resistance decreases by 1 per turn.

If Resistance=Y (based on Pop+gamepeed), and no unit is present, the city Self Liberates.

 

[Ahriman]

Perhaps change it so that a city in resistance isn't "Owned" by anyone.

Still a major engine change. There is no scope in the current engine for a city that isn't owned by anyone.

Well then City Strength= a direct fraction of Garrison Unit Strength.

A unit in a city that has just captured it, or is healing, or is firing, is not garrisoned.

possibly remove the cities ability to bombard while in resistance

I'm pretty sure that cities in resistance already can't bombard.

There needs to be some penalty otherwise we just have lesser version of "Ignore Unhappiness" by saying "Ignore Resistance". Especially if a Resisting city gives you the benefits of territory (resources+movement+bonuses) with exactly 0 costs (especially if happiness doesn't matter to you)

We have no problem because cities in resistance still cause unhappiness.

If happiness doesn't matter, the solution is to *make* happiness matter, not to try to invent some other entirely new mechanism.
Use the existing mechanics whenever possible. Work with the engine, don't fight it.

Also:

4. You should be allowed to puppet your own cities (granting autonomy) at the time you settle/liberate them.... basically cutting the Social Policy Cost in exchange for lower output.

This would be illogical and incredibly confusing. You have to annex your own cities to control them? And the AI would never be able to use this effectively.
The social policy cost penalty is there to penalize expansion. Why on earth would we want the human player to be able to avoid this by settling all over the place and grabbing territory without suffering the intended costs?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This would be illogical and incredibly confusing. You have to annex your own cities to control them? And the AI would never be able to use this effectively.
The social policy cost penalty is there to penalize expansion. Why on earth would we want the human player to be able to avoid this by settling all over the place and grabbing territory without suffering the intended costs?

No you don't Have to.
When you Found a city, you get the option
1) Puppet
2)Direct Control

If you "Annex" a Puppet that you founded, you don't need a Courthouse

Why should you have Wait for someone else to settle a territory so that you can conquer it.... that's ridiculous MM. (I'm leaving this area blank in the hopes that someone will found a city so I can make it a Puppet)
Founding your own city there should Always be better.
You own Puppet will still cost unhappiness, still be uncontrolled, still have limited output.

A unit in a city that has just captured it, or is healing, or is firing, is not garrisoned.

Well make
Resisting City Combat Value=1/2 Strength of Unit Present... 0 if no unit present

We have no problem because cities in resistance still cause unhappiness.

If happiness doesn't matter, the solution is to *make* happiness matter, not to try to invent some other entirely new mechanism.
Use the existing mechanics whenever possible. Work with the engine, don't fight it.

The problem is that Unhappiness does not hinder conquest.
We've suggested
Penalty for Unhappiness= Continued Resistance
But a Resisting city gives an actual BENEFIT and Provides no actual Penalties besides Unhappiness

So if the only penalty for Unhappiness is Unhappiness.....? then what is the point.


I'd say in this case whay you need is to alter the Very Unhappy so that
-10 Unhappy doesn't give No growth in cities... instead each non-occupied city you own loses 1 pop each turn you are very unhappy.

That should work just Fine.

-10 unhappiness would then be the "hard cap" to population. (like -1 is the Soft cap.. growth slows at this point)


So my revised minimal changes


1. Minimal population loss on conquest 1/5 rounded down
2. Puppets give 30-50% Gold+Science and give 0% culture to Social Policies
3. A Newly Founded city can be a Puppet (Annexing it makes it a normal city, no courthouse needed)
4. At Very Unhappy, all non-resisting cities with pop>1 lose 1 pop per turn.
5. Cities being razed require a unit inside for the population to decrease.
6. Cities being razed count as being in resistance.

(This means you will never be at Very Unhappy for long..So you could remove the Combat+Production Penalties. although you may go bankrupt, and lose all your units/have to sell all 'non-happiness' buildings.)

 

[Celevin]

I think this argument's now trying to solve problems created by the argument itself. Can we go back to exactly what the problem with the current puppet / annex system is? Without discussing solutions, we need to nail it down in stone and have everyone agree.

3 choices: raze/resettle, puppet, annex.

- The 5 gold + opportunity cost of a courthouse + lost population/buildings on Annexing makes razing and resettling more preferable.
- Puppets don't contribute to policy costs
- Puppets build useless buildings, and feel like a game of dice. Causes researching some techs to turn into a detriment.
- Puppets don't give control to the player, which is less fun (I might be alone on this one).


Also, even though I sound like a hypocrite for this, we should keep the changes in this area minimal. Otherwise we risk on greatly imbalancing things.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think this argument's now trying to solve problems created by the argument itself. Can we go back to exactly what the problem with the current puppet / annex system is? Without discussing solutions, we need to nail it down in stone and have everyone agree.

3 choices: raze/resettle, puppet, annex.

- The 5 gold + opportunity cost of a courthouse + lost population/buildings on Annexing makes razing and resettling more preferable.
- Puppets don't contribute to policy costs
- Puppets build useless buildings, and feel like a game of dice. Causes researching some techs to turn into a detriment.
- Puppets don't give control to the player, which is less fun (I might be alone on this one).


Also, even though I sound like a hypocrite for this, we should keep the changes in this area minimal. Otherwise we risk on greatly imbalancing things.

I agree with those, but I think the ability to "Ignore Happiness" is also one.

for the first point, I would
1. Reduce Population loss on conquest
AND
2. Revise Maritimes... needs to be done for multiple purposes.. but this is secondary
AND
3. Reduce Courthouse maintenance.. possibly increase build costs

for the Second
1. Puppets should give 0 Culture to social policies (still culture to territory) [I don't think they should add to social policy costs...since that creates too much of a "why can't I raze this city")

For the Third and Fourth (I agree no control over something that affects your empire is no fun) I see two options
1. Puppets are controllable but give reduced science+gold output (and still can't build Units/Wonders)
OR
2. Puppets are uncontrollable but have almost no costs* and no outputs (except Territory) [can't build resource consuming buildings]

I personally like #2, but #1 would work as well (less changes)


*should have some cost, such as a garrison, or City Based Unhappiness, because they have some benefit


The final Fifth issue (ability to "Ignore Happiness") can be met a few ways

1. Very Unhappy prevents conquered cities from becoming productive... however, conquered cities will always produce Territory so...
Also Give conquered cities Additional Costs, at least when Very Unhappy (risk of Self-Liberation if not Garrisoned, or have them charge a gold maintenance cost, etc.) Unfortunately that would com into "Major Changes"

OR

2. Make Very Unhappy give population loss. (so that it is always Temporary... and Unhapiness is always a penalty)

I currently am more in favor of #2.... it means that early over conquest Will tank your Science (and Gold and Producton)

 

[Celevin]

Let's make the following assumptions, so we can simplify this, as we're already changing these things:

- Maritimes are balanced
- It's detrimental to lose happiness, and players want to stay at least above 0

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Let's make the following assumptions, so we can simplify this, as we're already changing these things:

- Maritimes are balanced
- It's detrimental to lose happiness, and players want to stay at least above 0

That econd point could really work well at slowing conquest which allows the conquest options to be better.

Then
1. Reduce Population loss on Conquest
2. Decrease Courthouse Maintenance... possibly increase hammer cost to compensate.

3. Puppets give 0% Culture to Social Policy Pot

4a. Puppets are uncontrollable and have no costs (possibly city only unhappiness) and no outputs (except tile culture)
OR
4b. Puppets are controllable and give reduced Gold+Science output
OR
4c. Eliminate Puppets, either Annex it or Raze it

4a would require some means of
-modifying puppet outputs (Gold, Science, GPP, Happiness)
-costs (building maintenance+ Unhappiness)

4b would require a mechanism of making puppets
-controllable
-modifying puppet output (Gold, Science)

4c would probably be easy, but would require AI+UI modification


I'm not sure which of 4a/ 4b would be easier