A review of the Happiness System

[Funak]

Are there other ways of dealing with happiness I don't know about?

Apart from policies/religion/wonders, etc, as they should be enhancers to the civilization, not basic musts.

Mostly policy-choices and settling less cities.
Also, happiness usually tanks around that time you described, because you feel forced to expand before the AI grab all good spots, chilling out afterwards and getting some infrastructure going should stabilize your happiness.

 

[Edaka]

I've just started playing a marathon game on huge size.

My initial impressions is that the happiness revamp is very cool. The happiness being broken down into different parts is very new and exciting.

However I'm nearing the Medieval era now, and I find that my happiness is tanking hard. (Wide empire, 9 luxuries, -12 unhappiness)

I have a lot of luxuries, but they aren't as effective anymore. My only option is to build buildings in my cities. All of the types.

This breaks the strategic layer of choosing which cities are for which purpose (production/gold/science/etc..)

Now I'm forced to build the same buildings in every single city to curb unhappiness. I have walls and castles built in every city just for the sake of happiness, even though they have no intended strategic value (defence).

Are there other ways of dealing with happiness I don't know about?

Apart from policies/religion/wonders, etc, as they should be enhancers to the civilization, not basic musts.

Like others said - beliefs and policies are musts, but IMO twose two are integral parts of the game. Thankfully, every social policy tree has happiness-related bonuses, and policies in general is something that you do every game anyway. Follower beliefs in CBP are actually all useful for followers (that means that you don't have to found a religion to benefit from it) and can help your cities overcome their needs. Also, don't forget that keeping a garrison in a city decreases crime in it (the stronger the unit, the more reduction). Besides, crime atm is one of the most common sources of unhappiness, so don't go crazy over trying to get rid of it completely. Not going to happen .

Edit: oh, I forgot mercantile city states also exist. Theoretically, they can be helpful, too.

 

[Apostremo]

I've just started playing a marathon game on huge size.

My initial impressions is that the happiness revamp is very cool. The happiness being broken down into different parts is very new and exciting.

However I'm nearing the Medieval era now, and I find that my happiness is tanking hard. (Wide empire, 9 luxuries, -12 unhappiness)

I have a lot of luxuries, but they aren't as effective anymore. My only option is to build buildings in my cities. All of the types.

This breaks the strategic layer of choosing which cities are for which purpose (production/gold/science/etc..)

Now I'm forced to build the same buildings in every single city to curb unhappiness. I have walls and castles built in every city just for the sake of happiness, even though they have no intended strategic value (defence).

Are there other ways of dealing with happiness I don't know about?

Apart from policies/religion/wonders, etc, as they should be enhancers to the civilization, not basic musts.

I'm only a few games ahead of you, but my impression is that you still can give cities a primary purpose. Simply to a lower degree. Cities with enough infrastructure seem to produce only a few unhappiness even with over 20 pop. So you're free to build other stuff, then. This makes it a cycle of settle, build infrastructure, settle...Interestingly, on a side note, puppets have very low unhappiness and are very nice cash cows!

Yes you will build much more for happiness. You will need to get used to building walls everywhere. The first time a single melee unit threatens one of your cities you won't mind any more . It's refreshing that every game is different. I play Polynesia right now and don't ever need to worry about boredom in my cities. Keep a look for wonders/policies that give a need reduction in all cities. For example a decrease in crime for all cities might still need a wall everywhere, but castle/const. can maybe be delayed one or two eras.

That being said, a huge step forward is the pioneer. You should plan ahead and stall some settlers until you can upgrade them to pioneers. A pioneer city is propably 50+ rounds (=200 rounds in maratheon??) ahead of a normal city!! That helps also enormously with happiness!

Finally, wait til later eras, suddenly your happiness skyrockets and you start settling like crazy, not even talking about ideologies

 

[Finarvi]

I've just started playing a marathon game on huge size.

My initial impressions is that the happiness revamp is very cool. The happiness being broken down into different parts is very new and exciting.

However I'm nearing the Medieval era now, and I find that my happiness is tanking hard. (Wide empire, 9 luxuries, -12 unhappiness)

I have a lot of luxuries, but they aren't as effective anymore. My only option is to build buildings in my cities. All of the types.

This breaks the strategic layer of choosing which cities are for which purpose (production/gold/science/etc..)

Now I'm forced to build the same buildings in every single city to curb unhappiness. I have walls and castles built in every city just for the sake of happiness, even though they have no intended strategic value (defence).

Are there other ways of dealing with happiness I don't know about?

Apart from policies/religion/wonders, etc, as they should be enhancers to the civilization, not basic musts.

There should be some help topic with advices how to get started in CPP.

Yes there are many ways to fight unhappiness. For example if you have many problems with poverty and illiteracy then try sending out your caravans from different cities, not just one. You may also want to build more villages (trading posts) to fight illiteracy poverty and boredom.

But I'm afraid that you will still need most of buildings to stay at possitive values.

 

[Strec]

I think the guideline that have been choosen is very good compared to vanilla.

Luxuries :
How can someone explain to me that having a luxury cultivated in the area can make a big boost for the hapiness of the population? In history the only boost on hapiness from factories of mines was for the patron, not the workers!
So now luxuries serves commerce, for me it seems logic. I think they may be more useful on city growing, but it's secondary.

Buildings :
Here too logic is respected. Citizen are more happy having a theater or an hospital than a mine or a plantation.

Balance :
Here, I think there is a lack of balancing, principally in starting a game. The principal reason is that buildings only have one focus, so you can't really specialize the town, even a city in the center of the empire must have walls and barracks, it's absurd.

Most of the buildings may have 2 focuses so you could really choose which type of city you want. I explain with an example :

Current :

• Walls : add security
• Market : add wealth
• Library : add knowledge

To reduce unhappiness you must build the 3.

Would be :

• Walls : add security AND wealth (more security so more merchants in town)
• Market : add wealth AND knowledge (more cultural exhanges)
• Library : add knowledge AND security (more instructed soldiers)

If you want a merchant city you build walls and market.

If you want a combat city you construct walls and library

If you want a science city you constructlibrary and market


For me, personalizing my cities is VERY important, for now, after a certain amount of time I see that my cities are all clones :/

M2p

 

[Strigvir]

Caravans don't help with Poverty, but I am not sure about science part. They do remove Isolation unhappiness though.
Villages removing illiteracy? By the time you get the actual science yield from them, a single scientist provides 2-3 times more science than a village.

 

[Apostremo]

I think the guideline that have been choosen is very good compared to vanilla.

Luxuries :
How can someone explain to me that having a luxury cultivated in the area can make a big boost for the hapiness of the population? In history the only boost on hapiness from factories of mines was for the patron, not the workers!
So now luxuries serves commerce, for me it seems logic. I think they may be more useful on city growing, but it's secondary.

Buildings :
Here too logic is respected. Citizen are more happy having a theater or an hospital than a mine or a plantation.

Balance :
Here, I think there is a lack of balancing, principally in starting a game. The principal reason is that buildings only have one focus, so you can't really specialize the town, even a city in the center of the empire must have walls and barracks, it's absurd.

Most of the buildings may have 2 focuses so you could really choose which type of city you want. I explain with an example :

Current :

• Walls : add security
• Market : add wealth
• Library : add knowledge

To reduce unhappiness you must build the 3.

Would be :

• Walls : add security AND wealth (more security so more merchants in town)
• Market : add wealth AND knowledge (more cultural exhanges)
• Library : add knowledge AND security (more instructed soldiers)

If you want a merchant city you build walls and market.

If you want a combat city you construct walls and library

If you want a science city you constructlibrary and market


For me, personalizing my cities is VERY important, for now, after a certain amount of time I see that my cities are all clones :/

M2p

I hope i get your meanings right:
Luxuries :
The population lives in the (new) villages and towns. No one cares about their happiness
Citizen are the artisans, nobles etc. This metapher is a little bit anachronistic for early eras but in the end it comes down to gameplay.

Buildings :
Culture gives happiness indirectly now, so (amphi-)theater = more happiness.

Current :
Most buildings are doing tons of stuff now compared to vanilla, no need to go this far. But i think there are some buildings that fell out of favor that could use some additional effect like well (!!!!) (and water mill to lesser degree) and bank, stock market for example.

Your main problem is specialisation of cities. It's still there. Later it gets easier, but even earlier you can have cities only doing one thing. Being negative happiness is not that bad btw.

 

[Strec]

This metapher is a little bit anachronistic for early eras

I prefer not to debate of this here

Your main problem is specialisation of cities.

Clearly! I love micromanage my cities to specialize them (like in Civ 4) and in early game I can't really prepare my future empire. Speaking of history and eras, the more you advance the more cities are specialized.

A city isolated in mountains is not a choice to focus commerce and a city in grassland is often more dedicated to produce food than industry. I have no need of walls and barrack in the main farm city in the center of my empire

 

[Apostremo]

I prefer not to debate of this here

I thought you started that debate

 

[Finarvi]

Caravans don't help with Poverty, but I am not sure about science part. They do remove Isolation unhappiness though.
Villages removing illiteracy? By the time you get the actual science yield from them, a single scientist provides 2-3 times more science than a village.

Of course that Caravans help with poverty. With illetaracy, well, only if you choose good destination (btw route with certain civ helps with getting more influence and thus more ).

I misspelled "illiteracy", meant "poverty".

 

[Pravus]

I prefer not to debate of this here



Clearly! I love micromanage my cities to specialize them (like in Civ 4) and in early game I can't really prepare my future empire. Speaking of history and eras, the more you advance the more cities are specialized.

A city isolated in mountains is not a choice to focus commerce and a city in grassland is often more dedicated to produce food than industry. I have no need of walls and barrack in the main farm city in the center of my empire

What annoys me most about the happiness system is the need for walls in strategically meaningless spots. Garrisons should count far more toward crime reduction and walls far less. This forces interesting choices between policing and war readiness.

 

[Strec]

What annoys me most about the happiness system is the need for walls in strategically meaningless spots. Garrisons should count far more toward crime reduction and walls far less. This forces interesting choices between policing and war readiness.

And don't forget you have to learn 2 level 2 techs in 2 different branchs

I see an other thing in early game that seems comical :

Building a granary permits citizen to avoid lack of food so I think they would make them happy, but it is not the case. It permit the city to grow quicker so you with more population you'll have more problems.

So we can say that constructing a granary make (undirect effect) the population unhappy

 

[Edaka]

Caravans don't help with Poverty, but I am not sure about science part. They do remove Isolation unhappiness though.

I think you're confusing it with trade not affecting global city tresholds (or needs, whatever you like the most). Last time I checked, they reduced poverty and illiteracy.

 

[Funak]

I think you're confusing it with trade not affecting global city tresholds (or needs, whatever you like the most). Last time I checked, they reduced poverty and illiteracy.

This is correct.

 

[steass]

What annoys me most about the happiness system is the need for walls in strategically meaningless spots. Garrisons should count far more toward crime reduction and walls far less. This forces interesting choices between policing and war readiness.

I agree 900%.

That stops the forced walls in every city, and gives another layer of strategy. And it makes sense from a realism point too.

 

[Finarvi]

If it comes to increasing city from garrisons: I always agree. Gazebo said that it would be problematic (not AI friendly? too swingy?) but I hope that there is a way to code it effectively...

 

[Funak]

If it comes to increasing city from garrisons: I always agree. Gazebo said that it would be problematic (not AI friendly? too swingy?) but I hope that there is a way to code it effectively...

G said it would lag down the game recounting averages every time a unit moves in our out of a city (which happens a lot during the AI turn), or something like that, so it's probably not going to happen.

I do however completely agree with the garrison thing and I've brought it up before. Honestly it just isn't okay in my book that a city with a unit of infantry-men guarding it could somehow be easier to take than killing said infantry-men on an open field.


The only realistic solution however seems to be basing the crime unhappiness off something else, so we are free to do with city-defense as we want.

 

[Edaka]

What if just the existence of a garrison in a city lowered its defense needs by, say, 10% (the way barracks do)? That would improve the crime reduction effectiveness of garrisons without the need to furthermore increase city defense.

 

[Funak]

What if just the existence of a garrison in a city lowered its defense needs by, say, 10% (the way barracks do)? That would improve the crime reduction effectiveness of garrisons without the need to furthermore increase city defense.

To be perfectly honest, I really don't care about the crime rate, I care about the fact that a garrisons doesn't help defend the city.

Also your suggestion would require just as many recalculations per turn as the other suggestions.

 

[Strec]

So why don't you agree the solution I proposed? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13961716&postcount=85

I don't think having defense (for example) from other secondary buildings provoque lag and it's not so illogic to have indirect effect from buildings.