AI happiness = difficulty balancer?

[Callonia]

Why would the designers lie when players can easily verify that by checking the game files? And what's there to gain by lying about Prince level when they already admit that the AI has huge bonuses on higher difficulty levels?

As for Siam rexxing, first of all, how do you know his empire wasn't unhappy? And secondly, have you not read that it is possible to maintain a happy population with a large empire? Each city can build colloseums, theatres, circuses, etc. Plus the more land area you have, the more luxuries you have a chance of getting.

Sorry, but your post just seems like an incoherent rant rather than any concrete proof that the AI is cheating.

Maybe because I've been at war against Siam and Germany for the whole time the minute I settled Nara, both of them didn't like it at all.

They rexxed like mad.

 

[Rudster816]

It needs to have advantages throughout the entire game, but the advantages it gets during the beginning are too much on Diety. I struggle in the begging part of the game on immortal, but when I get artillery and rifles\infantry, I start to pull away because they will mindlessly throw away there units 3 or 4 at a time in to the oncoming fire of my artillery, while my units are in front fortified with a GG nearby.

They need to make the AI a bit better at war, rather than just giving him a bunch of advantages. On Diety, if you want to play a large game, there pretty much impossible to overcome, by the time you settle your fourth city, they have longswordsman, 8 cities, more units than you (and better). You can try and play catch up the entire game, but eventually the AI is going to seize the oppurtunity of you being weak, and war you (which they SHOULD). Hell, give them a static +15% combat bonus or something, but for gods sake dont give them such a lead when you first start. I mean, once I get off to a decent start, I can roflstomp the AI on Immortal, but on Diety I can never get off to a remotely decent start compared to the AI's. I would probably win on Continents with a large map\low amount of players, namely because the AI never does naval invasions so all you have to do take out the players on your map, and focus solely on science and your going to win.

 

[Fizticks]

Callonia: I just finished a game of prince, pangea with about 60 cities and was unhappy for the vast majority of the game. As soon as i got forbidden palace, and planned economy i was at plus 100 happiness and cities grew extremely fast. That was without maritime city states( i was mongolia, so i conqured em all). If i can do that on Prince then its not unreasonable to think that the AI, given time, can do the same.

 

[Rohili]

Maybe because I've been at war against Siam and Germany for the whole time the minute I settled Nara, both of them didn't like it at all.

There is no war weariness, so the fact that you were at war with them the whole time is irrelevant to the question of happiness.

 

[Callonia]

There is no war weariness, so the fact that you were at war with them the whole time is irrelevant to the question of happiness.

Did I say anything about war weariness at all?

 

[Rohili]

Did I say anything about war weariness at all?

You didn't, but you highlighted the fact that you were at war with them, as if that was supposed to support your claim that the AI gets happiness advantages on Prince level.

 

[Callonia]

You didn't, but you highlighted the fact that you were at war with them, as if that was supposed to support your claim that the AI gets happiness advantages on Prince level.

Nope, I said the AI is given happiness bonuses.

They could have very large amount of happiness while rexxing like mad.

Oh, and have mountains of troops too.

 

[UknowsI]

This is too easy. Giving the AI just a 2:1 production advantage is nothing. It doesn't know how to use its units properly. It doesn't know what techs to prioritize. It doesn't know which wonders are useless. It doesn't even know to bribe city states after the UN has been built.

I don't think the AI needs to have 45 happiness, but it needs some big advantages to be challenging because it's so darn stupid.

I still think combat bonuses for the AI is required to even out the bad AI on 1UPT. Had a discussion about it here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=391407

 

[MadRat]

Callonia: I just finished a game of prince, pangea with about 60 cities and was unhappy for the vast majority of the game. As soon as i got forbidden palace, and planned economy i was at plus 100 happiness and cities grew extremely fast. That was without maritime city states( i was mongolia, so i conqured em all). If i can do that on Prince then its not unreasonable to think that the AI, given time, can do the same.

The problem, as others have also pointed out, is not only the happiness advantage in general but how crushing it is in the early game. The AI can go ICS apesqueek all over the map and you are struggling to keep a positive core. I'm sorry but seeing am AU at 60 Happiness in 2500 BC is ridiculous.

The problem with CiV is that increasing the difficulty doesn't make the game more challenging it just makes it more annoying, with the epic cheating bonuses. The AI doesnt change, it is a stupid on deity as it is on chieftain.

Rat

 

[DaveGold]

The problem, as others have also pointed out, is not only the happiness advantage in general but how crushing it is in the early game. The AI can go ICS apesqueek all over the map and you are struggling to keep a positive core. I'm sorry but seeing am AU at 60 Happiness in 2500 BC is ridiculous.

I find there's a happiness blackspot before you get your first coliseum (and then more coliseums). If you're not reaching your happiness limit before then you're probably not growing fast enough. If you hit the limit you get badly stuck. A social policy giving a couple of happiness doesn't solve the problem.

 

[elthrasher]

Game designers is lying out of their asses.

I'm not really sure how your screenshot of the AI having several large cities in 2058 AD is proof of that. I thought the game was supposed to end in 2050 or so. Anyway, that's very, very far into the game and anyone should be able to have several large cities by then. I notice in your screenshot that there's a nearby maritime city-state you aren't allied to. That could have something to do with the fact that your cities are smaller.

 

[Rohili]

Nope, I said the AI is given happiness bonuses.

Yes, you said. But nothing you have posted so far proves that the designers are lying there being no happiness bonuses for the AI on Prince level. Perhaps you should just concede that you are not playing as well as the AI, instead of blaming it on the AI cheating or the game designers lying.

Seriously, it's 2058 in your screenshot and you are still researching telegraph - that's pretty slow if you ask me. On Prince, most players would have completed the entire tech tree well before 2050. Also, as the poster above me pointed out, you failed to ally with a maritime CS, which would have allowed your cities to grow faster.

 

[MadRat]

I find there's a happiness blackspot before you get your first coliseum (and then more coliseums). If you're not reaching your happiness limit before then you're probably not growing fast enough. If you hit the limit you get badly stuck. A social policy giving a couple of happiness doesn't solve the problem.

They really do need earlier happiness structures, perhaps having Monument or Temple generating a small happiness bonus would help. In general I am surprised so few wonders create happiness.

Rat

 

[aimlessgun]

modify the gold cost of maintaining the extra buildings and units the AI can create along the same lines and the AI should have the means to handle unhappiness similar to the way a player has to. by balancing units vs. buildings vs. expansion, etc.

Yeah I can understand that desire, if the AI cheating is imbalanced to one part of the game or the other, so maybe it should cheat more somewhere else and less on happiness. Sometimes that AI is worse at certain parts of the game though, and needs more help in certain areas. I don't know if that is the case with happiness in Civ5.

 

[Generals3]

Personally i think the AI happiness bonus is the single most demoralizing thing about it. Nothing worse than playing a continent map and being forced to go through the amazingly huge army of the AI who conquered his entire continent. I don't mind the AI having production bonuses but considering in this game happiness is easily translated into more productions both combined merely makes higher difficulties tedious.

Turn X : I have destroyed 10 units and moved one tile
Turn X+1: The AI showed up with 10 more units
Turn X+2 : I managed to destroy the ten units and move an extra tile
Turn X+3: The AI showed up with 20 more units
Turn X+4: this i'm out.

 

[Callonia]

I'm not really sure how your screenshot of the AI having several large cities in 2058 AD is proof of that. I thought the game was supposed to end in 2050 or so. Anyway, that's very, very far into the game and anyone should be able to have several large cities by then. I notice in your screenshot that there's a nearby maritime city-state you aren't allied to. That could have something to do with the fact that your cities are smaller.

May I recommend a visit to Lenscrafter?

Look at my picture carefully.

20gpt, and -1 happiness.

Allying with a marittime state will get me killed.

And give me -33% combat bonus for being very unhappy. =)

There's three vast empires in the that game pic I linked, Siam/Germany with Monty taking up the 1st place.

I don't even know where Monty is but his army score is more than double than siam/germany combined.

 

[kendo3]

May I recommend a visit to Lenscrafter?

Look at my picture carefully.

20gpt, and -1 happiness.

Allying with a marittime state will get me killed.

And give me -33% combat bonus for being very unhappy. =)

There's three vast empires in the that game pic I linked, Siam/Germany with Monty taking up the 1st place.

I don't even know where Monty is but his army score is more than double than siam/germany combined.

may we recommend you check out how City States work?

how would allying with the city state make you very unhappy? being friends or allies to city states does not impact your happiness. annexing them would but not allying.

taking a city state away from another civ, by having greater influence, will make them mad but as you were (are) already at war with them, it won't make much difference there. won't get you any more killed than you would be without the city state as your ally

 

[Sanisar]

Just thought that I would mention that the Forbidden Palace and Planned economy (Order:Industrial) actually stack additively, meaning you receive 0 unhappiness from the number of cities you control. Assuming that you always puppet then beginning when you adopt Planned Economy, you actually gain happiness as your empire grows (assuming also that you allow your puppets to produce happiness buildings).

Now I basically make sure I tech to Forbidden Palace and rush planned economy asap in industrial and it's a perfect recipe to swift domination victory. No more city razing, no more stalled assaults, no more coping with unhappiness mid campaign. In fact it becomes quite easy to maintain huge happiness numbers. In my current game I have around +50 happiness with maybe 35-40 cities and perhaps a quarter to a third of the globe conquered. This happiness number will only go up from here.

I suppose it's feasible that you could out-population the benefits of happiness buildings under certain circumstances (e.g. you don't let puppets produce happiness building), but it has yet to happen to me.

 

[Sanisar]

I find there's a happiness blackspot before you get your first coliseum (and then more coliseums). If you're not reaching your happiness limit before then you're probably not growing fast enough. If you hit the limit you get badly stuck. A social policy giving a couple of happiness doesn't solve the problem.

Personally, I horde culture and rush tech to the classical era. By the time I unlock piety at the beginning of classical I can go straight to theocracy (or get close) since I delay building my second city until i can spend my culture in classical thus circumventing the expansion penalty for policies.

Yes, this delays my initial expansion, but it also greatly improves early happiness management allowing me to make up the difference. My early strategy usually revolves around 4-8 settled cities and puppeting the rest of the world, so the delayed expansion doesn't really hinder me.

EDIT: sorry for double post, I could have included all of that in a single post I suppose

 

[bryanw1995]

Yup this is a known AI cheat and you see it at all levels. Just another wonderful example of the quality game design in Civ 5.

Rat

huh? the ai gets all sorts of cheats in all civ games, especially on higher levels. so giving he ai huge bonuses on deity in cIV is "great" but giving the ai some happiness bonuses in ciV is terrible?

btw, I played on settler the other day to get the achievement for it, my happiness was ridiculous. I know that I got +1 per luxury right away, plus a very large base modifier as well. say the ai gets +25 base on immortal +2 per luxury, him having + 45 or so in that listed scenario isn't unreasonable at all. clearly it wasn't helping him much