Build: happiness

[Creepy Old Man]

There've been a few times where, for various reasons, I dig myself into a serious happiness hole. Most recently, I conquered a size 26 city from Siam, which had no happiness buildings in it. Doing so apparently provoked England to declare war on me, depriving me of the whales and ivory she had been trading to me. Thus, I fell from positive happiness into significantly livid conditions.

I often have every possible happiness building build in every city, so I can't rush buy a colisseum to save myself. Trading with a guarded or hostile neighbour to get a luxury can be horribly expensive.

I have an objection to selling cities to AIs. Yes, this is - according to game mechanics - the most effective way to convert unhappy cities into something useful. But this betrays my own attitude that growth is equated with success in an empire-building game, while being seriously immersion breaking for me. If the Americans are upset, they'll become happier by selling New York to the Japanese?

This game, in my opinion, really needs another way to generate happiness. How about if cities could "build" happiness, the same way they build wealth, research, and culture? You could set any city to building happiness, and each hammer could turn into 0.25 happiness.

Naturally, one would only use this as a temporary solution. Your civilization would suffer many cities were continually "wasting" their production alleviating your happiness problems. But I think that it would really help the game to have a way to escape the crippling effects of sudden livid citizens.

 

[PaperBeetle]

Sounds like a good idea to me, insofar as anything within the current happiness/growth-limiting model can be a good thing. But wouldn't this option upset the ICS-must-be-banned crowd again?

 

[Atwork]

But I think that it would really help the game to have a way to escape the crippling effects of sudden livid citizens.

The best way would be to return to the concept of local happiness.

But, since we're constrained to work within the new global happiness scheme, I think that each Colosseum & Stadium should provide 1 "Entertainer" Specialist slot. Each entertainer would provide one global happiness.

A Great Entertainer could be born and used to start a golden age or alternatively, expended for +5 happiness for an equivalent number of turns.

 

[builer680]

The safest thing to do is to avoid digging a large Unhappiness "hole." From experience, I know that you can run huge empires with dozens of huge, 30+ pop Cities in them (on any level) and still be FAR in the "+ Happiness."

Not to offend, but it sounds like you're just not managing it very well. Policies, especially Piety/Freedom/Order, are key, and Wonders obviously can be very helpful. I'm hard pressed to imagine a situation where your Happiness suddenly became unmanageable only due to losing 2 luxuries (-10), and that you have no options to mitigate your Unhappiness other than trading Cities away or making a horrible trade deal with the AI.

Do you perhaps have a save file you could upload? I'm sure there would be many suggestions that may help you to avoid it in the future, even if the hole you're currently in is too deep to dig out of without drastic measures.

 

[builer680]

The best way would be to return to the concept of local happiness.

We actually basically have Local Happiness now, with City pop limiting how much effect a building can have. The main thing is, the UI doesn't show you because they're hellbent on still calling it and treating it as Global. So instead of being able to see how many Citizens are Unhappy in a City, you have to count Buildings.

 

[Yzman]

We actually basically have Local Happiness now, with City pop limiting how much effect a building can have. The main thing is, the UI doesn't show you because they're hellbent on still calling it and treating it as Global. So instead of being able to see how many Citizens are Unhappy in a City, you have to count Buildings.

Its still global in the sense that unhappiness is global. It affects all your cities, all your units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Very easy way to "build happiness" force all of your citizens in all of your cities to be unemployed/work non-food tiles. Each city will lose population and you will soon be happy again.

In any case Unhappiness of 1-9 is not really a problem. even 10-19 isn't too bad.

 

[builer680]

Its still global in the sense that unhappiness is global. It affects all your cities, all your units.

True, but from a Building standpoint, it's managed Locally (except Wonders). And without any UI clues other than just knowing it from the patch notes from mid-December.

I love counting Buildings because of a developer's false pride in a mechanic they shortsightedly and stupidly changed from previous versions of the game... then their resultant refusal to update the UI even after they essentially admitted how stupid that design change was... with their mid-December patch.

 

[Atwork]

We actually basically have Local Happiness now

Not really. The example you provide, "City pop limiting how much effect a building can have" is the full extent of C5's concept, in terms of happiness, of the relationship between local gov't action/inaction and local effects. The dominant concept in C5 is that local gov't action/inaction has a purely global effect, which effects all local populations the same based on defined thresholds.

When I conceptualize local happiness, I conceptualize local solutions as a response to local needs. I generally think of situations in which decisions, even if they originate at the national level, are implemented locally and therefore have primary effect locally. But, local effects, in the aggregate, may reverberate nationally if the local needs are not addressed, compounding the problems over time.

C5's system allows the possibility that every city in a civ can be punished for failure to build infrastructure in one or a portion of the cities in the civ; such is global punishment for local failures. C4's system punished individual cities for failure to build infrastructure and the civ suffered due to inefficiencies at the local level.....In the aggregate, failures at the local level could have severe global effects.

In the end, I think the best system would be a happiness model featuring a robust global concept working in tandem with a robust local concept.

 

[builer680]

Not really.

Yes, really. As far as Buildings are concerned anyway. No matter what effect it has on the whole empire, your management/interaction/control of Happiness via Buildings IS Local.

All the rest is just fluff because, while it may have Global effects, it is controlled Locally.

 

[JohnnyW]

In the end, I think the best system would be a happiness model featuring a robust global concept working in tandem with a robust local concept.

This would be interesting and is something I would hope for.

 

[Atwork]

All the rest is just fluff because, while it may have Global effects, it is controlled Locally.

fluff? I wouldn't call that fluff -- I call that a prominent and fundamental conceptual design.

No matter what effect it has on the whole empire, your management/interaction/control of Happiness via Buildings IS Local.

Uhm, yes. The concept of local happiness is limited to output. I don't disagree with you. But, the effects are global. The concept for local effect of happiness is based on global thresholds that effect the whole civ globally.

 

[builer680]

fluff? I wouldn't call that fluff -- I call that a prominent and fundamental conceptual design.

There is nothing 'fundamentally conceptual' about a stupid mechanic getting the half arsed 'fix' that it got... which is a tacit admission of how stupid it was... 3 months later. You're right about it being prominent though. Anyway, let me be as clear as I can about what I'm saying.

Fluff inasmuch as your only interaction with it with Buildings is Local.
Fluff inasmuch you can't do anything about Unhappiness with Buildings except at the Local level.
Fluff inasmuch as Unhappiness only has negative Global effects if you allow it to, largely by failing at the Local level.
Fluff inasmuch as a Building doesn't care what your Global pop is, only your Local pop.

Yes, I know, the effects of unhappiness are Global. But I don't care about the effects, I care about - and am commenting on - what actually controls the effect. I'm commenting about how you manage and control the effect, not about the effect itself. As far as I'm concerned, Local control makes it a Local system. At least in relation to Buildings, regardless of what range the effects that are interacted with and controlled Locally have.

I'm sure you'll find a million ways to say how this isn't an apt analogy, but I'd compare it to the US economy. It's a (mostly) Local mechanic with Global effects. Go ahead, shoot holes in it... you know what I'm saying though.

How it is controlled, this is the important part to know if you care to manage Happiness with Buildings, as the OP seems to want to do. As far as Buildings are concerned, every single bit of your control of Unhappiness with them - the amount of pop they affect - is Local. The effects are BASED on a Local calculation. Local. Local. LOCAL! LLLLOOOOCCCCAAAALLLL!!!!!!!!

 

[Atwork]

This would be interesting and is something I would hope for.

I agree. I envision a system that makes the following true: 'all politics is local; all local politics is global; all global politics is both.'

And by the way Johnny, I read your ideas for the mod -- I admire your ambition and I wish you success, as it seems you've addressed important need areas. Good luck!

 

[Atwork]

Yes, I know, the effects of unhappiness are Global. But I don't care about the effects, I care about - and am commenting on - what actually controls the effect.

I don't disagree that this is what YOU are commenting on. But, unless I'm mistaken, you're not having a conversation with yourself. You stated that C5 has a concept for local happiness, which is true if you only focus on half of the equation, which it seems you are determined to do......but, your statement is not true on the other side of the equation, which my statements do speak to. So, there it is.

There is nothing 'fundamental' about a stupid mechanic getting a half arsed 'fix' that is a tacit admission of how stupid it was 3 months later.

The current happiness system is fundamental. It is the mechanic around which so many decisions regarding expansion, production, discovery, trade, war, and tile improvement are based. Considering its effect on decision making, I'd say it is most definitely fundamental.

Yes, I know, the effects of unhappiness are Global. But I don't care about the effects, I care about - and am commenting on - what actually controls the effect.


This is the important part to know if you care to manage Happiness with Buildings, as the OP seems to want to do.

The OP offered an idea re: happiness production. The OP believes that there should be a way to manufacture happiness in the game. Rather than reading a rehash of the rules of the game re: management of happiness in C5 which I'm already familiar with, I prefer exploring ideas and suggestions to change the mechanics of C5 in a fundamental way.

 

[builer680]

double post... ugh.

 

[builer680]

I don't disagree that this is what YOU are commenting on. But, unless I'm mistaken, you're not having a conversation with yourself.

The OP has problems MANAGING HAPPINESS. Therefore, I am commenting about one way to better MANAGE HAPPINESS. Where do you MANAGE HAPPINESS with Buildings? In Cities. LOCALLY.

Rather than reading a rehash of the rules of the game re: management of happiness in C5 which I'm already familiar with, I prefer exploring ideas and suggestions to change the mechanics of C5 in a fundamental way.

Why am I not engaging in a discussion to implement a new idea to MANAGE HAPPINESS? Because, you don't NEED entire new systems if you know how to MANAGE HAPPINESS. As much as we'd all like a +5 BUTTON, it isn't necessary, at least with current mechanics (which suck, but not because of this). This means everything else of yours (and his idea) that follows is superfluous and moot, because there IS no problem MANAGING HAPPINESS if you know how to properly MANAGE HAPPINESS. With Buildings you MANAGE HAPPINESS Locally.

Simple terms:
Q. What is causing the problems that OP is having?
A. A bad job of Managing Happiness.
Q. Where do you Manage Happiness with Buildings, which is a key way to Manage Happiness?
A. Locally.

Just to cover all the bases though, here are some other ways you can also Manage Happiness, OP.
Improve your tiles.
Pick Social Policies.
Build Wonders.

Phew, sure am glad I didn't forget to mention those to him. And those ways don't even require having to have read patch notes from a month and a half ago or telepathy to know.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The OP has problems MANAGING HAPPINESS. Therefore, I am commenting about one way to better MANAGE HAPPINESS. Where do you MANAGE HAPPINESS with Buildings? In Cities. LOCALLY.

Why am I not engaging in a discussion to implement a new idea to MANAGE HAPPINESS? Because, you don't NEED entire new systems if you know how to MANAGE HAPPINESS. As much as we'd all like a +5 BUTTON, it isn't necessary, at least with current mechanics (which suck, but not because of this). This means everything else of yours (and his idea) that follows is superfluous and moot, because there IS no problem MANAGING HAPPINESS if you know how to properly MANAGE HAPPINESS. With Buildings you MANAGE HAPPINESS Locally.

Simple terms:
Q. What is causing the problems that OP is having?
A. A bad job of Managing Happiness.
Q. Where do you Manage Happiness with Buildings, which is a key way to Manage Happiness?
A. Locally.

Just to cover all the bases though, here are some other ways you can also Manage Happiness, OP.
Improve your tiles.
Pick Social Policies.
Build Wonders.

Phew, sure am glad I didn't forget to mention those to him. And those ways don't even require having to have read patch notes from a month and a half ago or telepathy to know.

There's also
Buy Resources
Sell cities*
Raze cities*

*Admitedly those are also local solutions

 

[Atwork]

there IS no problem if you know how to properly MANAGE HAPPINESS. With Buildings you MANAGE HAPPINESS Locally.

You keep reiterating the fact that buildings are a crucial tool to managing global happiness and that things you do locally has global effect. No one is disagreeing with you! I am not seeking a better understanding of the current system (as though it needs further simplification to be understood). I like you don't find the current system difficult to manage -- rather, I find the current system lame.

The OP has problems MANAGING HAPPINESS. I am commenting about how to MANAGE HAPPINESS.

Your take-away from the OP's post is that he needs help managing his happiness. My take away is that he offered an idea. Ideas are what I'm interested in. Specifically, I'm interested in ideas to reform the system. My problem with the current system is that it neglects to represent a clear relationship between local decision-making and local effects.

You don't need entire new systems if you know how to MANAGE HAPPINESS. This means everything else of yours (and his idea) that follows is superfluous and moot,

Again, my interest isn't knowledge on happiness management. My interest is ideas on how to improve the system. My ideas, the OP's ideas, and anyone else's are only moot if you conclude that the current system is the best possible. I am decidedly not of that opinion.

I am of the opinion that the current system could be improved. Further, I am of the opinion that a better system would be fundamentally different altogether. In general terms, I believe that a better system would introduce 2 distinct but inclusive systems involving (1) local happiness and (2) national stability.

Changes would have the affect of: (1) making local effects the primary and most direct consequence of local decision-making and national instability; (2) abolish arbitrary global thresholds resulting to global punishment; (3) create a communication loop between local demands and national decision-making so that responsiveness to local populations becomes an important factor in national stability; (4) bind national stability to the overall happiness of local populations -- the more unhappy cities, the greater national instability -- population of those cities would be a factor also; (5) greater national stability would also effect local happiness in defined ways; (6) luxury resources would primarily effect national stability except that certain buildings would utilize those luxuries locally to promote local happiness; (7) buildings would primarily effect local happiness, except certain buildings would promote national stability (courthouses, banks, public schools, others); (8) an unstable nation combined with unhappy local population could lead to local strike. If not resolved by bribe, or purchase of production demanded, or regaining national stability, then the city may go in to open revolt. Cities in open revolt would encourage other vulnerable cities to go in to strike -- especially regionally. Multiple cities falling in to open revolt could lead to open revolution, in which case rebels would spawn and may implore rival civs to become involved in the conflict......these are the sorts of mechanics I'm thinking of.

I would prefer a system where the scales slowly tip in one direction or another....problems can be mitigated or avoided on the national level and/or local level, but the primary concern is what is happening locally. If local problems were ignored, national stability would be affected.....Loss of national stability would lead to severely worsening problems in vulnerable localities. On the other hand, national stability would also be a product of decisions made on the global scale, not entirely dependent on local decision-making.

Either way, if solutions to local and/or national problems aren't prioritized, then local problems would be magnified and turn dire over time; threatening to spread to other vulnerable localities. Regional diffusion of problems would hasten more quickly than isolated local problems. But, for every locality that went into strike or worse, the effect would be felt both nationally and locally.

 

[builer680]

The OP's idea was basically a +5 Happy Button. This idea is bad. Please don't make me explain why. Fine, I will. Because it would take the game one more step towards this. Be sure to check out what at least one guy thought of that game here. So I ignored the idea and skipped to what seemed to me would be more helpful, which was to emphasize better Management of his Happiness.

The OP has "Manage Happiness" problems. The only area about Managing Happiness that could possibly be the least bit murky is "Local" nature of Building Happiness, so that became my focus.

From this, I wanted to help him better Manage Happiness, since I KNOW it can be done just fine with tools currently at your disposal, with 30+ Cities of 30-40 pop and greater. I've done it on Huge maps multiple times... on all levels including Deity... and I'm sure many others (maybe including you, I don't know) have as well. It's no major accomplishment. But the Local nature of Happiness Buildings can throw a person off if they don't know it, so I stressed it. Including the fact that the UI still hides this from you. Even after they've admitted by proxy that their idea of Global Building Happiness was ******ed (by changing it), they still have too much false pride to actually update the UI to reflect it. Idiots.

The ONLY way to fail at Happiness is to not Manage it properly in the first place. Hence my posts. You have ideas, but none of them will immediately solve his issue of failing at Managing Happiness. My posts have at least a chance of doing that. Yours have absolutely none.

Your ideas on their face may or may not be fine, if they weren't counter to the entire design of this Fisher Price version of Civ. "Keep it simple, stupid." If you can't add things up on one hand, or if things go much above 2 digits at most... it's not likely to be implemented this go-round. So in the end, your idea does the OP no good.

If this is, however, as you say, an "idea" post, then it might have gotten a better reception in the "Suggestions" forum. I doubt it though, like I said it's a bad idea (his is bad... yours seems like it could be neat with proper thinking through, another abject weakness of this design team). But when something like this pops up in General, someone (me for instance) might get the inclination that the poster needs a problem solved, not an idea discussed. The latter will do absolutely nothing to help him with his problem. Maybe it's just me though, I tend to try to solve problems rather than make conversation about changes that either aren't needed (his) or won't happen (yours), and which will ultimately do nothing to help him in his current ordeal anyway.