C2C - Housing

[Thunderbrd]

I'm thinking it may be some of the new leader traits making it seem like there's commonly too much unhealth at the beginning, and a LOT of the terrains add unhealth too. I'm not sure how the new housing method works but you said the other day that without any early housing you'd have a LOT of unhealth from default homelessness. This makes it effectively impossible to utilize carrion doesn't it?

And lets be clear that I think unhealth has a lot better balance now after the very start so I'm only suggesting its a bit too tough right out of the gate. Also, as diseases become a bigger part of the game, we'll need to start extracting 'assumed disease' sources and considerations out of unhealth and apply them as Disease Property sources and let the actual diseases themselves beset the city that cannot control it, adding that unhealth from the actual outbreak. This will cause a natural ebb and flow of unhealth modifiers in the city as it gets sick, overcomes it and earns some resistance to it which fades after a time and eventually it returns (in a condition where disease cannot yet be well controlled due to rudimentary technology.)

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd

Well I already reduced the homeless by half a few days ago and even removed the crime from the admin buildings. Things should not be as bad.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well... That sounds like some improvements, but I must ask, is it at all possible to begin a game, with all possible variables considered, without any unhealth in your 1 pop city?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Well... That sounds like some improvements, but I must ask, is it at all possible to begin a game, with all possible variables considered, without any unhealth in your 1 pop city?

Maybe if you started in a forested area with like Humanitarian or Expansive Trait and an easy difficulty setting.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think the balance point should be this:
Starting with 0 net unhealth if:
1) you are on Noble start
2) you have no penalties or bonuses from leaders
and
3) you have no penalties or bonuses from the local terrains

I'm not sure if there are other penalties or bonuses that can vary here but that's simply my opinion as to what we should be balancing around regarding unhealth at the start of the game.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd

So I went an tried a game and gave myself the best possible odds.

Leader: Suryavarman II (Expansionist/Seafaring/Cruel)
Difficulty: Settler
Location: River and Forest

Thus giving you +13 vs +8

However I am unsure if the Housing (Homeless) was triggered yet. Which would give them +4 . Thus +13 vs +12 . So you would be +1 . So just healthy by a baby bit.

EDIT: Yep the next turn it the Housing (Homeless) kicked in and it went to +13 vs +12 .

 

[Hydromancerx]

I think the balance point should be this:
Starting with 0 net unhealth if:
1) you are on Noble start
2) you have no penalties or bonuses from leaders
and
3) you have no penalties or bonuses from the local terrains

I'm not sure if there are other penalties or bonuses that can vary here but that's simply my opinion as to what we should be balancing around regarding unhealth at the start of the game.

I think noble is too far. Terrain is a huge factor too. Even if we did not have civics, leader traits and buildings you can still start in a horrible starting location.

This actually seems balanced if Settler in the best location and best traits can get you just 1 over. Especially since its very easy to get out of that by just building a shelter or getting some herbs.

Would be interesting to see the worst possible setting too. See how bad it can get.

 

[AIAndy]

I think noble is too far. Terrain is a huge factor too. Even if we did not have civics, leader traits and buildings you can still start in a horrible starting location.

Feature unhealthiness only sets in when your city gets more than 1 pop (that was changed some time ago).

This actually seems balanced if Settler in the best location and best traits can get you just 1 over. Especially since its very easy to get out of that by just building a shelter or getting some herbs.

Settler is not a difficulty to balance for.
The problem in general is not that you might get a lot of later or that there is too much . Just that there is nothing that you can do against at the start but having that barrier to having any meaning. Very early hunting will only get you hammers like this but the food gain is eaten up right away despite that it is harder than with the specialized units later.
The best strategy at that point is using high hammer and commerce plots and no food at all. This neither fits in the realism aspect nor is it probably intended.

 

[strategyonly]

Feature unhealthiness only sets in when your city gets more than 1 pop (that was changed some time ago).


Settler is not a difficulty to balance for.
The problem in general is not that you might get a lot of later or that there is too much . Just that there is nothing that you can do against at the start but having that barrier to having any meaning. Very early hunting will only get you hammers like this but the food gain is eaten up right away despite that it is harder than with the specialized units later.
The best strategy at that point is using high hammer and commerce plots and no food at all. This neither fits in the realism aspect nor is it probably intended.

The problem i see here is that in those "real" times, i bet it was even worse that just this, heck most didnt even live till they were 25 back then.(Preh) Is the game too realistic then , or are you'll thinking of "realistic "gameplay?" Remember now they didnt even have fire for aloooong time. No voice box (Larynx) even.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Feature unhealthiness only sets in when your city gets more than 1 pop (that was changed some time ago).


Settler is not a difficulty to balance for.
The problem in general is not that you might get a lot of later or that there is too much . Just that there is nothing that you can do against at the start but having that barrier to having any meaning. Very early hunting will only get you hammers like this but the food gain is eaten up right away despite that it is harder than with the specialized units later.
The best strategy at that point is using high hammer and commerce plots and no food at all. This neither fits in the realism aspect nor is it probably intended.

No no, I am not balancing for settler (at least not specifically). You misunderstand there SHOULD be when you start your city. We don't want prehistoric cities to grow too fast. It should be a struggle in the beginning and then as you discover new techs the weight is slowly lifted.

If the best scenario has you just healthy then noble should be half way in between just healthy and "OMG I am never going to grow" of Deity level.

And what you describe is realistic for animals. At first you may not know how to use all the parts of the animal or are poor at butchering it. Sometimes you have too much food and it spoils. As you advance you can butcher better, store and preserve food better and use all the parts better. Not to mention have larger populations to consume it.

 

[AIAndy]

No no, I am not balancing for settler (at least not specifically). You misunderstand there SHOULD be when you start your city. We don't want prehistoric cities to grow too fast. It should be a struggle in the beginning and then as you discover new techs the weight is slowly lifted.

If the best scenario has you just healthy then noble should be half way in between just healthy and "OMG I am never going to grow" of Deity level.

And what you describe is realistic for animals. At first you may not know how to use all the parts of the animal or are poor at butchering it. Sometimes you have too much food and it spoils. As you advance you can butcher better, store and preserve food better and use all the parts better. Not to mention have larger populations to consume it.

From a gameplay perspective I see growth penalties as the better way at the start compared to excessive unhealthiness because under growth penalties you will still grow and food is still used.
If you have 5 surplus then the food to growth function is highly nonlinear. Having 0 income is exactly the same as having 5 . It is worthless. With 6 you get some growth, but with 7 you get double that growth.

 

[Nimek]

food to growth function is highly nonlinear [with unhealthy modifiers]

If this will not convince Hydro than nothing will

 

[Koshling]

food to growth function is highly nonlinear [with unhealthy modifiers]

I agree with Sheldon

 

[JosEPh_II]

I agree with Sheldon

BaZinga!

Thank you AIAndy for speaking up. I agree. But just have not been able to express what I wanted to say.

So I used the BerryBush as an example. Was told there is no growth inhibitor modifier and I started a riot too! OMG sometimes it's Fun being Old!

JosEPh

 

[Nimek]

Who is Sheldon ???

 

[JosEPh_II]

American TV show called Big Bang Theory about aparment full of nerds living next door to good looking girl. Sheldon being one of the main nerds.

JosEPh

 

[Faustmouse]

Very early hunting will only get you hammers like this but the food gain is eaten up right away despite that it is harder than with the specialized units later.

Is it possible to change the mechanic so that food from hunting isnt lost because of unhealtness? So the Hunter start would be more important while "farming" your tiles wasnt.
You could also add some respawning berry-bushes or similar that would act like goody huts: if you enter them they will give you a free "berry holding gatherer" or similar that you can send to your city and perform a "trademission" which add food not gold to the city to simulate the gathering part of the early-game

 

[Randomness]

If the nomad start mechanic was finished, none of this would be a problem ...

 

[Hydromancerx]

From a gameplay perspective I see growth penalties as the better way at the start compared to excessive unhealthiness because under growth penalties you will still grow and food is still used.
If you have 5 surplus then the food to growth function is highly nonlinear. Having 0 income is exactly the same as having 5 . It is worthless. With 6 you get some growth, but with 7 you get double that growth.

Ok then how much growth penalty is worth +1 ?

 

[Nimek]

You can give 5% more to grow instead every unhealthy from early housing. After some testing we will be able to balance it. We must simply start from some point.