Do you folks think happiness is to harsh this version 2.7?

[alchx]

Unpredictable misfortune system. There were 20/20 happy/dissatisfied. Two new citizens were born in one turn. It became 18/22.

Of course, I expect citizens to have needs and prepare so that at the time of birth, a building like a market, schools (where a citizen can work in comfort and warmth) or an improved cell with resources will appear for them on the same turn. But they are just unhappy all the time.

Without importing luxury at the beginning of the game, it is impossible to correct happiness. It is impossible to play authoritarian self-centered xenophobia without trade contacts with other civilizations.

But I take two policies in parallel - autocracy and progress, and it is very difficult to get to happiness in them if you open 2-3 autocracies and switch to progress ..

 

[josh4]

It is impossible to play authoritarian self-centered xenophobia without trade contacts with other civilizations.

I think it's possible but would be a tough challenge that requires a certain map and civ.

 

[CppMaster]

It is impossible to play authoritarian self-centered xenophobia without trade contacts with other civilizations.

It's not Stellaris, lol. It's almost always better to trade. You can't really complaint about happiness with such decision.

 

[Jhang]

No unhappiness problems in my current deity India game. Excessive growth locking (also to milk +50 gold per citizen in medieval). And some cities really have no good tiles, village on grassland with trade route without road is not worth growing. Mumbai was 8 citizens from turn around 70 until 130 now, still no reason to grow and it's grabbed Angkor Wat, protected my from the Iroqious, was a base for long production trade routes, and generally was stellar. Agra was built up on three pop and prod trade route. It worked three stoneworks buffed stones and got it sustain food from policies, buildings. If a city gets everything what it needs for the turn count on three pop, why grow?

Interesting, is 6 okay with Progress with the current meta? Or do you do a second expansion later on, peaceful or otherwise?

 

[AndreyK]

I always coped with happiness/unhappiness before. Now I think it has gone a little bit too much. I like to play on large Planet Simulator map with 11-12 AI Immortal, and I like to turn off all victory conditions but leave only Domination, because my games ended before too quick. Because culture or other types are too easy or quick for my taste, I don't want my games over in Modern or Atomic (even probably in Industrial).
So always I end up having 30-35+ cities and I don't want to raze or puppet half of the world.
I think happiness should not prohibit acquiring many cities or grow them well if you develop fully.
Many people say like playing on lower difficulties will solve the problem, but I already went from Deity to Immortal, even tried Emperor, it's too easy and leads to quick victories (no challenge) which is not fun at all.
I play Civilization games since 1993 and I think that happiness should not push you so strongly to the only one path to play - not acquire cities, not let them grow, raze enemy cities.
I'm OK with having to build 3-4 PW in all of my cities in Industrial, then if my enemies keep pushing me and I had to take their cities and so have 20+ cities in Modern to build 2-3 PW more, so I build 5-7 PW in every city (except capital) at that point of the game and I think that should be enough.

 

[BornDownUnder]

Is everybody reporting on happiness/unhappiness difficulty using the hotfix:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-2-7-3-october-7-2022.679489/page-17#post-16356365

If not, you really should so Recursive and co. can have a better grasp on how to adjust the values for happiness/unhappiness gains in the future.

 

[greenfieldpark]

Is everybody reporting on happiness/unhappiness difficulty using the hotfix:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-2-7-3-october-7-2022.679489/page-17#post-16356365

If not, you really should so Recursive and co. can have a better grasp on how to adjust the values for happiness/unhappiness gains in the future.

Im playing with the hotfix. Happiness appears to be equally challenging both for myself as well as the ai. The way I like it . So for the happiness to become less challenging yall will have to wait for the next version which should be arriving sometime soon after i am taking down my halloween decorations but hopefully before my christmas stuff starts going up.

 

[CppMaster]

So always I end up having 30-35+ cities and I don't want to raze or puppet half of the world.

That's crazy wide, though

 

[beginner_]

That's crazy wide, though

That what happens with domination right? Maybe I'm playing it wrong but I don't like razing useful cities. You need them for healing and later on as airbase(s).

On 2.6 that was totally doable. Civ is about building an empire not turtling with 4 cities and cheesing to victory. At least for me. I did some sql tweak (global median to 45) and 2.7.3 is even with that hard to swallow.

 

[CppMaster]

Civ is about building an empire not turtling with 4 cities and cheesing to victory.

Dude, there is plenty of numbers between 4 and 35, so lets not deal in only absolutes, ok? I'm not surprised at all that 35 cities empire could be unhappy.

However, IIRC, empire size modifier will be removed from needs next version, so it'd be easier.

 

[josh4]

But I take two policies in parallel - autocracy and progress, and it is very difficult to get to happiness in them if you open 2-3 autocracies and switch to progress ..

That's usually very bad idea. Especially with progress, you want to stay peaceful and gain the techs and workers and city connections ASAP. 2-3 policies delayed, man that's very bad. You can go authority after full progress if you want to conquer, but some policies here, some there is a very bad idea.

Interesting, is 6 okay with Progress with the current meta? Or do you do a second expansion later on, peaceful or otherwise?

Well, 6 is okay for a meantime if you have a situation like this. I was go to settle when Casablanca is of course. There's an island with a good land for two or three cities, if I was a different civ, and statecraft or warring, I would settle it. I role play somewhat so I'm not going to declare war as India. I have natural and open space to conquer Casablanca and Beijing if need be. I think this game is doable to be the best with 6 or seven further in the desert cities, but not to actually win, Im not playing for an actual win. 5-6 is rock solid for tradition for whole game, progress I would say 7-8. Recently AIs are a little down on production, half a year ago I would say 8-10 settled cities are normal for progress, may times11-12 cause of eating one AI capital. In general if you see you're not the first in manufactured good in demographics, you need more cities. That\s my most important statistics. If you're only half of pop of many others AI, the same, you need more cities, cause they will outproduce you. I think getting at least one other capital/very strong city from AIs is right for progress. I just roleplay not to take cities maybe.

 

[AndreyK]

Well, I shared my thoughts when I was in Medieval, but now I'm in Renaissance (I'm leading in score, science and policies) and suddenly my happiness at 100% (137/48). I have discovered 4 AI and bought 5 lux out of them, but it only 15 happiness. I don't understand it, but some turns before (I have 8 cities yet) I had 60%+ happiness whatever I did, 3 of my cities had more unhappy than happy. But now again all empire is happy....

 

[CppMaster]

Well, I shared my thoughts when I was in Medieval, but now I'm in Renaissance (I'm leading in score, science and policies) and suddenly my happiness at 100% (137/48). I have discovered 4 AI and bought 5 lux out of them, but it only 15 happiness. I don't understand it, but some turns before (I have 8 cities yet) I had 60%+ happiness whatever I did, 3 of my cities had more unhappy than happy. But now again all empire is happy....

Do you have all citizens locked? Otherwise they are assigned automatically and can change every turn resulting is such swings.

 

[AndreyK]

Do you have all citizens locked? Otherwise they are assigned automatically and can change every turn resulting is such swings.

No, I don't have all of them locked, but I check them every turn, so I can tell that it's not the case.

 

[alchx]

That's usually very bad idea. Especially with progress, you want to stay peaceful and gain the techs and workers and city connections ASAP. 2-3 policies delayed, man that's very bad. You can go authority after full progress if you want to conquer, but some policies here, some there is a very bad idea.

Yes, autocracy and progress work together poorly in the early game - it's very hard to get to happiness-increasing policies. But in the mid game they start to strengthen each other. Worked well when playing as Russia (+20 science when expanding borders) - during the war we get culture for cities for killings (from autocracy), borders grow, we get science boost, we research technology, after opening technology we get culture boost (from progress), And from this, the boundaries grow. Snowball. Especially if there is a terracotta army.

 

[alchx]

What I can't figure out is how the AI manages to build the Statue of Zeus at turn 32-33 on Deity. I've seen this over and over again. Sometimes Stonehenge is completed later. I was completely surprised that the Ottomans, going to Tradition, built Zeus on the 32nd move. I would expect the Autocrats to go after the Statue. Although the Ottomans in the lower branch have an early special building. But why be distracted by the Miracle, which the Traditionalists do not really need.

The earliest receipt of two policies and the beginning of construction I had in this variant:

The city turned out to be in a very poor area - two gold, two forests and marble (1 food and 2 hammers), as it turned out later, apart from a piece of iron, there was nothing at all - no horses, no deer, no bison, no fish, nothing at all.

1) put a monument and a worker on 1 food and 2 hammers in order to open the policy of autocracy as quickly as possible.
2) we find three ruins - the swordsman becomes a spearman, +1 inhabitant and 15 culture. We also put a resident on 1 food and 2 hammers.
3) on move 9 the monument is finished
4) on turn 17 we open the policy of Autocracy
5) on move 21 (the fastest ever) open the second policy
6) on turn 25 we start building and lose because of the lack of food for the growth of the city - 3 inhabitants, mining 6 hammers (+ hammers from the city not on the hill), do not cope

Several attempts managed to build on turn 31, running to the nearest city-state and demanding 40 tribute coins. A total of 190 coins were collected, which made it possible to speed up the construction.

But this is some kind of madness .. Although AI regularly does this. How does the AI manage to open two policies so quickly? On turn 21, it happened only by coincidence - a free inhabitant, a very early monument, +15 culture from the ruins and there was a barbarian camp nearby. These barbarians were famously crushed by a spearman with the help of a pathfinder.

Usually the first policy is opened on the 21st move, and the second on the 26-30th.

And how does the AI manage to build the Statue - there must be a very good combination of food cells and hammers (salt or tea is the best option) in the city to recruit 4 inhabitants and they all produce something.

In general, I have seen more than once that the second cities in AI grow in leaps by two inhabitants at once. Was 1, became 3. In the early era. even before the caravans. Sometimes the AI will place a city, after two turns there are 3 inhabitants.

 

[CppMaster]

What I can't figure out is how the AI manages to build the Statue of Zeus at turn 32-33 on Deity.

Isn't that just because AI bonuses?

 

[alchx]

Isn't that just because AI bonuses?

It looks like the AI is too easy on the culture to unlock politics.

In reality, I manage to build 1-2-3 wonders of the early world, then it becomes impossible due to late requirements, even if I open technologies before everyone else. It is only in the late game that it becomes possible to start building Wonders again if you dominate in any science branch.

Can be built:
Stonehenge/Pyramids - no AI advantage here yet
Petra - Desert requirements limit the availability of this wonder, not difficult to build even in a second city based on turn 30-40. But you need a caravan with hammers.
Mausoleum of Halicarnacus - the feeling that the AI does not really like this Miracle and does not seek it. Probably something to do with the free quarry valuations, which gives bonuses to improved tiles. But there are no such cells yet.
Roman Forum - 50.50, Miracle requires 3 policies currently available, but AI loves to build this meeting place
Colossus - above 50% on success, because. AI prefers upper and middle tech trees

I described the situation with Zeus - the chances, about 10-20%, of success.
Temple of Artemis - I usually do not build, incl. did not track, about AI lit everything related to bonuses to food.

Almost impossible, because miracles require 4 policies that are not there, even if you purposefully open technologies:
Hanging Gardens - you can forget about this Miracle, only lazy AI does not chase after it.
Great Lighthouse - finish building at 52-58
Terracota Army - finish at about 65-72

I can still research the TerracotaArmy technology at turn 61, but with all the aspirations, I unlock 4 policies only after turn 65, and then we don’t have time.

In general, in the early era, there is almost no situation when the city-states would give a quest to build a Wonder if you open the technology and wait a few turns to unlock the policy. And the absence of a quest means that someone has already begun to cost this Miracle.

When I received this quest for Zeus (a good quest, 50 faith usually), then most often Zeus appeared on the 43-44th turn. Those. The AI didn't follow him.

 

[CppMaster]

3 wonders on Deity is plenty imho. What's the problem here. That it's too hard/impossible to build some wonders?

 

[stii]

It only varies from patch to patch, I've build pretty much every wonder on deity. Only skipping ones I just don't think are very good. Zeus seems pretty awful I'm not sure why you'd even wnat it over almost any other early wonder.