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

[BornDownUnder]

I would like to know how I could do better?

I have a number of forge enhanced mines, with a few fresh water wheat tiles. That's about as high yield as you can get at this point in the game. I have a citadel for a bit of science, I even have a holy site for extra culture. I have every science building you can get at this point in the game. As to working specialists, as I already mentioned, I tried shifting something to specialists to see if that would help my unhappiness, it did not.
Now considering the growth penalties for unhappiness, you might be right that shifting some food tiles to specialist is probably more efficient (as my food is severally dropped due to unhappiness). but in terms of addressing my unhappiness, no the specialist switch does not help and actually greatly lowers my overall yields for the purpose of happiness.

Every x4 game is about strategy and management, not just get as much as you can...

Also this scenario could be achieved with the previous VP versions, just at a higher population.

The bulk of your unhappiness for that city in particular is from you not managing growth effectively. That is not to say that you should have locked growth.

It seems to me you let the city population continue to grow rapidly as you were focusing on the food and production requirements to mitigate that particular unhappiness quotient. You would have fared much better instead by slowing growth around 8 population and assigning specialists to address the deficits for lower yields of science and poverty as per the requirements of the city.

If you continue to let your city grow unabated, you will have created the need to do repeated Public Works just to mitigate the exceeded unhappiness threshold in the future (Probably around 20+ population) where you could have been happily investing in infrustucture/unit production to fund your war efforts. If you don't stagnate/severely restrict growth soon you will have serious issues with being able to use that city for production of units in sustained war efforts in late game, as well as continued empire unhappiness contribution.

You could alleviate it by reassigning a couple of the wheat and the farm plus oasis tiles to the lake tile to gain some faith, with a few specialists for the science and increased poverty requirements, along with an engineer specialist for production. This will in the short term slow your population growth and alleviate some of the needs of the city. It won't aid in happiness, for that you need infrustructure investment and that will take time.

You don't have to lock growth, just slow it right down.

 

[CppMaster]

The Civ experience is always about MORE. Its a fundamental aspect of the 4x experience....exploit is one of the key attributes. Your not supposed to limit yourself, but take as much as you can. Any scenario that starts with "oh you have too much pop" to me instantly fails as an argument. You should never feel bad about having tons of yields in a civ game, that is the whole damn point.

I understand the sentiment and I agree. However, the entire point of happiness system is to limit growth and expansion, so it's entirely anti-4x. And it's just working. Would you be interested in a mod mod that removes unhappiness from needs?

As for "realism"....this is a game. You shouldn't be penalized if your playing well. I am building as much as I can as fast as I can, I'm doing what the system has told me I need to do...and I'm still struggling badly. Again, that is not good mechanics, regardless of how "realistic" it is.

You have to also consider the difficulty you are playing. The higher the difficulty, the more AI has bonuses, which leads to better developed cities, so your cities are weaker in comparison and generates more unhappiness, because the yield median is higher. You can check AI cities with IGE to confirm if that's the case. You could try playing on lower difficulty to see if you still have that much of a problem. On Immortal/Diety you're supposed to struggle.

But still, if you're above 35% happiness, I think you're fine. Could be better, sure, but it's mostly penalty to growth, settlers production and a bit of combat penalty.

 

[nekokon]

The Civ experience is always about MORE. Its a fundamental aspect of the 4x experience....exploit is one of the key attributes. Your not supposed to limit yourself, but take as much as you can. Any scenario that starts with "oh you have too much pop" to me instantly fails as an argument. You should never feel bad about having tons of yields in a civ game, that is the whole damn point.

The fact that this beautiful lake start is now a "penalty" because I grew fast....no that is not ok. And nor is it an exception, I could walk through every city I have and see a similar experience.

As for "realism"....this is a game. You shouldn't be penalized if your playing well. I am building as much as I can as fast as I can, I'm doing what the system has told me I need to do...and I'm still struggling badly. Again, that is not good mechanics, regardless of how "realistic" it is.

Last Note: Just to check I tried moving my workers to the lakes just to see if it would help. Afterall, that's a ton of food and hammers, should help distress right? Nope, happiness didn't budge a bit.

You're playing by the wrong rule. Civ has never been about getting as much as possible like some other 4x game because of the limited exploration and extended diplomacy options, and to keep the game balanced for diplomacy the game rule is set so you can't expand too much and overwhelm other civs (no meaning having diplomacy when you're 3 times their sizes). That's why even in vanilla there're a lot of rubberband mechanics (happiness, science, spy, trade,...), and not with just civ 5 but throughout the whole series.

Back to the current situation, you messed up managing pop for too long so there's nothing that can be done at the moment except for tech more and build more while limiting growth (with specialists). Unhappiness capped at pop is already a saving grace especially made for this kind of situation, where you have to take punishment for mismanaging but it's just a slap on the wrist. And stop expanding, I got 12 cities in large map and only at 20% empire size, you have way too many cities, and that extra amount accounted for a whole 25-30% of your total needs modifier.

 

[CppMaster]

How many cities give that much boost to needs on standard map?

 

[youngsteve]

I am at a similar part of the game that Stalker0 is playing & as mentioned before am having none of these happiness issues he is having. I would mention firstly I am only playing Warlord which is easier with the happiness, though in fairness should be, & also marathon, though not sure if that makes any difference. Currently I am at 100% happiness but that is false in a way, as for most of the game that has been hovering around 60-80% It was to do with finally obtaining a quest from a CS for a resource & once I did that I gained a few more quests in a few goes, meaning my happiness is currently artificially high. Never like to be soley reliant on resources as wars can happen, & suddenly find yon lose lots of happiness.

As you can see I am America with six cities, which except for the capital are very similar in size. I have stopped growth for little moments on cites so rest can catch up, but nothing really out of the ordinary. No public works yets, only one war with Zulus to support my friends, & took Tradition. I must admit I never really go for growth, usually through production, & currently all except Washington (building a wonder) are going for Great People so again growth is slowed down.

Worldwide, only two civs have ever fallen below 50%. India, who I agree has struggled, but never fallen below mid 40's. Only civ to really suffer is Germany, the world leader. Was leading on everything convincingly, but then it started to go wrong for him when he suddenly built two more cities & attacked Indonesia. War went on for awhile, then when it ended suddenly realised Germany was in revolt, low 30's in happiness, & leads in science & culture long gone. Is still around 2-3 techs ahead, but now is in 2nd revolt, & still mid 30's of happiness. Indonesia on the hand, despite conquering all of Zulu's except a city, & now vassal, has had no happiness issues, & far as I know never been under 50%. The rest of civs except tiny Zulus are nearly all around mid 50's-80% happiness.

Been exciting and interesting game, with only the country that was stretching itself suffering from real happiness issues, though Indonesia has been fortunate. Normally, a civ like Germany would pull away however much they overstretched themselves & would be as happy as living in Pleasantville, with no effects. Perhaps I am lucky with my game, I don't know, but certainly better than usual happiness system.

 

[nekokon]

How many cities give that much boost to needs on standard map?

I don't play on standard map so not sure but probably around the same number or more (which is quite big, practically taking half of a whole continent for yourself and packed it with cities). With that wide playstyle he should have a lot more happiness from extra lux or policy unless he took tradition/artistry which are the worst at happiness.

 

[josh4]

@youngsteve, i see you have emperor level skills at least, you should give that a try.

 

[youngsteve]

@youngsteve, i see you have emperor level skills at least, you should give that a try.

I wish I did, but can assure you I don't. If I did I would be winning this game at a canter. I have played at higher levels (King) before & have found it difficult. I have also been lucky only having one war so far, & that was against a disliked Zulu, who were fighting two nearer foes, & we never clashed. You will see also that my army is pretty weak, & not upgraded. That is more to do with friendly relations with Ottomans & Indonesia, & a Germany with real problems.

 

[Jhang]

As a note, yes, Public Works will start fixing these issues. I had a recent game with Siam where unhappiness spikes were getting dangerously out of control (tradition with 5 cities growing into 7 cities with Pioneers). I was able to do the second push with a full round of public works projects, and then a second one later on. That's the biggest change I have found is the rhythm of gameplay, planning for public works, to help fuel city growth.

I disagree that Stalker did anything wrong per say, it's just that it's impossible to keep people happy at that city size without public works

 

[Stalker0]

I disagree that Stalker did anything wrong per say, it's just that it's impossible to keep people happy at that city size without public works

And the devs have reiterated that the PW is meant to be more of an "emergency button" than a true "you should be spamming these a lot". So if that's the solution, that's further proof the happiness system could use some tweaks.

 

[Stalker0]

Would you be interested in a mod mod that removes unhappiness from needs?

So the line for me is.... the Happiness system is intended to curb certain types of play, play that is "abusive". Or its meant to serve as a "payment" for going certain strategies.

For example, one thing the system was intended to avoid, was rapid expansion with no infrastructure. Aka you can't just plop down cities anywhere you want, and just build units from them as one example. And the system serves that purpose well, you have to pace your expansion. Expand a bit, infrastructure, connect your roads, then expand again.

Where the system becomes problematic is when you DO build all of that infrastructure, and your city is STILL unhappy. Aka you've paid your toll, you got that city in good working order.... that should be enough. I don't mind having to get some workers to build improvements in a new city, get a lot of the infrastructure in place, connect it with roads. That is all just good play. But after that, my toil should be done.


So my goal is not to remove unhappiness entirely, it does serve a useful purpose. but to me it should be more in the shadows, curbing certain excesses, but otherwise pulling back and let you do your thing if your playing "well". Now I agree that the 2.6 version of happiness was a bit too lenient. In that one I could just expand like crazy and not care and still be happy.... and that's not ok either. But there is a middle ground, and I think we aren't quite there yet.

One last note, while a number of people are talking about the growth penalities with happiness, its easy to forget that -10% CS penalty. That might not seem like much, but in competitive wars on high difficulties it matters quite a bit. That bonus can be the difference between a unit living and dying (I know because I've actually tracked it in wars I've played through).

 

[CppMaster]

For example, one thing the system was intended to avoid, was rapid expansion with no infrastructure. Aka you can't just plop down cities anywhere you want, and just build units from them as one example. And the system serves that purpose well, you have to pace your expansion. Expand a bit, infrastructure, connect your roads, then expand again.

Would that even be a good strategy if there was no happiness?

Where the system becomes problematic is when you DO build all of that infrastructure, and your city is STILL unhappy. Aka you've paid your toll, you got that city in good working order.... that should be enough. I don't mind having to get some workers to build improvements in a new city, get a lot of the infrastructure in place, connect it with roads. That is all just good play. But after that, my toil should be done.

So you want guaranteed at least 50% happiness when all building are built, correct? However, that doesn't mean much when science is weak compared to production.

 

[Legen]

Here's an example of why I don't think you can "play" happiness, happiness plays you.

Spoiler :

View attachment 642457

My illiteracy is through the roof, but I have built every science building that is available at this point in the game. Ok, well I do have some science specialists, so maybe working those? Nope, working them just increases my distress unhappiness, making it a total wash.

There is no "manage happiness" here, its just build build build (except when I'm in a war of course and I need some troops, which means I'm not building...which makes my happiness go down again). It honestly doesn't matter what I build, I just need ever more yields to reduce SOMETHING in one of the pools. There is no strategy here, just penalty.

This is ultimately my biggest problem with the system. At the end of day, as cool and sophisticated as it looks, it always seems to boil down to "just build every building you possibly can forever....and then spam PWs if that isn't enough... and god help you if you actually need to spend time building an army."

I would like to know how I could do better?

I have a number of forge enhanced mines, with a few fresh water wheat tiles. That's about as high yield as you can get at this point in the game. I have a citadel for a bit of science, I even have a holy site for extra culture. I have every science building you can get at this point in the game. As to working specialists, as I already mentioned, I tried shifting something to specialists to see if that would help my unhappiness, it did not.
Now considering the growth penalties for unhappiness, you might be right that shifting some food tiles to specialist is probably more efficient (as my food is severally dropped due to unhappiness). but in terms of addressing my unhappiness, no the specialist switch does not help and actually greatly lowers my overall yields for the purpose of happiness.

First, mindset. Having everything built doesn't mean the city will be happy, it just means that the city can keep a few more citizens happy.

For instance, building all of the most modern buildings in a given era may let a city that could keep 5 citizens happy, now keep 7 citizens happy; growing over 7 citizens means unhappiness will strike anyway. Another way of saying it, you don't expect a city with 15 citizens to be happy with only Ancient or Classical Era infrastructure, but you can expect that with full Industrial or Modern Era infrastructure.

In your screenshot, you can see that, to prevent unhappiness from illiteracy, the city needs to produce 51 science per turn (it currently produces 20 and the total deficit is 30.69). With no good means to generate anywhere close to that much science, the city should have deprioritized growth a long time ago and waited until enough new science buildings are available. Same rationale for the other types of unhappiness.

In the situation you got in, what is left for you is to get more sources of happiness immediately, you won't be able to solve it with infrastructure anytime soon. Buy more luxuries, spend great admirals for luxuries, prioritize mercantile city-state alliances. Since you went Statecraft, prioritize the policy that gives happiness on trade routes and build more cargo ships. And being Portugal, get those cargo ships ASAP for admirals (luxuries) and gold (poverty), and prioritize Naus; their ability will give you plenty of luxuries from city-states and yields on trade routes.

 

[josh4]

I see that you can't reason with people who think this city was managed all right. They just don't know how the system works and what it punishes and that the city should produce science and culture not only to combat unhappiness but to just be a good city.

 

[Jhang]

Would that even be a good strategy if there was no happiness?

Eventually. The more cities you have, the more you can do, and if you can control tons of land and if you have a large enough army to prevent that from being contested, then once you finally get infrastructure up, it's going to be a heck of a slingshot. It's something you can best replicate with Carthage, since they a) have instant lighthouse for city connections and b) instant gold for unit buying or whatever

 

[CppMaster]

Yeah, but there is still science/culture penalty. Also settlers cost population and production, so some else could attack you when you spent production on them instead of units.

 

[Stalker0]

Buy more luxuries, spend great admirals for luxuries, prioritize mercantile city-state alliances. Since you went Statecraft, prioritize the policy that gives happiness on trade routes and build more cargo ships. And being Portugal, get those cargo ships ASAP for admirals (luxuries) and gold (poverty), and prioritize Naus; their ability will give you plenty of luxuries from city-states and yields on trade routes.

Every Great Admiral has gone to luxs, every lux I can get is purchased. I mean god help me if the AI was actually warring with me and denied my luxs!

 

[Stalker0]

I see that you can't reason with people who think this city was managed all right. They just don't know how the system works and what it punishes and that the city should produce science and culture not only to combat unhappiness but to just be a good city.

That's a pretty defeatist argument. As a matter of fact I have been considering your viewpoint. Obviously switching to specialists wouldn't help in this case (as I noted) but perhaps I just needed to switch off of heavy growth earlier.

Again the question comes back to, is that what should happen? Is a city that is bursting with high food just always meant to be a ticking time bomb to be avoided at all costs? Do we really want food to be that bad in the game?

That is part of my issue with the system, why are we penalizing growth so much? At the end of day, growth isn't even all that great. I mean you obviously need a certain amount of pop to work the good tiles around your city and get some specialists, but beyond that, it doesn't do that much. Why do we need to double penalize it? In this example, if I'm spending all of my energy on growth, well then I wasn't getting the science from specialist....aka a trade off. Why is one method "good" and the other leaves me in unhappiness hell for all time?

If we go back to Vanilla Civ5, population was the primary way you got science. Aka food and science were basically linked. So controlling population was a lot more important. But in VP, growth is just a secondary means to an end, it doesn't really do much on its own merit.

 

[Jhang]

Yeah, but there is still science/culture penalty. Also settlers cost population and production, so some else could attack you when you spent production on them instead of units.

Correct. Hence 'Eventually', once you get your science/culture infrastructure up you will slingshot past everyone, since the gains of the many cities will outpace the rising science costs, but you also have a window of time where you aren't caught up, and need to deal with external threats defensively. A lot of how well a wide civ can do is being able to not only leverage a lot of land, but defend it.

As for the whole 'playing the game wrong', I don't disagree with the concept of overgrowing cities, but that's a concept I usually reserve for cities with a lot of unviable tiles, like the classic island city where you have a bunch of ocean food tiles to grow big. This is a city with a lot of viable tiles, and even has a holy site over there I think the happiness system is going in the right direction, but is going too hard into it. I mean even in the helptool its talking about how the next population is going to raise unhappiness by 5 (yes it's already maxed out but that just means it's going to be even harder to bring down). That just seems like a lot of unhappiness in a lot of places for a single point of population.

By the by Stalker, how big is your empire there for reference, and what size/speed.

 

[Legen]

Again the question comes back to, is that what should happen? Is a city that is bursting with high food just always meant to be a ticking time bomb to be avoided at all costs? Do we really want food to be that bad in the game?

Food is really good for one particular playstyle: specialist-heavy empire. For every other playstyle, it is indeed a time bomb.

The two ways you can play a specialist-heavy empire are with Tradition (mainly Capital), and with a civ/pantheon that encourages you to work specialists in all your cities already in Ancient Era (i.e. Babylon, Goddess of Wisdom, Celts with the Lugh pantheon). These two ways tend to have low population cities on which acquiring more food is a high priority; you practically can't have enough food for them.

One thing for sure is that, if a city is indeed bursting with food, you should seriously consider making that city a specialist-heavy one. Place it with more guilds, emphasize buildings that boost great people generation, and so on. Even if you weren't planning for a specialist-heavy empire, that city is bound to thrive through specialists, and cause problems otherwise.