Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, May 20, 2018.
Exactly. But that was the problem - wide+tall benefits were too easy to achieve.
I feel like wide Artistry was not great before, but it's just a feeling.
that is also the feeling I got. There are already lots of bonuses for tall/small in Artistry (the bonuses to guilds, etc), but now the utility it had for wide, GA focused empires (eg Persia) has been hurt.
Wide artistry always did very, very well in AI hands. For what that is worth.
I think this might be a slight overnerf. There should opportunity to build infrastructure to support wide GP builds. How about this instead of +1 happiness per guild:
-1 urbanization unhappiness from guilds and gardens.
For guilds, it is essentially the same.
So a wide or warmonger Artistry civ could potentially support one specialist per city but have to build a relatively weak, low priority building. Gardens seem like a good candidate here because they already synergize with GP but do little else and are usually the last to be built in conquered cities without guilds
So...just +1 happiness on gardens? I don't see how that rocks the boat appreciably.
Wide GP builds are certainly possible...but not in every city. Going wide does not mean you can't have a core of cities that benefit from guilds, and use said guilds to create specialists.
...Has anyone else not been having issues finding happiness to work Specialists? Also, Happiness only affects Growth/Unit Production, so it isn't too bad to have some cities with unhappiness higher than happiness.
Not rocking the boat was the intention, just a small bonus for your non-core cities.
You're forgetting the lost golden age points.
Upon what I've seen so far, happiness has room for making it a bit tighter.
It does not matter if I play tall or wide, I barely notice unhappiness from early to mid game (didn't test to late game). Only Spain showed some early challenges, and my biggest concern is that the price of civil units becomes prohibitive at the worst time.
Going nuts taking cities makes global unhappiness strike, but just that. I've not been able to grow my cities fast enough to make them unhappy, but admittedly, didn't try hard.
I don't intend to see happiness as harsh as in November, but it looks rather easy now. Maybe one extra percent on size penalties (number of cities or city population) will do.
Which difficulty level?
Are you in the lead for science/culture or not?
Did you found your religion?
I think happiness is mostly doing its job from my games' (limited) experience. I've been playing as Mongolia, currently ~halfway through Renaissance. Early game happiness kept me from settling too many cities/annexing CSs, to the point that I had to forgo really easy military targets and decent settling locations to instead get CS annexations before it became too annoying. As the game progressed I was able to conquer a couple of cities here and there, but again I've been stopped from going as wide as is possible with my military strength/open land due to happiness. And I'm semi-manually controlling all my cities, with only my oldest, fully built cities being able to grow without oversight.
There might be a tiny bit of room to tighten happiness, but my understanding is the whole point of unhappiness is to curb over-expansion/unrestrained pop growth which it seems to be doing well enough.
I'm playing on Emperor, I'm not a tech leader but I'm quickly catching up (went from 8/8 to 4/8), I'm lowest on policies but highest culture, and I founded my own religion but it is all war focused and not helping my happiness much.
I would argue that -1 unhappiness from urbanization is always worse than +1 happiness. Technically, +1 happiness is strictly better than -1 from any type of need because it neutralizes them all. Also, "negative" unhappiness is not functionally the same as "positive" happiness because it can't contribute GAP or give a growth bonus (the growth bonus from having > in a city).
I definitely see your concerns about the Cake Having:Cake Eating ratio and a nerf was needed. However, I feel like there are too few options for non warmongers now. If you spend lots of hammers, gold, social policies and time into your cake baking infrastructure, maybe you deserve to have a nibble. In other words, if you can overcome the lack of in the Artistry tree and still go wide, it hardly seems OP to have one happiness neutral specialist in cities with good infrastructure. Unfortunately, no matter how much infrastructure you have, there are no ways to directly reduce urbanization aside from Capitalism.
It would be super, duper thematic if Aqueducts or Grocers were -1 urbanization instead of -1 poverty but I think that would be worse. That's the thing about wide Artistry right now, if you could work a merchant or scientist and trade one poverty or illiteracy for one urbanization, I would say that intuitively makes sense. It's still the same amount of unhappiness as before but at least you can actually get value out of +1 culture from specialists (the +25% GP has diminishing returns for wide anyway)
However, that rarely seems to be the case, specialists yields are just not usually enough to offset their own unhappiness.
Wide Byzantium and Polynesia too
Going to bring this up again...I think the +100% Production on Train Stations/Seaports should be switched up with the +2% Production/Gold from each Production building. It makes more sense imo.
About Happiness. While I appreciate not having Happiness affect my Culture so drastically anymore, or tanking my Gold completely...do you guys think unhappiness should have some other side effect? I feel like Growth/Military Unit Production is a pretty limited effect of Happiness, especially with Happiness being quite easy to manage now.
Think about something that does not get feedback. If you hurt gold, development is slowed and it becomes harder to stay happy. The same goes for most yields. Combat stregth is already affected, isn't it? Maybe faith purchases could be more expensive, the same as purchasing units with gold.
However, if expanding is too easy, I'd rather increase the happiness penalty for empire size.
Science (only on an empire level) is what I was thinking, considering there is a tech penalty. A Science penalty will hurt when it needs to but shouldn't create a feedback loop.
I'm finding that I can get Influential with civs fairly early in this newest build. Standard Speed, Standard size, King, I was influential with everyone by early Modern & 2 Ideology Tenants; just marking time until I could get the required techs/policies.
I went Progress/Statecraft/Industry/Freedom and was playing the Inuit, who have no obvious bonus towards CV, so I imagine if I had been playing a more focused CV game with Tradition/Artistry I would have made Influential even earlier. I had actually set out intending to win a Diplo victory, but I realized I was going to win much more easily via CV after my first Influential in mid-Renaissance. I settled 12 cities and only warred with a civ twice, razing a single city and suing for peace, so I didn't play a normal tall culture playstyle either.
I think one of the main culprits is how little is available through policies, especially Imperialism/Rationalism/Industry. I know G is opposed to adding much culture to policy trees since it's just spending culture for more culture, but there's a lot of access to tourism generation much earlier in this mod, and Culture can't seem to fend off pressure in its current state.
Maybe some other levers could be looked at too? Historic events could be dropped ~10%. Maybe Holy Sites could have their moved to a policy/tenant/belief
Increasing would have too many knock-on effects. Perhaps an increase of the threshold of required influence for CV (something that scales down on higher difficulties too?) would be nice, if possible to code.
Which civ were you playing?
Inuit custom civ
Do they get any culture / tourism bonuses? Just making sure the assessment is not more the civ than the system
Separate names with a comma.