Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Gazebo, Nov 27, 2018.
Unfortunatly the happiness poll has forgotten to implement urbanization as possible unhappiness source at the beginning of the poll. Cause I really want to know, if the majority really wants specialists causing unhappiness. Or, like Stalker and me suggest, remove the unhappiness penalty and see the high food cost as the price to have specialists. I dont see specialists as a super privilege, but more as an extension of the number of working citizen a city can have.
To make the system easier, we could remove the unhappiness penalty from specialists, let them eat 1 less food and generate 1 more yield, but let them also consume 2 gold. It isnt illogical and would free the happiness system by one component, making it easier to focus on its main duty limiting expansion/war. I think, this would create a good sink for the big amounts of money in the late game and open a new difficulty for tall empires, cause it will be hard to increase the difficulty for them by happiness, but money could do.
Btw. I still think freedom ideology is absolutly overpowerd with view on happiness. With +2 happiness for each city and 3 specialists generating happiness instead of unhappiness, Freedom can create a surplus +8 happiness per city, while Order only gains +2 per city. How is the ability to have +50% tourismn to civs with less happiness able to beat any freedom civ, if those have such gigantic advantage in happiness???
Removing specialist unhappiness would be broken for wide civs.
Because Freedom civs won't have as many cities as Order.
How is that a counterpoint, exactly?
right now i only run specialists on annexed cities, so the new system gazebo suggested would make a lot more sense. sigh, even now i'm so on the fence on when i should be running specialists, so this seems difficult
Freedom's Happiness is a little too good right now, +6 Happiness per city from Capitalism is crazy.
Do you leave them annexed? Once you establish a Courthouse it should just function like a normal city, so why make different rules for them? Do you just never repair the infrastructure enough for it to be happy again?
I annex and courthouse generally for the first 2 cities or something. The different rules is because I have a hard enough time trying to make them even worth the extra 7% culture/science costs for annexing. Like I don't think i ever get to break even. Anyways, they usually have a library, forge, or market and a decent amount of population to work it. But most importantly, the land is usually just so piss poor and the city lacking in so much production that i just hit as many specialist buttons as i can as i try to rebuild the city to be workable. At least, I find that to be preferable to puppeting. Having one city being high unhappiness is really not that bad. Like the example you said, finding wide happiness isn't all that bad, so overall happiness is good enough and most importantly, core cities can keep growing by exporting specialist work.
It is not extra 7% to your current costs, but to base cost, so after the seventh city, the increase in cost is rather marginal. Besides, the extra resources, supply and the fact that you are facing weakened neighbors, pretty much make up for any efficiency loss. Real problem of controlling too many cities is that it becomes tedious, so the happiness system must encourage you to keep a good bunch of puppets just for keeping work load at human scale.
Because the Ideology that gives a ton of per-city bonuses necessarily can't give as high of happiness per city. Otherwise we'd have people here asking why every single Order civ can take this one policy, get a huge Tourism bonus which then causes your cities to all revolt against your Ideology and flip. More cities = more happiness buildings = more happiness.
And more cities = more unhappiness to more than offset the happiness buildings.
You seem to be saying that it you have more cities, you will naturally have more overall happiness, which is demonstrably false.
Happiness isn't like other yields. Every city you add means a technology costs more, but the new city will likely be able to pride enough to science to make it a net positive. Total happiness doesn't matter, net happiness per city does. And that gets worse with more cities causing global happiness sources to stretch thinner.
The issue that you responded to is saying that the order tenet is extremely niche because the order civ will never be happier than the freedom civ, as it has to somehow make up a happiness difference of +6 per Order city, even before taking into account that tall will naturally have higher natural happiness than wide.
And having played a lot of Order games recently, I have made use of this tenet every single game with success. Also no, you don't need more happiness in every city, you need it overall. Even if you did you can still easily be more happy than the AI if you want to. But there does seem to be confusion about the point of the tenet. You're not necessarily going to beat out the top performing Freedom civ, although I haven't seen them sustain happiness while their cities burn, but that isn't the only point of the tenet. It allows you to keep all of your vassals as Order through the large tourism boost, and can stop your own civ from having any civil unrest.
You have to compare your order empire with a completly identical freedom empire, to make a clear comparison. If you and your enemy have the same size, conditions and use all their available options, you wouldnt win happiness wise vs a freedom civ, cause it has much larger happiness bonuses. Playing as tall 4 city Order civ with naturally advantage in happiness vs a 20 city overextended wide empire isnt really a proof that the happiness tenets are in balance.
Its the same if you would say, Autocracy is worse in warfare than freedom, cause you cant overthrow a 20 city freedom empire with your 3 city backyard nation.
What do people think about unhappiness from religious divisions? AFAIK, it doesn't matter currently which religion any given city follows, as long as it's a strong majority. For example, if I have founded Islam, I can have however many cities with Christian majority. That fact alone won't raise religious division in my empire, but not having enough Christian followers in my Christian cities will.
Firstly, that seems unrealistic to me, as historically regions not following the state religion were almost always unruly and frequently sparked secessionist movements. However, the main reason I'm bringing it up now is this: I think it's way too easy right now for a warmonger to go on a conquering spree, annex a bunch of cities with a foreign religion and not care about it at all.
If religious divisions were driven by your state/empire-wide majority religion, there'd be a strong incentive to convert newly annexed cities to it. I realize there are others, but I feel like often times they can be ignored. Also, the choice between annexing and puppeting would be more straightforward, I guess, but you'd potentially have to make strategic decisions like 'do I annex the city, but I'll have to spend faith to convert it, or do I let it be as a puppet?'
Additionally, it would potentially act as a strong happiness check against overexpansion, but it would be controllable with deliberate actions, like spending faith on missionaries and inquisitors and building temples. In that case we could further reduce the empire-wide unhappiness modifier from the number of cities. Another thing is it would also perhaps make the medieval-renaissance eras hard on happiness again, as they used to be for a long time before the recent happiness overhaul. Of course, it religious divisions shouldn't kick in all at once in all cities after you found your religion in just one of them - perhaps it could kick in after the majority of cities has been converted. Another point I'd like to make is that currently the religious division reduction effect of some buildings, wonders and policies (temples, Chichen Itza, that Rationalism policy) I find irrelevant due to the non-factor nature of said religious divisions. Finally, I think it would 'make more sense' thematically... probably.
Closing this off, I want to say that I'm not essentially calling for a change. Those are just the thoughts I've contemplating lately, while playing a domination game as Mongolia and reading some of the feedback on the new happiness. I'd like to hear what others think about the current state of religious divisions.
Honestly I wish religious division unhappiness would die in a fire. While it has realistic elements, it’s completely unneeded.
The religion system already has tons of incentives to spread, to either maintain purity of followers or mixes depending on the belief. And you already have plenty of penalties in not getting a religion.
All it does is apply some random penalties, as sometimes you deal with it, and sometimes it never comes up.
I say toss it
I think Religious Unrest is okay, it motivates you to build more Temples and use more Inquisitors (rather than Spread all the time), and because there is a mini-game focused on religious wars I think this provides incentives to do things like go Fealty and focus more on Faith.
It can be annoying and I wouldn't want to make it based on State Religion because that takes away from stuff like Syncretism strategies.
Why is feeling forced to build temples a good thing? The same for inquisitors to shift the scales in a city: just because a cure exists doesn't mean the illness is a feature!
For me the value of inquisitors is a defense against conversion — not to fight a permanent cold war against division.
Religious Unrest has been irrelevant because of the Temple's -1 Religious Unrest. I propose we remove since the most numbers you can get from Religious Unrest is 1 per 13 population.
If we also wanted to encourage religious unrest, we could make it that cities that are not originally owned by you receive 50% less pressure from your Majority Religion.
religious unrest is scary dude. Enginseer . Still, I think the mechanic of religious unrest is a necessary part of the game right now. I'm finding that religious buildings are just so good now that it is worth it to convert your city to an ai religion with a(or multiple) religious building follower belief(s), and buy the buildings and then convert it back. there is a couple of from religious divisions, but that is mostly alleviated with temples and pagodas.
What i'm doing now is get hero worship -> order -> pagodas -> inquisition. then, get so much faith surplus to buy all the buildings in every city. Next, convert my cities to an ai religion with buildings, buy them, then convert all my cities to another ai religion with only per follower beliefs. The only reason I had to stop was because there were no more other religions with buildings.
Temples are already amazing buildings, they don’t need any help.
I disagree. Without it, a 51% converted city is as powerful (most of the time) as a 100% converted city.
Separate names with a comma.