Happiness Balance Discussion

Is anyone interested in where I went wrong with happiness this game? Playing Authority-Statecraft-Imperialism-Autocracy Songhai, 2nd of 9 in policies and tech (5 ahead of median).

Maybe this would be better somewhere in the Strategy section?

Using 11-21-1-3 with no other mods:

Turn 289 End of Industrial Era:
12/14 non-puppet cities with 15-23 :c5citizen:
34 :c5unhappy: / 239 :c5citizen: (24 :c5citizen: from puppets)
101 :c5happy: total
10 :c5unhappy: projected additional unhappiness if all cities grow this turn.
I feel confident I can work the strongest yield tiles. Food is considered roughly as valuable as other yields as only 1 city is above 20 pop, and there are a ton of unused specialists.
Spoiler Turn 289 Happiness EUI :
upload_2018-12-17_22-9-5.png


Turn 325 Near end of Modern Era:
13/17 non-puppet cities with 19-28 :c5citizen:.
70 :c5unhappy: / 343 :c5citizen: (59 :c5citizen: from puppets)
72 :c5happy: total
91 :c5unhappy: projected additional unhappiness if all cities grow this turn.
15 :c5unhappy: is from an unwisely annexed 19 :c5citizen: Mongolian city with poor infrastructure. 40 :c5unhappy: from Culture needs, expected because I'm wide and don't have Broadcast Towers built yet and I'm pretty far away from Stadiums. 34 :c5unhappy: from war weariness: I'm stretching these wars pretty long, but my happiness can handle it.
Spoiler Turn 325 Happiness EUI :
upload_2018-12-17_22-5-56.png


Turn 329 Very early Atomic Era:
13/17 non-puppet cities with 19-28 :c5citizen:
98 :c5unhappy: / 347 :c5citizen: (59 :c5citizen: from puppets)
39 :c5happy: total
149 :c5unhappy: projected additional unhappiness if all cities grow this turn. This is 90%+ unhappiness in all cities but puppets, my capital and my holy city.
First save after noticing the problem. I'm in damage control. One city grew while I wasn't paying attention and it's at 25:c5unhappy:/25:c5citizen:. Immediately locked the growth on every city except puppets. Assigned tiles considering food over the minimum required to starve to be worth 0, and the city managers are even more zealous, trying to starve a few cities for those extra yields. Looking to techs and policies to see what I can do about it, and am trying to decide if it's worth trying to solve over just not growing ever again.
Spoiler Turn 329 Happiness EUI :
upload_2018-12-17_22-0-32.png


Turn 340 Current save, still in Atomic Era:
13/17 non-puppet cities with 19-28 :c5citizen:
53 :c5unhappy: / 350 :c5citizen: (62 :c5citizen: from puppets)
87 :c5happy: total
178 :c5unhappy: projected additional unhappiness if all cities grow this turn. This is 95%+ unhappiness in all cities but puppets, my capital and my holy city.
The buildings have helped with current unhappiness levels, but the projections are even worse if I grow.
Spoiler Turn 340 Happiness EUI :
upload_2018-12-17_22-45-31.png
 

Attachments

  • Askia_0289 AD-1838.zip
    2.1 MB · Views: 104
  • Askia_0325 AD-1905.zip
    2.1 MB · Views: 125
  • Askia_0329 AD-1909.zip
    2.1 MB · Views: 99
  • Askia_0340 AD-1920.zip
    2.2 MB · Views: 94
Last edited:
Not sure what the problem is at the moment. You have enough happy that if your unhappy rises to 178 you are still well in the green. So letting your cities grow 1 time is no issue.

You already said you need broast towers and/or stadiums so time to tech for those. Once your grow, we will see where things stand, but I'm not seeing the ultimate danger just yet.
 
Rises by, not rises to. I will be at -91 :c5happy: if I let my cities grow on turn 340.
 
I've seen similar stuff in my last game, except I had 30~ cities at that point so true growth would result in me being way more unhappy than you'd be. After I hit industrial era, every pop growth would result in +3 (capital) or 5-7 distress, +X illiteracy/boredom/poverty in every city and I believe any growth would mean -150/-170 unhappiness. With how little of Happiness there is available, that's simply not possible to sustain. I either hit avoid growth everywhere, or it's game over. Nothing would do anything at this point, so I went to the files and changed happiness values to be far more generous. In the current state it's either grow relatively fine until Renaissance and then avoid growth everywhere or your empire goes up in flames. I'm very expansive so the amount of cities is huge and having to avoid growth absolutely everywhere is annoying, I don't find that fun at all. With 30+ cities if I accidentally forget just one city, that's potential -10 happiness after growth. The values suggested by Gazebo somewhere didn't change the outcome at all, I had to go far more drastic in my reductions. There's just too many buildings to build that take too many turns, I have to tech to them to begin with and teching means I have more needs so even when they're up, the outcome is still not positive.

I will be honest, a few patches ago the happiness was made less strict so it'd not be a game where all you do is fight unhappiness, and now the situation seems worse than it ever was. I've never seen a situation where growth would have such bad results as in my last game. I remember a time where I usually had -10/-20 for a long time or maybe even until game effectively ends, but not a potential -100+ if I increase pop. Sure, I can hit avoid growth, but the values are not possible to play with and any newbies who won't hit the relatively hard to find avoid growth button will be absolutely wrecked by this, especially since no tutorial mentions this is mandatory. I can change my values to salvage my games, can someone less experienced who doesn't know where the folders and sqls are?

Not sure what the problem is at the moment. You have enough happy that if your unhappy rises to 178 you are still well in the green. So letting your cities grow 1 time is no issue.

You already said you need broast towers and/or stadiums so time to tech for those. Once your grow, we will see where things stand, but I'm not seeing the ultimate danger just yet.

He'd be at -100 happiness if not more because every tech will increase the needs, and if he techs to them which takes time and produces them which takes time and another tech will be up by then, all his needs will increase further, not just boredom. Buildings don't build themselves instantly. He has to avoid growth permanently and choose where he can allow it without dropping below -10 at this point because no building will help.
 
Rises by, not rises to. I will be at -91 :c5happy: if I let my cities grow on turn 340.

Gotcha. Alright, so it sounds like you have buffer for some growth, but not all cities. I guess the question than will be why well do those broadcast towers and stadiums do for you. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, just want to hear how well those buildings help you....as that is the way for to address unhappy at the moment.
 
I've never seen a situation where growth would have such bad results as in my last game.

My guess is its less "this is the worse its ever been" and more "the new UI on growth is letting my really understand how much unhappy growth generates". We now have feedback that gives us more insight into the system. That's a great thing as it can let us address the problem more systematically.


So in terms of the problem. It looks like a no growth scenario is a valid option....just not a fun one. That is one of those game design elements that works great on paper, but does not lead to a great fun game.

Theoretically we know that the model has a maximum sustainable amount of cities. Happiness is a somewhat limited resource, every city is designed to generate some unhappiness.....therefore there is a point in the game when the model says that a Civ with X cities would no longer be able to sustain itself under any condition. We just don't know what X number is. If its like 500, probably not a big deal. If its 20ish that may be a problem for a decent amount of playstyles.

In general, G has always favored corrections to the entire model over scalpel corrections....which he finds inelegant. I respect that, though I continue to wonder if the model can truly account for all regular playstyles as it is. We seem to keep falling into the same scenarios:

1) Everyone has so much happy no one cares
2) Most people are fine, but some playstyles drown in unhappy.
3) Everyone is drowing in unhappy.

And we keep seesawing back between these styles. So...maybe it is time for a scalpel correction.

Something like.

1) A non-unique wonder that generates X happy per Y total population....probably something in industrial when the problem seems to ramp up.
2) We create a "super city" concept, like a Metropolis. This is your New York, your Hong Kong, etc. We come up with some rules that says, a "super city is a bit different, a bit cooler". Once a city grows to this point, it doesn't play by the exact same rules. It transcends them a bit. This would give us the flavor leverage to make some adjustments without throwing players off. In fact, it can be seen as reward for growth focused play. People can enjoy growing their cities to that point and feeling "yeah I made it!". Its also gives some secondary reinforcement in the later stages of the game that food and growth can still be useful.

So with that concept, we could add in things like:
a) Metropolis Bonus: City gains +2 happy.
b) WLTKD 25% duration.
c) The Needs of a Metropolis no longer increases with greater population. A Size 30 Metropolis has the same fundamental needs as a Size 35.
 
1) A non-unique wonder that generates X happy per Y total population....probably something in industrial when the problem seems to ramp up.
2) We create a "super city" concept, like a Metropolis. This is your New York, your Hong Kong, etc. We come up with some rules that says, a "super city is a bit different, a bit cooler". Once a city grows to this point, it doesn't play by the exact same rules. It transcends them a bit. This would give us the flavor leverage to make some adjustments without throwing players off. In fact, it can be seen as reward for growth focused play. People can enjoy growing their cities to that point and feeling "yeah I made it!". Its also gives some secondary reinforcement in the later stages of the game that food and growth can still be useful.
Not like that, please. Thats not just inelegant, it is more like an attempt to fix broken car with insulating tape and glue

I think the whole concept of happiness being tied to tech advantage is bad design. Why the hell my people are more bored and illiterate after i researched new tech?
 
Not like that, please. Thats not just inelegant, it is more like an attempt to fix broken car with insulating tape and glue

I think the whole concept of happiness being tied to tech advantage is bad design. Why the hell my people are more bored and illiterate after i researched new tech?

That’s an unfair comparison. It’s not the fact that you researched a tech, it’s your tech level relative to all other players. Tech = development in civ, so more developed civs have more social consciousness and are more aware of need inequalities in their cities. It’s the best we can do with the abstraction of civ and tech.

G
 
It’s the best we can do with the abstraction of civ and tech.

G

I think the question here is....is happiness meant to foster development, or meant to curb tech runaways....or both?

Right now there also a comparison in the system on yields, to ensure that well developed cities win out over lesser ones. But there also exists a secondary comparison based on tech. Why is the tech comparison necessary to the system. If I am focusing on science and not building infrastructure, I'm already penalized. So why does the tech leader need to be punished by greater unhappiness than its fellows?

Not any real life argument, just pure mechanics. What issue are we trying to solve by adding in that comparison into the happiness system. And if there is an issue with faster tech....is the happiness system the right vehicle to solve it, or should an alternate solution for that problem be utilized?
 
I think the question here is....is happiness meant to foster development, or meant to curb tech runaways....or both?

Right now there also a comparison in the system on yields. But there also exists a secondary comparison based on tech. Why is the tech comparison necessary to the system. If I am focusing on science and not building infrastructure, I'm already penalized. So why does the tech leader need to be punished by greater unhappiness than its fellows?

Not any real life argument, just pure mechanics. What issue are we trying to solve by adding in that comparison into the happiness system. And if there is an issue with faster tech....is the happiness system the right vehicle to solve it, or should an alternate solution for that problem be utilized?

If you take it away, there is zero disadvantage to being ahead in tech, and those players can gobble up techs and raise the median against other players through better infrastructure. I have lots of evidence that without it happiness becomes a win more mechanic for tech advancing.

G
 
If you take it away, there is zero disadvantage to being ahead in tech, and those players can gobble up techs and raise the median against other players through better infrastructure. I have lots of evidence that without it happiness becomes a win more mechanic for tech advancing.

G

Fair enough. I would argue that getting ahead in tech does require an investment in science, which means less of other yields....but ultimately your point is that science is simply too strong a yield without happiness regulation.

So then to my other note. Are there better ways to curb the benefits of tech outside the happiness system?

Say for example: Instead of the tech median effecting needs, what if it effected production? Basically you have a "prototype penalty". Sure as the top science player I can build buildings that no one else has. But since I'm first, that means its going to take more effort to build them. So maybe I have a production penalty on most recent era buildings. This would mean that science players get access to the latest and greatest yields buildings, but require more effort to develop them than the players that come after. Just one idea.

EDIT: An honestly the more I think about it, the more I don't like that idea:) But I'll keep it as an example.
 
If you take it away, there is zero disadvantage to being ahead in tech, and those players can gobble up techs and raise the median against other players through better infrastructure. I have lots of evidence that without it happiness becomes a win more mechanic for tech advancing.

G

Why should there be a mandatory disadvantage for being ahead in tech? There's none for being superior in Production or Gold which are represented by more buildings/units or Culture/tourism/policies or Faith, so why here?
 
Why should there be a mandatory disadvantage for being ahead in tech? There's none for being superior in Production or Gold which are represented by more buildings/units or Culture/tourism/policies or Faith, so why here?

Because tech is the one thing all those things share as a primary need. Access to wonders, victory conditions, etc all stems from tech. It’s more like a general ‘historical progress’ model than a tech tree.

G
 
Looking forward to the announced changes @Gazebo had hinted above. One additional thing which could help especially the new players, something like a panic button, to at least stabilise your empire for a while could be a new happiness process (the benign king throws a festival for his underlings). You could set some cities to this process to recover and meanwhile, build happiness buildings in other cities or research a new policy which gives happiness.
 
If you take it away, there is zero disadvantage to being ahead in tech, and those players can gobble up techs and raise the median against other players through better infrastructure. I have lots of evidence that without it happiness becomes a win more mechanic for tech advancing.

G
I see the point. I think that @Stalker0 might be right saying in other thread that the system is too sensetive. It ramps up really hard, especially when you prioritize scientific victory (it is a bit unfair for science victory vs tourism victory).

I'll throw a suggestion here - how about penaltizing growth and/or gold together with happiness, but making that penalty lower? Like you know - the more advaced your society is - the lower is birth rate and more socialism is required (more taxes for rich etc)
 
I'll throw a suggestion here - how about penaltizing growth and/or gold together with happiness, but making that penalty lower? Like you know - the more advaced your society is - the lower is birth rate and more socialism is required (more taxes for rich etc)
I actually like the idea of penalizing the player in a more diversified manner, though I would suggest looking at basic needs IRL in a hierarchical manner as well:
  • Distress is the most important need (food is obviously a very basic need and production could be interpreted as an ability to forage for the future)
  • Poverty would probably be the second most important, since it indirectly affects "Distress" in a real world system
  • Illiteracy would be tertiary since it's a more abstract need for being able to deal with the future
  • Boredom would be the least important for obvious reasons
Arguments can be made for all of those affecting city growth (having to do with considerations of how secure the future is, which makes it easier to bring more children into the world) as well as the economy, but Distress and Poverty should be the needs that hit hardest, allowing players to focus on those and not have to worry so much about building museums lest the populace revolt out of boredom.

This would mean that the player would need to juggle less things simultaneously with respect to keeping the populace happy (since Distress and Poverty would be most important) as well as having a less pronounced impact (since the happiness hit is mitigated by the hit to local growth and the local economy).

more socialism is required (more taxes for rich etc)
Please don't make me write a foot long post on the evils of socialism.
 
Happiness is right now the only mechanic that breaks the game. An easy solution is letting that be like a few years back, when we had so much happiness that its only purpose was to provide golden age points late game. But this is not interesting.

Ideally, we could have a system based on the current one which keeps sane values, not too big or too small, that varies smoothly, and in an understandable way. As I said a few months back, partially the problem is trying to fit a linear happiness model into a non-linear growth model. You can make it work for the early game at the cost of being irrelevant in the late game, or make it matter for the whole game at the cost of happiness being too harsh sometimes.

Values can be normalized (artificially made into values in a fixed range), but that won't solve the disparity in the steepness of sources of happiness and sources of unhappiness. The way luxuries are enhanced now follow up better that growth logic, and I had hopes for this to balance the unhappiness from needs. But there's an inherent problem that scales with number of cities. Sometimes, something happens in the world that makes all your cities have some happiness deficit (you got too many techs too fast, or a lackluster civ got destroyed). If you have 5 cities, that could be 5-15 points of difference; the same event having over 20 cities means changes of 30-60 happiness in very few turns. Even with all the damp mechanics in place, the big swings happen for very large empires. It's ok to have some penalties to overexpanding civs, but no one likes such big drops in happiness.

Stalker0 idea for global unhappiness is not that crazy as it seems. That would remove the number of cities from the equation. But I fear that system would be too alien and that'll take too long to balance again.

What could be done is to consider number of cities in the global net happiness. Something like:
Net happiness = (Global happiness - Global unhappiness) * (1 + Map size scaler) / Number of cities
This way, a happiness wave of 10 points in an empire with 5 cities will be felt the same as a wave of 40 in an empire of 20 cities.
Having lots of cities should be naturally worse, since it's harder to get them developed (except for Rome, maybe?)
 
Last edited:
  • Distress is the most important need (food is obviously a very basic need and production could be interpreted as an ability to forage for the future)
  • Poverty would probably be the second most important, since it indirectly affects "Distress" in a real world system
  • Illiteracy would be tertiary since it's a more abstract need for being able to deal with the future
  • Boredom would be the least important for obvious reasons
I did suggest a change in how those needs were obtained. Right now every one looks at the whole city population. What I wanted to change was for every need to look at the still happy people in the city before getting values. And a few values showed that it didn't change much for small unhappiness values (boredom a bit less important, but barely), while for cases of huge unhappiness in the city, illiteracy and boredom matter much less. It's very easy to do.

Arguments can be made for all of those affecting city growth (having to do with considerations of how secure the future is, which makes it easier to bring more children into the world) as well as the economy, but Distress and Poverty should be the needs that hit hardest, allowing players to focus on those and not have to worry so much about building museums lest the populace revolt out of boredom.

I still very much prefer to have happiness restricting 'available' food. That would prevent excessive growth while being unhappy.
 
I actually like the idea of penalizing the player in a more diversified manner, though I would suggest looking at basic needs IRL in a hierarchical manner as well:
My idea is mainy that tech median should affect other things, not only happiness. This will be a much more interesting game mechanic, like - you advance in tech and you start to run our of money, and then your cities stop to grow and start to starve (which reflects decrease of growth rate)

Please don't make me write a foot long post on the evils of socialism.
Hey, i'm an cynical investment professional living in Russia. I know that better than anyone
 
Top Bottom