Health and Happyness balance issues

[Koshling]

Moving this to its own thread as it deserves consideration separately from other things.

Health and happiness have too many possible positive enhancements and too few negative ones. One consequence is that city limits can be almost ignored until you get about the double of cities, and that cities grow too fast.
Think also about and : in basic Civ 4 you need 2 per citizen, plus one will be wasted by if you don't have enough . An irrigated farm on a plains/tundra gives 2 (until Biology). There are NO civics that give extra food from farms. (The city itself provides 2 .) So you need 1 per citizen, and all citizens except the first one working farms just not to starve the city, unless you have extra food from grasslands, flood plains or food resources. With so few extra food health is important.
In C2C at Guilds/Crop Rotation a plains/tundra/marsh/muddy irrigated farm with Caste and Slavery produces a whopping 10 ! And with the many bonuses, you won't have any in your cities, and I guess wouldn't really matter anyway because how food wastage is calculated... (- from is subtracted BEFORE the food wastage is calculated, right?). A citizen consumes 3 . So the result is a farm-working citizen produces 7 (!) extra instead of consuming 1 extra like in basic Civ4. And you're wondering that cities are growing too fast! (I'm not even counting all the -producing buildings...) Why even bother with health when you've got so much extra food?

 

[Koshling]

Anyway, since Blue Templar wanted this thread, here's my take on it (I agree with there being a problem BTW, so everyone knows where I stand).

Currently happyness essentially doesn't matter until very deep into the game (if ever). You can utterly ignore it up to at least the modern era unless you are perpetually waging wars in civics with significant war weariness (and losing battles a lot).

Health isn't quite so bad, but again you can pretty much ignore it from mid-prehistoric (cooking-ish) until industrial (power plants-ish).

There are several reasons for this (at least my diagnosis):

1. Buildings give significantly more positives than negatives in the core set. That is, while overall there might be similar numbers it's really very easy to avoid the big negatives without giving much up.
2. With the hugely increased number of resources the amount of happyness and health you typically have from resources is MUCH higher than it used to be (especially if you trade effectively)

Building balance is a tricky issue, and I'm not going to offer any solutions there (not my area of expertese).

For resources we could either simply go for fractional gains per resource (simple), or for a more complex scheme such as grouping resources (requires extra tags but not overly difficult to do). In a grouped scheme, for example, lemons, mangos, apples, etc. would all be fruit. Then resources within groups have their benefits decay by how many in that group you own, so considering fruit, if you say, get apples first, they give +1 health. Now you add lemons - because you already have apples and there are limits to the wonders of fruit, you only get +0.8, and so on. We'd basically define an individual + for each resource, and a group maximum, then scale according to what percantage of the total group set you own.

Not a panacea! Other ideas needed (IMO).

 

[philipschall]

You could simply increase the amount of and per populace.

 

[Nevets_]

You could simply increase the amount of and per populace.

I think this is the solution. Combine it with more + + bonuses / pop from more advanced civics /buildings and I think that is all you need. So for example, get rid of the "+__% needed to grow" in the garbage civics, and give them +0.25 / +0.50 / +0.75 / +1.00 per population to compensate for the 2 per population you start with.

 

[TowerWizard]

Interesting topic that highlights an area of the game I am myself dissatisfied with.

The "grouping"-idea that Koshling suggested would solve some of the problems. If I understand him correctly, for example the Fruit group would generate a maximum of x heath, with the biggest bonus from the first member of the Fruit group you get access to, and diminishing returns from the second, third and so on until you get a sum of x , and then more Fruit is simply not needed anymore, since they generate no extra . I think something like that should be implemented.

I think we can continue to compare between Civ IV and c2c. As the first post said, you need 1 per pop in civ IV (not counting static bonuses from difficulty etc). I would guess that the developers understood this, and spread out around 25 in the tech tree (since normally a city does not get bigger than around 25), so that there would be a 1:1 comparison between supply and demand.

In c2c cities are smaller in the early game, but there are many more sources of . You still need 1 /pop. An "easy" way to solve this dilemma is to count the numbers of in the tech tree, compare this with the average city size at different points of the game and then scale how much you should need per pop.

For example, in the prehistoric era there might exist 30 that is possible to get in a city. (I have no idea, I have not counted). The expected maximum city size at this time is 6 pop. Then you might need 5 per pop, instead of just 1 per pop. In other eras this might change, and then the /pop needs to change accordingly.

I think it should be possible to combine Koshlings grouping-idea with this balancing.

Another idea is that you would get other types of benefits from a high . Let's say we created a list of benefits from excess , with a bonus at certain levels like at every five extra . This means small cities gets a bigger boost, since they have a bigger surplus, allowing them to catch up easier. In a system such as this, every bit of will be useful, even if you don't need it to combat .

Of course, all the above would work in a similar way for also.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I am not sure if you guys realize some changes to this that I have done in the buildings area.

1. Aqueducts no longer give per population. They just give a static . And even with this chnage it was barely noticeable.

2. I nearly removed all the per % from entertainment buildings. Again even with changing around 13 of those types of buildings there are still more than enough happiness buildings around.

I hope that the disease system will at least counter act the unhealthiness and then the crime stuff can counter act the happiness stuff. The biggest problem is that if I put on a building then people simply will not build them, even if they have more than enough to counter it.

There are a few things we could do I think.

1. Bring back unhealthiness to mine improvements.

2. Reduce or remove the / benefits from resources. They already give a lot of benefits from the buildings they influence.

 

[JosEPh_II]

The Voice of warning:

Here we go again over a new players assumptions and assertions after said player has played 1 game to medieval era and then started a new one. Take what he's posting with "That" grain of salt.

JosEPh

 

[ls612]

The Voice of warning:

Here we go again over a new players assumptions and assertions after said player has played 1 game to medieval era and then started a new one. Take what he's posting with "That" grain of salt.

JosEPh

I do think that Happiness is a problem, in that it never becomes an issue until the Industrial Era, at least for me, and I use REV. Health IMO is fine and I would agree with you that it should remain the same.

 

[TowerWizard]

Hydro, the problem is not with the amount of , but about the amount of per population.

Right now, new buildings get added, new animals, new units, new cultures... That is fine, but if you just add more and more bonuses without adding more penalties, your supply vs. demand ratio will get changed. You have to counteract the changes.

For example, if you add more religions without changing the mechanics for religions, then there will be issues of balance regarding all sorts of stuff, from tech tree paths (have to spread out the religion founding techs to avoid having the one who founded the first get all of them) to diplomacy (the issues from having different religions will need be different if there are 7 religions or if there are 27)
, not to mention stuff like Apostolic Palace (more likely that more people share the same religion with 7 religions than with 27). If you add more religions, you have to rewrite the mechanics regarding how to use them.

Same thing with . If you add more sources of , either you need to add
more counteracting sources of , or you need to change the mechanics somehow. Otherwise you will change the ratio too much in either direction (too much , as there is currently, or too much , which would be a nightmare.)

Changing one building, no matter how important, will not suffice. The issue arises way before you can even build Aqueducts, so in my mind Aqueducts are not that important in this discussion. The point is in maintaining the ratio between bonuses/penalties. The last suggestion you gave, about reducing the bonuses from resources, is something that would address this, but you cannot just guess as to how much to reduce them. You have to add up all the bonuses and add up all the penalties first, and then try to make changes so as to make the desired ratio between them emerge.

Edit: This is closely connected with the food problem, as mentioned in the above post. In civ IV every counts. It is hard to get food. You only get food from tiles (with the sole exception of the +1 from Supermarkets late game) and from Corporations. In c2c, you can get HUGE amounts of food from buildings. Basically, you can grow cities without using food producing tiles, just from having Herds, Butchers, Shaman Huts jadda jadda jadda. Every one of those foods are basically like one extra in that they counter one . So, not only do you have to add up all the , you also have to add up the surplus food to some extent, since they accomplish the same basic goal, that is, to counteract . (That is, if you have one surplus , you either need to get rid of it with one , or supply one more that turns into wasted food)

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'm just warning about overboard actions and reactions from new players. We've had Way too many imho, that the modding team has bowed down before. Only later to have to readjust. Not that there can not be changes, but that change is Measured not Wholesale slaughter as we've had before. Be Prudent with Change, Not Reactionary. Rosimite' mne' ? (Czech for: do you understand me?)

JosEPh

 

[AIAndy]

I hope that the disease system will at least counter act the unhealthiness and then the crime stuff can counter act the happiness stuff.

I think that is the right place to start with in balancing health and happiness. Better introduce them now when there is some breathing space than when it is already balanced closely.
Crime could autobuild some bad buildings when it is over certain levels that add unhappiness.

 

[BlueTemplar]

What TowerWizard said.

Joseph II, don't you agree there are too many and bonuses right now? At least in classical/middle ages?

1. Aqueducts no longer give per population. They just give a static . And even with this change it was barely noticeable.

IMHO this should have been kept, this mechanic makes Aqueducts more unique, not just like another -generating building.

2. I nearly removed all the per % from entertainment buildings. Again even with changing around 13 of those types of buildings there are still more than enough happiness buildings around.

Again, this is a unique mechanic to "convert" commerce to happiness (and culture), I'd be very sad to see it gone.

I hope that the disease system will at least counter act the unhealthiness and then the crime stuff can counter act the happiness stuff. The biggest problem is that if I put on a building then people simply will not build them, even if they have more than enough to counter it.

I'd build them if they're good enough, you can always scrap them later anyway... What are you planning with the crime and disease system? (Also, does flammability have any effect yet?)

IMHO increasing and from population seems a good idea. It already worked with per pop, didn't it?

 

[Koshling]

I think that is the right place to start with in balancing health and happiness. Better introduce them now when there is some breathing space than when it is already balanced closely.
Crime could autobuild some bad buildings when it is over certain levels that add unhappiness.

How will disease increase unhealthiness (as in the technical question of how a property value [disease] influences a built-in value [unhealth])?

Not questioning whether it SHOULD, just asking how the mechanism will work since I don't understand how properties propagate to non-property-built-ins...?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Again, this is a unique mechanic to "convert" commerce to happiness (and culture), I'd be very sad to see it gone.

The VR Theater building still has this feature.

 

[BlueTemplar]

But if it's the only building with the feature then that feature is virtually gone! Who's going to bother to put into if it doesn't give you anymore? (Besides, the slider for is available at Drama (which is logical since it's when the first building with the feature, Theater becomes available), long before VR Theater!

 

[AIAndy]

How will disease increase unhealthiness (as in the technical question of how a property value [disease] influences a built-in value [unhealth])?

Not questioning whether it SHOULD, just asking how the mechanism will work since I don't understand how properties propagate to non-property-built-ins...?

My current plan is to use buildings for cities and promotions for units for that as that gives access to a lot of built-in values with limited effort.
In the property info you assign buildings to certain levels of the property. When the value goes over that level, the building is added, when it drops below, the building is removed.

 

[Nevets_]

I hope that the disease system will at least counter act the unhealthiness and then the crime stuff can counter act the happiness stuff. The biggest problem is that if I put on a building then people simply will not build them, even if they have more than enough to counter it.

I happily build and buildings if they are cost-effective. If the average health buildings I have at the moment give +1 per -2 then I will build a unhealthy building if I get at least +3 per +1 .

buildings have to be worth potentially losing a (bad) tile's worth of //, so I will usually only build them on one of three conditions:
1. If I have plenty of extra (which is the current situation)
2. they provide a unique bonus you can't otherwise get, like -rev or provide a resource.
3. The give a % bonus that can outweigh a tile's worth of income in a larger city.

 

[BlueTemplar]

Yeah, look at Gambling Hall for instance. Of course, it gives +1 , but at the same time it gives +3 for a low cost of only 62 !

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

For resources we could either simply go for fractional gains per resource (simple), or for a more complex scheme such as grouping resources (requires extra tags but not overly difficult to do). In a grouped scheme, for example, lemons, mangos, apples, etc. would all be fruit. Then resources within groups have their benefits decay by how many in that group you own, so considering fruit, if you say, get apples first, they give +1 health. Now you add lemons - because you already have apples and there are limits to the wonders of fruit, you only get +0.8, and so on. We'd basically define an individual + for each resource, and a group maximum, then scale according to what percantage of the total group set you own.

Not a panacea! Other ideas needed (IMO).

There is already a grouping mechanism for resources. See CIV4BonusClassInfos.xml. Not sure how it is used but it already has groupings for Grain, Seafood and Livestock which are basic BtS. We could add Fruit and Vegetables to that as well. With maybe Processed Foods to add unhealthiness.

 

[BlueTemplar]

There's problem similar to food with Golden Ages : in Civ4 they give +1 +1 . In C2C they still give the same while the improved tile yield is much higher, so in proportion they are a lot less powerful...