Health

[CYZ]

What I'd like to see in CiV is a health system. I don't dislike the global happiness system but right now there is no local mechanism. I find this unrealistic and unpleasent for gameplay.

My suggestion would be a per city health system, partly based on my earlier suggestion for national trading.

It basicly would work like this:
1. Every city needs one health per citizen or negative consequences are suffered
2. Every city starts with a base health, amount depends on difficulty
3. Every bonus resource grants 4 additional health per resource. This bonus is given per unique resource, but only to one city.
4. Resources will be added to the local city once improved. They can be exported to other cities within your empire if the city is connected to the trade network.
5. Certain buildings could add health or increase health from certain resources, the buildings would be designed in order to balance the mechanic.

So basicly, every resource adds 4 health to a city. However, two resources of the same type can't be used on the same city.


What I like about this:
a) It offers a local mechanism compared to the global happiness mechanic
b) A different approach is needed for tall and wide empires
- After all, 2 high population cities will need a large variety of resources. Whereas 10 small cities will need a large quantity of resources
c) Makes traderoutes more usefull and even needed
d) Makes bonusresources usefull


Things to thing about/discuss
* Do you get bonus resources from CityStates?
* Can bonusresources be traded through diplomacy?
* What about the recently added stone?
* What would be negative consequenes for a lack of health?

 

[seasnake]

I agree, but I'd have the negative consequences be something like it slows your Great Person rate or decreases the number of available citizens to work tiles/buildings. A local health system would make settling near bananas and fish much more valuable, and buildings you build could provide extra health from those resources, as well as certain techs.

Further, if you trade with the AI or a health good (like bananas) you should be able to assign which city receives the benefit.

But truth be told, shouldn't this thread be under the suggestions category?

 

[killmeplease]

that will penalize tall empires

 

[CYZ]

I agree with the GP penalty although more is needed than that to make it a real limitting factor.

This will most likely penalize tall empires more than wide. However, with certain buildings providing health it would be easier for them to keep up. Also, it's not like tall empires are having much trouble compared to wide right now is it? ;0

 

[killmeplease]

i havent played latest patch yet but before this wide empires were udoubtly superior, even if thier build-up and management were more complicated.

 

[CYZ]

i havent played latest patch yet but before this wide empires were udoubtly superior, even if thier build-up and management were more complicated.

At least with the current patch I disagree. Could also be my playingstyle I guess.

It could all be balanced through buildings and social policies though, so shouldn't be an issue.

 

[acm2033]

IMO, it sounds like busy work. Part of the direction CiV was supposed to take (again, IMO) was trimming down the time-killing actions of micromanagement.

It's why I get bored with BTS pretty quickly. Too much stuff to sift through.

 

[civnoob13]

I've been wanting health since release. I'd also include the risk of spreading diseases in very unhealthy cities. Let's say there is a 20% chance a citizen dies per turn, a 10% chance it spreads to another citizen in the same city, and a 5% chance it spreads to another city (including the AI!). And the disease goes away from a citizen after 3 turns. To reduce spreading, you can quarantine a city. This however cancels any trade routes in that city any any resources that city has. There is no chance that the disease will spread to another city in these circumstances. A city must be in quarantine for 3 turns after the disease has been eliminated, and cannot go out of quarantine once in quarantine. To reduce spread from citizen to citizen (to 10%) you can temporarily unemploy a citizen (therefore sending it home) which of course will have drastic effects on the city.

I'd also make bonus resources a little more interesting by allowing them to be given to other cities to. Let's say a tile has cow on it. Similarly to strategic resources, that tile can have different numbers of resources (maximum of 3). So if you have surplus bonus resources you can send it to a city of your choice as long as there is a trade route to that city.

 

[ViterboKnight]

I think Firaxis chosed global happiness in order to avoid micromanagement.

Local health will put it back.
Yes, it might be a good idea, but... well, perhaps as a game option (disabled by default).

 

[Camikaze]

I certainly think some sort of localised mechanic would be a good addition. Happiness does have that deficiency. You may be interested in having a look at this similar idea.

 

[Pazyryk]

I guess my question is why do you want health? Do you dislike big cities, or do you want to add challenge for the "tall" approach? Do you dislike the way Civ5 has both large cities and small cities in the same empire? (In Civ4, all my cities were always the same exact size except the capital, which was exactly 1 larger than all my other cities. I know this was more an effect of the local happiness than health, but both mechanisms tend to equalize city size, which I tend to dislike.)

I think Firaxis chosed global happiness in order to avoid micromanagement.

That's possible. I always thought it was so that you could have both large cities and small cities in the same empire.

 

[CYZ]

I guess my question is why do you want health? Do you dislike big cities, or do you want to add challenge for the "tall" approach? Do you dislike the way Civ5 has both large cities and small cities in the same empire? (In Civ4, all my cities were always the same exact size except the capital, which was exactly 1 larger than all my other cities. I know this was more an effect of the local happiness than health, but both mechanisms tend to equalize city size, which I tend to dislike.)

I agree that one-size-fits-all is not good. But I think that global happiness will keep the size variation in tact.

My main reason for wanting this is the lack of a local mechanic. It makes city placement somewhat less important, as getting the happyfaces is all that matters.

Local health, with tradeable resources, makes bonus resources more important and creates a local mechanic. As bonusresources can be traded among cities this should in no way mean all cities will be the same size. A small city with many bonus resources will simply trade them away to a bigger city.

It simply makes your cities linked more. They depend on each other. That small coastal town with alot of fish and a cow becomes very important for the health of your larger cities. Right now it wouldn't be an important city in any way.

I agree that these ideas would be more challenging for tall empires. Since the global happiness currently favours tall empires that only seems fair though. It's also realistic, the bigger a city the bigger the health issues. Still, bonus resources shouldn't be the only income of health. Certain buildings and policies could add/modify health as well, which would favour tall.

I actually kindof like that tall empires will have to work hard to gain as much variety in bonus resources as they can. Whereas wide empires will mostly need quantity.

 

[Pazyryk]

Well, certainly the current "bonus" resources are lacking in interest compared to strategic and luxury. I like the current trend in patches that many of them enable (and/or benefit from) a particular building, which adds local flavor to every city. I'm not opposed to health. The problem in Civ4 was that it was too much like "happiness-lite" (i.e., same basic effect, though weaker). It was an extra mechanic that didn't really stand apart. However, maybe that is not a problem in Civ5 if happiness stays global and health acts locally.

 

[Deggial]

Oh well, I’m still hooked on this theme. I only can agree to CYZ’s arguments for a local health system. So please, forgive me my necromancy – even if this thread is about health (and therefore quite the opposite )

Thoughts still wander…


1. Factors affecting health:

As proposed by CYZ, (food)-bonus resources and buildings should affect health. But I would go further and take other terrain characteristics into account. Of course, this is not new but already known from Civ4.

What could be the numbers to play with? Just as a proposal:

Basis health: 4
Per swamp tile in city radius: -1
Per forest tile in city radius: + 0,5 (more would be to beneficial, think Civ4’s number is OK).
Per bonus resource*: +2 (up to a maximum of +12 as there are 6 (food)-bonus resources)
Sewer (building): +3
Hospital (building): +3 (in addition to the current food boost)

So we end with a thrshold of 22 (with all bonus resources but *without* any forests).

If this is not enough, there can be additional boosts, for example with “Penicillin” +5 to max. city size in every city.

There might be a National Wonder, too.
Buildings could look like this, then:
Sewer (building): +2
Pharmacy (building): +2
Hospital (building): +2 (in addition to the current food boost)
NW: National Health Organisation; needs pharmacy in any (controlled) city; +3 max. city size in every city.

With both additional modifiers, we would have 30 pop cities. Do you think, this would be enough? No? Well, then every “Future technology” might give +1, too. Open end…

* +2 per (different) bonus resources only, if we adopt CYZ’s “bonus-resource-trading”. If a city has to be limited to it's own resources, it should probably be +4 per (different) resource.


2. Negative Effects

As health seems linked to growth and city size, I don’t see any obvious relations to Great People birth-rate or such.

I think, health should determine a maximal city size. Simple as that and well known from earlier Civ-incarnations!

I see three alternative consequences for hitting the threshold:

a) The easiest one: No further growth possible, when reaching the maximum city size. Easy to understand but maybe to unrefined. We had this in Civ2.

b) When reaching the threshold, “negative food” is added (-2 or maybe -3 for reaching the cap itself; the same amount for every citizen beyond the cap). So growth will still be possible if you insist to work farms, buy maritime CSs or own the Hanging Gardens. But it will tremendously slow down and finally come to a halt. This is, more or less, what we had in Civ4.

c) Generate an “ill citizen” unable to work. As he still consumes but doesn’t generate food, growth is limited, too. Additionally, there is a happy-issue, as the non-working citizen still “consumes” a point of happiness. This is similar to local happiness in Civ4.


3. Rewards for big cities

As Pazyryk asked: “Do you dislike big cities?”
No, not at all – even if my style of playing favours smaller ones.

But as CYZ stated, having large cities should be challenging and the terrain should be more important for city placement.
On the other hand: if it is harder to get big cities, there have to be rewards! My proposals are:

a) Higher factor for non-capital-cities in trade-route evaluation. Make larger cities more beneficial then smaller ones (I know, they already are. But for higher rewards, boost this factor.) This will absorb losses by higher upkeep (additional buildings!), too.

b) Limit some buildings to a minimum city size. Why there must be a stock exchange in a 6 pop jerkwater town? Why a whole factory for 10.000 inhabitants? Do some chicken farmers need a military outpost or an university?
If there is a certain minimum city size for enhanced buildings, this would encourage efforts in building tall empires – additionally strengthening them for people who think they are still too weak in the current state of the game.
Which buildings shall need a minimal city size (and which this should be) is to be tested. Of course, the minimal city size must not be too high, as these buildings should not be limited to megacities only.

---

Final notes:

I’m aware of some additional micromanagement, a health system would generate. Especially, if “National Resource Trading” is used. But then, if you do not want something to play around, why asking for new strategic layers at all? Of course, it will need some effort! This is, what it is supposed to do!

As I imagine that a local health system would introduce something new (at least new in CiV) and not just a redundant game mechanic, it might be worth the effort.

 

[JWAT44]

what about puppet cities?

 

[Deggial]

Hm..., good question.

But then, why shouldn't they build "cap-enhancing-buildings", too? Maybe only, if they are in danger to reach the cap, of course.
On the ohter hand, without these buildings, puppets will just stay smaller than "regular" cities. Maybe, this is even beneficial! Annex, if you want them to grow bigger.
I agree, this is a point to discuss!

Following the current CiV design philosophy, you wouldn't be able to deliver free bonus resources to puppets. So, puppets would be limited to bonus resources in their own city radius and stay small (see above).

I don't see, why they shouldn't supply the "national network" with surplus resources, though.

 

[JWAT44]

Hm..., good question.

But then, why shouldn't they build "cap-enhancing-buildings", too? Maybe only, if they are in danger to reach the cap, of course.
On the ohter hand, without these buildings, puppets will just stay smaller than "regular" cities. Maybe, this is even beneficial! Annex, if you want them to grow bigger.
I agree, this is a point to discuss!

Following the current CiV design philosophy, you wouldn't be able to deliver free bonus resources to puppets. So, puppets would be limited to bonus resources in their own city radius and stay small (see above).

I don't see, why they shouldn't supply the "national network" with surplus resources, though.

yeah that would just hurt puppet empires while happiness (should) hurt annexed empires which would in theory balance the two out a bit (it would still slightly benefit annexed empires because they could grow their cities more)

 

[CYZ]

Deggial. You have some really good input but I'd say a bit too far-fetched. It is certainly not my intention to limit large cities or to inmediatly balance that by giving them a boost.

I think 5 health per resource is about right. Gives you a maximum of 30 if you have all resources, the rest can be gotten from buildings, terrain, policies etc.

As for puppet cities. They should automaticly use their own bonus resources. If you want to distribute resources in their area you'll need to annex.

I think a good penalty for overgrowing your health treshold would be a percentage food cut. Perhaps 5% of total food income per health shortage. Simple and effective penalty.


My idea for a supermarket:
+1 health and gold per bonus resource assigned to this city.

 

[Deggial]

Well, I think at the end (if there ever would be an "end", as all these interresting discussions are mere phantasies, unfortunately) there will be a balance between all factors. This balance will not be found by theoretical reasoning, but only by testing. Maybe you are right and the bonus per resource will be +5 health.

Nevertheless, reasoning is fun - and I think, that a little less bonus will be OK.
Why?
Well, how often did you see size 30 cities in your games? As I stated, I usually play horizontal. But even if not, I feel that 30 inhabitants are *extremely* seldom.
And if you can reach this limt *only* with bonus resources (and in multiple cities), why bother with other facrors, like buildings and forests, at all? I could imagine a +3 bonus/resource, but really think this would be more than enough. Of course, the bonus by buildings might be a little bit higher, too, if wanted.

- Puppet cities: Hm. But then, it would be a against the usual way this is object is treated and therefore not so intuitive (this was a point in the former discussion, as you remember). With lower bonus for each bonus resource, spreading them will dot do so mach "harm" to the system. I think, it is very important to stay consistent!

- 5% growth penalty: That's possible, too. More or less, this would be alike my option b), if I'm not wrong?
Again, the exact number would be a matter of testing. I could imagine, that 10% growth reduction might be OK, too. All the efforts have to have an *impact*. Why bothering with a new system at all, if it's effect is only minimal?
But speaking in general: Yes, this "soft cap" is my favourite, too.

- Supermarked: Fitts well into the system. (But again: if you add further health, you should lower the basis values. There is no point in allowing size 50 cities (I'm exaggerating). They will NEVER happen!

 

[CYZ]

Well, I think at the end (if there ever would be an "end", as all these interresting discussions are mere phantasies, unfortunately) there will be a balance between all factors. This balance will not be found by theoretical reasoning, but only by testing. Maybe you are right and the bonus per resource will be +5 health.

Nevertheless, reasoning is fun - and I think, that a little less bonus will be OK.
Why?
Well, how often did you see size 30 cities in your games? As I stated, I usually play horizontal. But even if not, I feel that 30 inhabitants are *extremely* seldom.
And if you can reach this limt *only* with bonus resources (and in multiple cities), why bother with other facrors, like buildings and forests, at all? I could imagine a +3 bonus/resource, but really think this would be more than enough. Of course, the bonus by buildings might be a little bit higher, too, if wanted.

- Puppet cities: Hm. But then, it would be a against the usual way this is object is treated and therefore not so intuitive (this was a point in the former discussion, as you remember). With lower bonus for each bonus resource, spreading them will dot do so mach "harm" to the system. I think, it is very important to stay consistent!

- 5% growth penalty: That's possible, too. More or less, this would be alike my option b), if I'm not wrong?
Again, the exact number would be a matter of testing. I could imagine, that 10% growth reduction might be OK, too. All the efforts have to have an *impact*. Why bothering with a new system at all, if it's effect is only minimal?
But speaking in general: Yes, this "soft cap" is my favourite, too.

- Supermarked: Fitts well into the system. (But again: if you add further health, you should lower the basis values. There is no point in allowing size 50 cities (I'm exaggerating). They will NEVER happen!

You're right, discussing about numbers is kindof senseless. In the end it all depends where it's coming from (terrain, buildings, resources, policies) and indeed can only be decided by practice, not theory.

I agree that it should be possible but hard to reach 30 or higher, you'll need to put effort into getting all resources and enough other factors. Still, vertical play shouldn't be blocked.

I know the idea to let puppet cities keep their bonus resources doesn't match the mechanic for luxuries. But it'd be too easy to steal all the bonus resources from your puppets otherwise, especially since you don't want your puppet to grow anyway most of the time. Realisticly it also makes sense puppet states aren't gonna give you all their food. Perhaps a solution is that you can trade 1 resource for 1 as long as the puppet doesn't have the one it is given yet?