Idea for bringing back Health.

[Aussie_Lurker]

Look, I get the reason they decided to take Health out of the game, but I still reckon its absence is unacceptable. More to the point, I can see ways in which Health & Happiness could work-together-without either one being redundant.

So here's my thoughts:

At what level should Happiness & Health Operate?

Well personally I think that Happiness & Health should have both a local & global component. Some things will *only* impact these elements at the City Level (like most buildings), some will have a global impact only (like luxury & food resources), whilst others might have a city &/or global impact (techs, social policies & wonders).

What effects should happiness have?

At the local level: A happiness surplus should give a boost to the hammer & culture output of the city-up to a maximum of, for example, +5-as well as contributing to the global pool.

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Golden Ages, obviously.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance cut by 10%.
(iii) Improved rate of assimilation of foreign tiles & cities.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance cut by 20%.
(iii) Increased Combat strength for units.
(iv) Increased Worker Speeds.

What effects should Unhappiness have?

At the Local Level A happiness deficit will have the opposite effect to a happiness surplus-impacting culture & production output-down to a maximum of, say, -5. After that cap the city is considered "In Revolt", at which point it generates *no* hammers or culture.

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Deducts from Golden Ages, obviously.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance increased by 10%.
(iii) Decreased rate of assimilation of foreign tiles & cities.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance increased by 20%.
(iii) Decreased Combat strength for units.
(iv) Decreased Worker Speeds.

What effects should Good Health have?

At the Local Level A health bonus will give a bonus to the food & gold output of a city (though science might work better). Again, up to around a maximum of +5

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Like Happiness, it contributes to Golden Ages.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance decreased by 10%.
(iii) All Cities generate settlers at a faster rate.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance decreased by 20%.
(iii) Increased hit-points for units.
(iv) Any tiles with 1 food or less get a +1 food bonus.


What effects should Bad Health have?

At the Local Level A health deficit will give a penalty to the food & gold/science output of a city, down to a maximum of -5, after which the city is considered Blighted-& generates no food or gold/science at all.

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Like Happiness, it deducts from Golden Ages.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance increased by 10%.
(iii) All Cities generate settlers at a slower rate.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance increased by 20%.
(iii) Decreased hit-points for units.
(iv) Any tiles with 2 food or more get a -1 food penalty.

So basically, both Health & Happiness can put a brake on unfettered growth, but by acting through totally different mechanisms.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you have an alternative suggestion? Obviously, unless they bring health back in an expansion, this is really about designing a mod.


Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, on a closely related note, I feel that Food & Luxury Resources should work in a similar fashion to Strategic Resources. There are 2 alternative approaches that I can see for this:

Alternative 1

(1) Each "deposit" of a resource has 1-5 units, & each unit grants +1 happiness or health.

(2) Multiple units of the same resource-even if from different "deposits"-can still grant multiple happiness/health bonuses. For example, if you have 1 "deposit" of cows containing 3 units, you get +3 health, & if you have a 2nd "deposit" of cows-with 3 units again-you get another +3 health. This would be the case even if you received those extra cows in trade.

(3) Obviously the maximum bonus for a single resource would need to be capped-maybe at +8 or something-to prevent it from becoming too overpowered.

Alternative 2

(1) Still have deposits of 1-5 units each/

(2) A single deposit of a resource will give you +5 happiness/health, regardless of the # of units. However, each unit you have-after the 1st-will grant a bonus to 1 or more yields in all your cities. For example, each unit of cows after the first might grant +0.5 food & +0.25 hammers to all your cities. Again, this would still operate even if you receive them in trade.

(3) As with alternative 1, the benefits should be capped to (a) prevent it from becoming overpowered & (b) to encourage trade between civs.

(4) If this alternative were adopted, then I'd suggest that strategic resources have the same ability. So Iron might grant +0.5 hammers & +0.25 science for every unit after the 1st, whereas Oil might grant +0.5 hammers & +0.25 gold for every unit after the 1st. Hope that makes sense. Resources used to build/maintain units wouldn't be counted for the purpose of this bonus-thus forcing interesting choices between the economy & the military (& giving you even *more* incentive to trade with your neighbors!)

Again, your thoughts would be appreciated !

Aussie.

 

[Smug Kitteh]

I like your ideas. Though I think with health should not be a factor a direct factor for a golden age. Considering the fact that it could relate to happens, where obviously a lack of health in a city reduces happiness.
Some of my ideas on health.

1. If a city because unhealthy some citizen become sick and are unable to work tiles or be specialists and contribute 1 unhappiness.

2. Also if a city as x amount of sick workers or unemployed workers and the population goes up or after time some form of slum forms in the city or around decreasing the wealth of the city.

3. And -health has a meter that when full starts a epidemic e.g. the black death that adds a heap of unhappiness and starts rotting away at you population and could spread to other civilisations by trade routes.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Look, I get the reason they decided to take Health out of the game, but I still reckon its absence is unacceptable. More to the point, I can see ways in which Health & Happiness could work-together-without either one being redundant.

So here's my thoughts:

At what level should Happiness & Health Operate?

Well personally I think that Happiness & Health should have both a local & global component. Some things will *only* impact these elements at the City Level (like most buildings), some will have a global impact only (like luxury & food resources), whilst others might have a city &/or global impact (techs, social policies & wonders).

What effects should happiness have?

At the local level: A happiness surplus should give a boost to the hammer & culture output of the city-up to a maximum of, for example, +5-as well as contributing to the global pool.

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Golden Ages, obviously.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance cut by 10%.
(iii) Improved rate of assimilation of foreign tiles & cities.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance cut by 20%.
(iii) Increased Combat strength for units.
(iv) Increased Worker Speeds.

What effects should Unhappiness have?

At the Local Level A happiness deficit will have the opposite effect to a happiness surplus-impacting culture & production output-down to a maximum of, say, -5. After that cap the city is considered "In Revolt", at which point it generates *no* hammers or culture.

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Deducts from Golden Ages, obviously.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance increased by 10%.
(iii) Decreased rate of assimilation of foreign tiles & cities.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) Distance Modifier to building maintenance increased by 20%.
(iii) Decreased Combat strength for units.
(iv) Decreased Worker Speeds.

What effects should Good Health have?

At the Local Level A health bonus will give a bonus to the food & gold output of a city (though science might work better). Again, up to around a maximum of +5

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Like Happiness, it contributes to Golden Ages.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance decreased by 10%.
(iii) All Cities generate settlers at a faster rate.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance decreased by 20%.
(iii) Increased hit-points for units.
(iv) Any tiles with 1 food or less get a +1 food bonus.


What effects should Bad Health have?

At the Local Level A health deficit will give a penalty to the food & gold/science output of a city, down to a maximum of -5, after which the city is considered Blighted-& generates no food or gold/science at all.

At the global level: Tier 1-(i) Like Happiness, it deducts from Golden Ages.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance increased by 10%.
(iii) All Cities generate settlers at a slower rate.

Tier 2-(i) Golden Ages-again.
(ii) # of cities Modifier to building maintenance increased by 20%.
(iii) Decreased hit-points for units.
(iv) Any tiles with 2 food or more get a -1 food penalty.

So basically, both Health & Happiness can put a brake on unfettered growth, but by acting through totally different mechanisms.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you have an alternative suggestion? Obviously, unless they bring health back in an expansion, this is really about designing a mod.


Aussie_Lurker.

I don't think bad health should decrease food by 1. It's too drastic.

 

[Camikaze]

I love these ideas. Two things I would suggest:

1. Instead of having two tiers of effects, have a linear function determine the penalties for happiness/unhappiness, healthiness/unhealthiness, so that every movement has some effect.
2. With the resources idea, have each additional resource give a diminished benefit (apply some decay function), rather than just having a cut off.

As you can see, these are not major differences that I have, but I think they would make the idea neater.

 

[Ramesses]

Personally, I think a better system would be to have global happiness and local health. Two very distinct systems that affect your empire in very different ways.

 

[Camikaze]

Personally, I think a better system would be to have global happiness and local health. Two very distinct systems that affect your empire in very different ways.

This would be a nice compromise, I guess, although I don't particularly think there would be an issue with having local and global happiness, as well as local and perhaps global health.

 

[Darac]

How about this:
Leave happiness as is. If we want health (sickness) back then I suggest this, which will also fix what I think is an issue with maritime city states.

Make food a Civ wide resource.
Make sickness a city specific penalty.

Growth
The growth of a city is then some equation based off Civ total food and sickness of the city and maybe size of the city.

Starvation
If a cities sickness or your civ wide food supply drops suddenly then the above equation may result in a negative number for some cities, these cities would starve and lose population until the equation equals 0 or greater.

Sickness
Sickness goes up per citizen and with bad tiles like uranium or nuclear fallout.
Sickness goes down with good tiles such as forests and lakes and buildings such as aqueduct and hospital.

Maritime City States
Maritime city states would no longer give you 1 food per city but instead add a constant amount to your Civ wide food pool.

Social policies
Some policies may need to change such as specialists consuming half food would change to something like produce half the sickness.

Excess food
I'm unsure if excess food should build up like gold instead of speeding growth. If food was stored then you could help you last through starvation for a few turns without consequence. This also opens more freedom for food trade with others.

Trade
Perhaps with a Civ wide food resource you could then trade food with other players if you have excess much like gold in the trade window. Trade X food per turn or if food is stored then also trade lump sums of food.

New strategies
With this system you can grow large by having a few farming cities dedicated to food. And then have full production cities that right now are only possible through maritime city states.

You can target enemy farm cities or maritime city states to create a civilisation wide famine, drastically reducing your enemies size and potentially the effectiveness of their pure production cities.

What do you think?

 

[Camikaze]

Welcome to (posting in, at least) the forums.

I'm not too keen on the idea of making food a civ-wide commodity. It makes more sense as something local; transportation of food is a real issue. The ideas you suggest are solid working off that basis, but I'm not sure the basis is all that good.

 

[Darac]

Welcome to (posting in, at least) the forums.

I'm not too keen on the idea of making food a civ-wide commodity. It makes more sense as something local; transportation of food is a real issue. The ideas you suggest are solid working off that basis, but I'm not sure the basis is all that good.

Thanks! Longtime reader first time poster.

But I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean in real life gold, happiness and culture doesn't exactly get transported around in trucks either. In some sense it makes more sense to have food as a civ-wide commodity than the others. (I'm from new zealand where our whole economy is base of trading food to other nations )

 

[Camikaze]

Gold exists on paper, though (you don't need actual cash on hand to make a transaction), and happiness and culture aren't products that need transporting in the same sense. Food, on the other hand, is an actual product that needs moving from place A to place B to be of benefit. Not an issue in modern times, sure, but throughout the history of civilization, it has been.

 

[rikkia]

Camikaze, Gold didn't always exist on paper either so Transporting it is 'Not an issue in modern times, but throughout the history of civilization, it has been.'

Darac, I personally like your idea, food rich areas have always fed other parts of a society. Rome was built on Egyptian wheat as an example.

 

[Darac]

food rich areas have always fed other parts of a society. Rome was built on Egyptian wheat as an example.

That's the most perfect example ever!

I've been thinking about modding this in at some point but I have to find the time... And I just left my job to start my own games studio so I don't see that time coming soon.

 

[BSPollux]

Couldnt all these problems be solved by reinstalling civ4?
Moderator Action: Don't troll around here.

 

[Camikaze]

@rikkia- I guess you're right in that regard. But I'm wary of removing the need for localised food production, as it would largely undermine the importance of city placement, which really should be a pretty key aspect of an empire management game.

 

[Darac]

@rikkia- I guess you're right in that regard. But I'm wary of removing the need for localised food production, as it would largely undermine the importance of city placement, which really should be a pretty key aspect of an empire management game.

In my opinion it doesn't undermine city placement, if anything it makes it more strategic. Right not I just settle anywhere there is food because without food there's no point. With food shared across an empire you can have multiple strategies such as going for a smaller food supply and production early to get a military or go for food and rapid growth first to get a head start and then found production cities later.

You can also specialise cities more. You could have a farm city a gold city and a production city. The farm and gold cities would require less production as they could survive with only the buildings required for their job. The downside being that if you lose one of those cities then your empire is screwed. So by proxy it also makes a more strategic military game as which cities you take from your opponents also has more meaning.

 

[Pooh]

In my opinion it doesn't undermine city placement, if anything it makes it more strategic. Right not I just settle anywhere there is food because without food there's no point. With food shared across an empire you can have multiple strategies such as going for a smaller food supply and production early to get a military or go for food and rapid growth first to get a head start and then found production cities later.

You can also specialise cities more. You could have a farm city a gold city and a production city. The farm and gold cities would require less production as they could survive with only the buildings required for their job. The downside being that if you lose one of those cities then your empire is screwed. So by proxy it also makes a more strategic military game as which cities you take from your opponents also has more meaning.

Really hitting the nail right on the head here. I've made the same kind of argument in the past.

Another benefit of shared food is that it can also be used as a great abstraction for unit support since units can then draw on the empire-wide food pool (CivII had a similar system, but units drew food from their "home" city). This way the size of your military would indirectly impact on your population since more units would equal less food for city growth.

You could also introduce mechanics like increased food maintenance for units outside of your cultural borders. This could for example, eliminate the need for war weariness (not in CiV, but hey).

 

[Darac]

oooOOOooo I like that. Good additions. I'll add it to the mod list.

 

[Camikaze]

I think cities should be fairly self-sufficient, as they are. That you cannot found a city without access to food seems a pretty reasonable representation for an empire management game. This is exactly what I think city placement should be important for. I don't think it should be important in the sense of allowing you to place yourself next a resource for ease of access, despite a location being poor for a city on its own accord.

 

[Pooh]

Whether or not a city can be self-sufficient seems like a somewhat 1-dimensional approach to determining what makes a "good" site for your city. Other considerations such as access to resources not currently available or control over a strategic location (choke point, for example) are also important factors in city placement. Making food global adds nuance to the decision since it provides the option to settle marginal territories if the drain on the empire food bank is justified by other benefits. I think a problem many people have is that they don't consider that you need to have the breadbasket cities first, before you can start settling these marginal locations.

At any rate, two ideas worth batting around on this front:

1. Require cities to be connected by a trade route to the capital before they can participate in the empire-wide food system (seems obvious);

2. Tie population growth to food import dependence such that higher levels of dependence result in slower growth.