1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is Health really the same as Happiness in Civ V?

Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by tareyza, Oct 25, 2014.

  1. tareyza

    tareyza Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    The growth limiter in Civ V, happiness, was relatively effective at limiting growth and forcing a choice between many cities as opposed to many population cities. However, I can't help but notice that health, the corresponding mechanic in Civ BE, doesn't work the same way. Happiness in V worked by reducing growth by 75% when unhappy. However, all health does is reduce science and culture by 10%. 10% is ALMOST NOTHING! A single extra city has that much of an impact on culture. I feel like the extra population (and therefore the extra production, energy, etc.) would much more than offset the tiny change in science. The extra population could, for example, build an extra trade route to get the science back, and then have the production to do other things. It just seems that health is not even close to an effective countermeasure to large population. Any thoughts?
     
  2. bhavv

    bhavv Glorious World Dictator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,358
    Its not meant to be the same thing, that's why it has a different name.
     
  3. tareyza

    tareyza Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    The growth limiter in each civ game always has a different name. IV it was gold. V it was happiness. Now its health. Yes, its a different name, but it has the same function. There's no other growth-limiting mechanic in the game....
     
  4. bhavv

    bhavv Glorious World Dictator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,358
    Its not a growth limiter, its more of a growth penalty this time, but you can carry on growing if you want and just deal with reduced output.

    And there was also no growth limits in Civ 1-3 or SMAC anyway, only in 4 and 5.
     
  5. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    Per Civ IV design notes, corruption & waste was intended as the brake to expansion for Civ I thru III and SMAC. They conceded it didn't work at all.

    Back to BE, note that penalty for being slightly negative is very mild. (Unlike Civ V where if you hit -1 happiness you would have a 75% growth penalty)
     
  6. CaptainPatch

    CaptainPatch Lifelong gamer

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    832
    Location:
    San Rafael, CA, USA
    I agree that there is a strong similarity between Civ 5 Happiness and CBE Health. Both _directly_ affect the optimum level of city or empire population. The biggest difference I see between the two is that in Civ 5 there were a lot more Happiness-makers available, right from the start. In CBE, there are darn few Health-makers available, and their lack of availability WILL affect the player's tech development path through the tech web. As the game is now, it won't be until late game before the player gets his empire Health under control.
     
  7. GAGA Extrem

    GAGA Extrem Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,581
    Gender:
    Male
    Health does have ab effect on the game, but by no means is it as powerful as in CIV5. You can easily ignore it an fix the problem later (as in: a 100 turns later).
     
  8. Aedn

    Aedn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    47
    Yes, health is mostly a non issue in the game, unless you expand as fast as possible, you will not really have any drawbacks. The negative impacts can easily be offset by the virtue bonuses.

    Going negative in health, seems to be expected to be honest in the early game.
     

Share This Page