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

Minus 20 and below health is...

Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by soprof, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. terraslayer

    terraslayer Chieftain

    Sep 13, 2010
    Seems like they took the base code from vanilla Civ 5, modified it, and this is what you get. Hence why we have the same problems we had before the fixes. So now they'll have to do the same basic fixes they already did with the base game. One step forward, two steps backwards.
  2. Vohbo

    Vohbo Warlord

    Jan 7, 2013
    The problem is much worse than there not being penalties though, because it's difficult early game to expand and stay in the positives, without luxuries, city states and trading to solve this problem. You are completely dependant on buildings and policies. And I think we all agree that for health purposes, the policy trees are not exactly balanced.
  3. CraziFuzzy

    CraziFuzzy Warlord

    Jul 15, 2013
    The problem with hard thresholds like this is that they end up causing the gamer to focus hard on the numbers, and min/max to stay just above the threshold they desire. penalties should be more organic, variable losses. Yes, health should affect trade routes, but in a variable way.

    2% drop in production per point of unhealthiness. (-100% at -50 net health)
    An unhealthy workforce is not effective

    3% drop in trade route yield per point of unhealthiness. (-100% @ -33.33 net health)
    The fear of plague drastically reduces inter-communal trade.

    4% drop in food yield per point of unhealthiness. (-100% at -25 net health)
    Unhealthy populations simply do not grow, so the food reduction SHOULD be the most significant. This also results in some natural population control, as unhealthiness from overpopulation will result in food shortage, which will cause population loss.

    Energy production in this system should be relatively automated, therefore health should have no significant affect on it. This allows 'buying' your way out of unhealth, if you have the technology to do so.

    Culture can grow as a result of strife just as it can grow in prosperity, therefore culture production should also be unrelated to health.
  4. Tiedote

    Tiedote Chieftain

    Nov 4, 2014
    I kind of like how relatively irrelevant health is in BE. I hated how Civ V railroaded you into making 4 city micro empires. BE has more options. Maybe the current system is a bit too kind and gentle but expanding too much still makes it harder to get techs and culture. Some Virtues only work if you are healthy.

    I think something like one negative unit of health = 1% reduction to everything could work. So -10 would be OKish. -20 kinda bad. -100 would be a suicide. Totaly absurd amounts of negative health should be a really bad idea and would stop the craziest city sprawl attempts whilst not forcing you to play microstates.
  5. Strategist83

    Strategist83 King

    Dec 30, 2005
    It isn't correct you can ignore Health, even if you are far from the first to suggest that. Worst thing is, with the sheer amount of people complaining about it Firaxis might end up over-reacting to it and increasing penalties much more than is needed.

    I don't think your screenshot proves anything other than that you played a very successful game - not that Health is broken. You have 249 science/turn, which is extremely high by turn 136. Yet, you also have have just 39 culture/turn and -70 energy/turn - and your city in the screenshot has just 1.4 food per turn, ie. it is barely not starving (that 50% growth penalty is not something you can just ignore!). Judging by that, my guess is you conquered a lot of neighbouring [Apollo] AIs. So, if your point is that you can conquer lots and lots of cities and still come out on top despite massive unhealth then yes, you are correct. The penalties for unhealth aren't enough to offset hugely successful conquest - which is perhaps only good? Self-founding cities with no conquests for that high science output is unlikely, though, even on favorable starts. Thus, if I'm correct about what happened in your game it would seem your real complaint should be that it's too easy to defeat the notoriously weak AI. Which I think we can all agree on but which was sadly also clear to be the case even from the glimpses we caught of the game before it was released. Firaxis has completely neglected to do anything to improve the AI; it has the exact same problems as in V since it was just uncritically copied over from the previous game.

    Headsup: Negative Health much worse than expected

    The main thing that takes a hit from negative Health is Culture. In the early game your cities only produce 2-3 Culture/turn (from Old Earth Relic with possible quest for +1 culture) unless you picked Artists. Going into unhealth reduces that not just by 10%, but by 50-33%, respectively. This is due to Culture always rounding to an integer rather than a decimal value. That means even -1 Health drastically slows your tile acquisition and, worse, your Virtue acquisition. A 5-city early empire produces 16 culture/turn at 0 Health but only 11 culture/turn at -1. You'll have significantly fewer policies and it will take you much longer to reach the really powerful ones at the bottom of the virtue trees if you ignore Health.

    Also, the -10% global production penalty at -10 Health is non-negligible, especially for larger empires. Is it really worth founding that extra city if it is going to drive up costs across the empire by 10%, in addition to the usual science and culture cost increases? No, it isn't. Completely stunting your growth with the 50% penalty from hitting -20 is of course even worse. So, these penalties are significant and they do[i/[ work. The only way to ignore these factors is through warfare; with normal play they are crippling... and the warfare option only works against the AI, because of how poor it is.

    In conclusion: I'm not necessarily saying Health is fine and just right how it is. It isn't correct, however, that you can simply ignore it and run a massively unhealthy empire if building up peacefully. That isn't efficient. So, I do hope Firaxis doesn't make drastic changes that aren't thought through to appease the negative-Health crowd, because the system isn't as broken as it is being made out to be. What they really need to work on is that **** AI.

    This is the real meat of the problem with regard to the Health issue: Trade routes. Trade routes in BE aren't just unbalanced, being way too powerful (with most cities gaining more from trade routes than they are actually producing themselves... what?), they also work in ways that make no sense, ie. trading from a small city to a large one actually gives the large city a bigger benefit than if it traded a similar, powerful city, and a newly-founded city can trade internationally for just as much energy/science as if the trade route was sent from your large capital. If trade routes are made less powerful in a patch, the Health issues will simultaneously subside as new cities will take much longer to pay back their costs. That seems to be the real solution, rather than a massive Health nerf.

    For the record, terraslayer, I don't think the way trade routes aren't effected by Health is necessarily a bug; trade routes have always ignored regular factors (they also receive no positive multipliers from city improvements). I do agree with you that it is poorly designed and should be changed, though, so whether this is a bug or by design is ultimately just semantics.
  6. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Apr 3, 2004
  7. Haggbart

    Haggbart King

    Sep 20, 2010

    I'm not gonna comment too much on what you said about negative health consequences other than I diagree completely with what you say, and I outtech the AI without any conquest by REX even staying in negative health on Apollo. That should not be possible.

    However, you completely ignore the fact that tuning health penalties to make the player work hard to stay above certain limits while the AI on high dif. levels have bonuses to help it, is an easy thing to do to make the game harder. But making the AI more competant to give a bigger challenge without said bonuses has been tried since CiV in 2010, rather unsuccesfully.

    I'd rather have a balance patch that would give me a challenge next month than waiting for something not very likely to happen in another 4 years.
  8. Becephalus

    Becephalus King

    Nov 30, 2005
    I never understand why games like this have tiers instead of sliding penalties. Makes it much less "gamey". For each - health you get 1% minus on each type of production. Or make the function what you want, but don't have "tiers". Tiers are stupid lazy game design.
  9. soprof

    soprof Warlord

    Feb 20, 2013
    Sydney, Australia
    Strategist83: was an NQ game with more or less decent players. I was building cities non-stop(inc. bad spots), into mass caravans, which resulted a VERY heavy hammer advantage, while staying ahead in both science and energyPerTurn.

    It was so clear in that game that there's no reason to play anything else than ICS.

    Game's will become decent when everyone understands it and starts fightening for the land. Problem is that game mechanics are bad for massive caravan management and massive unit management.
  10. The_Reckoning

    The_Reckoning Prince

    Sep 21, 2005
    I was thinking about what to do with health

    From the quarantine idea earlier in the thread, I think an interesting idea would be to make what you get out of trade routes entirely proportional to health. So at -40, your trade routes cease to be useful. At -20 they're halved, +20 they're +50% and +40 they're doubled.

    It would put a limit on how far you can expand and still reap the imba trade routes. You could still REX but you'd be tamed by your health. Additionally it would reward varying levels of tallness, so if you wanted to stick around on 3 cities and as high health as possible, they'd have some impressive yields, making foreign/station routes super profitable, to balance out your lack of cities.
  11. GeoModder

    GeoModder Deity

    Nov 29, 2005
    That's where the defectors covert operation is for.
  12. spider1

    spider1 Prince

    Mar 29, 2006
    There should be greater penalties for bad health, and better benefits for good health.

    I don't seem to see any benefits for health past a positive 20. Am I wrong on that and am missing something?
  13. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Apr 3, 2004
    No.. rebels are generated Near the unhappy/foreign city and attempt to take it (and as such can be countered by friendly units in the area)
  14. GeoModder

    GeoModder Deity

    Nov 29, 2005
    I know defectors aren't 'taken' from the target's colonial army.
    Still, rebels as you describe it are too much CiV-like. And codewise you'd need a second native/barb AI then.
  15. Beaver79

    Beaver79 Warlord

    Sep 24, 2013
    This game is such a mess.

    It pretty much can't be argued that the most efficient way to play this game is to do infinite city spam (ICS), and get trade routes up.

    Off the top of my head other civ games tried to stop you from doing this by:

    1 - happiness penalties - if you went too far over your cities would rebel and you couldn't do anything.
    2 - Tied national wonder buildings to having to have a building built in every city before you could make that national wonder.
    3 - science and culture penalties for the more cities that you have. These could be overcome if your city got big enough and had enough buildings. This means that if the newly founded city has the potential to become decent, building the city is worth it, building a bunch of cities in the snow that couldn't possibly grow past a 3 was detrimental.
    4 - AI got mad at you for building them too fast.

    For BE

    1 - They made it so that happiness(health) doesn't really matter except for small bonuses/penalties. It would be hard for them to change this or the OPness of the prosperity virtue would become even greater. There are 3 virtues in there that give you health and if you take all 3 it's almost impossible to get below + 20 health. If they made -20 health make your cities revolt you would be forced to either have 4 cities or go prosperity and have unlimited.
    2 - I have no idea why they took national wonders out. That removed way more strategy than most of these apologists will admit. Do I build a 5th city or finish a lab in my 1st 4 so that I can build the +15% to science national wonder. Now there is no choice, build that settler.
    3 - The 1st day a city is founded in BE you rush buy a trade depot, autoplant, and 3 vessels. You now have +13 hammers + 4 food, 20 energy/turn, and 20 science/turn. That day 1 city has surpassed the science penatly for number of cities by a large margin, and it can crank out new buildings in a couple turns.
    4 - I've yet to see the AI tell me I'm settling too many cities. Settling too close to them yes, but not number.

    Infinite city spam is fun every once in a while, but it shouldn't be the goal every game or the game gets boring. BE really has no mechanics to stop you from doing it except maybe health. If they mess with health too much, it will break other parts of the game imo. This one really needed another couple months of development.
  16. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Feb 11, 2005
    Civ V released in a much worse state than that. I remember having to tell people here how to build cities bigger than size 20 - the spamming was so bad that the developers dealt with ICS by instituting a hard 3 tile limit on city expansion.

    This is an exaggeration. I have gone into negative health with all the Prosperity Health Virtues. It has to do with how fast you expand and grow.

    There was no choice in the National Wonder scheme, either. There was a set point at which settling paused for optimal building of the National Wonder, and then you resumed. It's still a pure calculation.

    That would be the "Faction thinks you're settling cities too aggressively" penalty. I've actually had to cut back expansion speed a few times because the AI was starting to get ansty about it.
  17. forty2j

    forty2j King

    Dec 6, 2010
    I haven't either.. but I HAVE seen "Where are your cities? You think only of form, not of function" with like 8 cities.
  18. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Jul 7, 2005
    I think I've seen that too many cities penalty, too. But that only comes up if you have more cities than the AI, so if the AI is also REXing, it won't be an issue.
  19. Makaz

    Makaz Warlord

    Feb 25, 2010
    Well... I just think everyone here is right, in their own way.

    The problem is that a single game is meant to be played differently:
    + tall or wide or OCC
    + peacefully or not

    And the challenge ahead is to a have the game mechanics match up to this diversity.

    I agree with the fact that WIDE empires should have restrictions (to avoid snowballing effect) but as a mainly domination player... it's really counter intuitive and even annoying to have to STOP a war you are winning to wait that more health buildings or improvements are made. Yes you have shredded that IA, only his capital is left but you are -19 health for taking 3 cities in 5 turns and you need to WAIT to take the capital in order NOT to cripple your whole empire.

    This is unfair, painful and annoying. How is taking one more city on the other side of the world going to depreciate health in my capital isolated from the conflict to a point where people will riot in the streets because they apparently start smelling like rotten camembert since we took that last city ?

    In a game complex like Civ, you cannot look at one of the factor and tweak it to make things right. Doesn't work like that. Balance is achieved by a variety of means and small changes at different levels that create a new equilibrium.

    1./ Penalties on large empire are made by giving a malus to science and Culture.

    --> make it a malus to Growth as well, and make the malus more consistent with the advantage of getting new cities but do NOT touch health. Malus should scale differently for annexed/built cities vs puppetted cities.

    Creating a city should be a real question, a debate for yourself ? Do I really need it ? Can I build it intelligently enough so that it becomes an asset and contributes in a way efficiently to my empire ? Find a sweet spot, to satisfy ICS players, average size of a city, so that make it impossible to be ICS & Tall at the same time.

    2./ Stop with this stupid idea of local vs global health. Choose one (local, like civ 4) and get over with it. Solves the debate. Health or happiness is NOT the way to balance wide vs tall -- malusses are. Make it difficult for each city to grow tall, and hence more rewarding and requiring more carefull thought micro management.

    3./ Balance the TR yields ! Yes not modify health to impact the TR, just make TR damn less rewarding early game and academies / specialists more rewarding late game (or any other mechanics like %ages which do not apply to TR yields and get worth if for larger cities). So that a tall empire which has less TR can compete building specific buildings or running super specialists with output generated by smaller cities.

    There are many ways to address the issues the game currently has. Solving it cannot be the fact of tuning a single parameter. Everything needs to be considered in its entirety. That it has not been done by FRX at launch can only mean 2 things:

    1./ the devs have no clue on what type of game they are making (doesn't take months of thinking to get to that point)

    2./ the producers don't care making the game a hit or not. Civ will always be civ and people will buy it whether they fail it or not. So all is a question of money - will the extra investment (skilled game designer or extra design time) increase the number of sales sufficiently to be worth it ? Apparently they thought it NOT, since 99% of the player base will not play it deep enough to get to that type of consideration. Which is actually how the world is running and why achievements exist in the first place

    + Game Project Manager : Boss, game has a really good basis, we need to work on the IA and the balance to make it the best 4x of all time - suggest spend one more month focussing on this
    + Director : How many players won hardest difficulty after 1 month on the previous game.
    + Game PM : Why ? 1% I think
    + Director : So you are asking me to increase project cost by 10% to satisfy something only 1% of the players will really get into ?
    + Game PM : OK
  20. Recon Rover

    Recon Rover Warlord

    Nov 11, 2014
    I believe in the diplomacy box they mention that you're expanding too quickly as a negative against you.

Share This Page