The muskets I gained during the assault. I both mentioned the lack of tercio (which the AI did have access to and used in the initial assault but never followed up with more) and that it should have committed its forces in bulk earlier. Mainly I was complimenting the positioning, the AI was putting his units in good places for the most part.
New Beta Version - August 16th (8/16)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
The muskets I gained during the assault. I both mentioned the lack of tercio (which the AI did have access to and used in the initial assault but never followed up with more) and that it should have committed its forces in bulk earlier. Mainly I was complimenting the positioning, the AI was putting his units in good places for the most part.
Noting that I'm in another game, this time as Indonesia, and once again its Turn 240 and I just cannot get happy with 10 cities. I'm also finding the unhappiness UI misleading, because it suggests that "if you have boredom and you build this building that removes boredom, you will be happier". But most of the time once I build it, the unhappiness just get replaced with something else.
So I don't know what changed but something feels up. Poverty is second worse unhappiness I have Tithe, do you would think that wouldn't be a big problem.
I'm also on another isolated continent, but this time I am getting war fest like normal. So I don't know that last game everyone was so peaceful with me.
So I don't know what changed but something feels up. Poverty is second worse unhappiness I have Tithe, do you would think that wouldn't be a big problem.
I'm also on another isolated continent, but this time I am getting war fest like normal. So I don't know that last game everyone was so peaceful with me.
SuperNoobCamper
King
IMO the worst two offenders in the current happiness system are
- Empire needs modifier for empire size that just makes happiness unmanageable after a certain point no matter how high your yields are because your citizens simply expect more even if you are the tech/policy leader simply because more citizens equals less yields/citizen so growth have to be halted and you are kinda stuck with this population for the rest of the game which reminds me of the dreaded OG happiness system from vanilla civ that forced halting growth altogether after a certain point as you cannot get more luxuries and that i think we might want to reduce that modifier just a tad bit.
- the global median being so stiff that sometimes you have to conquer someone just to get the median to be a little lower.
You are probably just falling behind the global yields comparisons being alone and isolated on a continent on your own. So it actually sounds kinda of normal for your situation. Institute some serious population-control until the cities get the infrastructure needed to deal with it.
It is one of those weird things about the unhappiness system, you can fix one thing and another one just fills the spot. So while it seems like it didn't fix anything, it did fix something but some other aspect of unhappiness just became more prominent then instead. Ungrateful bastards that your subjects are. But always remember that you can't be more unhappy then your size, so if you have a size X city and X happy citizens but can't handle X+1 then don't grow.
It is one of those weird things about the unhappiness system, you can fix one thing and another one just fills the spot. So while it seems like it didn't fix anything, it did fix something but some other aspect of unhappiness just became more prominent then instead. Ungrateful bastards that your subjects are. But always remember that you can't be more unhappy then your size, so if you have a size X city and X happy citizens but can't handle X+1 then don't grow.
Elite Spud
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 19
I recall a suggestion a month or so ago that involved defensive buildings (Walls, Castles, Arsenals, etc.) applying their needs reduction modifiers directly to the empire modifier itself instead of multiplying alongside it in order to more aggressively combat large empire unhappiness. The idea was that each building would reduce the empire unhappiness scaler by a certain %, so that it always remained possible to eventually reign in a large empire's unhappiness.
For instance, if the % per defensive building was 10%, and you have a wall, castle, and arsenal built in a city, and that city's empire scaler was 150%, it would be reduced to 1.5-(1.5*.3)=1.05 or 105%. Since the buildings are locked behind tech, you wouldn't be able to go super wide until well into the game, but you'd always be able to dig yourself out of a hole, and you'd always have the opportunity late into the game to start controlling more cities than before (the modern infrastructure would allow you to).
The problem I have with going too wide right now is that eventually it doesn't matter how much happiness you get since it will always be, at best, equal to your unhappiness. Public Works help a bit by reducing the empire needs like Walls do, but they can't keep up with the compounding empire scaler. It doesn't matter that each Public Works gives extra happiness if you're already maxed out. Perhaps if public works reduced the empire scaler like the above instead of defensive building it would be more useful for those extra-wide empires. Isn't the city scaler on tech/policy costs enough on its own to discourage settling/annexing too many cities?
Jiggly
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 202
I don't seem to be getting the 3 Science, Production, Faith and Culture from the Fealty Finisher. I get the other bonuses but when I click the final Fealty policy i assume you are supposed to see the add value immediately no? All my cities are my religion so I should get the +3 and see a boost of all my stats but they stay same. Is there something im missing or is this a bug?
Edit: im also not getting the shared religion tourism modifier. So the only thing im getting is the ability to build Red Fort
Edit: im also not getting the shared religion tourism modifier. So the only thing im getting is the ability to build Red Fort
Before we talk about happiness fixes, I am reporting my experiences mainly to see if they are lining up with others. If happiness is a common problem with wide in this version, than we can address it. If its just me, than its time for me to "git gud"
It isn't just communitas, I'm playing on continents and there are dramatic changes to how resources are distributed.
Okay, I looked at the in game files.
For a standard map, each new city raises the cost of future social policies by 7%.
For small and below, it's 10%.
For large and above, it's 5%.
That difference is substantial. You should be able to complete techs and social policies at significantly earlier turns on larger maps.
Here is an example of the math. Let's say you are moving towards your 7th policy and you have 5 cities.
On standard, it would cost 1,580. Each additional city raises this cost by 90 or 95.
On large or higher it would cost 1,685. New cities cost 65 or 70.
On small or smaller it would cost 1,845. New cities cost 130 or 135
Viewed another way, let's say your goal is to get a new social policy roughly every 15 turns. You just got your 6th policy, and you are looking towards your 7th. You are unsure if a new city will be positive in culture or negative in culture.
On small maps, that city would need 8.7 culture to "break even"
On standard maps, it would need 6.3
On large maps, it would need 4.3
The ideal number of cities would change drastically between these map sizes.
For a standard map, each new city raises the cost of future social policies by 7%.
For small and below, it's 10%.
For large and above, it's 5%.
That difference is substantial. You should be able to complete techs and social policies at significantly earlier turns on larger maps.
Here is an example of the math. Let's say you are moving towards your 7th policy and you have 5 cities.
On standard, it would cost 1,580. Each additional city raises this cost by 90 or 95.
On large or higher it would cost 1,685. New cities cost 65 or 70.
On small or smaller it would cost 1,845. New cities cost 130 or 135
Viewed another way, let's say your goal is to get a new social policy roughly every 15 turns. You just got your 6th policy, and you are looking towards your 7th. You are unsure if a new city will be positive in culture or negative in culture.
On small maps, that city would need 8.7 culture to "break even"
On standard maps, it would need 6.3
On large maps, it would need 4.3
The ideal number of cities would change drastically between these map sizes.
Only happiness-related change is that I've been consistently tweaking AI building orders over the past few versions.
G
InkAxis
King
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 785
Can you elaborate on the changes you are seeing? I haven't noticed anything yet.
Are you noticing stone on hills? Maybe I accidentally did play communitas.
A detailed guide like this would probably be seen more often in it's own thread.
Deljade
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 312
There are three types of cities I found on Huge.
-Initial expansion, this is 4-6 new cities. They will always pay back their science and culture and tourism. The thing that stops the initial expansion is unhappiness or, in more cramped starts, lack of space.
-Filler cities 0+. Usually to prevent the AI from encroaching on me, or to capture strategics and get some more hubs to train units at. These will be a burden on culture and science in the short run but somewhat pay back eventually, except with tourism. On more open maps or If I play my cards right and take advantage of the landmasses I am given I can get quite a few of them. Usually it's 2 though. These start when I get a surplus of happiness, usually late Medieval, and stop when the space is filled.
-Colonies. Those I do if I don't have happiness issues and there's some very rich terrain overseas or a great strategic location, some resources that I need, if I get bonuses to Coastal tiles or just for fun you know. I've estimated the cost of these many times and they rarely pay for it. Starting at any point after Astronomy, usually end up with 3 or none.
The AI is also very competent at acquiring space in a similar manner.
There's a bunch of Huge map connoisseurs and frankly we heard enough times that the balancing is done for Standard size. Despite that, Huge map is a system that works fine. There is not a particular imbalance between expansionist and tall civs, in fact, some tall civs end up being huge threats in my games. Dido may be a repeat offender but I've seen her crumble to warmongers a few times. The culture and science penalty reductions allow for appropriate conquests for the size of the map. And rest assured if there's anything blatantly unbalanced we'll talk about it.
-Initial expansion, this is 4-6 new cities. They will always pay back their science and culture and tourism. The thing that stops the initial expansion is unhappiness or, in more cramped starts, lack of space.
-Filler cities 0+. Usually to prevent the AI from encroaching on me, or to capture strategics and get some more hubs to train units at. These will be a burden on culture and science in the short run but somewhat pay back eventually, except with tourism. On more open maps or If I play my cards right and take advantage of the landmasses I am given I can get quite a few of them. Usually it's 2 though. These start when I get a surplus of happiness, usually late Medieval, and stop when the space is filled.
-Colonies. Those I do if I don't have happiness issues and there's some very rich terrain overseas or a great strategic location, some resources that I need, if I get bonuses to Coastal tiles or just for fun you know. I've estimated the cost of these many times and they rarely pay for it. Starting at any point after Astronomy, usually end up with 3 or none.
The AI is also very competent at acquiring space in a similar manner.
There's a bunch of Huge map connoisseurs and frankly we heard enough times that the balancing is done for Standard size. Despite that, Huge map is a system that works fine. There is not a particular imbalance between expansionist and tall civs, in fact, some tall civs end up being huge threats in my games. Dido may be a repeat offender but I've seen her crumble to warmongers a few times. The culture and science penalty reductions allow for appropriate conquests for the size of the map. And rest assured if there's anything blatantly unbalanced we'll talk about it.
Last edited:
Voremonger
Warlord
If you are talking about the specific numeric values that I assigned: the scale on those numbers is completely arbitrary, all that matters are the ratios of the values.
It's like comparing the height of several people with different units of measurement.
You can compare their height in meters, centimeters, feet, or inches; the numerical values will change but their ratios will not.
If you are talking about the ratios of the values: I chose those based on my own intuition as there is no feasible way of measuring them.
Typically if you ask a lot of people to estimate a quantity that they have some knowledge of the average is relatively accurate.
tu_79
Deity
The function that places the bonus resources now uses parts of Communitas. There were a few fixes for where a resource might spawn. The biggest change you people are puzzled about is that they are not so evenly distributed as before. It creates clusters more often. Clusters of resources and clusters of empty land which I find useful for some farming and some unique improvements.
Regarding happiness, it might be that this version is harder, but let's not forget that partially the intention is to prevent the human player to be in control of too many cities. Puppets and vassals should be the default way to extend power, only annexing when the number of controlled cities is still low or when the ability to produce units in situ is much needed. From what I'm reading, puppets could be at fault, providing more unhappiness than they merit. Puppets, in their current iteration, can grow as big as normal cities and there's incentive for annexing when they grow too big. That's why I don't give puppets food or production improvements, only villages and roads and forts, if I want that city to stay as puppet.
@Recursive Do you know if it is possible to create a new vassal estate from your puppet cities peacefully? Or turn them into allied city states?
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I'm very aware of the differences. My argument is in fact based on the fact that different map sizes inherently play differently from one another.
The cost/benefit situation is not the same though. Building six cities city on a Duel map vs. building six cities on a Huge map are strategically vastly different, even with the same civ density. Your territory matters more when territory you don't claim will all belong to one rival for example. On the other hand, huge maps also contain larger empires when warmongers expand so you need to have enough resources to deal with different kinds of threats. There are many factors to consider.
Different people are going to have different views on whether a particular change is good or bad. But what would be really nice is to have these changes documented so that everyone is clear on what is actually going on. It's rather confusing otherwise. It doesn't help when people talk as if it should be obvious or that things haven't changed.
This is wrong. It changed a lot more than just clustering.
Stone now appears on hills. Horses appear on tundra and desert. The overall amount of horses in the world has roughly doubled. Those are massive balance changes.
I see smaller changes (like Bananas on Marsh) too. These might be good, they might be bad, but either way they aren't clearly communicated and that is bad.
Voremonger
Warlord
I made another figure for the worth of new Cities.
The x axis represents the number of Cities including the new City.
The y axis represents how good a new annexed/founded City would need to be relative to the average production of Culture/Science per City in your empire to break even.
Attachments
A rough change log about resource distribution is that they now strictly follow the terrains shown in Civilopedia. Another objective was to make early game resources (and Uranium) spread in lower amounts across the map evenly (which is why fresh water desert horses exist as the only exception to the Civilopedia rule), and late game resources spawning only in specific terrains, but in large amounts.
I aimed for each player to have 12 horses in average (to build 6 agribusiness), so 96 horses in a standard map. You may be seeing more horses in Continents/Pangaea because of the larger amount of flat featureless grassland/plains they produce.
More detailed changelog will be very technical, I'm afraid. Luckily it's very easy to tweak the frequency of each resource spawn in each terrain after the changes I've made.
- Status
