Ok, so now that I have calmed down and actually analyzed the game. My thoughts:
Happiness System: As I said, I found a TALL civ with the best growth in the game could handle the happiness with the help of musicians....at least for a good portion of the game. But once I took my foot off the happiness pedal for just a little while, I was crushed so hard.
1) Happiness can change suddenly and at large scale. I think a big reason people get into trouble with the current system is it hides the danger from you. You can be at a nice positive happy number and feel like you are doing well. But it is not uncommon to see a player drop 15 happy in a single turn and go from good to now struggling with resources. I don't know if there is a true fix for that per say, other than is it possible for the needs modifiers to go up a little smoother, or maybe can only go up X per turn? I feel like the issue likely occurs when several people gain a tech at once. This jumps up the needs multiplier...which then hits every one of your cities at once. And of course if the median city value happens to go up at the same time...then it can make it even worse.
2) The -50% buildings are too important. I do not mind that the "happy buildings" are a key part of success in the game. Nor do I mind that you cannot ignore them for too long. But I would argue that no other building punishes you so hard for not building them as these buildings....not even close.
I feel that happiness is very manageable right now if I'm keeping up on the -50% buildings, but if I don't....I fall far behind....too far behind.
I believe that the -X% should be split up a bit more. Maybe put some of it down in the south part of the tree, so a player going the war techs at least has a bone to throw at happiness.
Even if the buildings were -30% they would still be very important...I would never go the game and not build them. But it would be nice to not feel so critically tied to them as it feels right now.
3) Should Gold penalties be removed from Unhappiness? G, a key reason you divorced production penalties from happiness was because you didn't want to start a spiral. You did not want a player unable to build the infrastructure they needed to combat unhappiness.
But the thing is.....Gold = Production, just in a different form. I had never felt that as strongly as I did in this last game. I am used to being able to rush key buildings when I need to, that's the pace the game is actually built around right now. Being in an unhappy situation and not able to rush my happiness buildings was agonizing.
I think the same rule that applies to hammers should apply to gold, for the exact same reason.
4) Revolts or Barbs...not both. If we keep the revolt system, I think the barbs should be removed. The threat of revolt can already scare the crap out of you, no reason to throw even more penalties on top.
5) Should we look at the happiness quests? This did not come up in my last game but I'll mention it. Happiness is a funny thing. If you have enough of it, it almost worthless. But in that middle area, its the most important resource in the game. The +4 happiness quest can actually mean +4% science, gold, science, culture in ALL cities. There is no other quest yield that even comes close to that in terms of its strength. I think it can also throw off our impressions of how the system is working. If I manage to get 2 of those quests....that is a huge difference in how I percieve the system. That can put me from "man I'm struggling with unhappiness" to "happiness is no problem!"
6) City UI can be misleading. This is more of a peeve than a real issue but if the UI can be improved its worth looking at. The problem is that the happiness number for a city can hide the problem. You look at your capital and see a +20 happiness number there. You think....oh my capital is perfect! But if you look closer, you actually have a -8 happy from boredom!
As happiness numbers are global, that -8 really matters. Now the info is available, which is why I consider it a peeve instead of an issue, but I'm noting it for the book.
7) Rationalism: The requirement of "being happy" seems a vestige from Vanilla Civ. Is it really okay to have a policy tree that's main benefit is shut down if you slide into some unhappiness? No other policy tree works that way...and unless you are focused on happiness it is not uncommon to slip into a -5 or so here and there. That's a really harsh penalty when you have rationalism.
Gold and Policies: I mentioned that this game I struggled with gold, and I mean hard. I honestly cannot remember the last time I had such gold problems. This was the first game I can remember where I felt that I couldn't build basic units or buildings because of my gold issues (other than early game before city connections and markets are good and in place). Trade routes and trading couldn't save me. I had built all of the money buildings, even had economic union from freedom.
I analyzed my play. At first I thought maybe I didn't build enough towns and villages, but I looked and they were my normal fare. I don't normally take money beliefs from religions so it wasn't that I was reliant on that or anything. So the only answer I could come up with were my policy choices.
Tradition/Fealty/Imperialism. A key link here is that none of these trees really has any gold generation. Well....imperalism saves you a lot of gold from unit maintenance on garrisons, so it still carries gold that way.
Honestly G I'm not sure here. Maybe its a fluke, but its concerning to me. I would love other players thoughts on this policy combo to see if there is a common "gold starved" feeling.
General Notes:
1) The factory change has helped, but I still feel that its not quite competitive yet and late game buildings still take too long. Maybe we can give back a +1 hammer to engineers?
2) Since I am not the most aggressive early game player, my neighbors refusal to forgive me for 150 turns after my aggression ended was off putting. And I mean no forgive as in won't make embassy trades and DOW me constantly. Is that expected reprisal when you take 3 cities early in the game?
3) Does anyone know how your military strength is determined for the purpose of CS tribute? I understand the jist, but it always seems like a crapshoot to me. Sometimes I make force and its not enough to get them to budge. Other times I am just moving my army around to do other things and all of the CS in the area are scared of me. It feels arbitrary, but I'm sure its my lack of understanding.
4) Interception Tooltip. That tip that tells you how many interceptors are in the area can get cut off very easily in the window. That is quite annoying when you go to attack and unit and didn't realize there was interception there.
5) Goddess of Beauty: Wouldn't mind some scaling here to prevent it from being so front loaded. Maybe 2 GE/GA point, +1 per era?
6) Constab/Police Station: I think a case could be made to reduce their espionage reducers. Instead of -50/-50..maybe -30/-30? My argument is five fold:
a) Espionage effectively is removed from the game usually by constab, and most definately by police station. Its just too ineffective, you have to switch to CS coups at that point to get any real value out of them. I don't mind that spies are predominately used for coups at that point, but I feel there should be a choice. Having a long tech steal vs quicker CS coups is a choice. Having a tech steal that won't finish until the game is over vs CS coups is a no brainer.
b) You provide a new non-war option for late game. Against a run away AI, players only have a few tools at their disposal, and the majority of those involve war. With espionage back on the menu (even if its weaker than before constabs come out now), this gives players a peaceful option to fight back....which really appeals to the builder in me.
c) It makes the buildings that deny certain spy options....actually get to use those denies. Unless I am mistaken....spy actions are influence by espionage potential just as tech stealing is (and if that is not the case someone please tell me, wouldn't be the first time a fundamental mechanic was unknown to me). So spy actions pretty much drop away as soon as tech stealing does, so all of theose buildings that stop certain spy actions are pointless. This change brings them back on the menu.
d) The constab and police station are so important for happiness I would still build them with this reduction. And yes, even if you nerfed the crime modifier that I mentioned above...I would still build them! That modifier is too important, and it still greatly reduces spying, it just doesn't cripple it.
e) It better reflects real life. I never use real life as a sole argument, but anytime the game and real life can mirror is a plus. In real life, espionage is getting stronger not weaker. People are spied upon more now than any time before. So the idea that spying is nullified in the information age is a bit weird.
7) Last quick note....the espionage CS quests are really really weak. Most just give you a little influence, they don't even give you another bonus. I recognize that at this point in the game most quests are on the weak side, but these are particularly unappealing.
Happiness System: As I said, I found a TALL civ with the best growth in the game could handle the happiness with the help of musicians....at least for a good portion of the game. But once I took my foot off the happiness pedal for just a little while, I was crushed so hard.
1) Happiness can change suddenly and at large scale. I think a big reason people get into trouble with the current system is it hides the danger from you. You can be at a nice positive happy number and feel like you are doing well. But it is not uncommon to see a player drop 15 happy in a single turn and go from good to now struggling with resources. I don't know if there is a true fix for that per say, other than is it possible for the needs modifiers to go up a little smoother, or maybe can only go up X per turn? I feel like the issue likely occurs when several people gain a tech at once. This jumps up the needs multiplier...which then hits every one of your cities at once. And of course if the median city value happens to go up at the same time...then it can make it even worse.
2) The -50% buildings are too important. I do not mind that the "happy buildings" are a key part of success in the game. Nor do I mind that you cannot ignore them for too long. But I would argue that no other building punishes you so hard for not building them as these buildings....not even close.
I feel that happiness is very manageable right now if I'm keeping up on the -50% buildings, but if I don't....I fall far behind....too far behind.
I believe that the -X% should be split up a bit more. Maybe put some of it down in the south part of the tree, so a player going the war techs at least has a bone to throw at happiness.
Even if the buildings were -30% they would still be very important...I would never go the game and not build them. But it would be nice to not feel so critically tied to them as it feels right now.
3) Should Gold penalties be removed from Unhappiness? G, a key reason you divorced production penalties from happiness was because you didn't want to start a spiral. You did not want a player unable to build the infrastructure they needed to combat unhappiness.
But the thing is.....Gold = Production, just in a different form. I had never felt that as strongly as I did in this last game. I am used to being able to rush key buildings when I need to, that's the pace the game is actually built around right now. Being in an unhappy situation and not able to rush my happiness buildings was agonizing.
I think the same rule that applies to hammers should apply to gold, for the exact same reason.
4) Revolts or Barbs...not both. If we keep the revolt system, I think the barbs should be removed. The threat of revolt can already scare the crap out of you, no reason to throw even more penalties on top.
5) Should we look at the happiness quests? This did not come up in my last game but I'll mention it. Happiness is a funny thing. If you have enough of it, it almost worthless. But in that middle area, its the most important resource in the game. The +4 happiness quest can actually mean +4% science, gold, science, culture in ALL cities. There is no other quest yield that even comes close to that in terms of its strength. I think it can also throw off our impressions of how the system is working. If I manage to get 2 of those quests....that is a huge difference in how I percieve the system. That can put me from "man I'm struggling with unhappiness" to "happiness is no problem!"
6) City UI can be misleading. This is more of a peeve than a real issue but if the UI can be improved its worth looking at. The problem is that the happiness number for a city can hide the problem. You look at your capital and see a +20 happiness number there. You think....oh my capital is perfect! But if you look closer, you actually have a -8 happy from boredom!
As happiness numbers are global, that -8 really matters. Now the info is available, which is why I consider it a peeve instead of an issue, but I'm noting it for the book.
7) Rationalism: The requirement of "being happy" seems a vestige from Vanilla Civ. Is it really okay to have a policy tree that's main benefit is shut down if you slide into some unhappiness? No other policy tree works that way...and unless you are focused on happiness it is not uncommon to slip into a -5 or so here and there. That's a really harsh penalty when you have rationalism.
Gold and Policies: I mentioned that this game I struggled with gold, and I mean hard. I honestly cannot remember the last time I had such gold problems. This was the first game I can remember where I felt that I couldn't build basic units or buildings because of my gold issues (other than early game before city connections and markets are good and in place). Trade routes and trading couldn't save me. I had built all of the money buildings, even had economic union from freedom.
I analyzed my play. At first I thought maybe I didn't build enough towns and villages, but I looked and they were my normal fare. I don't normally take money beliefs from religions so it wasn't that I was reliant on that or anything. So the only answer I could come up with were my policy choices.
Tradition/Fealty/Imperialism. A key link here is that none of these trees really has any gold generation. Well....imperalism saves you a lot of gold from unit maintenance on garrisons, so it still carries gold that way.
Honestly G I'm not sure here. Maybe its a fluke, but its concerning to me. I would love other players thoughts on this policy combo to see if there is a common "gold starved" feeling.
General Notes:
1) The factory change has helped, but I still feel that its not quite competitive yet and late game buildings still take too long. Maybe we can give back a +1 hammer to engineers?
2) Since I am not the most aggressive early game player, my neighbors refusal to forgive me for 150 turns after my aggression ended was off putting. And I mean no forgive as in won't make embassy trades and DOW me constantly. Is that expected reprisal when you take 3 cities early in the game?
3) Does anyone know how your military strength is determined for the purpose of CS tribute? I understand the jist, but it always seems like a crapshoot to me. Sometimes I make force and its not enough to get them to budge. Other times I am just moving my army around to do other things and all of the CS in the area are scared of me. It feels arbitrary, but I'm sure its my lack of understanding.
4) Interception Tooltip. That tip that tells you how many interceptors are in the area can get cut off very easily in the window. That is quite annoying when you go to attack and unit and didn't realize there was interception there.
5) Goddess of Beauty: Wouldn't mind some scaling here to prevent it from being so front loaded. Maybe 2 GE/GA point, +1 per era?
6) Constab/Police Station: I think a case could be made to reduce their espionage reducers. Instead of -50/-50..maybe -30/-30? My argument is five fold:
a) Espionage effectively is removed from the game usually by constab, and most definately by police station. Its just too ineffective, you have to switch to CS coups at that point to get any real value out of them. I don't mind that spies are predominately used for coups at that point, but I feel there should be a choice. Having a long tech steal vs quicker CS coups is a choice. Having a tech steal that won't finish until the game is over vs CS coups is a no brainer.
b) You provide a new non-war option for late game. Against a run away AI, players only have a few tools at their disposal, and the majority of those involve war. With espionage back on the menu (even if its weaker than before constabs come out now), this gives players a peaceful option to fight back....which really appeals to the builder in me.
c) It makes the buildings that deny certain spy options....actually get to use those denies. Unless I am mistaken....spy actions are influence by espionage potential just as tech stealing is (and if that is not the case someone please tell me, wouldn't be the first time a fundamental mechanic was unknown to me). So spy actions pretty much drop away as soon as tech stealing does, so all of theose buildings that stop certain spy actions are pointless. This change brings them back on the menu.
d) The constab and police station are so important for happiness I would still build them with this reduction. And yes, even if you nerfed the crime modifier that I mentioned above...I would still build them! That modifier is too important, and it still greatly reduces spying, it just doesn't cripple it.
e) It better reflects real life. I never use real life as a sole argument, but anytime the game and real life can mirror is a plus. In real life, espionage is getting stronger not weaker. People are spied upon more now than any time before. So the idea that spying is nullified in the information age is a bit weird.
7) Last quick note....the espionage CS quests are really really weak. Most just give you a little influence, they don't even give you another bonus. I recognize that at this point in the game most quests are on the weak side, but these are particularly unappealing.
