New Beta Version - June 14th (6/14)

[inzlinger]

What Tu is suggesting is that this game was not a standard India example, that it was in fact a play that was exceptionally focused on growth. In other words, there was nothing predestined about this play, it was "crazily" focused on growth, and paid the price for that.

India is predstinated for growth, that is what I've said. And pineapple didn't focused on growth, he only didin't avoided it activly.

 

[Moi Magnus]

By the way, this India talk would be better on the India's thread, isn't it?
Because if the problem is just India, it probably mean that India need some happiness bonuses. Having a civ that can afford "focussing on food" is I think a good things for the diversity.
(And having the highest possible population in my capital would probably be the main reason why I would chose India as a civ. Maybe try to reach the "every single tile + every single specialist worked" in end game. So I would be sad if that's not a viable strategy at low difficulty.)

 

[Txurce]

With regard to unhappiness balance, others have mentioned a quasi-anomaly regarding crime, vs other unhappiness. In my own games, I've noticed a discrepancy in crime unhappiness vs any other, based completely on the size of the city. The examples below are on both Immortal and Emperor, and in scenarios where a dominant religion has my happiness through the roof (70-90).

My capital (also my biggest city, steadily growing to the 30-35 range by the late 300s) tends to have 4-5 unhappiness, vs all my other cities (15-25 range by late 300s), which are at 0 or maybe an occasional 1. That seems like too wide a range based on a moderate pop difference. Could a relatively minor size discrepancy be triggering an excessive amount of crime unhappiness?

 

[grmagne]

With regard to unhappiness balance, others have mentioned a quasi-anomaly regarding crime, vs other unhappiness. In my own games, I've noticed a discrepancy in crime unhappiness vs any other, based completely on the size of the city. The examples below are on both Immortal and Emperor, and in scenarios where a dominant religion has my happiness through the roof (70-90).

My capital (also my biggest city, steadily growing to the 30-35 range by the late 300s) tends to have 4-5 unhappiness, vs all my other cities (15-25 range by late 300s), which are at 0 or maybe an occasional 1. That seems like too wide a range based on a moderate pop difference. Could a relatively minor size discrepancy be triggering an excessive amount of crime unhappiness?

That's a good point. My current opinion is that India is a bit on the weak side and they're downright useless if they can't build the mega-cities that their UA intends (read the original debates from 2015 in the India thread -- they're supposed to have giant cities!). So I'd prefer to buff India's ability to grow absurdly tall but if the next beta version can fix some of the unhappiness quirks then maybe we won't need to go down that road.

 

[pineappledan]

@Moi Magnus It’s easiest to achieve this with India, but this would work for any civ that manages to get to 40 in a single city.

@tu_79, my beliefs we’re desert bonus, transcendence, cathedrals, mosques, resilience, and knowledge through devotion.
I did not build Artemis or hanging gardens, but they were both in a city I conquered later.
I was not interested in pacifism because it gives a 30% discount on missionaries and I can’t buy those. Perhaps it’s my bad for not seeing ways the belief synergized with high population, but capitalizing on india’s Cheaper prophets made more sense to me at the time.
There are things I could have done to avoid growth, like go Progress, or pick a founder which doesn’t give food, or break apart my own farm triangles. I would have had to know the mechanics were such that a 40+ pop city were unmanageable beforehand, however. Given that I did not know that, but that india’s UA and UB are both targeted at giving a ton of growth, I tried to maximize the synergies presented to me. You're asking me why I didn't do X 200 turns ago, before the problems started, and for that I have no answer

I may understand a new player being fooled by the growth trap of India, not you.

I played India only one time before this patch, back in November 2017. Back then I had no happiness issues. The mechanics have changed; we are ALL new players.

 

[grmagne]

The way I remember it, India used to be much more powerful than this and yet they've never been considered an OP civilization. For example, when I started playing this mod around December 2015 I recall India's UA basically being the same as it is today, but back then science and population were directly correlated (just like in Vanilla Civ 5). So not only did you get tons faith & population but that population directly translated into increased science as well. And now we're in a position where India can't even grow giant cities anymore -- how are they supposed to compete?

I've always liked the idea that the every civ should have a fun & unique UA that feels overpowered if everything is executed correctly. The feeling you get as Denmark when you lay waste to an entire landscape, leaving it a smoldering wreck while collecting thousands of yields for yourself, or the feeling you get as Greece when you steal everyone else's CS allies, is how the game is supposed to work. India is only a fun civ if you're building super-cities that churn out insane amounts of religious pressure. Without that, they're nothing but a mediocre civ. And I honestly can't remember the last time that an AI India gave me any trouble.

 

[Anno]

The way I remember it, India used to be much more powerful than this and yet they've never been considered an OP civilization. For example, when I started playing this mod around December 2015 I recall India's UA basically being the same as it is today, but back then science and population were directly correlated (just like in Vanilla Civ 5). So not only did you get tons faith & population but that population directly translated into increased science as well. And now we're in a position where India can't even grow giant cities anymore -- how are they supposed to compete?

I've always liked the idea that the every civ should have a fun & unique UA that feels overpowered if everything is executed correctly. The feeling you get as Denmark when you lay waste to an entire landscape, leaving it a smoldering wreck while collecting thousands of yields for yourself, or the feeling you get as Greece when you steal everyone else's CS allies, is how the game is supposed to work. India is only a fun civ if you're building super-cities that churn out insane amounts of religious pressure. Without that, they're nothing but a mediocre civ. And I honestly can't remember the last time that an AI India gave me any trouble.

This is my feeling too. I think lots of people who play VP enjoy it at least in part because the Civs are balanced such that they have some very unique and powerful mechanic rather than just a few slightly different buildings. For India specifically I would love to see that really leaned into, and they become the Civ that is supposed to focus on growth above all else because they have mechanics to cope with and exploit it. I like that they are a Civ that starts out pretty slow but just continues to scale and scale throughout the game just by continuing to exist.

 

[tu_79]

I played India only one time before this patch, back in November 2017. Back then I had no happiness issues. The mechanics have changed; we are ALL new players.

Fair enough.

I think it's better to use your report as a first piece of info regarding current happiness balance (because it's not a definitive proof in my eyes), but more data is required before doing any changes. That's what I'm trying to say.

The way I remember it, India used to be much more powerful than this and yet they've never been considered an OP civilization

There was a big bug where AI was underperforming for tall playing. India excells at tall. Thus Indian AI was almost never a threat.

 

[Maximo the Xth]

Before I file a bug report, I'll ask here: In the city state screen there is a line "contender". Is that supposed to work? Because it always says "error"

 

[grmagne]

Before I file a bug report, I'll ask here: In the city state screen there is a line "contender". Is that supposed to work? Because it always says "error"

It's supposed to show the next-highest contender for the CS ally. So if you're the current ally then you can know how much of a cushion you have between you and the contender. The error message probably means that you're using a City State mod that isn't compatible with the new screen.

 

[chicorbeef]

"I did nothing special for growing..."
"I did not AVOID growth either..."

Yet, you have Tradition (extra growth), Fealty (extra food), Harapan Reservoir (extra growth), tens of WORKED farms in your capital (by that time I'm happy with working a couple of farms). And I fear to ask, Rationalism? Temple of Artemis? Mandirs? Trade routes to influenced civs? 400 food production is no joke.

And when I point out that there are too many farms being worked:
"It synergizes with India uniques". "Cathedrals were built".
"I don't want to break down farms to build villages" (WTF?)
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I may understand a new player being fooled by the growth trap of India, not you.

You want pineappledan to specifically avoid policy trees/doing certain things simply because the Growth they provide is too much? He should sacrifice the specialist capability of Tradition, Defense/Production bonuses of Fealty, the science that Rationalism provides, and avoid profiting off of trade with his neighbours, simply to avoid growth? While Arabia has to do none of these things? That sounds like bad game design to me. And why'd you even bother listing the Harappan Reservoir? He should not build his UB? What?

As for the Villages point? First off, again, India's playstyle has traditionally (ha) been to build Farms everywhere, that's what I always did without any problems, because Farms provide the most yields. And I did not consider India OP back then, it was still outclassed in raw science by a civ like Korea. I don't have to build villages as Arabia, Korea, in the Tradition capital, as just about any other Tradition civ. Do you realize how weak his UB would be if he worked only a couple of Farms? You'd barely be able to tell he was playing India.

India's UA/UB should not be a penalty that you have to work around so hard that can potentially totally screw your game over. Why are you talking about limiting India's growth when Korea's science and Arabia's historical event prowess goes unchecked? The thing that keeps India balanced is the fact that it is not more powerful than what other civs get.

I'm going to propose that maybe all late-game growth policies should come with population modifier unhappiness reductions, because this isn't just an India-exclusive problem.

 

[glider1]

"I'm going to propose that maybe all late-game growth policies should come with population modifier unhappiness reductions, because this isn't just an India-exclusive problem."

That is way too complicated to make all those changes and unnecessary. The game is designed around managing pop growth. Just retune the growth heavy civs and leave the core game balance alone already.

The game has to be risky and punishable for growth. It is a central issue in real world history - internal political problems with excessive pop growth.

 

[chicorbeef]

"I'm going to propose that maybe all late-game growth policies should come with population modifier unhappiness reductions, because this isn't just an India-exclusive problem."

That is way too complicated to make all those changes and unnecessary. The game is designed around managing pop growth. Just retune the growth heavy civs and leave the core game balance alone already.

The game has to be risky and punishable for growth. It is a central issue in real world history - internal political problems with excessive pop growth.

Is it though? It isn't too hard to add -5% population modifier for unhappinessor so on the Rationalism policy Empiricism/Rationalism finisher, as well as the Urbanization/Civil Society policies, and maybe on Order's +20% Growth and -20% Poverty policy as well. And then put -25% population modifier on unhappiness on the Indian UA. How is that asking too much, it's simply a matter of changing 'BALANCE_HAPPINESS_POP_MULTIPLIER', right?

Population growth right now is hardly excessive in my opinion, going for growth policies comes with heavy opportunity costs as it is, the exponential/heavy food costs of growth and specialist food consumption mean that to grow in the late-game means sacrificing very significant amounts of yields. I hardly think this would make Growth become OP or cost-free, and there still is an exponential pop modifier that represents "internal political problems with excessive pop growth", I'd say that's represented pretty well by pineappledan's 25 unhappiness in his capital.

And I don't think it's unnecessary...

I experienced this trap in my last game. I had a flood plains start as Egypt so I thought, "nom nom nom, farms everywhere." It was all going swimmingly until around Industrial and then my Capital was around 40 pop (?) and generating ~26 unhappiness. I couldn't see a good way to undo my mistake, all my soldiers deserted and my cities flipped to France - though as most unhappiness came from my capital this didn't reduce unhappiness and they kept flipping.

So next time I'll have to hold back on farms, but does this now mean that super-high food starts like that are just... bad?

With regard to unhappiness balance, others have mentioned a quasi-anomaly regarding crime, vs other unhappiness. In my own games, I've noticed a discrepancy in crime unhappiness vs any other, based completely on the size of the city. The examples below are on both Immortal and Emperor, and in scenarios where a dominant religion has my happiness through the roof (70-90).

My capital (also my biggest city, steadily growing to the 30-35 range by the late 300s) tends to have 4-5 unhappiness, vs all my other cities (15-25 range by late 300s), which are at 0 or maybe an occasional 1. That seems like too wide a range based on a moderate pop difference. Could a relatively minor size discrepancy be triggering an excessive amount of crime unhappiness?

Big cities are producing a lot of unhappiness right now, I think it could use a break.

 

[ElliotS]

I'm 100% in favor of making larger cities easier to handle. I don't think growth becomes the best strategy if that happens. I think it'll be in the right balance spot. We have less stuff that scales off population than ever, so I'd be in favor of making it less punishing to get massively populated.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

"I'm going to propose that maybe all late-game growth policies should come with population modifier unhappiness reductions, because this isn't just an India-exclusive problem."

That is way too complicated to make all those changes and unnecessary. The game is designed around managing pop growth. Just retune the growth heavy civs and leave the core game balance alone already.

The game has to be risky and punishable for growth. It is a central issue in real world history - internal political problems with excessive pop growth.

Really? The game is designed around managing pop growth? This game is called civilization, and not "The pop growth manager".
Its designed around caring every aspect of a civilization, and not only population.
So, why is growth punished, but not other aspects? Why didnt get your people greedy and corrupt, if you earn a lof of money, effectifly losing more money, if you earn "too much".
Why arnt there mad scientist, creating ill minded technolgies like out of control killer robots or immun pandemic viruses, if you have researched "too many" technologies?
Why arnt your people comming together and create a inquisition and burn all scientific books, if you earn "too much" faith?
Calling the game based around population control is stupid.

 

[ryanmusante]

Why arnt there mad scientist, creating ill minded technolgies like out of control killer robots or immun pandemic viruses, if you have researched "too many" technologies?

Funny you mention that, I disabled xcom troops and giant death robot the first chance I with this game because of how misplaced and ridiculous those units are.

 

[CrazyG]

For India specifically, you could make the Harrapan reservoir reduce poverty more. The building it replaces, the Aqueduct, already reduces poverty so its a clean, simple fix.

 

[pineappledan]

Really? The game is designed around managing pop growth? This game is called civilization, and not "The pop growth manager".
Its designed around caring every aspect of a civilization, and not only population.
So, why is growth punished, but not other aspects? Why didnt get your people greedy and corrupt, if you earn a lof of money, effectifly losing more money, if you earn "too much".
Why arnt there mad scientist, creating ill minded technolgies like out of control killer robots or immun pandemic viruses, if you have researched "too many" technologies?
Why arnt your people comming together and create a inquisition and burn all scientific books, if you earn "too much" faith?
Calling the game based around population control is stupid.

You forgot culture. "Your people become so decadent that noble patriarchs who Remember when Men were Men spawn near your capital to secure the future for [SkinColor] children."

In a game about filling buckets as fast as you can, your ability to fill your blue, orange, white, purple, and yellow buckets are limited only by you your skill. If you fill the green bucket at anything other than exactly 'X' rate, however, there will be hell to pay.

And no, we are not going to tell you what number 'X' is, but you'll know if you overshot it around 6 hours in.

 

[Grabbl]

I think it's perfectly fine to have yields where more is better (Gold, Production, Culture) and ones where more is not always better (food, science), and probably even necessary balance-wise. And the system is not that much off, having to pay attention that you don't overshoot your science as Korea or food as India (and thus perhaps avoiding Rationalism) is not a bad thing. You can use a UA by either maximizing what it gives you (and totally specializing) or by taking it as "I'm already good at that part of the game, so I should focus a bit on the others". Making a broader playstyle (2nd option) more viable is literally one of the design principles for VP.

I don't want to say that India is balanced at the moment though, I'm lacking the playtime. If it is not, I would be in favour of mimicking the old Indian UA by reducing the pop scaler for them.

 

[tu_79]

You forgot culture. "Your people become so decadent that noble patriarchs who Remember when Men were Men spawn near your capital to secure the future for [SkinColor] children."

In a game about filling buckets as fast as you can, your ability to fill your blue, orange, white, purple, and yellow buckets are limited only by you your skill. If you fill the green bucket at anything other than exactly 'X' rate, however, there will be hell to pay.

And no, we are not going to tell you what number 'X' is, but you'll know if you overshot it around 6 hours in.

What I find most disturbing is the impossibility of getting out of the trap, once you were set. As you've described, the unhappiness caused some of your cities to secede, but instead of relieving your unhappy people, this just made them more unhappy, cause the big problem was in your capital.
When this happens for overexpanding, losing one or two cities actually alleviates the unhappiness.

The declared intention on luxury happiness was to punish both overexpansion and overgrowing. In principle, it's not that bad to have a mechanic telling the player that the followed strategy is not allowed, before it's too late. I mean, we don't really want that conquering city by city is all bell and whistles, there has to be some price or either the game outcomes would be too variable and it would make almost impossible to design any balance for victory conditions. The cost is there: too many cities and tech/policy/tourism costs increase too much. But before you get to a crazy expansion that criples your civ to a point of no return, happiness is there telling you to not take further cities.
Now we do the same with overgrowing. Growing too much may have an opportunity cost (that's why I think ElliotS does not see a problem with letting people grow to their hearts content), but it's also a winning strategy without the happiness limit (free yields everywhere, all specialists being worked, and all your territory being worked) and it's strong in the player's hands. VP happiness has always been like this, limiting tall playing in some way. I think it's ok that happiness hurts the player if growing too fast, but there has to be also ways to come back to positive, or at least giving some time for reaction. (Not a thing that can be said about surprise AI attacks). In your case, the best way to get out fast of the deep unhappiness would have been to lose some citizens in your capital. Losing satellite cities only seemed to make it worse.

Maybe better to take a look at the revolt mechanic, so that when the biggest unhappiness comes from the capital, it loses a percentage of its population instead of having some cities to secede. Maybe unhappiness could affect food production first. This way, even if the player makes mistakes, it's just some missed productive turns. Actually, I think this could be the best solution.

Then we could debate about how big should we let India have her cities.