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

[BiteInTheMark]

First impression by my india game...... luxuries are underwhelming.
I have 9 luxuries, 9 cities and reached now 181 population. My rank increased from 4 to 5 and the bonus from luxuries increased from 4 to 5.
One more happiness by reaching one more rank is.... crap.... I need now 120 more population. 13 more population in every of my cities... to get..... one or two more happiness?

Edit: While Iam trying to increase my population more and more, I really notice how slow border expansion is without tradition sovereignity.

Edit2: I reached now the industrial era. 212 population in 9 cities, which have all build nearly every building. Iam at 28 positive happiness, but I reached this happiness only by earning 35 happiness from my pacificismn belief. It looks like one additional population from 21 to 22 is enough to increase the needs modifier by 6-9%.

Edit3: Mongolia, the nation with the most cities (248 pop 14 cities) has stopped the growth of its cities. His capitol is only earning 2 excess food and it looks like he has strong happiness issues, now 2 times a fresh conquered inka city revoled and flipped back to the inca.

 

[Txurce]

First impression by my india game...... luxuries are underwhelming.
I have 9 luxuries, 9 cities and reached now 181 population. My rank increased from 4 to 5 and the bonus from luxuries increased from 4 to 5.
One more happiness by reaching one more rank is.... crap.... I need now 120 more population. 13 more population in every of my cities... to get..... one or two more happiness?

You're right. I'm pretty sure Gazebo is already looking at this. It affects not just India, but everybody.

 

[StevenV]

I though I will have an interesting late game but the only real opponent (Babylon) have choosen Progress for his 3rd Policy tier instead of Rationalism or Imperialsm.
Now, I can easily catch up his 5-6 tech advantage.
I've seen this before but very rarely and with civs having dozens of cities. Babylon has only 6 cities.

Any chance to revert his decision?

 

[Moi Magnus]

I though I will have an interesting late game but the only real opponent (Babylon) have choosen Progress for his 3rd Policy tier instead of Rationalism or Imperialsm.
Now, I can easily catch up his 5-6 tech advantage.
I've seen this before but very rarely and with civs having dozens of cities. Babylon has only 6 cities.

Any chance to revert his decision?

You can use In Game Editor to change its policies and tech.

And you can also make a bug report, with logs, and a save before the choice if possible. Because it really look like a bug in the valuation system.

 

[StevenV]

You can use In Game Editor to change its policies and tech.

And you can also make a bug report, with logs, and a save before the choice if possible. Because it really look like a bug in the valuation system.

Thanks, I will try this In Game Editor.
However, I don't think I could produce a save before the choice. I was able to see this Progress choice only after he adopted the 2nd policy in Progress. This is what the EUI show me.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Increasing the population of a city from 28 to 29 increase the need modifiers by around 10%. I could imagine that the solution to the problem of the population could be a limit to the increase in needs. But even it would now increase by only 10% per additional population, if I go to a city size of 40, this would lead to an need modifier of 170%, instead of average 60% I have now.

 

[CppMaster]

Increasing the population of a city from 28 to 29 increase the need modifiers by around 10%.

Why?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Why?

Because it works that way. Every additional population increases the needs by an amount. This amount gets higher with every additional population, cause the population modifier is exponential.
For further information ask Gazebo, he knows the formula.

To stay with the same happiness, every additional population has to:
Generate the average yield per population + the difference in yields from the old needs to new higher needs for EVERY citizen in the city.
While it often gets harder and harder to use your citizen more efficient, you have to use your additional citizen exponential more efficiant than the previous one. Which is, in most circumstances, impossible.

 

[CrazyG]

Increasing the population of a city from 28 to 29 increase the need modifiers by around 10%.

This is too high in my opinion

 

[grmagne]

This is too high in my opinion

I definitely agree that city unhappiness becomes unmanageable usually when the population gets into the high 20s or low 30s. And adding new luxuries barely has any effect at all.

On the surface the new happiness system works well since it's easier to maintain into the Renaissance and the endless downward spirals are no longer a problem (that I've noticed, anyway). But there is definitely room for improvement on how unhappiness affects large cities. I don't understand why there's any need for exponential factors in city unhappiness. I thought that as long as the *average* citizen was taken care of, then it should all balance out. For example, a city with 10 population that needs 8 science should translate into a 30 population city that needs 24 science. And if it's too easy to get the extra yields through specialists, then maybe increase specialist unhappiness a touch while removing the exponential unhappiness that causes such huge problems in the largest cities?

 

[Gazebo]

I definitely agree that city unhappiness becomes unmanageable usually when the population gets into the high 20s or low 30s. And adding new luxuries barely has any effect at all.

On the surface the new happiness system works well since it's easier to maintain into the Renaissance and the endless downward spirals are no longer a problem (that I've noticed, anyway). But there is definitely room for improvement on how unhappiness affects large cities. I don't understand why there's any need for exponential factors in city unhappiness. I thought that as long as the *average* citizen was taken care of, then it should all balance out. For example, a city with 10 population that needs 8 science should translate into a 30 population city that needs 24 science. And if it's too easy to get the extra yields through specialists, then maybe increase specialist unhappiness a touch while removing the exponential unhappiness that causes such huge problems in the largest cities?

Because it isn’t all that difficult to reach the median for yields, especially since the median is usually behind the real median due to its controlled curve.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Because it isn’t all that difficult to reach the median for yields, especially since the median is usually behind the real median due to its controlled curve.

G

This is generally how I see it going, but note this is speculation.

1) When a city first is formed, it is a big unhappiness magnet. Its growth is quick, and with little infrastructure it produces few yields. However, this is partially controlled by the population cap on unhappiness.

2) As the city starts to grow into its own unhappiness drops. The city is working its best tiles, its buildings are giving it very nice bonuses. In fact, I would wager that its unhappiness is lower than you might expect, because its producing so much compared to its population.

3) As the city starts to grow large, the bonuses start to decline. Specialist slots are filling up, the terrain tiles aren't as good as the ones the city is already working, and the buildings just aren't bringing that extra boost of resources like before. However, because the city was overproducing yields before, its just now "producing well". Unhappiness is more than before but manageable and reasonable.

4) As the grows very large, its extra bonus per population is now minimal. Specialist slots are full, terrain is mostly tapped. Buildings add a few yields, but compared to the large pile of yields already there its a drop in the bucket. And so the yield per population drops and drops. This is the danger zone, where population is no longer providing the yields to self-sustain, and there is no way to counteract it except stopping growth entirely.

So I think number 4 is the issue, and probably because (I image) the unhappiness system is somewhat linear in its approach. Its yield per population. That works well for phases 1-3, but then starts to fail out in phase 4 where getting new pop doesn't really translate into getting new permanent yields.

Assuming there is a true problem here, I can see a few solutions:

1) Add a population counter adjustment to needs. Similar to the capital adjustment, cities above X would get a "high pop city" adjustment which would lower the needs a bit. In effect we are adjusting the model to account for the fact that yield per pop starts off linear (or maybe exponential) but then tapers off at the higher populations.

2) Add a happiness bonus to some building for very high pop numbers, or a new building entirely. This is similar to some of the old sewer system equivalents, where you would build buildings specially to counteract the effects of high pop cities. This would is much more blatant and obvious correction, but it would give the player a very direct way to address the problem.

3) Now adjusting the luxury system may help, but I feel that either you make the system too easy for Tall, or make it that Wide can get away with loads of big cities and Tall still suffers. I may be wrong on that, I just feel that luxuries are a bit variable and not the way to address it directly.

So my thoughts would be on number 1.....again, assuming there is a problem.

 

[CppMaster]

4) As the grows very large, its extra bonus per population is now minimal.

Then why would you grow it more if disadvantages of that are bigger than advantages? It would only make sense if you have high happiness anyway, so you would get those yields with no penalty + more unit supply.

 

[grmagne]

Then why would you grow it more if disadvantages of that are bigger than advantages? It would only make sense if you have high happiness anyway, so you would get those yields with no penalty + more unit supply.

That's a good point. Once you've maximized your tile workers & specialists then adding extra population to the city is pretty much counter-productive and it's probably best to halt growth entirely. And the happiness system works pretty well now for stage 1, 2, 3 cities as described by Stalker. So really, we're just talking about the effects of mega-cities that are too big for their own good, and maybe the impact of population on luxuries as well.

Because we have at least 2 civ UAs, 2 follower beliefs, 2 policy trees that focus on growth, it'd be nice to help out mega-cities so that those strategies don't hit dead-ends. India, and to a lesser degree China, were designed to be a high-population civs so I'd prefer to see the crippling effects of high population mitigated somewhat. The dead-end problem they suffer is what wide civs suffered in the previous beta. Previously you could expand & expand but your wide civ would self-destruct from its own size. Now that wide civs are fixed in 6-14 the game is way more enjoyable. If we can do the same for India & China (and any civ that goes Tradition + Fealty + Mandirs) then we've really got something. But I'm really starting to appreciate how extraordinarily difficult it is for one happiness to system to work for all different playstyles, tech levels, civ sizes, etc. A one-size-fits-all mechanism is very elusive and when it does arrive it will be quite an achievement!

 

[Txurce]

This is generally how I see it going, but note this is speculation.

1) When a city first is formed, it is a big unhappiness magnet. Its growth is quick, and with little infrastructure it produces few yields. However, this is partially controlled by the population cap on unhappiness.

2) As the city starts to grow into its own unhappiness drops. The city is working its best tiles, its buildings are giving it very nice bonuses. In fact, I would wager that its unhappiness is lower than you might expect, because its producing so much compared to its population.

3) As the city starts to grow large, the bonuses start to decline. Specialist slots are filling up, the terrain tiles aren't as good as the ones the city is already working, and the buildings just aren't bringing that extra boost of resources like before. However, because the city was overproducing yields before, its just now "producing well". Unhappiness is more than before but manageable and reasonable.

4) As the grows very large, its extra bonus per population is now minimal. Specialist slots are full, terrain is mostly tapped. Buildings add a few yields, but compared to the large pile of yields already there its a drop in the bucket. And so the yield per population drops and drops. This is the danger zone, where population is no longer providing the yields to self-sustain, and there is no way to counteract it except stopping growth entirely.

So I think number 4 is the issue, and probably because (I image) the unhappiness system is somewhat linear in its approach. Its yield per population. That works well for phases 1-3, but then starts to fail out in phase 4 where getting new pop doesn't really translate into getting new permanent yields.

Assuming there is a true problem here, I can see a few solutions:

1) Add a population counter adjustment to needs. Similar to the capital adjustment, cities above X would get a "high pop city" adjustment which would lower the needs a bit. In effect we are adjusting the model to account for the fact that yield per pop starts off linear (or maybe exponential) but then tapers off at the higher populations.

2) Add a happiness bonus to some building for very high pop numbers, or a new building entirely. This is similar to some of the old sewer system equivalents, where you would build buildings specially to counteract the effects of high pop cities. This would is much more blatant and obvious correction, but it would give the player a very direct way to address the problem.

3) Now adjusting the luxury system may help, but I feel that either you make the system too easy for Tall, or make it that Wide can get away with loads of big cities and Tall still suffers. I may be wrong on that, I just feel that luxuries are a bit variable and not the way to address it directly.

So my thoughts would be on number 1.....again, assuming there is a problem.

I enjoyed going through that, mainly because you wrote it as if the cities were real, which is how the game would feel in ideal form. Following that logic, you ought to stop growing at step 4. This is currently true in the game, and of course very true in RL. Any effort to extend it breaks that illusion. It's one reason why I like unhappiness to exist at some point. But if we do decide to extend it (because it's India, because it's fun, whatever), then I would lean toward solution 2, because it feels more proactive and less "gamey" than solution 1's set trigger kicking in.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

So really, we're just talking about the effects of mega-cities that are too big for their own good, and maybe the impact of population on luxuries as well.

So, what is a MEGA-city for you? Which size?
If you have build everything, you can work minimum 20 specialists. +2/+4/+6 from guilds if you have 9 or less cities. 1 more if you have Walls of babylon or observatories. 5 more in your capitol, if you go tradition. The bandwidth of specialists you can have is between 20 and 33.

If you work all tiles, you need 36 citizen. So the biggest, useful city would have the size of 69 citizen, with babylon going tradition and rationalismn. I agree.... THIS is a mega city..... But this isnt the normality.

What is the normal upper limit for a city? If you perfectly plant your cities with a distance of 4 tiles, all your cities would work 18 tiles, and in best circumstances 20 specialists. This would translate in a big city size of 38. (20 specialists + 18 citizen consume 196 food in the last era. Its a bit unlikle your able to feed this amount of people with only 18 citizen, cause every of your citizen has to generate 10.9 food. And some of your worker probably want to work mines or other things. So, if you want to feed your specialists, you definitly need much more worker and/or the freedom ideology.)

If we set 38 as optimal condition, the system is already far away from working. My second city with 30 citizen is already generating 12 unhappiness. If all my 9 cities would have the same size and unhappiness, I would generate 108 unhappiness, coincidentally this is actual the amount of happiness I generate. But 41 of this happiness is generated by my pacifismn belief, only possible by the fact Iam playing india on a pangäa map. So in real, with 30 population per city, Iam already over the limit, only saved by pacifismn and the india UA.

So... again... what is a mega city for you?

Because it isn’t all that difficult to reach the median for yields, especially since the median is usually behind the real median due to its controlled curve.

G

It sounds weird... the median is always behind the real median..... but I know what you mean cause I know the calculation. Would a change from "95% old median + 5% new median" to "90% old median + 10% new median" help in closing the gap betwen the median calculation?
What is, if you add a flat +2% for the median calculaton, would it represent the real median better?
At the moment, the early game till renassance feel good and maybe a little bit too easy to stay in positive happiness, the work really beginns from industrial age on.

I would suggest a two way solution to counter too much happiness in the early game and too much unhappiness in the late game:
1. Make the population effect linear. Much higher in early game (where it doesnt have that much impact), the same as it is in mid game, but much less in late game.
2. Increase the effect of luxuries by decreasing the population treshholds for luxury rank. The lower ranks will be reached much faster and counter the higher population effect in early game, but still have their limit in the lategame, which is a bit easier cause of the linear effect instead of the exponential one.

Gazebo, if you show me the data paths and the point where I have to look for, I could play with some numbers and try to find a sweet spot.

 

[tu_79]

1. Reduce a little bit demand scaler on population.
2. Increase a little bit luxury happiness scaler on population.
3. Make unhappiness reduce growth.
4. Check that tall playing is not unbalanced.

If you want to add some building that gives happiness to very large cities, I suggest making unemployed citizens generate happiness, granted by some late game tech. Usually we don't want to have unemployment, for the yields are low, but in higher cities it might be unavoidable.

 

[Rekk]

I enjoyed going through that, mainly because you wrote it as if the cities were real, which is how the game would feel in ideal form. Following that logic, you ought to stop growing at step 4. This is currently true in the game, and of course very true in RL. Any effort to extend it breaks that illusion. It's one reason why I like unhappiness to exist at some point. But if we do decide to extend it (because it's India, because it's fun, whatever), then I would lean toward solution 2, because it feels more proactive and less "gamey" than solution 1's set trigger kicking in.

Cities never stop growing in real life, and I don't know of a country that has self destructed and lost all its territory to revolts because its capital got too large.

 

[tu_79]

Cities never stop growing in real life, and I don't know of a country that has self destructed and lost all its territory to revolts because its capital got too large.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shrinking_cities_in_the_United_States

 

[Txurce]

Cities never stop growing in real life...

Not even remotely true on planet Earth.

And I don't know of a country that has self destructed and lost all its territory to revolts because its capital got too large.

Much harder to prove, one way or the other. I could speculate that this is one way to interpret what happened to the Mayans, when additional factors stressed its very large capital. But if you tone down your statement and say that if it occurs, it's very rare, I would agree.

Keep in mind that I didn't say anything about revolts. Now that you bring them up, I'd say that unhappiness is the universal primary cause of revolts . So what about revolts due to unhappiness that primarily springs from the downsides of overpopulation? I don't know enough to say, but I sure wouldn't rule them out.