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

[saranwali]

Is it feasible to allow for garrisoning more than one unit in a city, and/or allowing units adjacent to the city to count towards defense yield for Crime purposes?
That way Crime is always solvable, but at the opportunity cost of eating further into one’s supply cap than would one for one garrisoning.

 

[pineappledan]

Lol, so if things really get out of hand with crime, you essentially have to “call in the army”

That would be fun; it wouldn’t solve the underlying issue though, which is that city crime calculations are wonky

 

[chicorbeef]

Honestly I think food makes way more sense than production for crime. People generally don't commit crime when they're well fed.

That said I think the best method would be a hybrid between and , rather than and or . We would also rename Crime to "Stability" or something.

This would mean we don't worry about upsetting the balance of starting locations or any number of other issues that could pop up.

"Walls would be purely a defensive building then!" Well yeah. I don't think it's a problem that defensive buildings would be defensive buildings. I'd still build them because losing a city to a surprise attack sucks. Even as Tradition and Progress I'd still often garrison because it's good strategically for defense.

I think that decoupling defense from happiness is a good idea and offers more interesting gameplay choices.

Add in that this one actually serves a purpose: If you're really unbalanced and try to avoid working the 'basic fundamentals of society' people worry. This would encourage a well balanced minimum of yields, and scale even more elegantly.

I actually like this. A floodplain or coastal start with tons of food would be in a similar boat to the busy little Progress city working mines/quarries. Both yields are legitimately relevant to your empire in and of themselves.

 

[pineappledan]

Wouldn’t a system that works off / on tiles essentially be double-punishing unhappiness generated from specialists?

 

[chicorbeef]

Wouldn’t a system that works off / on tiles essentially be double-punishing unhappiness generated from specialists?

Why would it have to be limited to tiles? Also I'm talking raw Food, not Growth. Specialists shouldn't affect raw Food too much. Specialists should still produce more happiness through yields than they give up.

 

[pineappledan]

Because every pop that works a specialist slot is NOT working a food tile, and a mine can easily double the hammers on an engineer. You work specialists for the GPs, but this could be made difficult if someone can put all their workers on the field and spike the global crime rate. Maybe the boredom and illiteracy rates are enough to keep that from happening, but I’m a little worried what unintended consequences this system could have.

• Could someone combat growth while still managing to control crime?
• Could a player surge on food tiles to trigger global unhappiness from food shocks?
• Most food buildings actually reduce poverty right now. Should that be changed to crime?
• Wouldn’t naval blockades hit happiness REALLY hard, if crime scaled on food? A single boat can shut down almost all workable tiles on an island city.
• How would this affect internal trade routes?
• Civs haven’t been balanced around food being a happiness yield before. How does this affect balance on civs that manipulate food directly(Inca, India, Aztec, etc)?

But specialists already generate unhappiness on a per-head basis

 

[chicorbeef]

Because every pop that works a specialist slot is NOT working a food tile.

But specialists already generate unhappiness on a per-head basis

You don't work specialists unless you have sufficient population anyway and Food is not too much of a problem. The Tradition capital works the most specialists, yet has the most raw food. I don't think it'll be that big of a problem.

 

[Stalker0]

But specialists already generate unhappiness on a per-head basis

Its possible if the food system went through that specialist unhappiness would no longer be necessary. The extra crime they generate from lowering food would already be a factor.

 

[Gazebo]

Its possible if the food system went through that specialist unhappiness would no longer be necessary. The extra crime they generate from lowering food would already be a factor.

Indeed. A hybrid of food and production might make that moot. It’s my favorite this far. Getting defense out of the happiness system is my goal. It’s just problematic.

G

 

[chicorbeef]

Because every pop that works a specialist slot is NOT working a food tile, and a mine can easily double the hammers on an engineer. You work specialists for the GPs, but this could be made difficult if someone can put all their workers on the field and spike the global crime rate. Maybe the boredom and illiteracy rates are enough to keep that from happening, but I’m a little worried what unintended consequences this system could have.

• Could someone combat growth while still managing to control crime?
• Could a player surge on food tiles to trigger global unhappiness from food shocks?
• Most food buildings actually reduce poverty right now. Should that be changed to crime?
• Wouldn’t naval blockades hit happiness REALLY hard, if crime scaled on food? A single boat can shut down almost all workable tiles on an island city.
• How would this affect internal trade routes?
• Civs haven’t been balanced around food being a happiness yield before. How does this affect balance on civs that manipulate food directly(Inca, India, Aztec, etc)?

But specialists already generate unhappiness on a per-head basis

Half of the system would be based on production and the population modifier would still exist, so low population shouldn't be punished too hard. Also citizens you redirect from Food will fight other unhappiness sources. Food buildings indeed would probably need to reduce Crime instead (should probably be renamed to Stagnation) and Poverty's base modifier to be reduced. I like the internal trade route indirect buff in a way, because right now external TRs help combat Poverty, Boredom and Illiteracy which are also valauble yields for your empire directly so putting some happiness on the internal routes directly makes sense as well. Also enhances value of Protectionism, Iron Curtain and Nationalization policies. The only way we can determine the balance of civs that have Food bonuses (don't forget Production is one half of the system, and that we'd also have to test Production civs as well) is trial/error, really.

It will be a huge change and probably be rough when it's first introduced but I feel like it has potential.

 

[Paramecium]

@Gazebo , you want to get rid of defense to counter crime completley? What about a combination of all three, , and ?

I really like the idea to add one of the basic yields to the / system, it is a simple, easy and yet brilliant idea. If the people have enough to work and are well fed, crime is less an issue. It buffs indirectly the engineer slots. The reason why to keep is, that it is in my view logical, that defensive buildings and its crews help to upkeep the public order.

 

[ElliotS]

Because every pop that works a specialist slot is NOT working a food tile, and a mine can easily double the hammers on an engineer. You work specialists for the GPs, but this could be made difficult if someone can put all their workers on the field and spike the global crime rate. Maybe the boredom and illiteracy rates are enough to keep that from happening, but I’m a little worried what unintended consequences this system could have.

• Could someone combat growth while still managing to control crime?
• Could a player surge on food tiles to trigger global unhappiness from food shocks?
• Most food buildings actually reduce poverty right now. Should that be changed to crime?
• Wouldn’t naval blockades hit happiness REALLY hard, if crime scaled on food? A single boat can shut down almost all workable tiles on an island city.
• How would this affect internal trade routes?
• Civs haven’t been balanced around food being a happiness yield before. How does this affect balance on civs that manipulate food directly(Inca, India, Aztec, etc)?

But specialists already generate unhappiness on a per-head basis

I mean the fact that happiness uses a median means that surging on food tiles won't shift the scales that much, and would certainly drown them in other forms of unhappiness. Specialists aren't killed because your farms don't produce science, gold or culture.

On food buildings: Maybe? They tend not to add much raw food, so they'd still be mostly poverty-reducing.

On blockades: I feel like it's been well established that coastal cities you can't defend are a bad thing, and I don't think this is much of a shift.

On Internal Trade Routes: I felt like they were a bit weak, so this seems like a good idea on that front too. The fact that food or production would work is very good here.

On civs: We'll have to see. That could be an issue regardless, and that's the point of a beta.

The reason why to keep is, that it is in my view logical, that defensive buildings and its crews help to upkeep the public order.

The defensive value is actual military power though, not police. Unless they're under constant martial law I don't see how anything but the constabulary & police station could make a difference.

That said we'll probably rename it, mechanics and gameplay come first.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Ok, my thoughts:
Making food alone the "crime" factor can lead to some really weird outcomes.
Imagine you have to reduce your food generation, cause you cant construct fast enough your infrastructure for your fast growing citizen, you would generate now much more unhappiness, till you get the problem solved. Which can lead into a lot of trouble. Maybe we want this, cause you should have seen this problem earlier, making it more difficult and complex. But this wouldnt be beginner friendly nor helping with some downwards spirals.
Making hammer alone the "crime" factor" is somewhat of double punishing a city with bad infrastructure. It would make hammer the one and only yield you have to focus in first place (something thats already the case). You already need a lot of hammer to solve the other need issues, by building the need buildings, if your city lacks in hammers, you not only get punished by a low infrastructure, you also get punished by having not the ability to build the infrastructure.

But combining both, sounds a good solution. If you stop growth and spend more effort into hammer to get faster the infrastructure, you wouldnt get punished that hard and have a chance to compete with the median.

BUT.... BUT.... This may not solve the problem with the big cities. In my game, my 33 pop city is generating 17 unhappiness, 7 of it from crime. I agree, if we would use / median for crime, this may be lower, but maybe not.
Could we additionally set the exponential value for population a bit lower? Or cap it? I dont think the change towards a other crime fighting base will solve it completly.

 

[Abnormalmind]

Just a few comments about my recent game:

Hiawatha built roads through woods and jungles.
Quinqueremes turn into monstrous killing machines with their recon exps.

 

[chicorbeef]

BUT.... BUT.... This may not solve the problem with the big cities. In my game, my 33 pop city is generating 17 unhappiness, 7 of it from crime. I agree, if we would use / median for crime, this may be lower, but maybe not.
Could we additionally set the exponential value for population a bit lower? Or cap it? I dont think the change towards a other crime fighting base will solve it completly.

Gazebo is planning to introduce a new model based on the average city population of your empire. See above.

Just a few comments about my recent game:

Hiawatha built roads through woods and jungles.
Quinqueremes turn into monstrous killing machines with their recon exps.

Did he build the roads to support Forts? And yeah, Quinqs are very strong, but they're limited to the coast and fall off later.

 

[glider1]

Honestly I think food makes way more sense than production for crime. People generally don't commit crime when they're well fed.
That said I think the best method would be a hybrid between and , rather than and or . We would also rename Crime to "Stability" or something.

Love the idea but don't you have to improve the wide playing AI's defense to pillaging? A human goes through the backdoor and pillages the wide AI's farms and to a lesser extent mines and induces a revolt at a critical point in the war. Is the AI good enough to return the favour? Not in my experience.

 

[CppMaster]

Indeed. A hybrid of food and production might make that moot. It’s my favorite this far. Getting defense out of the happiness system is my goal. It’s just problematic.

The hybrid of food and production need might be a good idea. However, it's more complex than other needs and I've heard several times on this forum that complexity in already complex system (which happiness system is) is not desirable.
If Crime is problematic then why not just remove it and make other needs a little higher? It simplifies a bit complex happiness system, which is desirable, and removes the problematic mechanic. It would be more difficult to balance the hybrid need than other needs and it pushes away gold version of Vox Populi.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Gazebo is planning to introduce a new model based on the average city population of your empire. See above.

the other solution I'm considering is having the population scaler be a scaler based on the average population of your cities, not the actual population of the city itself.

The strenght of the modifier is now based on the average population, not of the city population. But the modifier itself (more pop = more need) is the same.

 

[tu_79]

I do like food as the sole source of crime. I think it's fine that when focusing on production city is more unhappy. There are ways to overcome it, working fewer specialists, or looking after more luxuries.

After reading some commentaries on diminishing returns, I'm agreeing that cities should be allowed to grow bigger than what would be optimal. Still, the happiness mechanic is a useful tool to prevent overdoing things.
So, I'm leading towards a mixed demand curve. One component that scales linearly on city population and number of techs, plus another component that scales quadratically on city population but inversely with the number of techs. This way, in the early game demand scales mostly quadratically on pop size, while in the late game, when it easier to have filled every working slot, the demand becomes more linear on pop size.
I still think it's easier to let laborers (unemployed citizens) not count for city unhappiness.

As for the unhappiness spirals, I think the best way to deal with them is letting revolts to be a release mechanic. When a city revolts, partisans appear and failing to crush them in ten turns results in the city seceding. Well, have the city lose population whenever partisans are created. This way, the city will be more manageable once the rebels are done. And the unhappiness spiral will be broken.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Here is a city size and happiness generation comparision from my actual game.

I could imagine one of the made suggestions could help:
Remove Crime: I will compare some values in my game, if removing crime and not replacing it with something other might be a solution.
----> Completly removing crime would lead to 36 more happiness, sounds too much, but to compare it better, we remove also the 46 happiness from Religious beliefs (pacifismn with india on a pangäa map is simply overpowered).
Iam at the moment at +13 happiness... after removing both variables, I would stay at 3 happiness.... sounds realistic for the amount of big cities I have.

This would be maybe a solution, but I still think we should first try the Food/Hammer crime fighting, cause it sounds interesting and logical.

It will not be a solution to the big cities problem, cause even every building is constructed in my cites, I get more and more illiteracy, boredom and poverty. (If you wonder why I have only 10 urbanization, my priority in this game is: cultural specialists, tiles, scientists, rest of specialists. All my specialists are improved by mastery and humanismn (+1 culture per specialist). So the boredom should be really low, instead it rises as every other aspect.

In my opinion, my cities are not that big for a indian nation, bigger than any other civ (all other civs stopped their growth at around average 20 pop, except the celts, which have pantheon belief +2 happiness per celid hall), but I reached this size only by my unrealistic belief benefits. I hope this shows, how broken the exponential modifier by population is.