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

[John.B.C]

I think the happiness is a little too easy now. I hardly need to manage it at all.

I don't agree. I played my first game on immortal (tradition), and phew, in the end it was very tough to win a science victory, due to the fact that my cities became so unhappy (Maybe I grew them too big?). Late game was a constant battle against unhappiness. i Had to build wealth in 3 out of 5 cities for the last 100 turns, it seems - I don't know - it just felt like forever. To have more unhappiness to deal with, in late game, as others has already complained about, would for sure had ruined the game. Unhappiness and money shortage was a real problem. I even had to sell of 2 spaceship factories before they could help finish their job! And very much too late I realized I should have sold off those "food producing horse buildings" much earlier...

I was at least 7 techs behind all game long (And I hadn't even started my third policy tree, when Spain unlocked ideology!), and in late game I came around and was at most 7 techs a head. But due to unhappiness and money shortage. One of the AI's got her final tech for her last spaceship part, the turn before I launched my spaceship! So please no more unhappiness, because I already think it's too hard!

Is there a guide explaining the happiness system somewhere to be found, explaining the relationship between research & happiness, and city size etc.?

 

[pineappledan]

I've been playing a Greece game, Prince difficulty. Currently inches from Industrial era.

I've been sitting at +15-25 since Classical, with sporadic wars, but no long, dragged out affairs.
I have 2 mercantile CS allies, so I think I've been floating comfortably above the happiness line thanks to that. I've found it very easy to maintain a healthy buffer on happiness with this game.

I think with the changes to happiness, I can finally move back up to King. I moved down to prince mostly to avoid getting crushed under the old happiness system.

 

[Txurce]

I want happiness to be an indicator of making mistakes and/or a sign that you need to turn things around, not a slap in the crotch because your build order isn't perfect. A slipping happiness value (sub +10) would be a sign that you need to adjust. Negative unhappiness for extended durations should IMO, be reserved for:

• Serious infrastructure screw-ups (looking at you, @Gazebo)
• Serious overextension or overgrowth
• Overplaying your hand in a war, either way
• Massive religious/ideological unrest

If those are the times that players spend in < 0 happiness, then I think the system 'works.' If, however, the majority of people are at +20 for the whole game, then it is too easy.

Runaways haven't been an issue for me over the last several patches. Games were very even until I hit the happiness tailspin.

I just played a game where a lot broke my way, including getting Pacifism + taking over the only other religion on my 3-civ continent, and access to a lot of cultural CS. With all this, happiness was never a consideration. Projecting a bit (we'll see next game), less of those benefits would have required me to build happiness structures sooner. But i think I could have stayed on the + side. I like happiness being something I have to consider, but I cannot overstate how much I agree with how you want it to play.

I think you've done it, my man. Congratulations.

 

[tu_79]

Is there a guide explaining the happiness system somewhere to be found, explaining the relationship between research & happiness, and city size etc.?

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/guide-handling-happiness-reprise.633131/

 

[Gazebo]

Runaways haven't been an issue for me over the last several patches. Games were very even until I hit the happiness tailspin.

I just played a game where a lot broke my way, including getting Pacifism + taking over the only other religion on my 3-civ continent, and access to a lot of cultural CS. With all this, happiness was never a consideration. Projecting a bit (we'll see next game), less of those benefits would have required me to build happiness structures sooner. But i think I could have stayed on the + side. I like happiness being something I have to consider, but I cannot overstate how much I agree with how you want it to play.

I think you've done it, my man. Congratulations.

I would say that your investments paid off in such a way that you were thus rewarded with the ability to delay some happiness infrastructure. That's something that was missing - previously you had to execute your strategy AND constantly play catch-up on happiness infrastructure. A 'neutral' run will still need to keep it in mind, but the extra happiness policies/wonders/beliefs now actually give you relief (instead of often being mandatory).

But, we'll see. Balance is an ever-changing beast.

G

 

[Txurce]

England is offering me a peace deal, but it's "impossible" from the start, and she won't accept my "Accept." The warscore is 80, and the war has gone on for a long time, so there's no issue there. When I propose a white peace, she says No, but accepts. This looks like exactly the same problem we had a while back. has anyone else experienced it?

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

So my last. Emperor on Small World Simulator, Standard Speed as China.

Gave up on Turn 160 as Sweden and Korea were double teaming me into oblivion.

My main curiosities this game was a check up on happiness for Tall and seeing how the new ranged units played out.

Happiness wise I was good. I was in reasonable happiness levels (a bit positive, a small negative) for most of the game. That looked good.

Combat wise, I got a very nice chance to test out the new Composite Longbow against a Sweden going heavy swordsmen. This was in jungle so the bows should be dramatically weaker, but I wanted to see if a pure bow strategy murdered him....which to me is the upper bound litmus test (if I won that war under pure conditions than I would confidentally say bows are too strong now).

Fortunately that was not the case, and while the new bows are clearly stronger and more durable, ultimately they could not hold out against the sword march, and I eventually crumpled. Now of course I need to try that in more open field conditions when swords are not as favorable to see if it still holds true, but its a good first pass.

So it was not only in a terrain unfavourable to ranged, but also against Sweden which gets 15% more CS on their units (with GG), probably has gotten more XP than others would have because of GG spawn by that point, and even if the above aren't true he still has a massive +20% attack power? If the bows won that, they wouldn't be OP, they'd be beyond broken.

I think the happiness is a little too easy now. I hardly need to manage it at all.

I like it now. The only problem I see is that some ideology tenets that are purely about happiness won't be impressive and might turn unpickable unless you really do badly, like the one with happiness per courthouse/constabulary, or specialists providing happiness, etc.

 

[Hosannah]

I keep getting "empty" trade requests from Poland in my current game. Has anybody noticed something like this as well? I've never had this before.

 

[Omen of Peace]

I had a couple empty trade requests.
It's happened in the past, but it's true that I don't remember getting any in the April/May versions.

Regarding happiness: it currently feels strange not having to manage it constantly anymore, but it's Good and we'll get used to it fast.

 

[Cozzolino]

I keep getting "empty" trade requests from Poland in my current game. Has anybody noticed something like this as well? I've never had this before.

I got one from Marocco, closed it and never happened again

Quick question: maybe it's me noticing for the first time but, does puppeting increase culture cost by 5%?

 

[ElliotS]

does puppeting increase culture cost by 5%?

It should not.

 

[Cozzolino]

It should not.

Welp, looks like it is

 

[pza]

Welp, looks like it is

Report Bugs on Github. https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues

 

[Txurce]

England is offering me a peace deal, but it's "impossible" from the start, and she won't accept my "Accept." The warscore is 80, and the war has gone on for a long time, so there's no issue there. When I propose a white peace, she says No, but accepts. This looks like exactly the same problem we had a while back. has anyone else experienced it?

The above example occurred after t300. It was the first time I had a problem with the peace mechanic.

I then started a new game, and hit the Celts pretty hard early on -- the war score was 88. I waited to get into medieval, then tried to get Capitulation. They wouldn't accept it, and never offered decent terms (but did offer something). Is there an answer for this that I'm missing?

 

[Gazebo]

The above example occurred after t300. It was the first time I had a problem with the peace mechanic.

I then started a new game, and hit the Celts pretty hard early on -- the war score was 88. I waited to get into medieval, then tried to get Capitulation. They wouldn't accept it, and never offered decent terms (but did offer something). Is there an answer for this that I'm missing?

Report with a savegame.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Report with a savegame.

Had a peace with no offer happen, too. It's this savegame. I just got a sudden offer from Sejong, and it was blank from both sides and I could pick whatever I wanted.

 

[Txurce]

Report with a savegame.

Will do, the original example. In the current Celtic game, they just capitulated with an 84 score on t207.

 

[Gazebo]

Had a peace with no offer happen, too. It's this savegame. I just got a sudden offer from Sejong, and it was blank from both sides and I could pick whatever I wanted.

Will do, the original example. In the current Celtic game, they just capitulated with an 84 score on t207.

My guess is that it is something to do with cities being added (or trying to be added) to the deal.

G

 

[Randomsheep]

I keep getting "empty" trade requests from Poland in my current game. Has anybody noticed something like this as well? I've never had this before.

I got one from Marocco, closed it and never happened again

You need to be be reporting these to github. It is not going to be fixed otherwise.

You are playing a beta so please help Gazebo with the bugged saved games.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

My conclusion after playing a bit more is that Archer line isn't as bad as I thought. They need tuning down, perhaps, but not to a huge degree.

However the more I play Aztecs even after this buff, the more I'm underwhelmed and thinking "I'd be better off with Denmark, Greece, Japan, Rome, China, France, and pretty much everyone else". Jaguars are only good before Archers or Spears come to play and after that you're way better off just making archers of your own, the UB requires certain terrain types to be really good, the UA yields are okay early but fall off even despite the buff. Golden Age doesn't compare to what others will get because Golden Ages aren't as good as they were in vanilla. If you'd play Napoleon, that city you need to take to get a favourable win treaty as the Aztecs not only would fall easier, you'd also get 1/2 GWAM, +Culture/Production in cities which might be longer or shorter depending on populace than Aztec GA but always has better +yield percentages than a Golden Age, but not providing the Gold. The same applies to many other civs, Aztecs just look poor in comparison. Or so they feel, at least.

+easy tributes early on
-spear UU civs have it even easier
+easier religion, early gold
-other civs have better help with that
+in forests UU's got moves like jaguar
-UU falls off a cliff into the abyss almost instantly if AI takes the right techs
+free Golden Ages
-not as good as they used to be, you better get Mosques + Inspiration if you want it to be a real deal
+UB isn't Coffee House
-it also isn't Jelling Stones/Acropolis/Colloseum/Dojo/Hanse/Kasbah/Chateau/etc`