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

[Gazebo]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/countering-crime-in-the-early-eras.561313/

Sorry, to be clear, Walls do not affect Crime via a modifier - they did at one point, but I forgot that I removed it some time ago. So yes, walls would be a purely defensive structure.

That said, the brainstorm with @pineappledan has me thinking that a hybrid production/defense median is the best outcome here.

G

 

[pineappledan]

That said, the brainstorm with @pineappledan has me thinking that a hybrid production/defense median is the best outcome here.

At the very least, it will save you from having to overhaul Fealty

 

[chicorbeef]

That said, the brainstorm with @pineappledan has me thinking that a hybrid production/defense median is the best outcome here.

Do you have any insight as to how this would work? Are you planning to add both, and make each one individually less potent than other sources of unhappiness? Are you going to create a ratio (eg. 1 defense=1 hammer) and combine them like that? How would percent production buffs be factored in, to specific things (eg. buildings) or in general (eg. Golden Ages)? What will be the more significant element?

At the very least, it will save you from having to overhaul Fealty

I mean, technically he could have just tossed Crime reductions anywhere needed (eg. -5% Crime threshold per Fealty policy). That wouldn't be fun though.

 

[Gazebo]

Do you have any insight as to how this would work? Are you planning to add both, and make each one individually less potent than other sources of unhappiness? Are you going to create a ratio (eg. 1 defense=1 hammer) and combine them like that? How would percent production buffs be factored in, to specific things (eg. buildings) or in general (eg. Golden Ages)? What will be the more significant element?

I mean, technically he could have just tossed Crime reductions anywhere needed (eg. -5% Crime threshold per Fealty policy). That wouldn't be fun though.

Simply make the median a combined factor of city defense and production (probably at a 2:1 ratio), and then have the city yield comparison be on the same level. So you'd get the consistency of defense, combined with the dynamism of production.

G

 

[yogiebere]

For me I keep hitting this point in Industrial/Modern where agribusinesses and grocers kick in and my cities start growing rapidly and then any city above about 24 pop starts getting super unhappy (in the ballpark of -9 unhappiness from needs).

The buildings that should help curve this unhappiness: museum, hospital, arsenal, stock exchange, research lab, broadcast tower take a TON of hammers, cost >6 gold each (besides stock exchange) and I always end up diving from a positive happiness into the -20 or worse range with tons of negative gold trying to keep my infrastructure up. Am I supposed to slow growth way down until I can finally construct the full range of Modern buildings? Then slow down again until Atomic buildings are built?

Also what's up with Religious Division? Is this supposed to be a huge PitA if I don't go Rationalism? I end up just buying tons and tons of inquisitors when they're cheaper in Renaissance/Industrial and using 1 every other turn just trying to keep this unhappiness source down. Producing 200/faith per turn, have synagogues and monestaries and Grand Temple.

 

[CrazyG]

Not a red herring, no - my point is that if we're going to have a 'unhappiness tax' (which is what crime is right now, as it's very hard to actually ameliorate in-between building unlocks), I'd rather it be a tax on something that players can more readily modify. There are many, many more ways to get production than defense.

G

Production already unhappiness because you need production to build all the happiness buildings. When I have happiness problems, its in low production areas (likes coastal cities).

I don't think it really offers many opportunities to increase happiness either. Am I going to unwork my artist to work than engineer? Work a mine instead of a trading post? Most of the time, you would have to unwork a tile that produces gold, culture, or science (thus fighting unhappiness!)

 

[Gazebo]

Production already unhappiness because you need production to build all the happiness buildings. When I have happiness problems, its in low production areas (likes coastal cities).

I don't think it really offers many opportunities to increase happiness either. Am I going to unwork my artist to work than engineer? Work a mine instead of a trading post? Most of the time, you would have to unwork a tile that produces gold, culture, or science (thus fighting unhappiness!)

Right, but see my posts above: if we're going to have an unhappiness tax (which we do have right now - Crime from defense is quite static), I'd rather it be something that players can affect via improvements, specialists, buildings, etc. It would at least be variable and, critically, it wouldn't become such an issue for high-pop cities (unlike crime, which scales out of control).

G

 

[chicorbeef]

Right, but see my posts above: if we're going to have an unhappiness tax (which we do have right now - Crime from defense is quite static), I'd rather it be something that players can affect via improvements, specialists, buildings, etc. It would at least be variable and, critically, it wouldn't become such an issue for high-pop cities (unlike crime, which scales out of control).

G

Still, what I think is the underlying problem (the exponential pop modifier to unhappiness) will be present, and that's going to be tough to solve. In @pineappledan 's example, he had Red Fort in his capital but that didn't stop the absurd level of unhappiness he experienced (13 crime in his capital alone).

 

[Kim Dong Un]

@Gazebo I'm going to assume the PSU problem is fixed? Regardless of all the tinkering that's going down, I'd just like to know if a new beta/version is on the horizon? Honestly, I'm tweaking out here man! Can you believe I've had to actually play other games in my free time since the last release? Almost an entire month! Absolute madness...

Y'all got anymore of that Vox P? Straight into my veins baby!

P.S. I think I may have a problem guys...

 

[Gazebo]

Still, what I think is the underlying problem (the exponential pop modifier to unhappiness) will be present, and that's going to be tough to solve. In @pineappledan 's example, he had Red Fort in his capital but that didn't stop the absurd level of unhappiness he experienced (13 crime in his capital alone).

See my post above earlier on that issue.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Throwing this out there, why are we using production for crime.....instead of food? Food is not really connected to the happiness system (very very loosely through famine), whereas production builds the thing that affect happiness.

So what if you used food. If people don't have enough to eat they commit crime (which I think is as reasonable a connection as production equals crime).Then the bigger population cities (which tend to have a lot of food) take care of themselves.

The big food, low production cities still suffer because they don't have infrastructure, but at least they don't have to worry about crime. Meanwhile the low food high prod city worries about crime, but can apply the hammers towards buildings that reduce it.

 

[Gazebo]

Throwing this out there, why are we using production for crime.....instead of food? Food is not really connected to the happiness system (very very loosely through famine), whereas production builds the thing that affect happiness.

So what if you used food. If people don't have enough to eat they commit crime (which I think is as reasonable a connection as production equals crime).Then the bigger population cities (which tend to have a lot of food) take care of themselves.

The big food, low production cities still suffer because they don't have infrastructure, but at least they don't have to worry about crime. Meanwhile the low food high prod city worries about crime, but can apply the hammers towards buildings that reduce it.

We could definitely do food. I was worried about double-dipping on the unhappiness from famine (which is why I've avoided it). Really, any base yield that scales is better than the current defense yield.

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

But Crime is not really a big problem outside of really huge citiies. Why overhaul the system when that is unneeded? Just make big population scale the Crime needs per pop less, that'd be simpler.

 

[ElliotS]

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.

 

[Stalker0]

But Crime is not really a big problem outside of really huge citiies. Why overhaul the system when that is unneeded? Just make big population scale the Crime needs per pop less, that'd be simpler.

This is a fair point as well. Its hard to push towards Gold when we are revamping one the core subsystems in the mod.

 

[pineappledan]

We could definitely do food. I was worried about double-dipping on the unhappiness from famine (which is why I've avoided it). Really, any base yield that scales is better than the current defense yield.

Is there some sort of famine event that I am not aware of? How have I not heard of this famine mechanic before?

At any rate, I think any in-universe justification for what causes crime is incidental; we should just make crime do what we need it to do.

At this point, I like the idea of making crime a need based on a harmonized / the best. It takes it away from , which is the bottleneck for most other needs, and keeps defence buildings relevant.

 

[kawyua]

or sounds like it would make crime a near non-factor? It sounds unengaging and a bit scary in terms of balance.

I think this is an opportune time to make contribute to city needs. Making crime have to count both the defense and the /turn output of a city would be nuanced enough for large cities to be able to work properly. This would be so cool, but I get it if this would be complicated

 

[CppMaster]

think this is an opportune time to make contribute to city needs. Making crime have to count both the defense and the /turn output of a city would be nuanced enough for large cities to be able to work properly. This would be so cool, but I get it if this would be complicated

Faith is too static. You can increase that only with shrine, temple, some wonders and beliefs.

 

[Gazebo]

But Crime is not really a big problem outside of really huge citiies. Why overhaul the system when that is unneeded? Just make big population scale the Crime needs per pop less, that'd be simpler.

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'm considering the change because, as I noted, this is a long-standing quirk of the happiness system and it's inelegance (lots of custom breaks) are really hampering the design. It's simply not a good method right now. I'm going to experiment with food (haven't done anything on this yet).

G

 

[ElliotS]

Is there some sort of famine event that I am not aware of?

When your city is starving (AKA producing less food than it consumes) you get unhappiness from famine. This happens so rarely it's really a non-factor.