New Beta Version - October 10th (10/10)

[Txurce]

Our first hypothesis is that its a "big city, many city" problem. Your play results support that. Crdvis is providing a counterpoint from his own play. That may suggest the problem is more specific. We need to hear all of these viewpoints in order to understand what problems exist.

I also sense that the non-spiral unhappiness issue some players have is specific to a certain playstyle. It's also relative. My happiness isssues are no longer hugely problematic, but they are night and day from players who have no idea what I'm talking about. If I have 10-12 cities, am average to high in pop, average in SPs, high in tech, build essentially all "helpful" buildings, usually lead in Wonders, and adjust city workers and specialists when needed... something else is going on.

Not enough TP's? TR's all in the capital? These seem to point to poverty more than distress, but distress is my #1 unhappiness driver.

 

[Gazebo]

He is offering another datapoint, same as you. So far the majority of people (myself included) are not seeing big happiness problems right now. So that suggests either a problem doesn't exist, or that certain playstyles are falling prey to the issue.

Our first hypothesis is that its a "big city, many city" problem. Your play results support that. Crdvis is providing a counterpoint from his own play. That may suggest the problem is more specific. We need to hear all of these viewpoints in order to understand what problems exist.

But his example is worthless.

Ie, why don’t you download the very first version of VP and load this ancient save! Look at how bad it was! I mean, that’s just not sane logic. Nothing from earlier patches matters for this version in terms of comparison because of the changes.

 

[CrazyG]

Sorry, but it sounds like every player which have/had big happiness jumps is a fool doing something wrong (so it doesn't seem as if they aren't focusing enough on production..... could argue that the real problem is their underlying happiness mistakes rather than the swings). If you have a save happiness buffer of 50+ and then fall down to -20, you cant argue, someone have done something wrong.
If you didnt believe those players, do yourself a favor, reinstall 9-25 patch, go to this thread,
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/general-happiness-issues.637416/page-2
and use the save game which can be downloaded there. Press the next turn button and see, how your happiness change in one turn, even nothing in your empire have changed.

I really rarely have happiness issues either and I think it comes down to playing well. I'm sure you will insult in response but its probably accurate.

Some of your comments about how big a city can get, what on earth is going on in your games? Unless you are India you shouldn't be aiming to have a city (that isn't a tradition capital) work 36 tiles and 20 specialists. Even if there was no happiness system at all to hold back growth, this would be true. With progress or authority, I don't see how you can even approach a population of 56 in secondary cities before the game ends unless you are making horrible decisions in regards to food vs other yields.

 

[Minh Le]

Well pop is not the only thing you need in this game... The game offers enough means to fight unhappiness IMO and those who miscalculate it should be unhappy

 

[yuppi]

Is it intended to make peace through another civ? I understand when civ that not involved in war offer you to make peace (though refuse this offer should punish you more), but it is ridiculous to see one civ accept your offer to make peace. How do you get more from the war? You can't get money from the civ you are at war with, but you can steal money from another AI who has no relations with your rival.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I really rarely have happiness issues either and I think it comes down to playing well. I'm sure you will insult in response but its probably accurate.

Some of your comments about how big a city can get, what on earth is going on in your games? Unless you are India you shouldn't be aiming to have a city (that isn't a tradition capital) work 36 tiles and 20 specialists. Even if there was no happiness system at all to hold back growth, this would be true. With progress or authority, I don't see how you can even approach a population of 56 in secondary cities before the game ends unless you are making horrible decisions in regards to food vs other yields.

It's one thing to say, playing well leads to no happiness problems, cause you maybe play that well, some swings didn't bring you in the red. Thats fine. Buts something different to say, all people which had happiness swings are fools and didn't play well. Cause those swings came out of the blue, and losing 30 happiness in one turn in a 6 city empire is no joke. Do you agree?

I didn't say Iam aiming for 56 pop in every city in every game. I simply said, it's sad the game allow that amount of people in one city but people aim for 25 even in late game, and call it tall. Investing in growth pulls you down in the mid game, but greatly increases the efficiency for late game.
Having split 175 pop in 7 cities (25 city size) is worse than sticking them in 5 cities (35 city size).
Your tech and policy cost effectively increase by 11%, your building maintenance by 40%, the worth of a luxury decrease by 29%.
The downsides are slightly less supply cap, more unhappiness, you need a lot more food (around ~40%) and your midgame is slower. I think it's a fair trade.

 

[CppMaster]

I didn't say Iam aiming for 56 pop in every city in every game. I simply said, it's sad the game allow that amount of people in one city but people aim for 25 even in late game, and call it tall.

Why is this sad? Is it also sad that you can't put a unit on every tile? Would an artificial limit that limits a city to 30 pop make you happy, because you have reached the max?

 

[Minh Le]

I didn't say Iam aiming for 56 pop in every city in every game. I simply said, it's sad the game allow that amount of people in one city but people aim for 25 even in late game, and call it tall. Investing in growth pulls you down in the mid game, but greatly increases the efficiency for late game.

I'd say growing too large cities is not efficiency at all, its just bad play. You never want to work all the workable tiles or specialist slots. Always specialize your city to some types of specialist and work only good yeild tiles. When you run out of good tiles, extra pop is not as valuable.

 

[CrazyG]

It's one thing to say, playing well leads to no happiness problems, cause you maybe play that well, some swings didn't bring you in the red. Thats fine. Buts something different to say, all people which had happiness swings are fools and didn't play well. Cause those swings came out of the blue, and losing 30 happiness in one turn in a 6 city empire is no joke. Do you agree?

I didn't say Iam aiming for 56 pop in every city in every game. I simply said, it's sad the game allow that amount of people in one city but people aim for 25 even in late game, and call it tall. Investing in growth pulls you down in the mid game, but greatly increases the efficiency for late game.
Having split 175 pop in 7 cities (25 city size) is worse than sticking them in 5 cities (35 city size).
Your tech and policy cost effectively increase by 11%, your building maintenance by 40%, the worth of a luxury decrease by 29%.
The downsides are slightly less supply cap, more unhappiness, you need a lot more food (around ~40%) and your midgame is slower. I think it's a fair trade.

I never called anyone a fool, and those massive shifts are a thing of older versions.

Its not even close to a fair trade. To get from 25 citizens to 35 is closer to doubling how much food you need. In order to grow that much you need to sacrifice too much production/gold/culture/ whatever. Starting in medieval, buildings are pretty cheap compared to growing and they often are worth more yields than one more citizen would be.

Not working specialists now to try and work more specialists later on won't pay off. You are working food instead of science or culture in order to get science or culture like 100 turns from now, its a really poor trade off.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Why is this sad? Is it also sad that you can't put a unit on every tile? Would an artificial limit that limits a city to 30 pop make you happy, because you have reached the max?

One year ago (or 1.5), it was normal to see 30 or sometimes more citizen in AI cities. In the latest patches they had only around 25, and were do they end without the growth bonus now? Even less. I dunno why changes have to be made to decrease the city size. It's like driving 50km/h on a 100km/h limited street.

I'd say growing too large cities is not efficiency at all, its just bad play. You never want to work all the workable tiles or specialist slots. Always specialize your city to some types of specialist and work only good yeild tiles. When you run out of good tiles, extra pop is not as valuable.

Most people define "too large", if your empire is dropping into unhappiness. If I can handle the unhappiness, why shouldnt I grow? It's more a bad play to have 100+ happiness, cause you have the option to grow and use the happiness for bigger cities but didn't use it.
If you already use lot of specialists in midgame, you cripple your own growth, but may lead in tech and policy a bit. If I didn't use much specialists, my cities can grow, while I can compensate my lack in tech and policies by sending trade routes to leaders. While you "waste" a lot of food for specialists to get your culture and science, I waste my food for growth and get the necessary culture and science from overpowered trade routes. Falling behind on purpose to get my investment back later on, this works for me.

 

[Minh Le]

For what? To be able to work more farms?

 

[tu_79]

If I can handle the unhappiness, why shouldnt I grow?

Early game. A 3 pop city grows into a 6 pop city. Provided your workers allow for those tiles to be 'nice' tiles. So, effectively, the yields of this city are doubled. Probably this is better and cheaper than having one or two extra buildings. Happiness this early just slows down expansion and growth, for limiting differences between different starts.

Late game. A 30 pop city grows into a 60 pop city. At least 20 citizens are working on under average tiles. If you do this you are sacrifizing other yields in order to grow, in addition, those extra citizens don't contribute to your economy. You don't double your yields with double population. More buildings, units, great people (working especialists also slows your growth down) or even projects will produce better value than extra population.

The game is not about who's bigger, or who has bigger yields, but who achieves especific conditions before the others, so efficiency matters. Happiness needs reward efficient play. This is teaching you what you should not do, while leaving a margin (getting your hands on more luxuries lets you ignore efficiency a little bit).
Or you can play Challenges, to see how fast you can get to 200 pop in a map, and ignore victory screens.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Not you, but the other guy did.

You forgot, you need 2 less cities, so the total food which is necessary should be around +50%. From a certain point on, I think it's 20 citizen, the necessary food grows linearly. I think it's around 100 more per pop. My capitol was at 46, fully equipped and was making 440 excess food per turn. Able to grow in only 10 turns. That's OK.
As said, you can gain enough culture and science from your trade routes. I think I have 6 trade routes with 30 gold, 30 science and 40 culture. How many specialists do you need, and how much food do you need for them, to generate 180 culture and 240 science? In modern era. I get that all for free cause I didn't want to lead in culture and science at all cost.

 

[CppMaster]

My capitol was at 46, fully equipped and was making 440 excess food per turn. Able to grow in only 10 turns. That's OK.

Imagine if instead of 440 excess food you would get 440 science, culture, production or gold. I know it's probably impossible to assign citizens that way, but even half of that would be way better. Could you post a screenshot of that city? 440 excess food is crazy high.

 

[ElliotS]

If I can handle the unhappiness, why shouldnt I grow?

I thought the whole point of you whining non-stop was that you can't handle the unhappiness and decide to grow with unrestrained glee only to be surprised by the same unhappiness every game, and then rather than changing your playstyle you go on the forums to complain that the game isn't fair because it didn't allow your crappy playstyle to succeed?

Your quote is absolutely right: Grow within the bounds of happiness and you'll be fine. Your problem is that you grow too fast and seem incapable of understanding that your playstyle is at fault, not the mod.

It would be like spending extravagant amounts of money only to complain to your bank when you can't pay your credit card bill. "How come you let me spend more than I have? This is your fault!"

Take some damn responsibility and stop blaming other people/things for your mistakes.

 

[Gazebo]

I know I've referenced this around here before, but this is highly relevant to our current discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap

Meaty bits:

The late imperial Chinese economy had reached an equilibrium point. It had become stable, efficient, and well organized. The rapidly growing population but slowly growing amount of agricultural land largely prevented any significant capital surplus from developing, as almost all production was required for basic sustenance.

The growing population also provided a ready pool of cheap labor. The Chinese economy was enormous and well integrated. The dense and well-developed water trade networks yielded a relatively large amount of profit to the upper classes and alleviated local supply shortages. Thus, there was no incentive for further technical refinement, and technical progress stagnated.

This is an accurate, real-life description of the problem with over-growing cities.

Also, high-level equilibrium trap is Grade-A cocktail party buzzword. If you go to the same kinds of parties I do (really lame ones).

G

 

[YukiN]

This is an accurate, real-life description of the problem with over-growing cities.

Also, high-level equilibrium trap is Grade-A cocktail party buzzword. If you go to the same kinds of parties I do (really lame ones).

G

We expected nothing less from someone who has spent countless hours on an unpaid mod currently being used by like 50 people.

 

[Gazebo]

We expected nothing less from someone who has spent countless hours on an unpaid mod currently being used by like 50 people.

Ouch? Also, not sure where you are getting your numbers, I get at least 1500 downloads within a week of releasing a new version. Unless everyone is downloading it 30 times...

G

 

[CrazyG]

When thinking about growing, you need to consider what your opportunity costs are. Compare the cost of your buildings to the cost of growing. There are a ton of strong buildings in the medieval and renaissance eras that are cheap. If your next citizen is 1,000 food but you have buildings that cost 600 hammers, why are you focusing food? Get production instead, banks, windmills, opera houses or the like will be more valuable than your 31st citizen.

You also want to look at what the best tile that you aren't working is. If its primary benefit is food, why grow? I see saves where people do this, they really focus on food, then the next citizen works food, and the one after, and the one after. It doesn't accomplish anything, food can't win the game. In vanilla this can work because science was so important and each citizen produces science, but in VP the benefits are too small.

My capitol was at 46, fully equipped and was making 440 excess food per turn. Able to grow in only 10 turns.

When this city grows, what will the new citizen work? Keep in mind he has a maintenance of 2 food.

You are planning to pay 4,400 food for that citizen. Think about what you could build with 4,000 hammers. Is that next tile really worth 4,000 hammers? Why are you still focusing food if it isn't?

 

[YukiN]

Ouch? Also, not sure where you are getting your numbers, I get at least 1500 downloads within a week of releasing a new version. Unless everyone is downloading it 30 times...

G

By subtraction. Can confirm that 1450 of those downloads were me.

Jokes aside, thanks for the good work. Civ is interesting again!