New Beta Version - September 25th (9-25)

[Gazebo]

It it's interesting and new, sure, but also seems super easy to abuse. There are many ways to get and buff Golden Ages without accumulating any GAPs at all. Wonders, Policies, Great Artists all grant instant ones and if properly buffed can last for a super long time. You can even get permanent Golden Ages in the later eras, fully negating any unhappiness in the late-game where unhappiness might pile up from Public Opinion or heavy War Weariness. Aside from that, getting GAPs from tile yields, policies, etc effectively become free happiness points that artificially lower the happiness threshold. I worry that this change would largely negate unhappiness penalties that should actually be pretty severe if not attended to by properly managing Needs.

Aside from all that, this new mechanic would now have to be balanced against the existing production, culture, gold, and other benefits (Mosques, Baths, I know there are numerous ones) of getting GAs, which would effectively mean nerfing these GA-centric strategies.

Hm? Being in a golden age wouldn't mean you can't suffer from unhappiness - the pool can increase/decrease during a GA.

G

 

[Almonds]

Hm? Being in a golden age wouldn't mean you can't suffer from unhappiness - the pool can increase/decrease during a GA.

G

Oh was that really the only suggestion? Crap. Okay, well that's much less severe. I thought I read someone say GAs should negate unhappiness penalties. Sorry about that...

Even so, that would require a re-balancing of GAPs as yields which will nerf GA-centric playstyles from certain civs, policy trees, and monopoly bonuses to accommodate this change. I hold the same worry that it would greatly affect strategies that manage to attain those yields and stay happy. Particularly, it seems like a warmonger with the sense to accumulate these yields deliberately could play super expansionist while generating those points from their religion or Artistry as a buffer.

Effectively this is = while , and = while . Seems like a can of worms to me. I'd love to be talked into it though! It would make GAPs a more interesting yield.

 

[Gazebo]

Oh was that really the only suggestion? Crap. Okay, well that's much less severe. I thought I read someone say GAs should negate unhappiness penalties. Sorry about that...

Even so, that would require a re-balancing of GAPs as yields which will nerf GA-centric playstyles from certain civs, policy trees, and monopoly bonuses to accommodate this change. I hold the same worry that it would greatly affect strategies that manage to attain those yields and stay happy. Particularly, it seems like a warmonger with the sense to accumulate these yields deliberately could play super expansionist while generating those points from their religion or Artistry as a buffer.

Effectively this is = while . Seems like a can of worms to me. I'd love to be wrong about it though, it would make GAPs a more interesting yield.

Well already = in the current iteration (both positive and negative). It's just that the punishment for being unhappy 'double dips' and takes both GAP and yields when you're unhappy.

Some balancing would probably be required, but the QOL change for newbies, and the improvement of GAP as a yield, would be worth the cost.

G

 

[Almonds]

Well already = in the current iteration (both positive and negative). It's just that the punishment for being unhappy 'double dips' and takes both GAP and yields when you're unhappy.

Some balancing would probably be required, but the QOL change for newbies, and the improvement of GAP as a yield, would be worth the cost.

G

I do see the benefits here much more clearly now that my silly error in interpreting it is not what was proposed. The ideal implementation of this safety net would still mean a nerf to the GAPs for the purpose of actually getting a GA though.

Oh you know what though? Having positive happiness ( = while lol) will also be buffed, since I'm sure the amount of GAPs you would actually need for a GA will shrink with this change. I'm all for trying it, then. Seems very tricky... but it would open new doors, I think?

 

[TwoPodRay]

Oh was that really the only suggestion? Crap. Okay, well that's much less severe. I thought I read someone say GAs should negate unhappiness penalties. Sorry about that...

I was the one raising the point that this should be an area that is addressed/thought of if moving to this implementation. Not that it should or shouldn’t. Just trying to help think of corner cases.

 

[Almonds]

I was the one raising the point that this should be an area that is addressed/thought of if moving to this implementation. Not that it should or shouldn’t. Just trying to help think of corner cases.

Thank you, sorry for not being careful with my perspective!

At any rate, I would say I made a solid case to definitely NOT include it

 

[pineappledan]

Oh you know what though? Having positive happiness ( = while lol) will also be buffed, since I'm sure the amount of GAPs you would actually need for a GA will shrink with this change. I'm all for trying it, then. Seems very tricky... but it would open new doors, I think?

That is patently false. Nothing would be changed about how GAPs are accrued, and what GAP count would be required to trigger a golden age.

The only thing that would be changed by this is that GAPs would have a purpose when your empire is unhappy, which is to create a buffer which holds off the negative effects of unhappiness. In the current system, if you have a constant yield of GAPs, but your empire is unhappy, your GAPs are taken away with absolutely no benefit to you. This system, I feel, would be righting a tremendous wrong, in that civs that have GAP bonuses (eg. persia) actually get something if their empire is unhappy.

 

[ColonelCarter]

That is patently false. Nothing would be changed about how GAPs are accrued, and what GAP count would be required to trigger a golden age.

The only thing that would be changed by this is that GAPs would have a purpose when your empire is unhappy, which is to create a buffer which holds off the negative effects of unhappiness. In the current system, if you have a constant yield of GAPs, but your empire is unhappy, your GAPs are taken away with absolutely no benefit to you. This system, I feel, would be righting a tremendous wrong, in that civs that have GAP bonuses (eg. persia) actually get something if their empire is unhappy.

Are you sure? I thought GAP were added regardless of happiness level. Making GAP a buffer for unhappiness virtually removes the % yields penalty for being unhappy.

 

[CrazyG]

i don't think GAP are a bad yield..........

 

[pineappledan]

Are you sure? I thought GAP were added regardless of happiness level. Making GAP a buffer for unhappiness virtually removes the % yields penalty for being unhappy.

Be me. I have 0 GAPs in my GA meter. I generate 5GAP per turn and have -10 happiness

> I get my 5GAP
> My unhappiness removes 10GAP from the GA meter
> I have 0 GAP

If I generated 0 GAP per turn, it would be functionally indistinguishable from me generating 10 GAP per turn. I can only generate GAP at a rate of (GAP+/-happiness)

 

[Gazebo]

i don't think GAP are a bad yield..........

I don't think it is a bad yield either, but the mechanic under discussion would actually create consistency with GPT in terms of behavior, which I like.

G

 

[CrazyG]

Ok, so if I have 70 golden age points per turn, am I just immune to unhappiness?

I don't really understand what is going on here.

 

[ColonelCarter]

Be me. I have 0 GAPs in my GA meter. I generate 5GAP per turn and have -10 happiness

> I get my 5GAP
> My unhappiness removes 10GAP from the GA meter
> I have 0 GAP

If I generated 0 GAP per turn, it would be functionally indistinguishable from me generating 10 GAP per turn. I can only generate GAP at a rate of (GAP+/-happiness)

Well yeah, but you're still generating the GAP. If you have a buffer, with the change there would be no difference to 10 unhappiness, 5 GAP and 5 unhappiness, 0 GAP. Artistry would basically make you immune to unhappiness.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

I'm worried with the GAP proposal that you would be slammed with unhappiness problems immediately after coming out of a golden age, since you lose the +1 gold per tile that has a huge impact on poverty and no longer have a "buffer" when you do dip into the negatives. It would make me very nervous to do anything too crazy like expanding, warring, or beelining techs during my golden ages, which is contrary to what golden ages should be (times where your empire is more powerful than normal and SHOULD take more risks).

 

[Gazebo]

Ok, so if I have 70 golden age points per turn, am I just immune to unhappiness?

I don't really understand what is going on here.

Assuming the GAP values weren’t changed...

I'm worried with the GAP proposal that you would be slammed with unhappiness problems immediately after coming out of a golden age, since you lose the +1 gold per tile that has a huge impact on poverty and no longer have a "buffer" when you do dip into the negatives. It would make me very nervous to do anything too crazy like expanding, warring, or beelining techs during my golden ages, which is contrary to what golden ages should be (times where your empire is more powerful than normal and SHOULD take more risks).

You’re already hit with penalties after a golden age as it is now. Not sure I understand what you’re getting at.

G

 

[Almonds]

That is patently false. Nothing would be changed about how GAPs are accrued, and what GAP count would be required to trigger a golden age.

The only thing that would be changed by this is that GAPs would have a purpose when your empire is unhappy, which is to create a buffer which holds off the negative effects of unhappiness. In the current system, if you have a constant yield of GAPs, but your empire is unhappy, your GAPs are taken away with absolutely no benefit to you. This system, I feel, would be righting a tremendous wrong, in that civs that have GAP bonuses (eg. persia) actually get something if their empire is unhappy.

The discussion so far has suggested that the addition of this buff to GAP would require looking at reducing the amount of GAP you both generate and the amount you need to trigger a Golden Age. It looks like you jumped in mid-conversation and took my post at face value, which would of course make it patently false. But if we just provide this buff to GAP you don't think we'd make sure to tweaking the numbers? That would make basically every civ immune to the effective of unhappiness if they took Artistry.

I don't think it is a bad yield either, but the mechanic under discussion would actually create consistency with GPT in terms of behavior, which I like.

G

After thinking about it all afternoon, I like this idea more and more! While the amount of base GAP yields will need to be nerfed, the benefit of getting your empire into excessive happiness should theoretically be more valuable. The question is how do we sort out all of the base GAP yields? It's crept into many different sources over the last year and a half.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

You’re already hit with penalties after a golden age as it is now. Not sure I understand what you’re getting at.

G

It's different now because assuming happiness criteria remained static during your golden age, you're no better or worse off after the age has ended. With the proposed system you might potentially be worse off by entering a golden age, since the GAP pool pre-golden age was keeping you from experiencing unhappiness penalties. Whether or not those penalties outweigh the bonuses you get from a golden age, that is also possibly up for debate, but I'd argue a tall empire would benefit more from having positive happiness than a golden age.

 

[Gazebo]

It's different now because assuming happiness criteria remained static during your golden age, you're no better or worse off after the age has ended. With the proposed system you might potentially be worse off by entering a golden age, since the GAP pool pre-golden age was keeping you from experiencing unhappiness penalties. Whether or not those penalties outweigh the bonuses you get from a golden age, that is also possibly up for debate, but I'd argue a tall empire would benefit more from having positive happiness than a golden age.

You still fill up your GA meter while in a GA, so you wouldn't leave it with zero, unless it dropped to zero during the GA.

G

 

[chicorbeef]

Assuming the GAP values weren’t changed...

G

Artistry, Stupas, Hero Worship, German UA, Iconography (and any other Enhancer beliefs that provided GAP), Apostolic Tradition, Wisdom pantheon, Love pantheon, Mongol UA, Taj Mahal, GAP monopolies, Colosseum...you'd revamp all this?

 

[Almonds]

Artistry, Stupas, Hero Worship, German UA, Iconography (and any other Enhancer beliefs that provided GAP), Apostolic Tradition, Wisdom pantheon, Love pantheon, Mongol UA, Taj Mahal, GAP monopolies, Colosseum...you'd revamp all this?

That's the scary part...