New Version - June 12th (6-12)

[Takagi Hiro]

Gotta say that after some pondering, I know why I'm not enjoying this release. You want happiness that's harder to manage? Okay; I can deal with some slower growth. You want to tie specialists to happiness? Okay; I guess I'll let up on being a "heavy specialist". You want BOTH? No. Please, God, no.

I think the most frustrating thing is having what seems like an arbitrary mechanic kicking out specialists in your cities with no alert of it happening based on happiness that is ever changing and much harder to control now. A city with a 1:1 happiness/unhappiness ratio risks some minor change ejecting your specialists without a means of putting them back. Halfway to a great merchant? Not anymore, goodbye merchant specialist (discovered 5 turns after this even happened). The level of micromanagement a player has to do to keep things functional with this happiness model just ruins the enjoyment of it when needs are so strict and uncertain. I can no longer play a turn without checking each and every city to make sure nothing's thrown a wrench in the machinery. This feels like it's inching closer to a job than a game.

I'm not against happiness that is challenging to keep high. I'm not against urbanization. Believe it or not, I quite like the idea here. But I am certainly against the two working together so hand-in-hand unforgivingly.

 

[Asterix Rage]

unhappi

Exactly what i wanted to say but well said

 

[CrazyG]

Gotta say that after some pondering, I know why I'm not enjoying this release. You want happiness that's harder to manage? Okay; I can deal with some slower growth. You want to tie specialists to happiness? Okay; I guess I'll let up on being a "heavy specialist". You want BOTH? No. Please, God, no.

I agree there needs to be some changes to the system. But if you want help succeeding on the current version, I think all empires should be looking at Artistry. Two free specialists per city is very strong, and you get more happiness on top of that. You really need to have strong production, gold, science, and culture. Artistry directly gives 5 science per city, and golden ages boost the other three.

Statecraft seems pretty good but its happiness is just so weak compared to artistry. Fealty is so focused on food, I just don't think it provides enough to offset the extra unhappiness from using that food.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

If someone wants more forgiving happiness but doesn't want to make the changes himself before the next hotfix hopefully makes the happiness far easier than both this and the previous version, unpack this in the (2) Community Balance Overhaul/Modular Elements/Happiness mod. I've turned the divisors of unhappy sources back to 100 so you don't get 4 unhappiness where previously you'd get 1, and I've also changed the tech penalty to 50 from 75, meaning that the penalty to how many yields you need to stay happy will accrue slower as you tech I believe.

 

[Takagi Hiro]

So as not to sound too critical, I do want to say there is plenty of good, too. It's natural to focus so much on the bad in feedback, but I am quite happy the AI is finally minding its own business on the territorial field, in fact, maybe too much so. I have not been warned not to settle nearby by anyone, and I'm quite the landgrubber. However, I do much like this approach rather than the other extreme.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I agree there needs to be some changes to the system. But if you want help succeeding on the current version, I think all empires should be looking at Artistry. Two free specialists per city is very strong, and you get more happiness on top of that. You really need to have strong production, gold, science, and culture. Artistry directly gives 5 science per city, and golden ages boost the other three.

Statecraft seems pretty good but its happiness is just so weak compared to artistry. Fealty is so focused on food, I just don't think it provides enough to offset the extra unhappiness from using that food.

I think Statecraft's weaker than the alternatives in more ways than just the happiness - it has a niche, but it's smaller than the rest, while most system changes seem to work against it only making the already small niche smaller and smaller. Why Statecraft's a worse wide tree than both Fealty AND Artistry when diplomacy innately favours wide I just can't ever understand, it makes no sense. I wouldn't mind a buff to more than just Statecraft's happiness, in other words. I agree with you on policies besides that, though.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I agree there needs to be some changes to the system. But if you want help succeeding on the current version, I think all empires should be looking at Artistry. Two free specialists per city is very strong, and you get more happiness on top of that. You really need to have strong production, gold, science, and culture. Artistry directly gives 5 science per city, and golden ages boost the other three.

Statecraft seems pretty good but its happiness is just so weak compared to artistry. Fealty is so focused on food, I just don't think it provides enough to offset the extra unhappiness from using that food.

I'm a big fan of Artistry myself. The thing I find myself missing the most from Fealty is that it makes religions significantly stronger.

Don't underestimate the power of +1 happiness per castle either. In wide games that counts for a lot.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Why Statecraft's a worse wide tree than both Fealty AND Artistry when diplomacy innately favours wide I just can't ever understand, it makes no sense. I wouldn't mind a buff to more than just Statecraft's happiness, in other words. I agree with you on policies besides that, though.

I'm interested to hear why you think diplomacy innately favours wide play. I feel that it's more important for small empires, because they rely more on trade to access things outside of their borders. Having allies is also more useful to small nations than large ones because large nations tend to be able to field larger armies.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I'm interested to hear why you think diplomacy innately favours wide play. I feel that it's more important for small empires, because they rely more on trade to access things outside of their borders. Having allies is also more useful to small nations than large ones because large nations tend to be able to field larger armies.

I mean City State diplomacy. Doing quests is easier when you're wide. Someone wants a barbie camp exterminated, or maybe a barbarian/revolt incursion is happening? Wide can afford the units to send there much more easily, and it's more likely to be close to the chosen CS (because it has more cities and bigger borders). Civ with most culture? It cares not for policies but Culture as a number, and having another city generating +5 Culture = more likely to win, etc. Only techs gained one isn't favouring wide in it being easier to complete them. It's easier to produce more Envoys because you have more cities, it's easier to have a CS near you, and the +2 hammers per ally from Chancery/Wire Service matters more the more cities and allies you have, and since you can produce more guys - well, you get more allies.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I mean City State diplomacy. Doing quests is easier when you're wide. Someone wants a barbie camp exterminated, or maybe a barbarian/revolt incursion is happening? Wide can afford the units to send there much more easily, and it's more likely to be close to the chosen CS (because it has more cities and bigger borders). Civ with most culture? It cares not for policies but Culture as a number, and having another city generating +5 Culture = more likely to win, etc. Only techs gained one isn't favouring wide in it being easier to complete them. It's easier to produce more Envoys because you have more cities, it's easier to have a CS near you, and the +2 hammers per ally from Chancery/Wire Service matters more the more cities and allies you have, and since you can produce more guys - well, you get more allies.

I can agree wide has more net resources to throw at winning city-state contests. There are some factors which balance that though. Tall empires tend to be more developed and grab more wonders: the Roman Forum and Summer Palace for example are pretty great. Tall also favours specialists, so while you won't have as many enjoys you will be producing more great diplomats - and more great people overall for those great person city-state quests.

I would also argue that tall benefits just as much from having city-state allies, if not more. Wide does get more net yields, but the map control, military strength, and (often) strategic resources that city-states grant are worth more when you can't found/capture new cities to get the same thing.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I can agree wide has more net resources to throw at winning city-state contests. There is some balance in that tall empires tend to be more developed and grab more wonders though: Roman Forum and Summer Palace for example can count for a lot.

And I would argue that tall benefits just as much from having city-state allies, if not more. Wide does get more net yields, but the map control, military strength, and (often) strategic resources that city-states grant are worth more when you can't found/capture new cities to get the same thing.

But what if tall fails to get that Roman Forum/Summer Palace? Wide can fail as well, but they're in a better position to acquire those wonders through alternative means. CSs still provide similar map-related benefits to wide though I agree they're somewhat lesser (still, you don't have to make a city and affect your unhappiness/Culture/Science cost), but wide will typically have more military power, discouraging AIs from declaring war on you and directly/indirectly taking over your CSs with brute force.

 

[andersw]

No complaints on where I settle, a LOT more agressive settling viable.
Happiness swings are a bit over the top, drop from pop is harsh, double religious building helps but I wont play Byzantium in every game.

 

[JamesNinelives]

But what if tall fails to get that Roman Forum/Summer Palace?

Talls suffers more from being beaten to a wonder, but they have a much better chance of actually building them.

I will concede that city-states could do with a balance pass. I guess my general point was that Statecraft seems intended to be better for tall empires in the same way that Fealty is stronger for wide empires.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Talls suffers more from being beaten to a wonder, but they have a much better chance of actually building them.

Roman Forum? I wouldn't agree. Getting to the tech is the most important because AIs seem to like Mathematics from my experience, and Tradition has no Science before its fourth pick (only indirect Science from pop). Authority going into Science per kill as second policy, Progress for pop Science, or maybe Authority going straight to Imperium for settler/Science per settler (third policy), will likely get to Mathematics faster if it really wants RF, thus having superior odds of building it. The capital'll have less Production to build it, but you have a headstart. Summer Palace building is a harder thing to say "who's more likely to build it". Did wide ball? Is tall dominant? Maybe what was tall is now a puppet empire (less likely with the last happiness puppet change). At this point in the game, how you've played the civ has a great impact on which side will build it.

I will concede that city-states could do with a balance pass. I guess my general point was that Statecraft seems intended to be better for tall empires in the same way that Fealty is stronger for wide empires.

I agree that Statecraft seems intended to be better for tall by design, but I think that's a problem with the design - it makes no sense. That's countersynergy with who actually gets an edge at CS diplomacy. It gets beaten at tall play by Artistry anyway.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Roman Forum? I wouldn't agree. Getting to the tech is the most important because AIs seem to like Mathematics from my experience, and Tradition has no Science before its fourth pick (only indirect Science from pop).

If tall play isn't able to get wonders like Roman Forum, that seems like a bigger problem than city-state diplomacy. What difficulty are you playing on?

I think that's a problem with the design - it makes no sense. That's countersynergy with who actually gets an edge at CS diplomacy

It makes perfect sense to me. Statecraft helps in several different areas - not just one. They are all things which help tall empires flourish.

It gets beaten at tall play by Artistry anyway.

That seems like a generalisation. Artistry gives you benefits in quite different areas.

If you feel Statecraft needs a buff that's fine, but it's a long way from useless. I often find AIs with Statecraft are my biggest threat late-game, because they have the power to saction me through the world congress. Actually I find that large empires with Statecraft are the worst, because they are strong militarily and diplomatically.

 

[CrazyG]

I just have a hard time finding a way to make use of Fealty's bonuses, in particular the food.

If tall play isn't able to get wonders like Roman Forum, that seems like a bigger problem than city-state diplomacy. What difficulty are you playing on?

I play Deity. As tradition, it is difficult to beat AI to mathematics (very often it comes down to city state quests) and it has a huge opportunity cost. If I have mathematics and tradition I'm throwing everything I have Hanging Gardens, the Roman Forum seems like a bad thing to spend my hammers on.

Tradition + Artistry is just overall in such a stronger position than Tradition + Statecraft would be, and its really easy to add more synergy to the former (mosques, hanging gardens, iconography). What religion supports tall diplomacy? I feel like even if the stars align, tradition into statecraft is good but never great. For example, a tradition start that conquers cities and has puppets can get a decent statecraft, but both Fealty and Artistry are good in that situation too.

That seems like a generalisation. Artistry gives you benefits in quite different areas.

All comments on this forum are generalizations. Artistry is just good in general, 5 science in every city is always good. Golden Ages are always good, all strategies should use great people. Mosques + artistry is a really good combination. I'm sure you can construct a situation where artistry isn't good, but in a typical game going for domination, science, or culture victories it works out great.

 

[Txurce]

Gotta say that after some pondering, I know why I'm not enjoying this release. You want happiness that's harder to manage? Okay; I can deal with some slower growth. You want to tie specialists to happiness? Okay; I guess I'll let up on being a "heavy specialist". You want BOTH? No. Please, God, no.

I think the most frustrating thing is having what seems like an arbitrary mechanic kicking out specialists in your cities with no alert of it happening based on happiness that is ever changing and much harder to control now. A city with a 1:1 happiness/unhappiness ratio risks some minor change ejecting your specialists without a means of putting them back. Halfway to a great merchant? Not anymore, goodbye merchant specialist (discovered 5 turns after this even happened). The level of micromanagement a player has to do to keep things functional with this happiness model just ruins the enjoyment of it when needs are so strict and uncertain. I can no longer play a turn without checking each and every city to make sure nothing's thrown a wrench in the machinery. This feels like it's inching closer to a job than a game.

I'm not against happiness that is challenging to keep high. I'm not against urbanization. Believe it or not, I quite like the idea here. But I am certainly against the two working together so hand-in-hand unforgivingly.

I agree that happiness right now is very tough to handle, and that urbanization in tandem is murderous. But the last 2-3 (?) versions before, I had less micromanagement than I'd had in a long time. In fact, I could play on Immortal minus the worker ignoring cities in a well-played game, and just focusing on total happiness... which was pretty easy. So I'm not focusing on how the two interact as much, because I think something went unexpectedly wrong in this patch, the unintended consequence will be discovered, and there'll be a reset next patch. (I believe this strongly enough to flat-out stop playing this release. Why counter something I think is inherently faulty?)

That said, I hadn't even thought of an invisible, unavoidable downside like losing a mostly earned GP. The fix — every-turn micromanagement like you described — is a good example of what I think VP should avoid as Rule 1, because it kills fun. The redesign (It's not really a fix) here and possibly elsewhere should build out from that premise, rather than adjusting to better approximate it. To do this, I would simplify the system. Complexity here is resulting in what it unavoidably always does: generate more problems than a simpler model.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I just have a hard time finding a way to make use of Fealty's bonuses, in particular the food.

I play Deity. As tradition, it is difficult to beat AI to mathematics (very often it comes down to city state quests) and it has a huge opportunity cost. If I have mathematics and tradition I'm throwing everything I have Hanging Gardens, the Roman Forum seems like a bad thing to spend my hammers on.

See, now I get you. But I feel like the problem there is just that it's really difficult to have a balanced game on Deity. Aren't some civs (and some strategies) going to be much stronger than others?

I'm sure you can construct a situation where artistry isn't good, but in a typical game going for domination, science, or culture victories it works out great.

Well, Statecraft is really built for a Diplomatic victory, isn't that the idea? I just know that if I don't pick Statecraft I'm going to have to fight to control the World Congress, and the yields you get from the opener on Statecraft are really nice.

Artistry is just good in general, 5 science in every city is always good.

The finisher for Fealty gives you +2 science, +2 culture, +2 gold, +2 prod, +2 food, +2 faith in every city. It doesn't kick in as early, but IMO Fealty is the strongest as a complete tree.

I just have a hard time finding a way to make use of Fealty's bonuses, in particular the food.

The big thing for me is that Fealty is really great if you have a religion. Monastaries can effectively get you +3 science per city just from the opener, which is sweet. I'm guessing getting a religion is pretty difficult on Deity?

 

[pineappledan]

I only played a tall game and a peaceful wide in 5-19, but I felt like happiness was in a pretty nice place there. Maybe I would feel differently if I was going for a Domination Victory, but I dunno.

 

[tu_79]

I don't know if this is just an impression, but I believe that AI is settling more slowly than before, maybe it is adapting better than humans to a scenario with fewer happiness available from the beginning.