New Version - June 12th (6-12)

[JamesNinelives]

Happiness was behaving fine for the AI, I’m surprised at the reports of early game problems.

I wonder if the AI's less aggressive expansion has helped them in that regard. I don't see it mentioned in the patch notes, but I think that was going to one of the things implemented in this version.

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.

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[Rosaria's Sandwiches]

Definitely not slowly for me; however they do settle (hah!) with no more than 5 cities in my games.

 

[Bhawb]

Didn't notice them settling much slower, I didn't slow down any either, but our continent was a bit cramped so everyone filled up the place with 5-7 cities each. Haven't had any significant runaways either which is nice, although it feels weird that Shoshone/Korea have managed to keep up with my points when I've already got 2 vassals and quite a few cities from each.

Happiness has been a bit weirder than I remember as far as which needs are representing my unhappiness. It used to be that I'd expect to see a bit of unhappiness from each need, and maybe poverty/distress being a bit high depending on the city's local area. Now I have 0 unhappiness from most yields, but cities will randomly have all their unhappiness from poverty or distress. Functionally doesn't change how I deal with happiness but it was a bit strange to me.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I've started a game in Marathon Speed and I got the following quite early in the game. I cleared one encampment and that resulted in completing a number of other quests involving luxuries. I also noticed that the AI also had similar situations happening to them where a string of alliances is achieved. Do people notice this in other speeds?

Spoiler :

 

[azum4roll]

Did all of those city states ask for the same luxury?

 

[amateurgamer88]

Did all of those city states ask for the same luxury?

I believe two asked for Glass and the remaining two wanted Jewelry. I ended up being allied with two CS allies. What surprised me was that, before I achieved this, another AI also got the same CS allies and I just happened to overtake that AI in CS influence due to completing my quests afterwards. I wasn't sure if it's just fortunate or if it happens a lot. I mostly play on Standard now and these sort of chains are extremely rare. Maybe another unbalance of Marathon speed?

 

[azum4roll]

I think currently if more than one city state gives a quest in the same turn, they're very likely to be the same quest.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I've started a game in Marathon Speed and I got the following quite early in the game. I cleared one encampment and that resulted in completing a number of other quests involving luxuries. I also noticed that the AI also had similar situations happening to them where a string of alliances is achieved. Do people notice this in other speeds?

Spoiler :

View attachment 526876

I play on Epic speed and I've noticed this kind of thing happens occasionally, but not to the degree you have there. It is common to get two at a time (particularly on large maps with lots of city-states). Sometimes you get three. More than that is possible, but a bit of a rarity.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I've started a game in Marathon Speed and I got the following quite early in the game. I cleared one encampment and that resulted in completing a number of other quests involving luxuries. I also noticed that the AI also had similar situations happening to them where a string of alliances is achieved. Do people notice this in other speeds?

Spoiler :

View attachment 526876

Solving more than one quest by one task isn't rare in my games. Once I've skipped 3 techs cause I finished 5 CS quests at same time. All time standard speed and in most cases standard size.

 

[AndreyK]

When you complete one quest, you may get allied with CS that gives you a luxury that was goal of another quest, and get allied with yet other CS that gives you a luxury that was goal of yet another quest. It may happen.
Not often, but happens.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

When you complete one quest, you may get allied with CS that gives you a luxury that was goal of another quest, and get allied with yet other CS that gives you a luxury that was goal of yet another quest. It may happen.
Not often, but happens.

Maybe, its only strange that those quest nearly always give the same yields.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I've started a game in Marathon Speed and I got the following quite early in the game. I cleared one encampment and that resulted in completing a number of other quests involving luxuries. I also noticed that the AI also had similar situations happening to them where a string of alliances is achieved. Do people notice this in other speeds?

Spoiler :

View attachment 526876

Similiar happens to me from time to time (Epic speed). My favorite is "Find the lands of <Civilization>" (and apparently all CS wants them), and when suddenly I jump 1-2 techs ahead in just one Turn I realize "Aaaah, I found them!"

 

[tu_79]

When you complete one quest, you may get allied with CS that gives you a luxury that was goal of another quest, and get allied with yet other CS that gives you a luxury that was goal of yet another quest. It may happen.
Not often, but happens.

Exactly what happens. Works best if you can find lots of CS in a few turns.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Maybe, its only strange that those quest nearly always give the same yields.

Well, it's always a luxury that you don't have access to yet, but is available somewhere on the map. If you have most of the luxuries already, there aren't a lot left to choose from.

 

[arthurF]

I really don't understand the "distress" unhappiness mechanic. It hits me really hard, with all anti-distress buildings, most tiles improved. Seems odd to me.

 

[4CV]

I really don't understand the "distress" unhappiness mechanic. It hits me really hard, with all anti-distress buildings, most tiles improved. Seems odd to me.

"Distress" means lack of the basic goods (food & hammers), like "poverty" means lack of gold, etc. First of all, you're supposed to produce enough food and hammers to meet the needs of your people. If population grows too much you'll get problems. So you have to avoid endless growth, which is intended for balance puposes. "Anti-distress buildings", as I see them, only give you a chance to grow just a little bit more.

 

[arthurF]

so all "tall" cities are doomed to distress?

 

[4CV]

so all "tall" cities are doomed to distress?

I have to admit I don't understand too much of the mechanics and theories of the game, and of all the discussions about "tall" and "wide" strategies. But I think, growth has to be limited somehow. Number of cities is also controlled, by tech costs etc.
You can "stop growth", minimize other sources of unhappiness and just leave "distress" as it is. A well developed city will survive this. Build Public Works repeatedly, but their costs will rise too...

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I really don't understand the "distress" unhappiness mechanic. It hits me really hard, with all anti-distress buildings, most tiles improved. Seems odd to me.

This version has a happiness problem, especially distress is reported to be an overwhelming source of unhappiness, but it's a general problem. Some numbers were tweaked in the wrong direction.
You are able to fix it by yourself, if you use the option someone posted here earlier.
The easiest solution is to use the previous version 6-2, till Gazebo is able to offer a new version.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Or just use my solution in the post https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-june-12th-6-12.646682/page-3#post-15472034 , just copy the file in the right place which is mentioned and enjoy. IIRC it works to games you've already started, but you (and AI) will probably need to grow a pop before the changes are applied, so it's better to start a new game.

The patch is pretty much unplayable without a happiness change, even 2nd June version was pretty bad in this regard and was always becoming unmanageable for wide at around late medieval/renaissance and also would have requires adjustments, but this one makes it even worse.