New Version - June 21st (6/21)

[Strigvir]

You're completely crazy for assuming that staying at +15 happiness the entire-game is easy even if you don't go wide.

So it was just a straight up player nerf then? On the emperor start I have +11 happiness but then the bonus decreases as the city grows. I bet AIs have even more starting happiness and thus can sustain +15% bonus even with several cities.
EDIT:

I don't think it is quite so simple as that. 0 is the baseline, not +15. Generally speaking, players do not go above +15 for terribly long unless they have a small empire.

The "baseline" is defined by "at which point happiness stops affecting yields", not by the red/yellow face.

 

[Riot_Starter]

This didn't seem worthy of a full thread, so I figured I'd ask here: Is there a list of all the starting biases for CPP?

 

[WileyNg]

So it was just a straight up player nerf then? On the emperor start I have +11 happiness but then the bonus decreases as the city grows. I bet AIs have even more starting happiness and thus can sustain +15% bonus even with several cities.
EDIT:

The "baseline" is defined by "at which point happiness stops affecting yields", not by the red/yellow face.

Strigvir, I agree with you. It's Gazebo playing with numbers here. The version did move the happiness threshold to +15. And wherever the baseline is has no relevance to the argument here because the best way to examine the happiness boost/penalty is by relative happiness. It doesn't even matter if you call it a bonus or a penalty. In the long run, civs expanding at the cost of happiness lag behind even more, compared to small tall empires.

Say we have:
Small and tall civ A generating 15 happiness;
Medium civ B generating 7 happiness;
Wide civ C generating -3 happiness;
Over-expanded civ D generating -10 happiness;

Their new (and old) penalties/boosts are:
A = +15% (0%)
B = +7% (0%)
C = -3% (-6%)
D = -10% (-20%)

in relative terms:

A = +0% (0%)
B = -8% (0%), = 8%(0%) relatively slower than A
C = -18% (-6%) = 18 %(6%) relatively slower than A
D = -25% (-20%) = 25%(20%) relatively slower than A

It appears that the penalty for unhappy civ is reduced but in relative terms it isn't. Because now that the happy bonus is granted for tall civs, the wide civs actually suffer because of the lost bonus. So in the long run, wide civs are dragged behind by this new happiness system.

Therefore, Strigvir's statement:

So it's basically BNW penalty for going wide, except trying to show less red numbers.

It is absolutely correct.

Assuming:

The local city happiness variables are kept constant in this version.

 

[WileyNg]

I made a quick Excel Graph to end the fight. (it's really become an eyesore to see Funak attacking someone )



EDIT, X-axis is Happiness value and Y-axis is relative penalty in %.



It is so clear that the new dark blue line is punishing the civs with +15<happiness<-15 by a greater percentage than the old one.

Like it or not, Strigvir was right.

The only thing you can argue is it evens out the penalties given to all the civs that is below +15 happiness because of a gentler slope.
That said, it gives all the civs that have +15+ happiness much more boost relative to others.

 

[joosegoose25]

Anyone know how this could happen?

Spoiler :

Turn 11, Standard speed, and Rome is pop 5 with an expansion city. How?

 

[Funak]

If you necessarily are going to argue about nonexistent super-happy empires that somehow keep up with everyone in science without expanding can you please at least add the numbers together right? You can't just take a bonus percentage and a percentual reduction and add them together.

For example if a theoretical small super-empire(lets call them Babylon) with a positive happiness of 15 produces 100 science base before any happiness-multipliers and another empire(lets call them Korea) with -5 happiness also produces 100 science base before multipliers.

Babylon is going to have a science income of 115.
Korea is going to have a science income of 95.
Here is the thing, sure there are 20 science between them, but 95 is not 80% of 115.
95/115 = 0.8260 which translates to 83%
So in this example Korea produces 17% less science than Babylon with a difference of 20 happiness, not 20%.

If you want to go one step further in the old version a difference of 20 happiness resulted in a clear 40% loss of yields, the only reason why your examples and graph doesn't show that is because the old version SEVERELY punished people being above 0 happiness. For every point of happiness above 0 you got 1 golden age point per turn while every point below resulted in not only -1 GAP per turn but also a loss of 2% yields.

Also in the spirit of moving the baseline to wherever you want I'll give you an example of how big of an advantage 20 happiness provided you assuming those 20 happiness took you from -20(our new baseline) to 0 (where the bonuses stops)

In this example Korea is sitting at -20 happiness rocking a 40% yield reduction to their base income of 100 science. Babylon is chilling at a solid 0 happiness suffering no reductions at all to their 100 science.

Korea ends up with a science of 60 while Babylon ends up with a science of 100.
This means that Korea is suffering a 40% penalty (because 60 is 60% of 100), not really hard to count. However since we moved our baseline to Koreas level we are instead calculating Babylons advantage over Korea 100/60 = 1.667 which gives us 67%. This means Babylon is producing 67% more science than Korea, pretty crippling.

With the new system however and a similar situation a difference between -20 happiness (80science) and 0 happiness (100 science) would result in 100/80 = 1.25 = +25%.
So with the new system Babylon would just produce 25% more science than Korea, far less crippling.

 

[Strigvir]

If you want to go one step further in the old version a difference of 20 happiness resulted in a clear 40% loss of yields, the only reason why your examples and graph doesn't show that is because the old version SEVERELY punished people being above 0 happiness. For every point of happiness above 0 you got 1 golden age point per turn while every point below resulted in not only -1 GAP per turn but also a loss of 2% yields.

But that's wrong, excess happiness helps a lot when things go down south (cities get blockaded, world ideology is different from the one you choose). I do like how missing bonus 15% yields (which is btw equivalent of ideology National Wonders and some religious beliefs, but even then they provide only a handful of yields to one city, as opposed to empire-wide buff) isn't SEVERELY punishing for you.

Also in the spirit of moving the baseline to wherever you want I'll give you an example of how big of an advantage 20 happiness provided you assuming those 20 happiness took you from -20(our new baseline) to 0 (where the bonuses stops)

In this example Korea is sitting at -20 happiness rocking a 40% yield reduction to their base income of 100 science. Babylon is chilling at a solid 0 happiness suffering no reductions at all to their 100 science.

Korea ends up with a science of 60 while Babylon ends up with a science of 100.
This means that Korea is suffering a 40% penalty (because 60 is 60% of 100), not really hard to count. However since we moved our baseline to Koreas level we are instead calculating Babylons advantage over Korea 100/60 = 1.667 which gives us 67%. This means Babylon is producing 67% more science than Korea, pretty crippling.

With the new system however and a similar situation a difference between -20 happiness (80science) and 0 happiness (100 science) would result in 100/80 = 1.25 = +25%.
So with the new system Babylon would just produce 25% more science than Korea, far less crippling.

Why are you comparing to 0 happiness Babylon, when the baseline was shifted by 15? 15 happiness Babylon will produce 115 versus 70 science, which is 115/70=64% more. I don't think it's any less crippling than 67%.

 

[sleepyx732]

Why is it being calculated that Babylon has the same base science output as Korea while also having more happiness? Under normal circumstances, if you have less happiness you have more cities/population. If you have more cities/population you have more science.

 

[Brokenbone]

Looking forward to my next game as always, so thank you!

If it's a little of a data point... I've had many experiences where even a little before ideology time, I'm easily in the 50+ happiness mode and kind of don't have to worry about it much for the rest of the game. There's a patronage policy which boosts CS allies gifts of luxury resources, there's also the industry policy finisher sometimes to thank for this.

This might also be a hint to "up the difficulty", though I'm not going to be trying the secret Super Deity any time soon!

 

[Strigvir]

Why is it being calculated that Babylon has the same base science output as Korea while also having more happiness? Under normal circumstances, if you have less happiness you have more cities/population. If you have more cities/population you have more science.

Math isn't your best friend, I presume?

 

[WileyNg]

Why is it being calculated that Babylon has the same base science output as Korea while also having more happiness? Under normal circumstances, if you have less happiness you have more cities/population. If you have more cities/population you have more science.

Dude,
all you said doesn't matter, because Gazebo kept all the other thing constant while simply shifting the curve, as shown in my graph.
i.e. this version further cripples any wide empire.


And Gazebo said this himself:

this should be a nice 'catch-up' mechanic for smaller civs, as they usually have much more happiness than larger civs

The question is, do we feel the tall/wide balance needs further tweaking and tip it towards a tall strategy?

I am still playing the game with the latest patch so may need some testing to find out.

 

[Gazebo]

Woah, everyone, let's all take a deep breath here. We need to test this out a little and see how it plays out before we start with the very heated debates. I think both sides have valid points right now, but, as we all know, there is more to civ than simply raw numbers.

G

 

[Strigvir]

Well, I am playing right now and I absolutely hate that I have to keep at least 15 happiness for some arbitrary reason.

 

[Gazebo]

Well, I am playing right now and I absolutely hate that I have to keep at least 15 happiness for some arbitrary reason.

One might say 0 happiness is arbitrary, or -10 unhappiness is arbitrary, for what it is worth. Again, though, your tone is toxic. Please be civil. It is just a game.
G

 

[TeeInKay]

The happiness is the only thing keeping me from raging out of control. As Askia, on Deity it's currently 0A.D. and I have 4 capitals. It feels very organic, as I conquer the happiness goes up and as I civilize my empire it goes down. You all know this and how it works, I'm just saying that in its current state CPP happiness feels good, it's fun and not hampering. I don't feel like I am playing C&C or SimCity ( earlier versions have felt both ways to me ) good work on the current state Gazebo.

 

[zeta]

...and I'm just sitting here, reading arguments and playing Civ normally, without problems and questions about changes. :3

 

[Funak]

...and I'm just sitting here, reading arguments and playing Civ normally, without problems and questions about changes. :3

Hey! Math is serious business!

On a more serious note, I'm happy that you're enjoying yourself, that is the whole point after all

 

[Strigvir]

One might say 0 happiness is arbitrary, or -10 unhappiness is arbitrary, for what it is worth. Again, though, your tone is toxic. Please be civil. It is just a game.
G

So why playing with numbers when you could just leave the threshold at 0?
Right now it is like "I have positive happiness but not positive enough".

 

[Gazebo]

So why playing with numbers when you could just leave the threshold at 0?
Right now it is like "I have positive happiness but not positive enough".

It's called 'experimentation.'
G

 

[NeyNey]

I am not really sure where to leave this, so I try this thread. Feel free to point me in a more appropriate direction.

I upgraded from the 6/1 release to the 6/21. And now all my hex tiles shows all information as food. So it's impossible to tell at a glance what a tile does. I got latest EUI from install page, and the compability files. I also cleared the cache, any ideas?

Also in my newest game as Denmark. I had a good coastal start and decided to go for an early Great Lighthouse, but it does not grant a free Jelling Stones as a replacement for the lighthouse, is this working as intended? If so it seems to put Denmark at a significant disadvantage.