Ok. Buildings reduction are not reducing the cap, but the effect is even stronger than I thought, making the whole unhappiness from needs complexity unnecessary. As it is, the biggest factors are city pop size and the reduction buildings. See. Unhappy = deficit (capped by pop) - reductions In the case above, where the cap is at 4 in the worst case, and reduction is 1 from buildings, unhappiness can never be bigger than 3 from this need, which would be the same as the reduced cap value. But it's even stronger since having a deficit value lower than the cap will still benefit from the reduction. If deficit is 2, capped at 4, reduced by 1, the unhappiness is 1. Anyways, the example discussed by Biteinthemark, where all the deficits were well over the pop cap, shows that we can ignore yields as long as we can provide happiness for the reduced cap value (which is obtained by hammers). If that is going to be the case, I understand CrazyG proposal for dumping the whole yield needs mechanics. We don't need such luggage for such trip. Alternatively, the reduction could be applied to the deficit values before the cap, making yields relevant as long as the pop cap is not hit. For example, Deficit 8, pop cap 4, reduction 2, Unhappiness should be 6 (8-2), capped at 4, thus 4. Now we can just work on caps so they are slightly lower than the happiness we may find to guarantee that some care must be taken to our yield efficiency. This will have the side effect that building a barracks won't immediately reduce distress by 1, if deficit is well over the cap. But unhappiness from needs will be connected to yields for longer.