If the bonus is a 'universal' bonus, it counts once per civ influence. Essentially, every time the yield type goes up, it is stored off.
Also, technically it stores off 10 turns including the current turn, so it is the past 9 turns + 1.
G
New Version - November 6th (11-6)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
If the bonus is a 'universal' bonus, it counts once per civ influence. Essentially, every time the yield type goes up, it is stored off.
Also, technically it stores off 10 turns including the current turn, so it is the past 9 turns + 1.
G
Kierkegaard
Warlord
Is this normal that a well developed city like this focuses so hard on specialists without regard of the empire happiness?
City isn't set on "great person focus", neither changing it to "default focus" changes much.
If I set "manual specialist control" in this one city my empire happiness goes from -16 to -10.
The avoid growth option does not change anything to this.
If I do this there are no specialist in the city, but the negative reduction of -16% of yields in the entire empire is probably less productive than my empire being happier with less specialists in the city I assume as the calculations for this are probably difficult.
If this is normal. I wonder if a "happiness focus" in the city might be a worthy addition to this mod for the ones who are not so micromanaging focused.
Another noticeable effect is that happiness really can fluctuate a lot per turn, even without the empire growing.
City isn't set on "great person focus", neither changing it to "default focus" changes much.
If I set "manual specialist control" in this one city my empire happiness goes from -16 to -10.
The avoid growth option does not change anything to this.
If I do this there are no specialist in the city, but the negative reduction of -16% of yields in the entire empire is probably less productive than my empire being happier with less specialists in the city I assume as the calculations for this are probably difficult.
If this is normal. I wonder if a "happiness focus" in the city might be a worthy addition to this mod for the ones who are not so micromanaging focused.
Another noticeable effect is that happiness really can fluctuate a lot per turn, even without the empire growing.
Last edited:
tu_79
Deity
Yes, it is normal. Happiness is overvalued. Successful empieres have unhappy people.Is this normal that a well developed city like this focuses so hard on specialists without regard of the empire happiness?
City isn't set on "great person focus", neither changing it to "default focus" changes much.
If I set "manual specialist control" in this one city my empire happiness goes from -16 to -10.
The avoid growth option does not change anything to this.
If I do this there are no specialist in the city, but the negative reduction of -16% of yields in the entire empire is probably less productive than my empire being happier with less specialists in the city I assume as the calculations for this are probably difficult.
If this is normal. I wonder if a "happiness focus" in the city might be a worthy addition to this mod for the ones who are not so micromanaging focused.
Another noticeable effect is that happiness really can fluctuate a lot per turn, even without the empire growing.
Deadstarre
Expert
Citizen manager leaves a lot to be desired in this regard, unfortunately for you micromanaging becomes a necessity. I agree %100 a "happiness" focus should exist where the city arranges optimally to keep your happiness at +10 since, as you say, that benefits your empire much more than any alternative- but probably this is way too complicated to code or it would have been done already.
it is unfortunate the AI is also likely to be suffering through this without a happiness option and they cannot micromanage for efficiency, but if you play on higher difficulty they get enough happiness bonuses that it just doesnt matter.
That is your capital, right? You should always do manual specialist control in your capital if you take tradition (happiness or not, its just a good idea). I don't think the issue is the captial either, you really want to work those specialists because they are an enormously powerful source of yields. I'd look at trying to develop your other cities more, or maybe you expanded a bit too fast. If you have to make sacrifices for happiness, try to make them in other cities before the captialIs this normal that a well developed city like this focuses so hard on specialists without regard of the empire happiness?
City isn't set on "great person focus", neither changing it to "default focus" changes much.
If I set "manual specialist control" in this one city my empire happiness goes from -16 to -10.
The avoid growth option does not change anything to this.
If I do this there are no specialist in the city, but the negative reduction of -16% of yields in the entire empire is probably less productive than my empire being happier with less specialists in the city I assume as the calculations for this are probably difficult.
If this is normal. I wonder if a "happiness focus" in the city might be a worthy addition to this mod for the ones who are not so micromanaging focused.
Another noticeable effect is that happiness really can fluctuate a lot per turn, even without the empire growing.
Deadstarre
Expert
he wasnt actually looking for play advice (from the screenshot I agree he may need some play advice, but that wasnt the issue) - rather describing a problem with the default citizen manager seemingly ignoring happiness repercussions when it is a very relevant factor that ideally it would be aware of in some way, hence his "happiness" focus suggestion.
I see that, just thought I would pass along a piece of advice
The City Governor likes food - Tradition gives you half food specialists in the capital, which is why it focuses on them (the City Governor also greatly values GPP points, for obvious reasons).
Note that the AI's city governor performs differently than a human's city governor in one key way - the AIs have varied flavors for different yield types based on their current goals, whereas humans, being human, are given a generic flavor value of 7 (out of 10) for all yields in a city. These flavors sway which yields and tiles are selected (with specializations overriding some aspects of this). Thus humans are expected to do a bit of micro to maximize specific yields.
G
Note that the AI's city governor performs differently than a human's city governor in one key way - the AIs have varied flavors for different yield types based on their current goals, whereas humans, being human, are given a generic flavor value of 7 (out of 10) for all yields in a city. These flavors sway which yields and tiles are selected (with specializations overriding some aspects of this). Thus humans are expected to do a bit of micro to maximize specific yields.
G
Deadstarre
Expert
is it possible to devise a way in which the governor would know that sometimes, for example, working a scientist slot can actually net you less science to the empire in total once the (un)happiness variable factors in - versus just working the land which could improve happiness and thus, science and everything else as well? I assume not but i have to ask
It makes estimates, but the city manager doesn't look at other cities - the code would become potentially redundant and there's no 'super AI' that offers per-citizen directives like that above the governor.
G
Deadstarre
Expert
other cities aside a moment, if im looking at any one city in my empire and I want to maximize the happiness out of it- work tiles and specialists in just the right combination as to reduce the total unhappiness in that city alone as much as possible- which process should I currently choose? with manual specialists off, I do recall the Default option does a decent job at this but strictly speaking it doesn't do what is the most optimal from a pure happiness perspective, as Kierkegaard was just saying. Right now the only alternative to that we have is to put on manual control, and then slot in specialists one at a time to see what combinations work to reduce unhappiness the most (sometimes a merchant reduces unhappiness through poverty more than he adds from being a specialist- but it takes a lot of trial and error to find out for each slot in a city). if there was a governor option who *only* took into account the happiness number when making his decisions what to work, If that was possible to do, it would be a nice addition, although it would be very situational and likely not something for the AI to use.
Default does a pretty good job - keep in mind that the tradition half-food-specialists attribute really excites the governor. It is also the most efficient 'happiness' method as it doesn't give any specific bonuses to any yields aside from those that would positively affect happiness.
G
matlajs
King
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2015
- Messages
- 807
diferent focuses also work kind weird to me. when i let default focus and then, for some reasons city stops work one of cultural slot(writer,music, art) and i pick cultural, it tends to fullfill all the GP slots. That ofc if i also let AI decide which tiles to work. No other GP slots, except diplomatic, do not yield culture, where is a problem?
Kierkegaard
Warlord
On what is the needs per citizen in a city actually based on? Is it how much citizens are in a city or something else?
You need X of a yield per citizen, but the amount is a little complex. Its determined based on what other cities in the game are producing (I think it takes the median value), this is why it can fluctuate so much even if your empire seems stable. It also can be adjusted by constructing certain buildings and wonders.
A very interesting example is in the early game (like turn 15) you will likely have illiteracy because the AI capitals produce more science due to their handicaps. However, it goes away even if you don't increase your science at all, because the AI settle a bunch of cities with 0 science, dragging down the median science. Another one is to pay attention to when other civs adopt certain social policies, especially the 6th Fealty policy, your unhappiness will sometimes spike down at that point too.
Kierkegaard
Warlord
Thank you for your information.
I am just struggling with it in my game, together with my friend where in a handful of turns my poverty went from -38 to -95 in my empire. My friend had similar experience, but with culture.
We went from positive happiness to extreme negative happiness due to this. It just baffles us as we're number 1&2 in this game by a long-shot.
My friend had +5000 culture a turn, is number one by double the amount and is yet -87 in boredom.
I know it is not directly connected. But I have a positive income of +519/turn. Yet my citizens complain of poverty even in my most developed cities that have all gold buildings built in it and/or are on gold focus.
I would honestly, as a ruler, gladly have less income and give it to my "poor people" instead of having revolts/barbarians to deal with every few turns. It's just a nuisance to do so and in modern thriving empires that shouldn't be the case.
I admit we are not the most skilled players. But it seems sometimes very excessive changes to us.
Any pointers would be most welcome too.
I am just struggling with it in my game, together with my friend where in a handful of turns my poverty went from -38 to -95 in my empire. My friend had similar experience, but with culture.
We went from positive happiness to extreme negative happiness due to this. It just baffles us as we're number 1&2 in this game by a long-shot.
My friend had +5000 culture a turn, is number one by double the amount and is yet -87 in boredom.
I know it is not directly connected. But I have a positive income of +519/turn. Yet my citizens complain of poverty even in my most developed cities that have all gold buildings built in it and/or are on gold focus.
I would honestly, as a ruler, gladly have less income and give it to my "poor people" instead of having revolts/barbarians to deal with every few turns. It's just a nuisance to do so and in modern thriving empires that shouldn't be the case.
I admit we are not the most skilled players. But it seems sometimes very excessive changes to us.
Any pointers would be most welcome too.
Can't play VP the way you play vanilla civ - you have to spread your trade routes out between your cities, and hyper-specializing cities for one yield will result in major unhappiness in that city. Also, rushing ahead in techs is a bad idea- it will leave your infrastructure under-developed and cause unhappiness.
G
Kierkegaard
Warlord
I understand your reasoning in your message, however this does not quite translate that way in our game.
I am a bit ahead in technology, but an sich that should not be big problem in your cities unless you cannot keep up with buildings.
However, poverty wise, due to my large poverty I would be inclined to say my hyper specializing is on gold buildings as I want to try to keep my happiness in check. I am prioritizing them above all other buildings because of this.
Take my city of Karakorum for example.
Yields are in the city:
gold: +145.25
science: +167.25
culture: +70
In my humble opinion this seems fairly balanced, except for culture that is lower due to I have been building financial buildings because of my unhappiness. My culture unhappiness is -2, which seems fair and normal to me.
My city unhappiness in this city is at -11. Here's a quick screenshot:
The only guild building I don't possess in this city is a stock exchange. I can't imagine this can cause -10 unhappiness due to poverty.
This city did not had a trade-route going to it before. But not all cities can have trade routes. I have around 15 cities, where of only 10 trade routes. Some of them are landlocked since I own the continent.
Maybe I am understanding the game mechanics wrong, I have no problem if this is the case as I am not the most skilled player. I admit this.
But I would like to gain a better understanding where I have a faulty logic so I can prevent this in the future.
I am also uncertain how I would have to limit my technological advantage too, if this is the problem. I haven't focused super hard on it. I get great scientist at times and am doing well in science. There is not much you can do with great scientist except spending them to gain even more technology or science yields.
I am a bit ahead in technology, but an sich that should not be big problem in your cities unless you cannot keep up with buildings.
However, poverty wise, due to my large poverty I would be inclined to say my hyper specializing is on gold buildings as I want to try to keep my happiness in check. I am prioritizing them above all other buildings because of this.
Take my city of Karakorum for example.
Yields are in the city:
gold: +145.25
science: +167.25
culture: +70
In my humble opinion this seems fairly balanced, except for culture that is lower due to I have been building financial buildings because of my unhappiness. My culture unhappiness is -2, which seems fair and normal to me.
My city unhappiness in this city is at -11. Here's a quick screenshot:
The only guild building I don't possess in this city is a stock exchange. I can't imagine this can cause -10 unhappiness due to poverty.
This city did not had a trade-route going to it before. But not all cities can have trade routes. I have around 15 cities, where of only 10 trade routes. Some of them are landlocked since I own the continent.
Maybe I am understanding the game mechanics wrong, I have no problem if this is the case as I am not the most skilled player. I admit this.
But I would like to gain a better understanding where I have a faulty logic so I can prevent this in the future.
I am also uncertain how I would have to limit my technological advantage too, if this is the problem. I haven't focused super hard on it. I get great scientist at times and am doing well in science. There is not much you can do with great scientist except spending them to gain even more technology or science yields.
I understand your reasoning in your message, however this does not quite translate that way in our game.
I am a bit ahead in technology, but an sich that should not be big problem in your cities unless you cannot keep up with buildings.
However, poverty wise, due to my large poverty I would be inclined to say my hyper specializing is on gold buildings as I want to try to keep my happiness in check. I am prioritizing them above all other buildings because of this.
Take my city of Karakorum for example.
Yields are in the city:
gold: +145.25
science: +167.25
culture: +70
In my humble opinion this seems fairly balanced, except for culture that is lower due to I have been building financial buildings because of my unhappiness. My culture unhappiness is -2, which seems fair and normal to me.
My city unhappiness in this city is at -11. Here's a quick screenshot:
The only guild building I don't possess in this city is a stock exchange. I can't imagine this can cause -10 unhappiness due to poverty.
This city did not had a trade-route going to it before. But not all cities can have trade routes. I have around 15 cities, where of only 10 trade routes. Some of them are landlocked since I own the continent.
Maybe I am understanding the game mechanics wrong, I have no problem if this is the case as I am not the most skilled player. I admit this.
But I would like to gain a better understanding where I have a faulty logic so I can prevent this in the future.
I am also uncertain how I would have to limit my technological advantage too, if this is the problem. I haven't focused super hard on it. I get great scientist at times and am doing well in science. There is not much you can do with great scientist except spending them to gain even more technology or science yields.
First: some amount of unhappiness is intended - it is rare that you can be at zero unhappiness in a city.
Second: look at the +% poverty modifier - that means you're not building the buildings that reduce poverty, such as the grocer.
Third: the system takes some getting used to - every user that has come through thinking something is broken realizes later that it just requires a different play style.
G
Kierkegaard
Warlord
I apologize but I never intended or try to imply that the system is broken.
In fact I rather thought it was due to wrong understanding as stated earlier. I only wanted a better understanding.
Thank you for the info though.
In fact I rather thought it was due to wrong understanding as stated earlier. I only wanted a better understanding.
Thank you for the info though.
- Status
