1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

On Food, Growth, and Happiness

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by CrazyG, Jun 25, 2019.

  1. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,979
    I’ll post any additional ones I saw but I agree with CrazyGs list with the exception of the lighthouse. I think the food there is appropriate and should remain.
     
  2. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,379
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Actually, I'd prefer to see urbanization removals just on food buildings. It makes more sense to me. Right now, we only use them when the city is already happy and we dare to grow, making them a very secondary buildings, but if the extra growth were paired with free urbanization, that would give granaries a second purpose, making them worthwhile again even in unhappy cities.

    Edit. Another proposal that passed inadvertently was to use gpp for need fulfillment. A merchant giving 3 gmp would increase gold yields by 3,only for happiness purposes.
     
    Arthur Jama, vyyt and azum4roll like this.
  3. pineappledan

    pineappledan Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,865
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Instead of the proposed +1:c5happy: happiness on Grocer, I proposed the Workshop's -1:c5unhappy: urbanization be moved to Grocer. The Gardens -1:c5unhappy: urbanization is good where it is, IMO. Personally, I would move the -1:c5unhappy: urbanization currently on Factories to Hospitals.

    Note: Markets and workshops only give 25:c5food:/:c5production: on ITREnd.
    CrazyG dislikes the idea of ITRs giving the origin city something back, but if I recall that was one of the things G liked most about the current system. I personally would advocate to keep the 25:c5production: on workshop where it is. The market boost is so minor, I don't really care that much. Maybe the market's ITREnd boost could be changed to 15-20:c5gold:gold or :c5culture:culture instead, or dropped entirely. Right now it's too minor a boost to be appreciated, but it's more instant food which ticks the StopGrowth crew off
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
    Kim Dong Un and Enrico Swagolo like this.
  4. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    I disagree with all the "more controversial" ones and I can't find a single one I like there - they seem like change for the sake of change that'd hurt the game's balance as a whole for no reason, and out of less controversial ones I dislike Lighthouse change, Progress change, Fealty change, Workshop change (unless Library does get that -1 urbanization - but then, why not have both with it?).

    Fealty Change would mean Fealty's better at Gold than Statecraft, which'd make Statecraft even worse in comparison - I already feel the tree's too niche. It has its uses, but it is too niche.
    Progress change is weird. Food nerf that'll make one less inclined to pick the building policy early, some Gold buff later on makes it barely worth it. Just add +5 Gold per birth to finisher, it's stronger than what you offer because that Food has its use. Maybe something else as well.
    Lighthouse food nerf is senseless. The building's not really OP, it's good for what it does with the right resources, but it's not overpowered.
    Workshop change, as I wrote, would be ok if Library got it instead, but I like how it is - maybe Library should just get it for free.
     
    phantomaxl1207 likes this.
  5. CrazyG

    CrazyG Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,179
    Location:
    Beijing
    Lighthouse can stay as is, I'll edit my suggestion.
    I explain reasoning for all these in the OP. All the changes are intended to be a starting point.
    I'm open to fealty getting something else, I find 11 food per city pretty excessive, especially given that fealty is supposed to not use specialists that much.
    I don't think you really need that many specialist slots. It will make extra specialists from unique building or observatories feel a lot more special. Spamming great people is a really strong strategy that can afford to take a hit.

    I think there needs to be less "free" food in the game, and progress is the most egregious offender. A progress city with no farms, no aqueduct, and no food from religion can grow large enough to force you to lock growth. Its throwing off the balance of food and production in a big way, you shouldn't be able to meet or almost meet all food needs for an entire game from just your initial social policy.This is bad for a lot of reasons
    1. The city manager and the UI cannot factor this food. He overgrows dramatically and always overvalues food as progress (authority too, but in my experience its less of a problem). There are players who don't like having to lock tiles in every city. I believe the AI falls into this trap as well, and I bet new players do too.
    2. It makes progress into fealty weird. The only way to use all the food is to work specialists, which you really can't do anymore.
    3. It makes food heavy land weak, resources like crab have no real advantage over production heavy land. What do you even do if you start on crab without hills?
    4. It makes civs with bonuses to food often pointless. They are basically all forced to go tradition or waste their bonuses
    5. Bonus food does not get affected by growth or food modifiers. This makes mandirs, temple of artemis, and other stuff weird. They affect tradition far more than progress or authority. If progress was reworked so that they had earn their food, suddenly a whole array of things would be way more appealing.
    I'm not opposed to further buffing progress as compensation, maybe increase to 3 hammers or gold per city? This is intended as a starting point to see if reducing food helps the happiness system. Progress just shouldn't have this much food, it throws the whole game's growth system off.

    On the workshop, this building is way too strong right now. It was a great building before it got -1 urbanization or the trade route thing. It can afford to lose something.
    I feel like a lot of the decision making with internal trade routes has been depleted. Its a tough decision where to send the hammer. A good example is if you have tradition, you want production in the capital, production in other cities, food in the capital, and sometimes food in other cities. But you have to choose one option, or use two trade routes, and I really liked that. If I get fat bonuses in the origin city, it feels like I get to have my cake and eat it too. If I can send a food route but get bonus production, its the same situation. Don't let me get both, make me choose.
    If we compared two suggestions-

    25 production when a route finishes
    1 production on the route per turn.

    Can you explain why your prefer the bonus yield? I don't really see an advantage to it, its not as simple, it adds a pop up, it doesn't affect happiness, it won't be hit by multipliers.

    On the idea of culture on ITR, I actually think we agree about trade routes and tourism victories having a problem, but I don't think this is a solution. Your suggestion can add about 1 culture per turn at a time when culture's balance is pretty fragile; adding any source of culture to the ancient era is a big balance change. If the concern is about ETR-ITR balance later in the game, or about win conditions, something should be done to a late game feature.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  6. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,503
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Compare the scaler of Artistry with Fealty. I find 5:c5science:10:c5goldenage: much much more excessiv than 5:c5food:15:c5strength:. In most cases the 15:c5strength: will never play any role in the game.
    The opener of statecraft gives +1 to every yield for 15 citizen. With 10 cities each 20 citizen, you gain total of 78 yields, while 10 monasteries gives 70 yields. Similar, but you have to invest first 1500 faith to build all the monasteries.
    If you think +11 :c5food: is too much for a whole policy tree, take a look at rationalismn. My smallest core city has a population of 26 at end of industrial age, with normal setting, its working 10 specialists. Empiricismn effectivly gives me 10 :c5food: and Rights of Man another 8:c5food:. Thats 18:c5food: by only 2 policies, and its able to be even more the bigger your cities go (My capital get effectivly 24:c5food: by it).
    You are really dramatizing the situation. A 22 citizen city needs 1128:c5food: to grow. If you have constructed Granary, Aqueduct and Gracery, you still have to get 565:c5food: from somewhere. At that state of the game, you only get 40:c5food: by constructing a building, so you need to construct 14 buildings to get one citizen. That is literally nearly ALL buildings from industrial age AND modern age you can construct in a city to get 1 citizen. For another citizen, ALL remaining buildings in the game have to be constructed to gain another citizen.

    6:c5food: base (+1 if on river, +1 if on coast, +3 if Fraternity chosen), this makes a maximum of 11:c5food: in medieval. You really want to say, working a 5 citizen city in medieval is a good idea?
    +1 by grocer, +2 by windmill, +11 if Fealty is chosen, so, makes a maximum of 25:c5food:. Enough to have a 12 citizen city in industrial age.
    +5 by hospital, so we end with 30 food, enough for 15 citizen at the end of the game. But not working any specialist.
    Beeing able to work 15 citizen without any food tile may sound good, but dont forget, you are sacrificing a lot of other benefits to reach that point.

    I think, on the one side, its Gazebos flavor, to give the sending city something in return. Not necessary, but understandable and simply a design decision.
    It also adds a risk and reward mechanic to ITR, similar to ETR. If they get pillaged, you get nothing, like you didnt get tourismn if your ETR gets pillaged.
    And last but not least, its easier to balance than adding more yields to ITR. Serfdom by Fealty adds +50% to ITR. This would rise the direct trade route benefit to +37,5 yields in comparison to +25 from instant yields.

    The instant yields are not that bad, but I would, like you do, prefer a simple number tweek. Just to keep it simple. Even if that means the ITR modifiers have to be reduced a bit.
    Solutions to this could be buildings that give +1 to ITR route yields (scaling with era).
    Or the starting city always gains 25% of the trade route yields (could be increased by policies/wonders)
     
  7. Bhawb

    Bhawb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    477
    No one has said it is too many yields, just that it is a lot of food to give the one policy tree that really encourages working tiles over specialists. Fealty thematically/gameplay is meant to help enable the various strategies that don't particularly care too much about specialists, yet it gets the one yield that completely goes against its own purpose.
     
    vyyt and CrazyG like this.
  8. andersw

    andersw Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    sweden
    Yeah I play wide warmonger and I've gone from authority/fealty into authority/artistry.
    Artistry is a bit decieving in that it doesn't look to provide as much happiness as it does, the free specialist slots are valuable.
    I think one of the bigger changes was that serfdom (if I remember correct?) used to give happiness for non specialists now you get a bit of culture.
    Nobility is decent but not worth dipping for, the rest .. faith buy artists are nice but you get those fast enough taking artistry, finisher is nice for wide but too much crap inbetween.
     
    vyyt and CrazyG like this.
  9. chicorbeef

    chicorbeef Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,338
    Gender:
    Male
    I do actually like Fealty's :c5food: and I wouldn't want to see it go completely.

    I think Fealty could have its themes defined a bit more however. Fealty's most unique themes are Religion, Military and working Tiles, and a bit of WLTKD. We don't need to entirely rework Fealty, but I have some ideas.

    -Have Castles provide 2:c5greatperson:Great Merchant points instead of :c5food:Food. I like the idea of Merchant bonuses being in Fealty (it's also nice flavor wise) and it has synergy with the WLTKD stuff.

    If the following 3 changes are too radical, I hope my Castle idea at least makes it.

    -Remove the Burghers trading stuff, it's just unnecessary and dilutes Fealty's focus.

    -Rework Divine Right, it's just a boring policy with no clear aim. My idea is to make it +1 :c5happy:/:c5gold:/:c5science: in your :c5capital:Capital per 10 Followers of your Majority Religion. You technically don't need your own Religion, you could piggyback of someone else's. The reason I don't propose :c5culture: is because I think it would be OP and because too much :c5culture: in Fealty steps on Artistry's toes.

    -Add +1:c5production: from Farms to the Finisher. I think Farms are still not worked too much in wide empires, not because they don't provide :c5food:, but because other yields are better. This will make a Farm heavy strategy viable, improving the value of things like Cathedrals. It's also thematic of course, with an agricultural based medieval society.

    I don't really care too much about the last two, but I think the first two should be considered.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
    Kim Dong Un likes this.
  10. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    813
    Gender:
    Male
    For Fealty, I don't mind seeing it giving more bonuses to Faith buildings including the Monastery. If Food becomes more powerful, we might have to low the food you get.
     
  11. CrazyG

    CrazyG Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,179
    Location:
    Beijing
    Fealty would be pretty good if its food meant I could move a citizen from a farm to something else. But I already work 0 farms in almost all cities.

    @BiteInTheMark
    That analysis is very unrealistic. You never get 0 food from tiles, and you certainly don't build grocers or hospitals in that city.

    Here is a real in game example. I have progress, I settled a city next to El Dorado, a 0 food natural wonder. This city has worked El Dorado every single turn since it was settled. All other tiles provide 1 or 2 food, it never worked a tile with more than 2 food. It rushed a writer's guild and has worked two writers non stop, and a scientist on and off. The city has 13 population in the Renaissance. Its unhappiness is blocking me from working another specialist. I do have two food CS allies, both from accidentally completing quests (these CS aren't the problem). If I took Fealty I'd probably be 2 or so pop bigger, but working 2 fewer specialists.

    This is what i mean by too much free food, in reasonably common circumstances You just get this huge base of food, that makes further investment mostly pointless. The reason rationalism's food is so crazy high is that it a food bonus has to be massive in order to be impactful, same with India and aestheticism. To make food a better yield you need to make it more scarce. Is anyone still denying that food is dramatically weaker than production?
     
  12. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,379
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    If the problem is just that there's too much food, allowing both growth and specialist use without putting much effort into it, then a way simpler solution would be to increase growth delta a/o specialist food consumption.

    If the problem is that food is overly much abundant than other resources, making distress harder to address, then I agree that it would be better to reduce food (and hammer) sources.

    Sometimes food comes unexpectedly. A mercantile city state quest, an event, a trade route. The real problem with growth, to my eyes, is that too much food is undesirable when the city is at its growing capacity limits. So much that sometimes the city grows without knowing, unwanted. This happens.

    So here's another idea that already has been proposed, and maybe it is worth considering it twice. Those angry citizens that aren't assigned to tiles or specialists (laborers?), we could do something about them.
    They could produce happiness, or reduce the iLimit value used for needs (so they don't count for unhappiness purposes) or produce some faith after temples (a yield that does not affect needs) or any other thing that does not make them completely useless, but not the default option either. They can also eat as much food as any specialist. Currently they produce a few hammers, but I've never seen the city manager choosing them even with a focus on production.
    Or they could give better yields than an unimproved tile, given that laborers don't produce great people. This way they would be food sinks while providing some better yields in poor cities. For example, a base +3 hammer, plus 1 faith with temples, plus 1 science with Public Schools, plus 1 gold with banks, plus 1 culture with hotels. So, not better than an improved tile, better than the unimproved tile, comparable to specialists, eating like them, but a little worse since laborers don't produce great people.

    Then, if Fealty is going to be the no specialist tree, then it could significantly buff laborers for better base yields and food for maintaining some.
     
  13. sSs1897

    sSs1897 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Messages:
    27
    Progress is okayish since you should probably build those d*mn infrastructures on all other cities (and it is moderately hard). Fealty is an issue probably. I would suggest probably some... militia or conscription instead of the city
     
  14. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    813
    Gender:
    Male
    Since we're talking about Food and Growth, are there some Pantheons we need to look at as well? Goddess of Fertility jumps out for me immediately but I'm sure there are other that might need a look at as well.
     
  15. bitula

    bitula Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    374
    My problem was with previous version, that long term investment in agriculture – by which I mean working food rich tiles and building food boosting building for a long period of time – essentially led to game over... This made no sense, it’s like penalizing someone for producing too much culture, too much science, production yields, etc. It’s not because I didn’t like that game is hard on deity, but just it didn’t feel right to always deliberately prevent cities from growing, that is not an interesting (but rather a one-dimensional) strategy. So now the local population cap is removed, which I guess had to be balanced out somehow to keep the difficulty at same level, so direction is fine, but I read that the patch introduced early game balance issues, so I will yet wait for the next patch fixing these new issues. But I would think, that the food issue is now solved – because by heavily investing in food you already deprive yourself from short term benefits, so you know what you’re doing, there is no need for the game to additionally hold your hands by artificially making cities harder to grow.
     
  16. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    785
    I think the main problem is that food/growth used to be the way you were able to work specialists and food was balanced around that. Now food actively hurts your ability to work specialists because high pop just leads to unhappiness and specialists are locked out by unhappiness.

    I think the unhappiness cap on specialists should go for sure. I think there's been a good case made that food should be more scarce too. Otherwise I think you're going to have a wave effect where multiple things have to be rebalanced (we're already seeing good points made that food/growth pantheons are out of whack now...).
     
  17. bitula

    bitula Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    374
    Maybe I completely misunderstand everything but: the local pop (city size) modifier was removed in last patch. Then how is high pop still causing unhappiness???? It should actually cause even less unhappiness than low pop because of lower distress.
     
  18. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,379
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Because of new citizens working under average tiles, efficiency is harder to achieve. You must wait until the whole world becomes inefficient for your city to not be so concerned about needs.
     
  19. documental

    documental Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    61
    Are you saying your cities happiness is compared to world's average city happiness (or needs)? If so this would create a huge disparity among difficulties and player efficiency, and therefor could never be balanced off feedback alone.

    Tbh this is more of a problem for tall and their emphasis on generation of great people and their tiles. As wide you should have more then enough workers to fully take advantage of tiles ahead of time. It only cost a couple of gpt. The problem with happiness being attached to specialist slots is specialist are often the source of fighting unhappiness. You (had) active control over this at all times.
     
  20. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,803
    The needs are computed from the global median over the world of "how much a citizen produces of everything".

    This has proven to be the most efficient way to compute needs, as it adapt itself to the options chosen by the players:
    1) A mapscript with almost no resources? Everybody has less yields, so the needs are lesser, so you won't get killed by unhappiness.
    2) An mod that give to every civ additional culture as a side effect of its features? Culture need will increase to compensate it.
    3) ...
    [It also mean the needs adapt themselves automatically when we tweak the building yields]
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
    tu_79, documental and pineappledan like this.

Share This Page