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

Progress / Authority Happiness Policies

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by tothePAIN, Jun 2, 2020.

  1. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,806
    The key difference though, is similar to how Authority's policy gives you a lever for happiness (need happiness...add a garrison!), this change offers you the same concrete lever for progress (need happiness....build a library!).

    Now strategically you may decide to delay that happiness in one of your cities for another tactic, that's your choice...but the bonus is there, all you have to do is take it. With the growth numbers, you can't just "take it". You can "help it along", "nudge it slightly", but you can't just take the happy when you need it. If your city is far away from the pop number, there's simply nothing to do but wait.
     
    tothePAIN likes this.
  2. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Actually, the main selling point should be the empire size bonus. It should allow two or three more cities which is currently a major complaint for people going wide. +1 happiness per city is not enough because, I remind you, the policy with food and science on connection does the same and more.
     
    vyyt and CrazyG like this.
  3. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,806
    All trees have imbalanced policies that I want over others. The fact that I will always take the 3 food / 3 science policy first is not indicative that the happy policy is "bad".

    I'm glad you brought this up because I do feel there are two masters trying to be served here:

    1) Trying to make this policy "more consistent"
    2) Trying to make this policy "stronger".

    I'm still in camp one. Having played a lot of wide very recently, its not that I can't eventually support a 10 annex city empire...its that I can struggle along the way, and I think a part of that is the growth "trap" people have alluded to. Right now if your satellites don't hit 10 pop by the time some of the unhappiness push gets you...you stall out a bit. However, once you get over the hump I find I can recover (and this was from a game where I was dead last in score for a good part of the game).

    So I think if the policy was more direct in its benefits, the actual overall benefit is still pretty good. I don't truly think the policy needs to be "increased". I may think differently once a see more a consistent policy, but I'm not there yet.
     
  4. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN King

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    625
    Gender:
    Male
    Agree with this - the issue is that the policy is inconsistent and can create an unhappiness trap that you can't escape without growing... which you struggle to do because you're unhappy.
     
  5. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    No, not stronger. But I'd like it to be useful if I beeline it. You can take this policy 3rd or 4th, so it would be nice if it is useful by then.
     
  6. Vhozite

    Vhozite Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2019
    Messages:
    92
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree that the policy should be more consistent. It’s not bad for the capital and the first 1 or 2 cities you settle, since in my experience those tend to be pretty strong too. It’s weak for everything after that though, which is an issue if Progress is supposed to be your “wide play” policy. Honestly I think just lowering the amount of citizens needed to multiples of 7 or 8 would be sufficient. Or alternatively you could keep the every 10 citizens part but have the initial amount of citizens be something low like 5.

    I think the happiness attached to a building isn’t a bad idea, but id prefer it not be attached to the library. That building already gives -1 unhappiness from illiteracy and urbanization, so I feel like +1 raw happiness on top of that would push it over the top (even if it’s progress specific). I’d rather see the +1 happiness go on a building we think I’d underperforming.
     
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Please, let's not link the happiness bonus to population. That's a reminiscence from a time when growing too fast was an issue, and it was intended to help cities suffering from having too much population. It's no longer the case.

    This policy can be taken late ancient or early classical, by this time the only buildings I expect to find in most cities are ancient ones. Of those, the least beneficial is the council. If I've settled seven cities in a row, I'd have my monument and shrine on most, but the cities in the frontier will skip the councils and go for more warfare stuff, walls, barracks and markets to support units. Besides, the other policy that rewards completing buildings makes me to produce quite a few units before buildings so I don't miss too many bonuses. That delays my buildings too.

    Let's test this. Open a game with progress and let's beeline the happiness policy while going as wide as possible. Let's us see how many buildings we have completed by then. That would also show us what we want to ask for this policy.
     
  8. azum4roll

    azum4roll Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    1,074
    Gender:
    Male
    So the current problem is:

    1. The policy needs a trigger/condition for +1 happiness per city, otherwise it's strictly stronger than the Authority one.
    2. City population is a bad trigger.
    3. A specific building is not the best trigger either, since Progress is supposed to be flexible and there's always a playstyle that doesn't go for that building.
    4. City connection is used by another Progress policy already.

    What other triggers can we use that's not a repeat while fitting the Progress style?
     
  9. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Beijing
    Is it? The authority policy generates 2 culture for it's condition and saves gold on roads and units. The happiness itself is worse but that's just one factor.

    I wouldn't see anything wrong with repeating city connection synergy.
     
  10. Drakle

    Drakle Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    458
    Part of the reason the city population is bad, is because the settling issue still has not been fixed. Hitting 10 in the capital or top secondary city is much harder after pumping out a bunch of settlers. Civs that can dodge this food issue in some way are better set. Carthage with God of the Sea is fine. But others struggle.

    Anyway, if we want flexibility, how about 1 specialist in every city produces 1 happiness instead of urbanisation? That gives flexibility. If you want gold, get a market. If you want production, get a forge. If you want science get a library. None of them are too advanced. And it isn't new code because Freedom's Capitalism already does it, just with two.

    Progress still generally wants to work some specialists. And this would help civs like Babylon, who have to work a early specialist slot.
     
  11. CppMaster

    CppMaster Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Poland
    -1 unhappiness for every X buildings in the city.
     
    cerk likes this.
  12. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    :eek: That's humongous! At 5+ buildings it's useless for the early game, at 5- it's huge for the mid and late game.

    Things that all cities can have in ancient-classical:
    1. A city.
    2. 3 population.
    3. 3-5 buildings.
    4. A specific ancient building.
    5. A merchant or a scientist.
    6. A connection to capital.
    7. 10 food. Or 10 production.
    8. A garrison.
    9. A farming project.

    I guess a city could get the bonus of it has three or more buildings. Or if it produces at least 10 food. The former would encourage building infrastructure, the latter would encourage growing all cities while they pump out Settlers.
     
  13. CppMaster

    CppMaster Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Poland
    It's not that different from just -1 unhappiness per city, because how long you don't have at least 3 buildings in a city? Like monument, shrine and granary.
    True, it probably shouldn't be linear, but then the function may get too complicated and difficult to balance.

    IMHO fine boosts would be one of these:
    -1 unhappiness per city
    -needs reduction
    -more yields per city (I guess it's already going to the next version, so maybe Progress won't need change after all)
     
  14. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Depends. Care to try yourself? Aim for 8 or 9 cities as fast as possible and tell us how many cities have 3 buildings by the time you take your third policy.
     
  15. CppMaster

    CppMaster Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Poland
    3rd policy? I always pick happiness policy last. In my current Progress game I've settled 7 cities ASAP without happiness problems. I could settle 8th, but it didn't seem to be worth.
     
  16. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,222
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Well, that's partly my point. Timing is important, so a policy that can be taken third should be able to produce immediate results. Otherwise the timing is wrong.
     
  17. InkAxis

    InkAxis Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2020
    Messages:
    279
    Gender:
    Male
    I like the -33% to empire size happiness penalty, I think that should be the first half of the policy. Then we can add +1 happy per city or for 3 buildings. It's simple and works well with progress.
     
    Vhozite and tu_79 like this.
  18. CppMaster

    CppMaster Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Poland
    You mean that every policy should be good to rush?
     
  19. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,806
    I agree with this from a game design standpoint, but we are long past this in the mod. The policy trees have long had policies you can take but are not optimal to take.

    the system assumes people will take policies when it’s optimal...and we aren’t changing that now.

    There’s a difference between making the happy policy a “useful last policy to take” vs “a policy that is good to take any time your able to”.
     
    Delvemor, CppMaster and Cokolwiek like this.
  20. Cokolwiek

    Cokolwiek Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2019
    Messages:
    512
    Gender:
    Male
    Volenti non fit iniuria. Many policies can be taken first but are suboptimal (tradition engineer first or finishing with writer's policy not merchant's one, authority right side first). As @Stalker0 pointed out it should be left to decision and responsibility of the player.
     
    CppMaster likes this.

Share This Page