Progress / Authority Happiness Policies

[tu_79]

.and we aren’t changing that now.

Booring.

I've always pushed for giving valid paths for as many options as possible. We have now a small chance, so why not? I'm not asking to make this policy much better, I know such thing would risk imbalances. But since we are trying to make it more consistent, why not take the chance to improve the timing? It's not very different of what we did to Progress rework two years ago (free worker and gold at one side, production and faster civilians in the other), only that this time it is a very minor change.

Let me test this kind of opening before deciding the bonus.

 

[Cokolwiek]

9. A farming project.

What's this?

 

[tu_79]

Here's The Celts on Epic, King difficulty. I am ready to pick my 3rd policy, I could pick Equality.
Only 3 cities.
Edinbourgh has monument, shrine and granary.
Dublin has a monument.
Cardiff has nothing.

Well, maybe that's too early. So I waited till 4th policy. Turn 116. Now I have 5 cities and 3 settlers on production.
Edinburgh still has monument shrine granary.
Dublin has monument and granary
Cardiff only a granary
Truro a granary
Nantes is building a granary.
(This is Rhiannon, 2 culture in every city, +1 gold and production to improvements on resources. Cities have a natural +3 faith just for being Celts.)

Won't you like Equality to be able to do some good in that time?

EDIT. Now consider what is worth currently Equality: + 0 happiness in every city. -0 needs in every city for a looong time. I strongly think this is bad design to let players choose a policy that does nothing for the next 2 policies.

 

[tu_79]

What's this?

The thing you can order your city to do while not building other things. Converts 25% of production into food.

 

[Cokolwiek]

The thing you can order your city to do while not building other things. Converts 25% of production into food.

Ok, I thought it is called food process, but anyway how you can complete/have it in order for it to triggers happiness? It's unlocked at pottery or agriculture.

 

[Rekk]

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.

Then those policy choices should not be optional (Splendor is a prereq for Majesty; Sovereignty is a prerequisite for Justice).

Ivory Tower game design isn't good design.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Ivory Tower game design isn't good design.

Maybe it's not. But it's definitely what VP offers even in making AI more clever/more powerful/more of a threat. I think it is far better than spoon-feeding a player anyway. There are already hundreds of example's of combinations of policies/beliefs/tech paths that are available to the player but suboptimal or strong only to particular playstyle. It's already ingrained in the VP and it probably was in the design.

 

[tu_79]

Ok, I thought it is called food process,

Yes, thank you. I keep forgetting the name.

I think it is far better than spoon-feeding a player anyway.

Oh? This is not about spoon-feeding. This is about not offering the player an empty dish.

 

[Cokolwiek]

This is about not offering the player an empty dish.

But I don't think this policy is an empty dish. It lacks good timing, not raw power. It effects are slow but it gives I guess around 15 happiness when you have large progress empire with 10 cities already at 10 citizens, even later more. It's easily potentially more powerful than authority happiness. By the end of the game it can give you like 30.

You can also take for example authority while not warring, or statecraft that gives 2 delegates before founding world congress, or fealty/statecraft policies with faith/science to specialists before working many specialists, same with science from city-state when you have no allies yet, and I wouldn't call them empty dishes either. The fact that something can be taken as third or fourth policies doesn't mean it should be strong pick in all situations.

 

[tu_79]

But I don't think this policy is an empty dish. It lacks good timing, not raw power. It effects are slow but it gives I guess around 15 happiness when you have large progress empire with 10 cities already at 10 citizens, even later more. It's easily potentially more powerful than authority happiness. By the end of the game it can give you like 30.

You can also take for example authority while not warring, or statecraft that gives 2 delegates before founding world congress, or fealty/statecraft policies with faith/science to specialists before working many specialists, same with science from city-state when you have no allies yet, and I wouldn't call them empty dishes either. The fact that something can be taken as third or fourth policies doesn't mean it should be strong pick in all situations.

Could you point me to any other policy that by the time you are allowed to pick it up, it does nothing for the next 40 or so turns in any case?

The authority policy that gives science upon kills might not be as useful if you don't kill a lot, but there's always some barbs to kill. The other policy which grants better bullying does nothing if you don't bully, but usually you can bully.
Some policies have one or other effect that are for later, but they always carry another effect which is immediate.

Look, a good design is one that offers at least two or three viable paths, and one of them is the most efficient in some circumstances but not always the best option. You can pick authority and start with science on kills and be angry because you don't get to kill many units and think that you should have picked the other policy. But 1) you still get some science from killing a few barbs, and 2) there are stances where this policy is better taken first.

Could you say the same for Equality?
1 It does nothing for you at the time you are allowed to pick it. Not only is it inefficient but useless during the next two policies.
2. There are zero scenarios where picking Equality first is the better option.
3. On top of that, it's a bonus whose effect is difficult to achieve precisely because missing the thing that it rewards (local happiness) is preventing the trigger (10 pop in the city).
4. Heck, there are times that I take Equality last and still it does nothing really helpful.

 

[CrazyG]

Could you say the same for Equality?
1 It does nothing for you at the time you are allowed to pick it. Not only is it inefficient but useless during the next two policies.
2. There are zero scenarios where picking Equality first is the better option.
3. On top of that, it's a bonus whose effect is difficult to achieve precisely because missing the thing that it rewards (local happiness) is preventing the trigger (10 pop in the city).
4. Heck, there are times that I take Equality last and still it does nothing really helpful.

I worry if the AI or newer players ever make the mistake of taking equality.

A good change might be restructuring the order of these. Authority too, it makes no sense to take imperium last.

 

[Drakle]

We were discussing in the settler thread, various ideas about helping Progress overcome the settlement issue.

What if Equality triggered a WLTKD in any city connected to the capital?

This would be a back end help on the settlement issue, so It would likely still need something up front to help with going Wide.

Anyway, it gives Equality a immediate boost. And it is a boost that speeds up the acquisition of the needed citizens (thought 10 is still a bit steep).

 

[tu_79]

What if Equality triggered a WLTKD in any city connected to the capital?

Not a good idea. Take a look at the images I posted. Do you really think that WLTKD is going to do any good when half your cities are producing settlers? In absence of other synergies, it gives just +20% growth. This growth is lost while you are making settlers.
An aggressive expansion means that you may build one building and one unit until you reach size 4, and you switch to settlers afterwards. While your city grows again to size 4, you may build another building or another unit.

After reviewing this start, I'd give +1 happiness to every city, or +1 happiness to councils. I don't think this is to early. Try yourself, there's no time for councils.

EDIT. To give you a full picture, I've taken Fraternity for the 4th policy in the example shown above and it immediately removed 4 unhappy people in my 5 cities empire. Do you (all) really think that a policy giving +1 happiness per city (for now) is still better?

 

[tothePAIN]

Not a good idea. Take a look at the images I posted. Do you really think that WLTKD is going to do any good when half your cities are producing settlers? In absence of other synergies, it gives just +20% growth. This growth is lost while you are making settlers.
An aggressive expansion means that you may build one building and one unit until you reach size 4, and you switch to settlers afterwards. While your city grows again to size 4, you may build another building or another unit.

After reviewing this start, I'd give +1 happiness to every city, or +1 happiness to councils. I don't think this is to early. Try yourself, there's no time for councils.

EDIT. To give you a full picture, I've taken Fraternity for the 4th policy in the example shown above and it immediately removed 4 unhappy people in my 5 cities empire. Do you (all) really think that a policy giving +1 happiness per city (for now) is still better?

Progress needs more than 1 happiness from its happiness policy, otherwise Tradition's happiness policy is just better.

 

[tu_79]

Progress needs more than 1 happiness from its happiness policy, otherwise Tradition's happiness policy is just better.

+1 happiness to all cities and -33% empire size penalty reduction.

 

[Stalker0]

Progress needs more than 1 happiness from its happiness policy, otherwise Tradition's happiness policy is just better.

Traditions policy doesn’t help one bit with local unhappiness, which is often the real happiness problem with playing TALL. I think what traditions policy actually does is give the capital more growth, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Ok Tu is clearly fired up about this and we have pasted enough pages talking about how we shouldn’t be talking about this so I’ll bite and try out some ideas.

equality
+1 happiness per city. Starts a golden age.

wide tends to struggle with early GA anyway, so they get an immediate boost good for whenever they want to take it. Similar to the WLKD idea but still helps if your settling

policy has no prerequisite for happiness until the other 2 trees, but with no real scaling...it just does the job no muss no fuss

 

[CrazyG]

Tradition's happiness policy is local happiness right? The numbers look pretty good but are secretly terrible. It's really inconvenient to build a national wonder in an unhappy city. Most the happiness ends up in your capital, which really doesn't need it. It's yields just won't be below the world average very often (gold sometimes is but you'll survive).

Honestly I think all three of authority, tradition, and progress have pretty weak happiness. Progress just has the actual worst.

equality
+1 happiness per city. Starts a golden age.

Sometimes the best solution is the most simple. I think a golden age is much better than WLTKD, it's just more generally useful.

 

[stii]

It does seem like lots of people are struggling with happyiness

Maybe it would be better to just give out more free happy to lower difficulties?

 

[tothePAIN]

Tradition's happiness policy is local happiness right? The numbers look pretty good but are secretly terrible. It's really inconvenient to build a national wonder in an unhappy city. Most the happiness ends up in your capital, which really doesn't need it. It's yields just won't be below the world average very often (gold sometimes is but you'll survive).

Honestly I think all three of authority, tradition, and progress have pretty weak happiness. Progress just has the actual worst.

Sometimes the best solution is the most simple. I think a golden age is much better than WLTKD, it's just more generally useful.

The overall number of raw happiness still matters for the ability to war, so it still matters for a tradition that chooses to transition to war.

We haven't heard from @Gazebo at all on this. In terms of keeping chances smaller, would the happiness work for Progress I'd the population requirement was 8? Cities might be able to get to 8 without encountering the happiness trap. It would also still give Progress the best scaling happiness.

 

[tu_79]

would the happiness work for Progress I'd the population requirement was 8?

Please, take a look at the two pics I posted above. I tried hard to expand. I had 3 cities when I was able to take 3rd policy, and 5 when I was ready for 4th. None of those cities had more than 4 population. Remember that you want to produce settlers as soon as the city reaches 4 pop, then it goes back to 3. By the 5th policy I had 8 cities but still only the capital had more than 5 population. By the time my cities get to 8 pop I am already taking Medieval policies.