[GS] Waterparks and Entertainment Complexes

[acluewithout]

One way to make it better would be to make the city rebellion figure -4 on Prince, -3 on king, etc. So at deity if your cities go unhappy they start generating rebels.

That actually sounds really awesome.

Amenities are way to soft. I particularly dislike how war is also the only variable. As I said, I think there should be something tied to power and resources. Perhaps even tourism.

But yeah. I like the idea of negative happiness getting nastier on higher difficulties. That feels right. Really, you'd want it to work a bit like Nuclear powerplants. As in, you have a risk of rebellion and it increases steadily each turn unless you do something to reset it or stop the problem (e.g. equalise amenities again).

 

[Victoria]

scale amenities issues with difficulty level!

That is what I suggested in the thread above yours.. but the settling amenity issues I am not amiable to, they are too unsettling.

That actually sounds really awesome.

I think so... it would make deity warmongers built Entertainment instead of the opposite.
However... there is a catch 22 with deity warmongers. some complain it is too easy but if you put things in their way they complain as well. Still an interesting concept and that -6 my not work, they may have removed it from the code. It used to work but I have not seen rebels spawn from the AI for a while.
I have the in laws over tonight but will try and get a couple of hours in later

 

[Arraz]

That is what I suggested in the thread above yours.. but the settling amenity issues I am not amiable to, they are too unsettling.

I think so... it would make deity warmongers built Entertainment instead of the opposite.
However... there is a catch 22 with deity warmongers. some complain it is too easy but if you put things in their way they complain as well. Still an interesting concept and that -6 my not work, they may have removed it from the code. It used to work but I have not seen rebels spawn from the AI for a while.
I have the in laws over tonight but will try and get a couple of hours in later

Please do give us an Update after trying out your idea !

 

[Victoria]

Please do give us an Update after trying out your idea !

Absolutely will post here, last night was a washout due to relatives.

 

[Pfeffersack]

But wouldn't you say it is necessary? I mean, that means settling your first city IMMEDIATELY takes you into amenities issues.
Okay, fine. Maybe an exception for the capital. But settling on another continent IMMEDIATELY takes you into amenities issues! Or forward settling IMMEDIATELY takes you into amenities issues... and so on. I think removing that free amenity would bring the issue of amenities front and centre, which I think isn't the point of it. You don't want to worry about too many things as an area of immediate concern.

No, I don't think the free amenity per city is necessary - the Palace provides you with one amenity itself, so you don't start with a deficit after founding. Beyond that in my experience acquiring a luxury or two early is usually no issue. But even if not - having a slightly unhappy city for a short period doesn't ruin the game. Housing issues are a lot more common and I see them as one of challenges to deal with. I would love to have that fight on the amenity front as well, apart from the effect of making the amenity centered districts more interesting and helping tall strategies a bit.

 

[Council 13]

I have used EC's running Bread and Circus's to help me stabilize cities with low loyalty in tough times like dark ages or if I just captured them. But I agree, their use and value is very situational.

 

[Pure24]

No, I don't think the free amenity per city is necessary - the Palace provides you with one amenity itself, so you don't start with a deficit after founding. Beyond that in my experience acquiring a luxury or two early is usually no issue. But even if not - having a slightly unhappy city for a short period doesn't ruin the game. Housing issues are a lot more common and I see them as one of challenges to deal with. I would love to have that fight on the amenity front as well, apart from the effect of making the amenity centered districts more interesting and helping tall strategies a bit.

Doesn't having easy amenities help tall strategies? Seems to me that nerfing them actually HURTS this strategy.

That said, cities other than the capital shouldn't have free amenities, totally agree. Perhaps scaling amenity-cost with the number of cities. The more cities you have, the more amenities you need - even for a similar population, but with less cities. Now it helps tall strategies

 

[Victoria]

Ok, I have serious issues trying to change the xml. Happiness and happinesses xml file changes do not take. I have used SQLite to change in the temp directory to no avail. So sadly atm I cannot try this idea.

 

[Softly]

It is way to easy to get amenities in this game, and there is zero benefit for being above +3. Being ecstatic in all of your cities should be the exception, and not the rule. You can trade with the AI for one luxury and get the same benefit as building 4 entertainment complexes. They should;

(a) Make luxuries grant an amenity to 3 cities and not 4. It is too easy to get luxuries.
(b) Conquered cities should get -1 amenity permanently.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Doesn't having easy amenities help tall strategies? Seems to me that nerfing them actually HURTS this strategy.

Not really or at least not on the 2nd look. You are of course right with the basic principle that you need more amenetites to keep more population units happy. But that "small vs. big logic" is not what I'm refering to - my "tall strategy" describes the idea of growing a few cities big instead of having the same population count in smaller cities ("going wide"). Imagine having 5 cities with 10 pop each under the curent rules in one game and 10 cities with each 5 pop in another. Makes 50 population for both you have to keep happy, but in case one the game helps you only with 5 free amenities, while in the latter you get 10. So current rules hurt the approach of going for big cities.
Now imagige my suggestion place: Both cases are traded equally and yes, it is now more difficult to keep people happy overall. But it will hit the "wide strategy" harder (because the bonus it looses is the double amount) and additionally, big cities can easily afford using one of their possible districts for entertainment purposes then a small city.

That said, cities other than the capital shouldn't have free amenities, totally agree. Perhaps scaling amenity-cost with the number of cities. The more cities you have, the more amenities you need - even for a similar population, but with less cities. Now it helps tall strategies

Your proposal would work of course, too - the direction is the same.

 

[Pure24]

Nerfing amenities buffs Colosseum (which is well and good), and Maracana as well (which is excellent!). @Softly I think luxuries should spread to 2, instead of 3! This means it is difficult to have amenities in all cities, forcing you to trade if you go too wide (a way of nerfing wide players snowballing everybody), but trading for one luxury isn't too game changing either, meaning you have to trade some more. I agree on the -1 for captured cities.

I also maintain what @Victoria suggested, that we need the level at which barbarians spawn scale with difficulty (chance starts at -2 for Deity, is almost a certainty at -3).

Not really or at least not on the 2nd look. You are of course right with the basic principle that you need more amenetites to keep more population units happy. But that "small vs. big logic" is not what I'm refering to - my "tall strategy" describes the idea of growing a few cities big instead of having the same population count in smaller cities ("going wide"). Imagine having 5 cities with 10 pop each under the curent rules in one game and 10 cities with each 5 pop in another. Makes 50 population for both you have to keep happy, but in case one the game helps you only with 5 free amenities, while in the latter you get 10. So current rules hurt the approach of going for big cities.
Now imagige my suggestion place: Both cases are traded equally and yes, it is now more difficult to keep people happy overall. But it will hit the "wide strategy" harder (because the bonus it looses is the double amount) and additionally, big cities can easily afford using one of their possible districts for entertainment purposes then a small city.



Your proposal would work of course, too - the direction is the same.

I get what you're saying. And that is a good point

 

[Arraz]

The question is... Can someone turn those ideas into a mod?...

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Scaling Barbarians with difficulty level is a double-edged sword, as more aggressive Barbarians can crimp the AI civs as much as the player. A more targeted approach is to give the player a malus against Barbarians at higher levels, if one wanted to make Barbarians more threatening.

That's not personally an approach that I think would improve high-difficulty gameplay, though. The early game already offers challenge.

The change to the amenity system, though, I would fully support as a way to make empire-building more interesting at Emperor+.

 

[Victoria]

I also maintain what @Victoria suggested, that we need the level at which barbarians spawn scale with difficulty

Misquote/mis understanding
I have muskets and the rebels from my city spawn as motorised infantry. That’s what I was meaning if I remember the last thing I said about barbs correctly.
Barbs do scale with difficulty if you are unaware. For example at emperor a barb spawns every 2 turns from a camp while higher it is every turn. The number of barbs that spawn also increases with difficulty... and of course on deity the weak barb horsemen become normal horsemen when the first civ discovers horsemanship which is faster on deity.
Did people know a camp spawns every turn until 24 camps have been spawned? Off subject I guess.
Basically deity barbs are a lot nastier than prince barbs, a lot more ranged units spawn also. Barbs with bows are ugh. Basically because the AI has more troops on higher levels a heavier barb spawn is worse for you than them but the AI does seem to consider barb hordes harmless from time to time.

 

[Pure24]

Misquote/mis understanding
I have muskets and the rebels from my city spawn as motorised infantry. That’s what I was meaning if I remember the last thing I said about barbs correctly.
Barbs do scale with difficulty if you are unaware. For example at emperor a barb spawns every 2 turns from a camp while higher it is every turn. The number of barbs that spawn also increases with difficulty... and of course on deity the weak barb horsemen become normal horsemen when the first civ discovers horsemanship which is faster on deity.
Did people know a camp spawns every turn until 24 camps have been spawned? Off subject I guess.
Basically deity barbs are a lot nastier than prince barbs, a lot more ranged units spawn also. Barbs with bows are ugh. Basically because the AI has more troops on higher levels a heavier barb spawn is worse for you than them but the AI does seem to consider barb hordes harmless from time to time.

Oops, my bad then. I was going off an earlier suggestion that was discussed

 

[Victoria]

Oops, my bad then. I was going off an earlier suggestion that was discussed

Aah the -6 rebellion? That’s not barbs per se. That is how unhappy your city is until it rebels

 

[Pfeffersack]

The question is... Can someone turn those ideas into a mod?...

For my proposal of taking away the free amenity per city it is quite easy - just one line in the GlobalParameters file has to be altered:

<Replace Name="CITY_AMENITIES_FOR_FREE" Value="0" />