What should the happiness system achieve? [POLL]

[smorgasborgas]

Haha, true.

In that situation I can combat illiteracy by building schools and funding education. I guess this reflected in the Public Works? Or converting hammers to science, culture, etc?

The unhappiness in a 'successful' nation is (ostensibly) a result of poor policies and corruption. There are potentially things that can be done about this.

Would it be maybe possible to turn schools, universities, opera houses, etc., into a sort of targeted diminishing returns Public Works type building? I.E. where I could build more than one school in an illiterate city at the cost of higher maintenance?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I'm missing the local stuff.

To be honest, Iam not the friend of all the local stuff. Not everyone is a friend of micromanaging 20 specialists for each of your 20 cities only to stay above 50% happiness.
I think bringing down happiness to a city level only adds more unnecessary levels of complexity. We have run the happiness system for years only on a global level and it worked.

But if you really want:
We could arrange, that every source of Stability Point generation is local. A city could compare then its local stability point generation (infrastructure, luxuries, policy effects,...) with the national average value and in comparison with it, it gets advantages or disadvantages.

Where would rebels spawn?

Rebel spawn would happen at cities with the lowest SP-generation. Cause puppets didn't generate any SP, it would nearly automatically hit those first, which makes sense. They are occupied cities with much less rights than the normal cities. They also don't have the option to purchase units and are normally more vulnerable than founded cities. As rebel, I would chose such a city first to establish a base.
Personally, I would let them spawn as ring around the city and grant them a promotion which gives on the one side March but also didn't allow them to pillage.

What limits the maximum Stability Points? Is it the total population or something else?

The first source is your palace (let's say 100), each additional city increases it too (let's say +10). Then comes the infrastructure, I would say the first SP-building could be the council, which not only gives you +0,2 SP per turn, but also increase your max by, let's say 3. (which buildings or numbers are taken is open, only my first idea)
So infrastructure is still important, similar to the current situation, but you are now able to see a very clear result of your decisions.
(maximum based on pop would make growth again too powerful, cause this is something the mechanic should keep in chess)

Or if you do nothing else but growing populace, it will cost extra sp.

I think too many extra rules would ruin the effectiveness of the system. I would like to implement only all necessary/wished options but keep the rules for them simple.

Then there's the little problem of how to transform what we have now into what we want to see, in a balanced manner.

The balancing will be difficult, sure. But in the end its adding and removing flat points from a bank, every one is able to watch that. Each option and each task has clear numbers. Cause of that, I would try to let the community do the main job and relieve the developers as much as possible
The new mod could come with a short manual, where everyone can find the entries for buildings/luxuries/policies/... And is able to adjust the values for its own. Give the community a month and all the enthusiastic VP players will feed te developers with THEIR best numbers.

 

[PlanarFreak]

After reading through all the arguments and proposals, I have to say I rather like the current system.

Maybe 'needs' can be explained more clearly to the player, but usually the solution to 'needs' is pretty straightforward.

I have not played on the latest patch, but reducing overall tech pace should help.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

1) You are going to need to provide a set X amount of SP at the start of the game. This will give civ the launching point to place a few settlers down, otherwise expansion will likely be too slow

First SP source will be your palace. Cause you won't have that many SP drains (only one city which can grow and research needs long), you will be able to collect some SP till you have created your first settlers. How much the first cities will drain that amount is a balance and favor thing. Open to discuss.

3) I would remove the Trade unit as a way to lose SP. Its already painful enough to lose TRs, and its not like you can really protect your TRs when war breaks out, unlike units that you do have full control on whether they live or die.

Its not my intention to force this, it simply makes sense in my eyes, but if the majority don't want this, why not.

4) Right now you are proposing a double whammy for a new city. One it costs SP, but it also increases your SP bank

That's true. But I am not worried about this, cause it will be in the end only a number thing.

war weariness, ideological unhappiness, cultural influence, vassalage, policy methods, city/wonder/building/policy/religion modifiers, etc.

Dude, I am writing all this on a mobile phone, you guys respond faster than I can write.
War weariness:
Whenever one of your units needs regeneration you lose a small amount of SP, losing a unit completely or an own improvement gets pillaged, you lose a medium amount of it. Both doubled if this happens in enemy territory. (not sure if this can be coded)
After 10 turns of DoW, your SP generation slowly decrease more and more. This effect is stronger for the attacker.
Ideological pressure:
Ideological pressure generates for me a bad feeling, cause it's a positive loop, who already is at the bottom gets pressed even more on the bottom. Who is on the top has nothing to fear. But it could simply work the way how unhappiness was evaluated before. The greater the pressure, the greater an additional SP drain.
Cultural influence
I don't think any link with stability is needed
Vasselage
I see no reason why vasselage should give stability. Master-Vassal relations are normally great places of conflicts.
Policy methods
Tradition could give flat SP from national wonders and decrease the stability degeneration, making higher stability values possible to earn empire wide benefits and have a greater buffer for bad things happening.
Progress could weaken the impact of citizen birth and increase the maximum amount of SP per city.
Authority could decrease the effect of unit regeneration and war weariness.
Fealty could generate flat SP after spending faith and by the usage of specialists.
Statecraft could give SP based on friend/allied status with CS and votes.
Artistry let GW/wonders generate SP and your empire stability influences the GP creation.
(.... Be creative)

 

[tu_79]

You don't have to reinvent war weariness. Just use the current mechanic, but instead of reducing happiness, make it reduce stability.

Gazebo is right in one thing. The most basic, simple mechanic is going to fail at some point, which would require in turn to increase complexity to deal with those cases. Then we can opt for increasing complexity in a clear way, or just accept that sh*t happens.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

You don't have to reinvent war weariness. Just use the current mechanic, but instead of reducing happiness, make it reduce stability.

War weariness is even more intransparent than any other happiness mechanic in the game. It seems you gain unhappiness based on your empire size and it needs atleast 10 or more turns till the first unhappiness happens, but I don't know for sure.

We could use the current code and let you lose flat SP from your stability bank instead of hidden modifiers in the back.
The code for units getting harmed and then add up something in the background already exists. The difference will be, that the harm is now directly displayed on your bank and you can estimate, if you are able to win that war in time.
If it's possible to ask the system, how many units of you are in the enemy territory, we could influence, how fast the stability degeneration will increase over time.
So 2 ways to keep warmongering in chess.
If a lot of your units gets damaged or lost, you directly feel the impact.
And a slowly increasing effect over time to force an end to prolonged wars.

Would that be fine?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

@Gazebo, back to the happiness poll, I would like to know how you are looking on the poll result.

Do you think now a bit different about the current happiness system? The fact that the core need mechanic has such a low value?
Are you open to consider a removal/rework of the not so liked components like needs/urbanization/religious unrest?
I am interested to hear your opinion.

 

[Elhoim]

For what it's worth, I think the current happiness system works fine, it's just the presentation trying to explain too much and be confusing as hell. A stability system kinda like in Humankind sounds cool, of course.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I also believe that the happiness system is one of the only ways that we are reminded that these are 'people' we're dealing with, not game pieces or zerg or what have you.

A happiness issue I would like dealt with is unhappiness even after I've built all the appropriate buildings, just because of specialists and other civ's levels. Near end game I'm tech and culture leader, all my cities have all the tech buildings, I lead in production but I have 40% approval from distress, illiteracy (!), and specialists. This unhappiness seems out of my control and not a result of my decisions. As a result it doesn't seem like a strategic penalty, rather just an artifact of a happiness system that isn't tuned for this circumstance.

I think happiness in the late-game is kind of a beast to itself. I've often been a supporter of the happines system, but happiness in the end-game has always been a bit iffy. I think that it true of end-game balance in a number of areas actually. I guess it's very difficult to design something that functions across such a shifting landscape of situations - from the first settlements of new cities to the megacities of the modern world. As other have discusses I'm always wary that trying to fix things in one areas may affect other areas that currently do work, and thus create more problems. Late-game unhappiness is very much an area that could use improvement though .

And with regards to the more general discussion, targeting specific areas seems like a much less potentially very work and time intensive approach than build a new system.

 

[Gazebo]

You don't have to reinvent war weariness. Just use the current mechanic, but instead of reducing happiness, make it reduce stability.

Gazebo is right in one thing. The most basic, simple mechanic is going to fail at some point, which would require in turn to increase complexity to deal with those cases. Then we can opt for increasing complexity in a clear way, or just accept that sh*t happens.

Gazebo is right in many things.

@Gazebo, back to the happiness poll, I would like to know how you are looking on the poll result.

Do you think now a bit different about the current happiness system? The fact that the core need mechanic has such a low value?
Are you open to consider a removal/rework of the not so liked components like needs/urbanization/religious unrest?
I am interested to hear your opinion.

If I had it all to do over again, I might've done things differently, sure. I've definitely learned a lot since I designed it originally, and over the years I've tried to surgically graft solutions and improvements onto my original idea. Is it perfect? No. But no system is.

That said, I do not think it is irreparably flawed, merely that the limited UI aesthetics of Civ makes it difficult to achieve clarity and brevity in equal measure when explaining the mechanics. I'm more interested in what specific failures of the UI cause player woes - I think that is a more realistic goal at this stage.

Not open to any overhauls, no. The system is long-since gold, upending it now would be an enormous task with (in my opinion) limited gain.

G

 

[azum4roll]

I've been seeing many newer players complaining about "distress is too much" when they actually have high unhappiness in every need (others just capped by population), and misunderstanding that distress is based on the ratio between food and production. Can that be made more clear in the UI, or do we desperately need a tutorial on happiness in game?

The current system is fine by me, except the barbarian spawns when unhappy and religious unrest.

 

[JamesNinelives]

distress is based on the ratio between food and production.

I don't think that's the case any more? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but I thought it was just about how much food + production per citizen there is.

 

[Legen]

( Food + Production ) / 2

 

[tu_79]

I think that the problem people has is that they don't know what to do about unhappiness. They see high distress, they see a building that reduces distress and they think it might suffice to build that thing, but it's not.
Then you learn that unhappiness only changes when there's a newborn, so you lock growth, and yes, it works for a while but in the long run you are even more unhappy from the lack of yields.

The outcome is not what people expect. Life is like this, by the way.

 

[frktest]

unhappiness should be added for each lost unit during war

 

[youngsteve]

unhappiness should be added for each lost unit during war[/QUOTE

That could easily be abused by the human player who is more careful about losing troops. Anyway, that should also be dependant on ideology. Freedom based nations citizens would be more concerned about losses than other types.

 

[Legen]

unhappiness should be added for each lost unit during war

Already does, as part of war weariness.

 

[youngsteve]

Although a supporter generally of the happiness system, there is something I am bit concerned about, & that is the issue of war weariness. I am currently playing Spain, & around 300BC was attacked by the obnoxious Indonesia, who I share a continent with, though not completey unexpected.. The war has been going on for around a dozen turns now but what I have noticed is my war weariness is steadly rising, although fairly low at the moment, though am unsure why this should be.

Firstly, I never started the war, 2nd, have been defending thoroughout & never attacking his cities, 3rd, he wont peace out, 4th, obviously have no ideology. Why then the increasing War Weariness. Anyone would think my civs would rather be taken over. Thankfully UK citizens never had this idiocy when fighting with their back to the wall on their own againt the might of Germany in WW2. In fact the opposite happened & the people were more determined to fight until the enemy was defeated, which is true in most wars of aggression.

 

[Vhozite]

Already does, as part of war weariness.

How much if a penalty do they get for losing units? I ask because every war I fight it feels like the AI can lose multiple cities and sustain unit loses upwards of 2 or 3x my own and suffer from few happiness issues. Unless the AI was already struggling before the war it feels almost impossible to wear them down in happiness no matter how badly they are losing. Meanwhile it feels like I have to carefully manage happiness if I take one city or a war drags on for 100’s of years in game. It feels either too hard to make an enemy Civ unhappy through war or the penalties are just too low to notice.

Besides that, I think the general happiness system is mostly fine, especially if we are looking to “finish up”. My only complaint other main complaint has been discussed...often times needs get really high and to me it’s not always clear where it’s coming from or how you’re supposed to address it.

 

[Legen]

I'm not sure of the details. It seems to take a while before you start getting unhappiness (and losing supply) from losses, as if the mechanic had a buffer. War Weariness seems to ramp relatively fast after a certain point, though, especially if the civ doesn't have war weariness reduction policies.

For detailed info on that, we're better ask someone that worked on that code. I'm interested as well.