Why amenities and not happiness?

[Amrunril]

Did it? If so, why was this not a problem for the first 20 years of Civ?

I suspect it was an issue in previous editions as well (I started with IV and definitely remember being confused as to why high population made my cities unhappy), but I specified V both because it's the immediate predecessor to VI and because it's the only edition (besides BE) which I've followed on this forum. There have been many complaints along the lines of "Why does conquering cities make my people unhappy?", and a lot of them likely could have been avoided if the mechanic was instead called "stability", for instance.

 

[Big J Money]

Yeah Amrunril I don't think your confusion with V is why they changed it. I've only been playing since III, and I've never had any confusion. Of course in 3 it was completely per city.

And I didn't much like the micromanagement of it. So I was more pleased with happiness in IV and V.

 

[nukehumvee]

We can always mod it to grooviness and play Inca.

"When you reach the grooviness just right."
Anyway, I think "satisfaction" may have been a better term. People get satisfied when their needs are met, and entertainment is one major player in that. When people get satisfied, they're usually happy.

 

[Seek]

I suspect it was an issue in previous editions as well (I started with IV and definitely remember being confused as to why high population made my cities unhappy), but I specified V both because it's the immediate predecessor to VI and because it's the only edition (besides BE) which I've followed on this forum. There have been many complaints along the lines of "Why does conquering cities make my people unhappy?", and a lot of them likely could have been avoided if the mechanic was instead called "stability", for instance.

Stability would be a better choice in both games imo. Not to mention that they seemed to have doubled down on "tourism" which would be better served by "influence". Eh, maybe a mod will pop up.

 

[Xyth]

Civ4 had happiness and health as seperate local measurements. Civ5 scrapped health and screwed up happiness by making it global. "Amenities" in Civ6 appears to be a single local measurement that covers both happiness and health. For this it's a very appropriate term.

 

[qwerty25]

I agree with OP. I think "amenities" has a cold feeling to it as well. Also, and I agree this is minor, but I don't love that bankruptcy and war weariness affects "amenities" when there seems to be major disconnect, especially between war weariness and amenities. Happiness is just easier.

Well war and bankrupty should provide a negative amenity. Like idk inconvenience? Abomination?

 

[Big J Money]

Then they would have 2 names for the same stat and that would just be confusing.

 

[Haggbart]

Civ4 had happiness and health as seperate local measurements. Civ5 scrapped health and screwed up happiness by making it global. "Amenities" in Civ6 appears to be a single local measurement that covers both happiness and health. For this it's a very appropriate term.

I wouldn't say that amenties cover health at this point, so far all the health/food related stuff we've seen are covered by the housing measure (which is also local, much like health in cIV)

Also, I think amenities is as good as happiness in terms of wording, it's not less confusing than housing that is used both to cover actual housing capacity as well as health/food related stuff. For example:

- Water gives housing, fresh water much more so.
- Farms and plantations give housing
- Granaries give housing
- Lighthouses give housing
- The follower belief "Religious community" gives housing to temples and shrines.

So you can see there are things that add actual housing and other that do not.
Off course people don't actually live in granaries and fresh water, but they make it possible for more people to live in a city, hence more housing. It makes sense the same way it makes sense for war weariness to give a minus to amenities.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I believe for the same reasons why there's a Housing instead of Health. Mostly to avoid references to previous game mechanics. People would expect if it has the same name it works the same.

 

[LDiCesare]

Except in Civ 5 Amenities were referred to as Luxuries, which gave Happiness. To me that makes sense than referring to both a Luxury and Happiness as an Amenity.

No. Amenities include luxuries and other things, like civics or great people bonuses. How is a great person an amenity? How is war weariness a neagtive amenity?

How would you actually translate it into French? Installations? If so, that'd be kind of ridiculous.

I think "services" would be the most fitting, but frankly there's no word that fits. Aménité, from which the English word comes, is a total bad choice. I'd jsut translate it back to bonheur(happiness) so people understand, or maybe satisfaction.

Civ4 had happiness and health as seperate local measurements. Civ5 scrapped health and screwed up happiness by making it global. "Amenities" in Civ6 appears to be a single local measurement that covers both happiness and health. For this it's a very appropriate term.

No. Health is back with a changed name too, it's called housing. You have it if you're near fresh water (like health in IV) and its effect is to slow and eventually stop growth in a city (like health again).
The same question of housing applies: Why housing instead of health? How does an aqueduct or a river increase housing? Seriously? Increasing health, ok, but housings?