Project Empire Happiness

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Balance Suggestions Project Empire Happiness

This topic contains 73 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Gloweye 7 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 74 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #112788

    Gloweye
    Member

    Basically, many people are unhappy with the current state of Empire happiness. mostly, it ranges from the idiocy of -100 for losing a scout to Age of Deception. Since I love theorycrafting, Im writing down some stuff here. Feel free to add or challange material.

    – Happiness decrease happens proportional to army size.

    Empire happiness decreases based on what % of your army strength you lost. Units are counted by tier, so loss of a tier 4 dragon impacts you more than a grimbeak crow, and neither will really matter if you still have 200 of them left. For every 1% of total army size you lose, you will lost 5 Empire happiness. This caps out at 10 Happiness per armystrength, so losing 1 man out of your 6-value starting army will not give -100, but only -10 happiness. Therefore, you need an army strenght of 50 before the real weight will kick in. Beware though, This is irrelevant to battle outcome. any loss will count, even though you squashed your opponent.

    – Likewise, Happiness will increase for every foe slain.

    Using the same math as in happiness loss, your people will find pride in their leader for defeating his opponents, even if it happens at the cost of some soldiers. The happiness gain is equal to the amount of units of your army, regarless if you are fighting an player or independents.

    Heroes and leaders are special. They do not count towards army size, but Heroes have a Happiness value of 100, and leaders of 150. Slaying a Hero/Leader is a brave and valiant act, which is seen by your people as a legend of an enemy lies slain beneath the feet of your forces.

    Earlygame Example:
    So when you have an army strenght of 20, and you kill a Orc black Knight and two Razorbows, you will gain 20+10+10= 40 Empire Happiness.
    However, in that same battle, you lost a Human Cavalry and a Longswordsman. you lose: -20-10= -30 Empire Happiness.
    Net result of taking that goldmine is a +10 Happiness increase.

    Late Game:
    Army Value: 800
    Siege: You defeated a leader and one of his heroes, two orc Shocktroopers, Two Black Knight, and Five Razorbows. This has a value of 150+100+(Army value modifier=5 happiness for 8 strength)(3+3+2+2+(5*1)=15)(15*5=75, 75/8=9,375)=259 Empire happiness bonus.(and some for the city; we’ll get to that in a sec.)
    You lost: 1 Brave Hero, 1 Trebuchet, 2 Knights and a priest. 100+(3+3+3+2=11, 11*5=55, 55/8=6,875) 107 Empire Happiness

    Total effect of the Siege: You gain 152 Empire Happiness for 5 turns.

    Multiple Battles will not refresh the boost, every battle will last 5 days. This means you can have any number of battle won empire happiness upgrades, though it might be better to combine multiple from the same day into the same item.

    If you cast Resurrect Hero before the happiness penalty expires, it is lifted. Why would there be sorrow if the Hero lives again?

    Penalties for a Leader stay. If you cannot protect yourself, how will you protect the people?

    Next up: Cities.

    Capturing a city grants Empire Happiness based on size:
    25: Outpost
    50: Village
    75: Town
    100: City
    125: Metropolis

    And losing deduces on the same amounts.

    I think cities should not depend on empire size. This is because a good, to be trusted empire can protect whats owned, and if you start losing settlements on the outskirts, this would be disturbing news on the center of the empire. for how long will the empire hold?

    However, If a lost city is regained, or a conquered city is lost, so is the bonus. As such, taking back a city will remedy the penalty, which is another annoyence I’ve had a lot.

    So, what do ya guys think?

    #113482

    Aedrion
    Member

    I heartily agree with this! +1

    #113547

    Gloweye
    Member

    The amount of responses is amazing. Would it be the mere length of the post?

    #113827

    Ricminator
    Member

    @gloweye

    the lenght of the post has nothing to do with it. I think all of ExNihil’s posts makes it harder to discover.

    On the idea itself:

    Very interesting to read. It makes sense. Losing a scout gives now the same modifier as losing 3 6-stack armies.

    #113880

    Gloweye
    Member

    Very interesting to read. It makes sense. Losing a scout gives now the same modifier as losing 3 6-stack armies.

    Thats the reason that:
    1) i got the idea, started thinking, and that resulted in this thread.
    2) I hardly scout on SP games.

    #114001

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Of course, you COULD view the massive loss in empire happiness for the loss of a single scout as a way to balance the advantage of being able to produce maneuverable Scouts in masses …
    Sending away explorers to boldly discover new coasts and people and frontiers and never hear from then again isn’t all too encouraging about what’s happening in the wide world.

    So I think, the situation with that one is fine, actually.

    #114468

    jakjak
    Member

    Again I completely agree I need a very clear and concise write up on how happiness works because often I hit a research # and the next turn lose 20 without losing any battles or hurrying productions or gaining more disliked terrain than liked and then the turn after it goes further down so since I dont fully understand it I cant give you great feedback

    #114838

    Gloweye
    Member

    Of course, you COULD view the massive loss in empire happiness for the loss of a single scout as a way to balance the advantage of being able to produce maneuverable Scouts in masses …<br>

    Maybe, if that scout was your brother. But what about it being:
    1) a flock of crows?
    2) a machine designed to be expendable in this regard?
    3) a scary Cherub(really, read the lore entry…)?
    4) some will animal?
    5) a summoned wisp?

    well, thats 5 out of six classes that don’t support people crying over the loss of a scout, and class #6 has no decent scout anyways…

    #115453

    Ericridge
    Member

    Death of Spy Drone despite it’s expendable nature giving me an -100 morale is weird. >.>

    I don’t even feel unhappy over it’s destruction but my empire is somehow. Heck, I don’t’ even care in the slightest when USA’s equivalent of spy drone is getting shot down in middle east or whatever. In fact, the -100 morale debuff is what is making me unhappy everytime my spydrone gets caught and killed to the point where I disband them immediately just right before the pursuer can catch it.

    #115744

    Gloweye
    Member

    Heck, I don’t’ even care in the slightest when USA’s equivalent of spy drone is getting shot down in middle east or whatever.

    Most likely, you wont even know, because you’d never bother to find out. same comparison could be made to every other scout. well, if its a full grown dragon getting killed, you might become unhappy(if the enemy is that strong, are you safe here?), but for a flock of crows? nah.

    #115786

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I can only repeat that the massive -100 Happiness over 10 turns for a shabby lost battle is EXACTLY the right thing!

    Why is that?

    Simple: it acts as a counterbalance against Scout spamming.

    If you send out CARELESSLY half a dozen Scouts and they all get burned by opponent(s) or roving independents – good night, empire. And in all fairness, doesn’t everyone think that’s EXACTLY the way it SHOULD be?

    As with all other things you can as much make a case for why this is “logical” or not (I didn’t argue with losing “beloved ones” but with the message of losing eyes and ears – imagine, we would send scouting satellities into the void to the other planets, and one after the other would simply disappear, what would that presumably tell you? Nothing good, that’s for sure), but that doesn’t matter at all. It’s just that you CANNOT scout like there’s no tomorrow, without a modicum of carefulness, otherwise it can get nasty, and that’s what’s needed. It’s quite well thought-out.

    It also makes Iron Grip even more valuable.

    #115862

    Gloweye
    Member

    And in all fairness, doesn’t everyone think that’s EXACTLY the way it SHOULD be?

    If I read what most other people say here, they dont think so.

    If you send out CARELESSLY half a dozen Scouts and they all get burned by opponent(s) or roving independents – good night, empire.

    really? why should that be so? its their function. they’ve given warning. its all goind to plan. Why good night empire?

    imagine, we would send scouting satellities into the void to the other planets, and one after the other would simply disappear, what would that presumably tell you?

    That we still gotta wait with manned missions and be glad we sent those drones first. Also, build better/sturdier drones until we got some good enough to report back what destroyed them, and act on that information(If aliens, Nuke, otherwise, investigate causes and do something about them).

    t’s just that you CANNOT scout like there’s no tomorrow, without a modicum of carefulness, otherwise it can get nasty, and that’s what’s needed. It’s quite well thought-out.

    Scouting ==Carfulness. Thats its very function. nasty things is what happens if you dont scout. y’know theres a reason any RL army having even a small measure in success employed scouts. Read The Art of War by Sun Tzu if you doubt. in there, it says: Not scouting is suicide(free translation).

    so no, its not well thought-out.

    It also makes Iron Grip even more valuable.

    thats good for that one class, and it still sucks for the other 5. and even for that one class, losing a scout shouldn’t be the reason to cast this spell.

    #116852

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    The point is this: if Scouting comes with a lot of advantages OVER AND ABOVE simply exploring the land (and maybe observe what oppoents are doing) – and these advantages are there: Harvesting the stuff that lies around, for one thing, and being able to reach and buy remote independent settlements or even dwellings, and lastly, forming extremely mobile “Skirmish Squads” to harass opponents) – AND if the quality of the Scouts is NOT equal (and it isn’t), then it makes perfect sense that CARELESS SPAMMING of said Scouts MAY – MAY! – come with a drawback.

    That’s all that is to say about it.

    #117017

    Gloweye
    Member

    I never said that it should be free. I just say its a bit weird to have 10 days of empire-wide sorrow for the loss of three crows or a boar.

    And there is no reason why scouting should be onesided. Druid is bound to land at the very start, unless he lucks into a pinguin, but eldritch animals give him 50% chance of a flier. Warlord has no scout atm, but that’s being looked into. the other four classes each got crows, cherubs, spy drones or wisps.

    That said, each of these creatures alone is not strong enough for basically any battle, and most will lose 1v1 against a random irregular. wisp wins if static shield procs, and spy drone has a tendency to bring the battle to a draw. This instantly makes him the best scout, since a draw gives no happiness penalty.

    aside from all that, scouting is just part of the game. And “scouting” and “exploring”, which you, unlike me, consider to be two entirely different things, would be whether you are in of out reach for your opponent? cause I dont really understand what the difference would be otherwise. If this is the case, well, thats the advantage of a flier, especially if you got vision range upgrade. As long as we have fog of war, and I hope that one stays forever, we will be using scouts to track enemy movement.

    #117047

    Garresh
    Member

    +1.

    Nobody is debating your post because there’s nothing to disagree with. The whole suggestion is solid.

    #117150

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I disagree.

    Imo, the current rule simply leads to more careful – translate: slower – scouting, because it makes no sense to just storm ahead, only to end your movement directly in front of an independent war band.
    That’s all there is to it.

    I don’t even see the problem. The rule basically says, do not lose fights, so you KNOW that sending out single scouts is something of a risk.

    “I don’t like the rule”, is no argument – you could just as well argue, “why are there different terrain costs?” “I have to pay 50% more MP in UG … WHY?”

    So I don’t see even a reason for wanting to change that.

    #117157

    Gloweye
    Member

    Well, i have provided arguments WHY I didn’t like the rule. You compare the rule the the Movecost in Underground. Well, thats probably cause:
    1)Lore. its full of sand, maybe rocks are all over, you have to walk carefull cause its dark…whatever. movement is slower underground
    2)Gameplay reasons. because goblins have cave crawling, night vision and hate arctic, while elves have neither of these, but like arctic, dislike underground, and have forestry and like dense vegetation, a battle betweeen those two races is gonna end quite differently between a snowy forest or a dark cave. best of all, it makes sense.

    Which brings me to the reason for this topic. the current system hardly makes sense. Losing a crow is as big a punishment as losing 3 full stacks of giants to some creative opponent. this is crap because:
    1)Lore. Empire happiness should drop far sharper for the loss of a huge army than it should for an expendable crow. after all, thats what you summoned it for. Its ff-ing mana-sustained, so you could even reason it has no pain. and there’s certainly no war lost because of this.
    2)Gameplay reason. You should lose no fights. I agree. But the system fails to consider that some fight are more important than others. What I proposed is merely a way to measure this.

    Don’t get me wrong, it should still be worthwhile to try and keep your scouts alive. But losing like 80 research, 40 gold/turn and 30 mana/Turn because of it? f*ck that. Thats what Im losing turn 55 for losing a scout. For 10 FCKING TURNS! thats 800 Knowlegde(I know, overflow gets lost. However, it could just mean making a threshold for 1-turn-a-spell…It DID slow my Shadow Stalker a turn cause I dipped under 400/turn) 400 Gold(thats a T3 dwelling + builders hall in a new town) and 300 mana(100 for the T3 building, still enough left to summon 5 crows…).

    And Im saying, losing a crow isn’t worth that much.

    #117160

    ExNihil
    Member

    @gloweye,

    Interesting stuff. I absolutly agree with what you are saying – The lost battle penalty should be relative to what you lose and scouts shouldn’t have big impact. I also like the proposed system and the way it emphasizes heroes. And – this is for future stuff – you could have hero specific skills that give extra empire happiness for winning battles ;).

    @Jolly Joker,

    What is your argument? it looks like you are ARGUING to argue.

    #117170

    Garresh
    Member

    @Jolly

    you want a real reason why happiness should be changed? Because its stupid and random. Scouts can move almost double their vision range in a turn. Fights can happen between scouts before you have any time to relocate, unless you wait til the end of your turn to move scouts which is even dumber. Between competent players, you see happiness oscillating back and forth between +100 and -100 for most of the game, at a random and largely uncontrollable rate. The only way to prevent this from happening is to not scout, or to hinder your own scouting ability to the point of stupidity. Its not viable to not scout, and so we all suffer through random happiness oscillations. Now I’m okay with random, but because of this actual battles have no effect on happiness, and any attempt to plan for happiness in the early game is impossible, as 200 swing is perhaps worst in the early game when yours scraping by on production. Taking it back to my own experiences, goblins wouldn’t have so much trouble if we could reliably get swarm darters down to 1/turn, but these happiness oscillations force us to waste time on the downswing cranking out marauders or irregulars when our swarm darters are what we really want, and what keep us afloat against rushes and early dominance where we are weakest. This is a serious balance concern, though one largely overlooked and rarely discussed. So yeah, a happiness change gets a +1 from me.

    #117173

    Garresh
    Member

    Furthermore, the idea of a deterrent to scouting is one of the worst ideas to argue for, as scouting is a core element of strategy. Scouting is one of the ways a good player is distinguished from a bad player. Scouting is synonymous with strategy. Without scouting, a player is forced to sit back and play PvE for the first 15 turns and hope his opening just happens to counter the enemy’s opening. This is also why warlords are so bad in MP atm. The idea that not scouting should be a viable choice is about on par with arguing that not throwing the ball is a viable choice in (American) football, or that in boxing you should be able to win without blocking punches. Yeah, if you’re absolutely amazing then maybe you can make that work, but its still removing a fundamental element of the game, and making the game worse for it.

    So no, joker, there should not be an opportunity cost for scouting other than the resources to hire the scout. Anything further is actively detrimental to the game.

    #117180

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You people don’t realize that you have no point, do you?

    Now, very simply, from a to b:

    1) You KNOW a lost battle will net you -100 Happ for 10 turns. THAT’S WHAT THE GAME IS STARTING WITH!

    Now, you CAN build units, that cheaply can get around. But, hey, that’s the point 1) makes an appearance: Single units may DIE!

    So where the hell is your problem? I mean, ranged troops do a lot of unretaliated damage, right? Still, ranged troops may die fast as soon as they have contact, oops. Now what? I mean, ranged damage is essential, how can ranged troops die fast?

    So what is so difficult to deal with the FACT? Hey, I CAN send scouts everywhere, whichwill probably have a lot of advantages – but hey, I MAY have a negative effect.

    I don’t even see a reason for a thread.

    #117184

    ExNihil
    Member

    *burying my head*

    ROFL

    Whats with the capitalized words man?

    #117204

    Garresh
    Member

    A. Scouts already have a cost. You can’t have as many units summoned when you use them.

    and 2. A bird died halfway across the world. My people were so paralyzed with fear and grief they couldn’t think straight. Military production in my capital dropped to half, and there was rioting in the streets in some of our occupied cities.

    Makes sense right?

    #117265

    A bird died halfway across the world. My people were so paralyzed with fear and grief they couldn’t think straight. Military production in my capital dropped to half, and there was rioting in the streets in some of our occupied cities.

    Lol! That must have been a very special bird…

    I like some of Gloweye’s ideas; they make more sense to me. Like take into account army size and heroes. Also ExNihil suggestion about “hero specific skills that give extra empire happiness for winning battles” is a nice one, imo.

    #117312

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Indeed, hero specific skills that give extra empire happiness for winning battles, is a good one – but obviously one that makes sense only with the current happiness rule.

    Reading things again – I still fail to see the problem: You lose a battle – ANY battle – you lose 100 Happiness for 10 turns. Same easy rule for everyone that mainly says one thing: if you want to have happy people, that give you a production bonus, EITHER don’t lose battles OR do something to positively influence happiness or both, and if you summon a single scout and send him away on its own – you know the risk.

    I mean, it’s like – you don’t have scouted out the area around a town, and leave it unguarded, because you just have to explore a location or two. End of turn town is suddenly occupied by some independent Scoundrels. You knew the risk.

    So what’s the problem here? The “problem” seems to be, that some people want to send SINGLE scouts, because more than that would be a waste or something? But that’s a decision you make voluntarily – because you can’t be bothered to invest more into scouting? Well, then deal with the consequences when a lone Scout dies. Sending single Scouts doesn’t make a lot of sense anyway due to this.

    So I like this rule a lot, because it puts a little pressure onto players to not spam carelessly single scouts.

    #117360

    Gloweye
    Member

    well, we know how the game works and how to prevent it, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense the way it works, or even if this was the intention(punishing scouting). As it is now, most people just behave like the baseline is -100 happiness, and scout free away. What this is trying to do, is to have people make conscious decisions. Also, If I lose a crow, people get unhappy. I a huge army gets destroyed afterwards, it doesn’t further decrease unhappyness, while one of the main points i made is that multiple penalties stack.

    However, I must admit that im kinda losing hope of getting my message through.

    #117410

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I’m not buying that, because this whole things is on the table ONLY because of the fact that losing a single Scout is also “losing a battle” and 100 points Empire Happiness, which means, of course, that all ideas of changes are based around reducing that, and specifically that happiness loss.

    The point is, in all honesty, “I don’t like to get a -100 penalty for losing a single scout, because I like to send out single scouts and I don’t see why I should get so heavy penalties for that.”

    I, on the other hand, like it EXACTLY because of that, because it makes Scouting a little more interesting that just your usual grab-and-look with expendable units and least effort to bring in a maximum of results.

    Then Scouting isn’t “punished”. It’s just that you can’t treat scouting units as “expendable” – or rather, you can, but that may backfire.

    Arguing with “logic” (How would it be in “reality”?) is just one way to try and rationalize it, because it’s a fantasy game and NOT reality, and I don’t think there is an inherent rule somewhere that says, things must be like reality.

    #117439

    Arguing with “logic” (How would it be in “reality”?) is just one way to try and rationalize it, because it’s a fantasy game and NOT reality, and I don’t think there is an inherent rule somewhere that says, things must be like reality.

    Still, imo in the AOW3-world it makes sense that people are unhappier losing more units, for instance. This AOW3-world is a constructed one; mostly by TS but also partly by the community. The idea of not punishing scouting is imo not the base or cause for this sense-making (imo) idea/suggestion.

    #117549

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Except that it does NOT make sense.

    WHEN do you lose “MORE” units. In 2 instances: 1) You were forced into a big battle you don’t wanted or miscalculated -> you are losing anyway, or you at least suffered some sort of serious setback; 2) Calculated loss: you attacked a really big target with a lot of units that was defended by a lot of units.

    For #2 – is it really interesting how much you lost in case you won – or how much you lost in case of a loss? No, because the result will have consequences in the future, and if you lost too many units, you will suffer more lost battles.´

    That basically leaves skirmish battles that have no consequence for the game as point to think about.

    #117575

    ExNihil
    Member

    Dude, you are trolling this thread. Maybe it is not your intention but its your effect. You disagree – you repeat yourself. You don’t get convinced and you don’t convince anyone else. Do you think you are gonna convince anyone of the people with whom you argued repeating the arguments that didn’t convince them before? Don’t bother answering – I know you disagree with me.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 74 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.