[Vote] (2-25) Base City-State Influence Decay Rate On Resting Influence

[pineappledan]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.

You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 25
Part 1: Change Influence decay rate calculation
Influence decay rate currently gets exponentially faster the higher your Influence with the CS is.

The calculation for how much your influence decays each turn with a CS uses zero as a baseline. I suggest that instead of that, Influence decay be based on the difference between your current influence and your resting influence with that city-state.

In most cases, this is the same number, since resting influence for most civs is 0. However, there are policy and belief abilities that can raise your base influence rate with city-states. We removed most of them from the game because they are pretty much useless once influence rates for city states get higher in the late game. The only surviving resting influence bonuses are Defensive pacts (+5) and Abode of Peace (+35 resting influence for city-states following your religion), and it is not well-liked. However, if having a higher resting influence rate also slowed down your influence decay, even if your influence level exceeded the resting rate, then abilities that boost resting influence would have some utility in late game.

Part 2: Remove Influence Decay Freezing abilities
The change to an exponential rate for CS decay has overall been an improvement. It solved the problem of city-state influence competitions going into the 1000's of influence. It was not fun, or economical, to have to compete with AIs at those high influence levels.
The one drawback that abilities that arrest influence decay are much stronger now.

The two big Influence decay arresting abilities are Austria's Diplomatic Marriage (can spend gold to stop influence decay, and other bonuses), and Autocracy's United Front (Freezes Influence decay with CS allies while at war)
1. As a result of this binary, these two abilities don't stack
2. Because influence decay is so much faster now, abilities that stop it altogether get much stronger, much faster.

Suggestion: change these abilities to very large Resting Influence bonuses:
- Diplomatic Marriage gives +200 Resting Influence with that City-State.
- United Front gives +100 resting Influence with allied City-States while at War.

Cold War WC resolution can stay as is. The decay freezing existing on a late, reversible, global resolution is fine, and leaving that mechanic in at least 1 place makes that WC proposal special.

Part 3: Stretch Goal
Change Siam's UA ability from +40 instant influence when meeting a CS to +25 Resting influence with all CS (and instant 25 influence when first meeting them so that the influence rate snaps immediately to their higher base rate.)
That would give Siam a permanent bonus so their UA isn't so focused on an ultra-early, and unreliable 1-time bonus. Combined with a defensive pact, Siam could achieve permanent passive friendship. Father got to govern them children.

 

[CrazyG]

Austria marriage is currently very powerful and this is a very sensible way to address it.

 

[ma_kuh]

I think +200 resting influence might be too much. I get that the idea is that they become a permanent ally but how many extra diplo units does that amount to gaining for free, after comparing the exponential decay rates for two competitors (Austria and X)? I think the +100 benchmark might be a safer place to start.

100% agree on the direction of these changes, I'd support them as-is despite my concern.

 

[pineappledan]

In comparison to freezing decay on a CS that you had to be allied with for a minimum of 5 turns with already, it’s much, much weaker.

For your first few diplomatic marriages that might translate into the equivalent of 2 envoys that you get in free influence from your CS influence climbing passively from just above 60 to 200, but considering Austria’s double rewards from CS quests, she already gets 100+ influence rewards almost by accident.

Maybe just having it rest at +100 is sufficient, but I worry that Greece’s -50% decay rate becomes much stronger in comparison.

 

[ma_kuh]

Okay, sure, it's better than the OP thing we want to fix. Fair enough.

 

[Stalker0]

Does anyone know the decay formula? Just so we can look at how these new numbers might change some of the user experience.

 

[azum4roll]

Part 1: Yes please. This will make resting influence actually useful and discourage repeated war declarations on CS.

Part 2: +200 resting influence roughly matches freezing influence with the old formula. Why only +100 for United Front though?

 

[Recursive]

Does anyone know the decay formula? Just so we can look at how these new numbers might change some of the user experience.

Base decay rate = -2 if player has declared war on 2+ City-States, otherwise -1.5 if Hostile, otherwise -1

Scaling decay rate = (Current Influence / 100, rounded down)^1.5 * -1

Decay rate = Base decay rate + Scaling decay rate

Multiply the decay rate by 3 if the City-State's capital is damaged and the player has pledged to protect them.

Apply % reductions to decay rate, such as the Greece UA. Decay is 0 if Autocracy tenet, Diplomatic Marriage or Cold War resolution are active.

Add flat Influence per turn (from policies, etc.) if applicable.

Don't decay below resting point.

 

[pineappledan]

example:

You have 525 with a 'Hostile' city-state.

Base rate = -1.5
scaling rate = ((525/100, rounded down)^1.5) * -1 == (5^1.5)* -1 == -11.18
Decay rate = -1.5 + -11.18 == -12.68 per turn

If this proposal was implemented and you had a resting influence of 135, your decay rate would be:

Base rate = -1.5
scaling rate = (((525-135)/100, rounded down)^1.5) * -1 == (3^1.5)* -1 == -5.20
Decay rate = -1.5 + -5.20 == -6.70 per turn

 

[azum4roll]

Scaling decay rate = (Current Influence / 100, rounded down)^1.5 * -1

I don't see a purpose of rounding that down, to be honest. You're already doing a floating point calculation with the ^1.5

I suggest also removing the base rate and turn that into a multiplier instead, to punish CS conquerors more.

@pineappledan are you also changing Cold War?

 

[pineappledan]

@pineappledan are you also changing Cold War?

The Cold War WC resolution is so late and rare that I forgot it existed.

Considering it’s very late, can be blocked and repealed, and is a global effect for all players, Cold War seems like the only acceptable place for decay freezing to exist. So maybe keep it?

 

[axatin]

It's good to change the decay rate calculation, having it based on the resting influence feels more natural and will lead to smoother decay rate changes. It won't have much of an effect on pledges of protection, though, the difference between 0 and 5 is just too small.

Is the Siam UA change an official part of the proposal?

 

[pineappledan]

Is the Siam UA change an official part of the proposal?

Amended Siam portion to be an explicit part of the proposal

 

[Recursive]

I sponsor this proposal.

 

[Voremonger]

I suggest also removing the base rate and turn that into a multiplier instead, to punish CS conquerors more.

The wiki doesn't mention this but I remember getting a notification along the lines of "city states grow wary" for attacking city states and it said something about reducing the resting influence. Back then I didn't care but perhaps if this proposal passes it will actually matter?

Edit: Punishing just attacking a city state is maybe a little harsh. Perhaps the penalty should be based on how many original city state capitals a player is currently controlling?

 

[glaivemaster]

The wiki doesn't mention this but I remember getting a notification along the lines of "city states grow wary" for attacking city states and it said something about reducing the resting influence. Back then I didn't care but perhaps if this proposal passes it will actually matter?

Edit: Punishing just attacking a city state is maybe a little harsh. Perhaps the penalty should be based on how many original city state capitals a player is currently controlling?

The idea of "City States grow wary" was to punish a player for repeatedly declaring war on City States for easy gains, without actually conquering or intending to conquer.

If I remember correctly, it was initially around the issue of taking a CS worker and immediately peacing out, but there's also the issue of using it to gain free XP (and now of course to get easy access to Tribute by killing CS units, peacing out and demanding tribute). The idea being that declaring war once on one CS and conquering it is "intended", but declaring war repeatedly on lots of CS and not following through was gamey, and so comes with a punishment.

I did always feel it kicks in a bit too fast for me - sometimes it isn't until the 4th or 5th, but it often kicks in on the 2nd war declaration which for me should still fall within the parameters of "intended". But I guess it's the same problem as conquests on Major Civilisations - once you've started, you might as well carry on because being a warmonger is such a binary.

 

[Recursive]

The idea of "City States grow wary" was to punish a player for repeatedly declaring war on City States for easy gains, without actually conquering or intending to conquer.

If I remember correctly, it was initially around the issue of taking a CS worker and immediately peacing out, but there's also the issue of using it to gain free XP (and now of course to get easy access to Tribute by killing CS units, peacing out and demanding tribute). The idea being that declaring war once on one CS and conquering it is "intended", but declaring war repeatedly on lots of CS and not following through was gamey, and so comes with a punishment.

I did always feel it kicks in a bit too fast for me - sometimes it isn't until the 4th or 5th, but it often kicks in on the 2nd war declaration which for me should still fall within the parameters of "intended". But I guess it's the same problem as conquests on Major Civilisations - once you've started, you might as well carry on because being a warmonger is such a binary.

I can look into the code for this.

 

[Stalker0]

Would this change make Siam’s influence with a newly met CS 25 or 50?

 

[pineappledan]

I would reduce the Siamese instant influence on meeting to 25. With the first meeting bonus you could still get 1-2 turns of friendship with everyone, or instantly DOP them for permanent friendship

 

[Recursive]

I would reduce the Siamese instant influence on meeting to 25. With the first meeting bonus you could still get 1-2 turns of friendship with everyone, or instantly DOP them for permanent friendship

Currently Siam does not benefit from Influence bonuses from first meeting.