[Vote] (4-28) Proposal: Weaken Rome's UA

[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 4, Proposal 28
Problem:

• Rome's current forced annex is really strong, and users have come back with feedback saying it's too good.
• The new heavy tribute mechanics have a low threshold, and annexations can be done too easily.
• Raising a new tribute threshold just for Rome would mean making rules just for Rome, and having to communicate that to the player, which is hard an undesirable.
• Rome's threshold and UA ability are now vulnerable to changes to the tribute mechanics, which have come under renewed scrutiny in general.
• At the end of the day, we already have another civ that can force-annex city-states (Venice), and they do it in a way that presents a trade-off and therefore a more meaningful and engaging decision. So even if we get this force-annex thing right, it's not that different and it's not better than what we already have.
• The two-tier friendly -- but unit CS gifting as if allies -- is wordy and feels like its intentionally pulling back from a more interesting bonus

Solution: Make Rome conquer CS conventionally and increase the reward for doing so

• Replace can force annex city-states with +30% CS vs city-states (vanilla Mongolia ability)
• Change conquered city-state bonus to gives per turn bonuses as if it was an Ally (only bonus not given by conquered CS is the +1 WC vote)

That keeps Rome as the city-state gobbler in a way that differentiates it with Venice. It cuts down on complicated and wordy mechanics while strengthening the core, most interesting new ability: city-state bonuses from conquests

 

[azum4roll]

Gotta teach the AI to actually actively kill CS too.

I wonder if +30% is enough with all the other percentage modifiers that add to the diminishing pool.

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

I think there are already flavours for CS killing in the game

 

[Stalker0]

Just a few questions for clarification:

• Would the CS bonus increase a unit's effectiveness at Tributing?
• Will the ally bonus effect Wire Services, Schriver's Office, and Chancery?

 

[pineappledan]

Will the ally bonus effect Wire Services, Schriver's Office, and Chancery?

They would not be counted for that. They are principally owned cities first that just happen to give bonuses as if they were city-states. Bonuses that count off of city-states should not identify them as such.

Would the CS bonus increase a unit's effectiveness at Tributing?

I’m not actually sure, but I think it doesn’t work that way. I don’t think a drill III unit with +30% from promotions is counted more than a unit with no promotions for instance. Pretty sure the threat calculation just works off base CS.

 

[azum4roll]

Oh also, where are the ally yields added to? The capital, the CS cities, or just the global pool? It should follow the current implementation, but I have no idea how it works either.

 

[axatin]

Oh also, where are the ally yields added to? The capital, the CS cities, or just the global pool? It should follow the current implementation, but I have no idea how it works either.

To the global pool (except for food of course). It's implemented like normal CS yields

 

[Teholb]

hissing

In all seriousness though, I agree. It's simply too strong (and a nit noring, honestly) as it is.

 

[KlHannibal2]

Perfect proposal. And it is even more historic than the forced annex version

 

[axatin]

I sponsor this.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by axatin.